Laboratorio Expo

KEYWORDS

La Fondazione Giangiacomo Feltrinelli è uno dei maggiori centri europei di documentazione e di ricer-ca nell'ambito delle discipline storiche e delle scienze politiche, economiche e sociali. Possiede un ricchis-simo patrimonio di libri, periodici e manoscritti che ri-guardano la storia nazionale e internazionale dall’Età moderna a oggi.

Con il progetto Laboratorio Expo, realizzato in colla-borazione con Expo Milano 2015, la Fondazione in-tende dar corso alla sua tradizione di valorizzazione della storia politica e sociale, sviluppando ulterior-mente le sue attività in termini di ricerca accademico-scientifica e di enunciazione di raccomandazioni per la governance dei processi socio-politico-economici contemporanei.

L’investimento di riflessione scientifica e studio pro-mosso da Fondazione Giangiacomo Feltrinelli nell’ambito di questo progetto riguarda i temi della sostenibilità ambientale ed etica, della cultura del ci-bo, dello sviluppo sostenibile e del rapporto cit-tà/cittadini e si propone di mettere in dialogo aspetti culturali, antropologici, economici e sociali legati alle tematiche di Expo2015.

 

 

 

La collana “Laboratorio Expo Keywords” è una fine-stra sul cantiere di idee in corso. Offre in tempo reale argomenti per saperne di più, discutere e decidere del nostro domani.

I 

ntroduzione

L’e-book “Importance of slow for livable citis” di Jana Carp del St. Mary College California contiene le ri-flessioni che l’autrice ha sviluppato nell’ambito di due contribuiti in seno al LAB_EXPO Sociologia Urbana della Fondazione Feltrinelli. L‘occasione che ha reso possibile questa collaborazione sono stati il Semina-rio Smart Community, Smart people. Are democracy and participation smart city key factors? e il workshop tenuto dalla Carp, in occasione dell’evento la Storia in Piazza e dal titolo “Slow Cities: Journey or Destination?”

L’autrice ha preso spunto dalle tematiche proposte nel position paper intitolato “New Urban Governance” elaborato dal gruppo di lavoro di LAB_EXPO Socio-logia Urbana, e si è impegnata in una riflessione cri-tica di scenario che ha notevolmente arricchito il di-battito, in particolare in relazione all’individuazione delle dimensioni “slow” nella città contemporanea. Attualmente il position paper, poc’anzi citato, è sot-toposto ad un approfondimento legato ai commenti degli studiosi coinvolti nel progetto.

 

 

Come si è avuto modo di illustrare già altrove, i ter-mini di smart e slow sono stati a lungo considerate etichette che evocano concetti e stati antagonisti. Da una parte, la città slow, come diretta emanazione a scala territoriale della filosofia slow food (Carp, 2012). Dall’altra parte, il concetto di smart city che sottolinea tra altro la crescente importanza delle tec-nologie dell’informazione (ICTs ) per il miglioramento della qualità della vita delle persone che vivono in cit-tà. L’iniziale antagonismo ha ormai ceduto il passo ad una lettura della città contemporanea come proiettata all’integrazione delle due dimensioni.

Letture “allargate” della città slow, e orientate verso dimensioni smart, sono stata già proposte. Mayer e Knox (2006) ad esempio affermano che la città slow rappresenta un approccio sostenibile allo sviluppo urbano e mira a mettere a sistema la dimensione so-ciale e quella ecologica dei luoghi. I principi cardine della città slow sono inoltre già stati identificati e pro-prio la Carp, in un articolo del 2012 ne indica alcune caratteristiche, prima tra tutte l’adozione di processi di pianificazione classificabili come collaborativi ed orientati a stimolare quella che nel lessico tecnico si chiama capacity building, ovvero la facoltà individua-le e collettiva di realizzare obiettivi specifici. Jana Carp riconosce due conceptual framework utili per comprendere entro quale cornice normativa-prescrittiva dovrebbero iscriversi azioni di pianifica-zione orientate a favorire la maturazione di dinami-

 

 

che slow. I conceptual framework introdotti da Jana Carp sono l’adaptive co-management and adaptive governance. L’adaptive co-managment si riferisce a processi di governo del territorio che partono dal ri-conoscimento delle dotazioni endogene del territorio. Schultz prova a descrivere questo processo come idealmente strutturato su diverse reti di attori in gra-do di creare delle forme di bilanciamento tra capacità di coordinamento delle strutture centralizzate e la capacità di apprendimento delle strutture decentra-lizzate. I fattori chiave di questa forma di gestione possono essere intercettati nell’apprendimento, col-laborazionismo e multi-level governance (Schultz, 2009 citato Carp, 2012 p.115).

