Conclusions

This page is part of:

Despite the many opportunities they offer, cities also concentrate and intensify inequalities (economic, social, cultural, environmental, political), making them conspicuous, bringing the underprivileged and the privileged together in urban spaces. These inequalities are not only limited to income and wealth, but include social inequalities that produce persistent patterns of exclusion and injustice along racial, ethnic, gender, cultural, age, and disability lines, as well as, more recently, smart city technologies. These persistent inequalities pose several societal challenges, ranging from public health to urban riots, which undermine socially sustainable urban futures.

The findings of the projects help to address the challenges and themes targeted by the Nordic initiative, including sustainable cities and societies, reduced inequalities, inclusive societies, equal opportunities, good health and well-being, segregation, and balance of power in urban planning. Furthermore, they relate to several of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, such as Goal 3 - Good health and well-being, Goal 10 - Reduced inequalities, Goal 11 - Sustainable cities and communities, and Goal 16 - Peace, justice, and strong institutions.

The idea of “technologies of humility” is implicit in all the projects reviewed for this essay. Technologies of humility implies co-production and the improved, socially diverse, inclusive, and meaningful participation of the public. It calls for a culture of governance that promotes collective learning through more meaningful and constructive relations between decision-makers, experts, and the public. Improved participation and interactive knowledge-making, or collective learning, improves both the quality and legitimacy of policy-making, and helps to make socially sustainable urban development initiatives more credible, transparent, and accountable. These ideas run through the four projects, both in their methodologies and in how different approaches to smart technology are applied to social sustainability in practice.

The public is more aware than ever of the ways in which science and technology affect not only their day-to-day lives and interests, but also their values. This awareness has become even more marked since the COVID-19 pandemic and, more recently, the energy crisis in Europe. This in turn has significant implications as it raises the bar for the legitimacy and acceptance of transformations, requiring greater levels of transparency, accountability, and inclusion – which is as it should be in democratic societies. In this context, it is imperative to consider ways of improving public engagement, not just in the formulation of solutions to perceived problems, but also in the ways in which problems are framed and narratives are created. It is also imperative to pay close attention to the potentially less-desirable implications of the increasing use of digital tools in engaging citizens and collecting data, as suggested by the growing literature on datafication and data justice.

In building further on the outputs of the four projects within the initiative, it may be advantageous for cities outside of the project to learn from the experiences and practices of the participating cities, and to engage in discussion and dialogue around successful practices for increasing inclusive public engagement in planning. One possible step forwards could be the creation of a Nordic Platform devoted to methods for enhancing public participation. Such a platform would provide a forum for exchange between researchers and various stakeholders, a repertoire of best practices and lessons learned from failures, a stage for increasing the visibility and legitimacy of digital participation methods in knowledge production, and a laboratory for practicing technologies of humility in the search for more ustainable and democratic urban futures.