In questo e.book Jana Carp, ponendosi interrogativi in merito al ruolo delle nuove tecnologie nelle città contemporanee, propone un ulteriore approfondi-mento del concetto di città slow, che si rivela essere un’evoluzione del suo punto di vista.

Nel testo si discutono questioni relative a quanto le nuove tecnologie e gli stili di vita “fast” possano spo-sare un’ideologia slow. Nel ragionare su queste que-stioni sono messi in evidenza aspetti positivi e nega-tivi dell’uso delle tecnologie dell’informazione per fa-vorire processi di civic engagement e capacity building. Nell’evidenziare la presenza di aspetti posi-tivi e negativi la Carp propone di andare oltre un’idea di città slow e di parlare di aspetti slow di una città li-veable. Lasciando intendere che l’etichetta slow am-

 

 

pliata ha senso per cogliere le dinamiche proprie del-le città contemporanea, ma allo stesso tempo diven-ta qualcosa di diverso: non più quindi città slow, ma liveable city.

Davide Diamantini and Nunzia Borrelli

Jana Carp The importance of “Slow” for Liveable Cities

I. INTRODUCTION

This e-book focuses on an aspect of urban life that has significant implications for quality of life in tech-nologically advanced cities: fast and slow. Corre-lated with digital and transportation technologies, high speed can be an advantage in discrete situa-tions, but it has significant secondary effects that re-duce overall quality of life, inhibit personal and public relationship, and exacerbate injury to people and ecosystems. At a time when we face the unprece-dented question of human sustainability, and cities increasingly invest in digital innovations to improve the efficiency of urban systems (the Smart City), cer-tain aspects of speed hinder capacity-building for so-cial and ecological resilience. Small but growing, the quasi-governmental Slow City movement attempts to counter high speed’s negative effects by protecting and promoting a manner of living that fosters healthy and meaningful interrelationship among people and their natural environments at the scale of direct ex-

 

 

10

perience. Slow Cities promote principles and prac-tices, including use of digital technologies, meant to achieve collective quality of life through particular cultural and local expression. It is an approach and scale of action that provides a cautionary note to the development of the “smart city” vision (Diamantini et al., 2014). This e.book begins by briefly identifying what is “fast” and its associated effects on everyday urban life. Then the Slow City concept is introduced. Finally, the question of capacity-building is raised in a discussion of the effects of speed on civic partici-pation in public life and democratic decision-making.

II. SPEED IN EVERYDAY LIFE: SECONDARY EFFECTS

This is a time of acceleration: faster travel, faster communication, faster production and exchange, faster decision-making, and faster climate change. The experience and impacts of speed involve people every day in many different ways (Carp 2012a). Some aspects of high speed are advantages, such as quick emergency response time. The operational speed and scale of mobile ICTs (Information Com-munication Technology), including the data they pro-duce, can help increase urban system efficiency by, for example, tracking infrastructure performance and

 

 

11

locating water leaks or traffic blockages as they oc-cur. With mobile ICT, the public can quickly and eas-ily participate in urban governance by identifying nonfunctioning streetlights (e.g., Boston’s Citizens Connect), supporting community policing (e.g., Nextdoor), and “hacking” alternatives to urban policy (e.g., Code for America).

Many of the machines that we use today – like vehi-cles and communication devices – are fast because they simultaneously collapse both time and distance. Without the constraints (“friction”) of locality or con-text, information seems to multiply as an effect of speed, and it requires a particular intensity of focus to recognize, process, and respond to the opportuni-ties that present themselves on a device. Approxi-mately 34% of the world’s population has internet access; 79% of North Americans and 63% of Euro-peans. The number of people using the internet is growing rapidly (566% between 2000 and 2012; Internet World Stats 2014). Also growing rapidly is the volume, velocity, and variety of digital informa-tion, known as Big Data. Big Data is quantified as an unprecedented opportunity for business and gov-ernment agencies to utilize real-time and trending in-formation as a transformational resource for new and better services (TechAmerica Foundation 2012). Approximately 90% of the world’s data has been created in the last two years; it has a projected mar-ket value of tens of billions of U.S. dollars (McCaf-

 

 

12

ferty 2014). The speed effect of Big Data as a bur-geoning resource is compounded by competition to develop new and better software applications, mobile devices, and transmission and storage infrastructure that will ever more quickly and efficiently assist peo-ple in many different situations to make instant sense of digitally-generated information. New, decentral-ized economic activity is cropping up – such as the “on demand economy” and “the sharing economy” – as people use ICTs to access dispersed and informal markets, products, services, activities, and re-sources.

The excitement that high speed brings is not always tempered by awareness of its secondary effects, many of which are negative for individuals, communi-ties, and ecologies. There are the obvious problems, such as the increased risk of injury and death relative to higher speeds in vehicle accidents. High speed’s negative impacts to economic, environmental, and social well-being are less recognized. Yet they have societal as well as individual ramifications, such as exacerbating inequality. Speed is competitive – a fact quite clear in athletic competition. But also, people in general who are more productive than oth-ers over the same time period often gain prestige and higher pay (Kane 2000). The advantages of high speed redound: for example, those with more financial resources can pay the higher costs of faster transportation and of support personnel, which en-

 

 

13

ables both higher productivity and time for leisure. Markets and cultures that value speed disadvantage those who operate slowly, an ethical point debated in arguments on such topics as net neutrality, produc-tivity-based pay, and administration of standardized testing in culturally diverse schools.

The negative effects of speed on the environment in-volve the degredation of ecosystem services from energy production, since combustion engines and electricity generation (in addition to compensatory cooling processes) are fundamental to high speeds. Further environmental degredation results from the materials extraction, manufacturing, marketing, op-eration, and disposal of fast machines and products. As an example, refrigeration can be perceived as fast: cold storage of perishable foods allows them to be shipped “fresh” at greater distances than other-wise possible and makes seasonal foods available year-round. China’s fast rate of growth in this sector is expected to have significant environmental im-pacts before approaching the level of per capital re-frigeration use in the U.S. (Twilley 2014). Engi-neered for efficiency, the food, transportation, and other fast systems of production generate the greenhouse gasses that contribute to the dangers of the quickly changing climate (IPCC 2014). The ex-pected intensity of climate change effects is associ-ated not only with environmental degradation, but

 

 

14

also with human conflict, including interpersonal vio-lence (Hsaing et al. 2013).

Negative effects of high speed are linked to habits and technologies in common use, and the reductive focus required to manage high speed has become the social phenomenon known popularly as “distrac-tion” (Pang 2013). The agglomerative result strongly influences material and social conditions where high speed dominates. Eriksen (2001) identifies simplifi-cation, assembly line effects, loss of precision, spa-tial domination, and unanticipated, detrimental side effects (see also Carp 2012b). Orr (2002) links “fast knowledge” to design failures. Studies exploring comprehension, retention of information, and judg-ment have shown adverse impacts related to the speed and quantity of information delivered, and to the requirement of a fast result (Carr 2010; Eppler and Mengis 2004; Schwartz 2004; Heitz and Schall 2012). It is not the quality of information or media that is at issue, but the impacts of speed itself. As in-formation and technological innovation grow expo-nentially, their velocity is likely to heighten the diffi-culty of addressing complex problems effectively (Carp 2012a; Carr 2010).

Fast and Slow are not mutually exclusive. The prob-lems of speed occur when life is dominated by an ex-treme and suffers from negative secondary impacts. A society that is dominated by extreme slowness might be unresponsive, irrelevant, resistant, or uni-

 

 

15

maginative (Scheffer et al. 2003). Good quality of life, and better business results, depend in large part on strategic employment of fast and slow (Davis and Atkinson 2010). It is not about pace in itself but what pace affords. When fast people slow down, they ex-perience other people, the incidental pleasures of life, the character of the land, the weather, sounds, smells, and tastes. This embodied awareness of place and people is part of what signifies the quality of life promoted by the Slow movement. It is not en-visioned as a period of leisure outside work life, but as characteristic of the social and ecological envi-ronments in which people live their whole lives.

II. THE SLOW CITY: COMBINING PLEASURE AND RESPONSIBILITY

Slow Food, the most well-known part of the Slow movement, started in Rome in 1986 as a protest against the fast food industry and the decline of tradi-tional osterias. Now an international network of peo-ple in over 150 countries, Slow Food members sup-port locally produced, hand-crafted, and traditional foods enjoyed convivially at a leisurely pace. Vary-ing widely in terms of cultures, languages, and ac-cess to resources and technologies, Slow Food members are connected through their commitment to

 

 

16

common principles. As a social movement, they work to integrate the experience of pleasure with lo-cal knowledge concerning biodiversity and ecological health, support local economies, ensure cultural sur-vival, and engage in the science and politics of food production. Cittaslow, or Slow Cities, grew out of the Slow Food movement. There are also smaller Slow initiatives: Slow Medicine, Slow Money, Slow Schools, Slow Science, and many more.

The Cittaslow/Slow City movement started in Greve, Italy in 1999, and now includes 179 towns in 28 countries (72 in Italy; Cittaslow International). Slow Cities must be smaller than 50,000 in population, and there is a certification process. Certified Slow Cities must have environmental policies that sustain and improve their unique urban and natural areas, and their infrastructure improvements must be attuned to the historic and cultural character of the town. They must use technological innovations in ways that maintain the integrity of the environment and the tra-ditional use of the land. Slow Cities must encourage locally-owned businesses and the production of local and organic foods, crafts, arts, and other products, especially those that are historically significant, and they must have Slow Food convivia. They must en-courage people to enjoy public spaces: parks, squares, theaters, shops, cafes, sidewalks, and wild areas. Finally, Slow Cities must promote hospitality toward visitors, encourage direct contact between

 

 

17

producers and consumers, sponsor community events that celebrate the seasons and local tradi-tions, and pay particular attention to the education of youth (Carp 2012b). City governments often seek Cittaslow membership as a brand, a marketing in-vestment in global visibility that is expected to sup-port tourism. However, the value of being a certified Slow City reaches beyond economic or strategic ad-vantage.

Slow Cities are not perfect. The three Slow Cities in the U.S. are beautiful places but they have typical urban problems such as social exclusion, severe in-come inequality, water pollution, unaffordable hous-ing, ecosystem degradation, lack of public transit, and so on. Still, these cities are also beautiful, his-torically significant small towns with good quality of life. They have governments and communities who know what characteristics of the city make the ex-perience of living there pleasurable, and they want to sustain these in a changing world. Some of the greatest assets of Slow Cities seem to be privileges of an elite lifestyle – living in a beautiful place, enjoy-ing a relaxed conviviality during a good meal, careful attention to taste and aesthetics, and a serious ap-proach to leisure. Living in a Slow City might appear to be a “lifestyle choice”: a more pleasurable alterna-tive to conventional daily life that is dominated by in-dustrial- scale technologies and the global economy. The meaning of pleasure in the Slow movement is

 

 

18

much bigger, more political, and important for our common future.

“The right to pleasure” has been a central principle of Slow movement philosophy from its beginning. The ways in which it connects social and ecological do-mains is clear in the context of food. Pleasure comes from the good taste of the food; pleasure comes from the knowledge that the food is produced and prepared in an ecologically healthy manner by people who are making a fair living; pleasure comes from growing and producing the food; pleasure comes from appreciating the local cultural tradition and biodiversity that produces the food; and pleasure comes from sharing the experience with others dur-ing preparing and eating the meal. It takes time to take such depth of pleasure, yet in effect it combines ecology, economy, and equity, the three components of sustainability. It also implies personal and societal responsibility. Everyday life is the setting for actions that are intended to sustain quality of life and eco-logical health, simultaneously, for everyone – an ef-fort of natural capacity.

Slow City proponents undertake a number of “slow” civic projects. What they do could happen anywhere there are people committed to a future that is rooted in local history and ecological health, and who have slowed down enough to combine pleasure and re-sponsibility with attention to the human scale. For example, in Sonoma Valley, California, Cittaslow So-

 

 

19

noma Valley has brought together a number of peo-ple, schools and agencies who were concerned about the decline of pollinators in the area (Carp 2012b). They know that their quality of life depends on the health of their environment, and they are aware of the significance of bees in the local ecol-ogy, not only producing honey but also pollinating plants and supporting biodiversity. Group members include the local ecology center, the Slow Food chapter, beekeepers, farmers, vintners, master gar-deners, schoolteachers, youth clubs, and university research scientists. The Cittaslow Pollinator Stew-ards Collaborative (CPSC), set three goals: to rees-tablish bee colonies locally; to provide public educa-tion about the importance of pollinators for local food production; and to understand and plan for climate-change adaptation at the local level. They did not rely on additional money; the collaborative was an opportunity to find synergy among their normal, but separate, activities. Once their goals were set, they created ways to get public attention and to bring in people who usually would not be partners.

In addition to convening the CPSC, Cittaslow So-noma Valley helps integrate the activities of CPSC members into civic life. An annual city festival shows how they connected economic development, eco-logical conservation, local foods and cultural expres-sions, education, social inclusion, and fun – all spe-cific goals of the Slow City. CPSC members organ-

 

 

20

ized students from a low-income, ethnic minority school to join the festival parade, wearing bee cos-tumes and doing a “bee dance” behind a CPSC ban-ner held by the mayor. They won an award for their parade entry although they represent a population group that is socially and politically marginalized. CPSC members also organized a Cittaslow booth of-fering locally-made organic ice cream flavored with Sonoma Valley honey. CPSC environmental educa-tors staffed another booth that had a display of native plants and a bee box; they encouraged festival at-tendees to create pollinator habitat in their backyards and to take a “pollinator pledge” to protect the bees, wasps, and moths in their home and work environ-ments. Other CPSC activities include building bee habitats and planting trees with youth clubs, connect-ing the low-income elementary school with a low-income community in Ethiopia that relies on local honey production, and providing evidence to the city government that prompted a revision of policy on bee hives within city limits. School garden directors, local produce growers, and participants in the high school culinary and agriculture programs now participate in pollinator conservation efforts. The university scien-tists have a ready supply of volunteers for their polli-nator tracking studies, and a CPSC member intro-duced a number of vintners to a new water conserva-tion technology for adapting their vineyards to cli-mate changes.

 

 

21

Typical Slow City activities are varied, small-scale, and community-oriented. People who participate in community-based work with a regard for the links be-tween social and ecological systems often feel that what they are doing is important for our common fu-ture, even if it isn’t clear how (Carp 2012a). Working together is an opportunity to engage complexity, be-come aware of the consequences of our actions, re-flect, deliberate, and become wiser. These cognitive skills are necessary for addressing present social and ecological challenges (though speed-dominant practice seems to reduce them, according to previ-ously cited studies). Slow City activities can build social capital, equipping cities with the capacity to respond to the inevitable uncertainties, inconsisten-cies, and injustices of civic life. The Slow City idea is to practice a deep form of sustainability: supporting social and ecological health by taking responsibility for collective pleasure.

III. QUESTIONS FOR DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPA-TION AND CAPACITY-BUILDING IN THE SMART CITY

Slow Cities, like Slow Food and other initiatives of the Slow movement, originated as a defense against the negative effects of the high speed of industrial-

 

 

22

scale systems. Since that time, Smart City, a com-pelling new ideal, has emerged. Although a Smart City is defined in various ways, most ideas promote, at the civic level, many of the benefits of high speed that are realized by technological progress: effi-ciency, immediacy, convenience, and ubiquity (Dia-mantini et al. 2014, Johnson 2013, Anttiroiko 2013, Hollands 2008). The Slow City is based on embod-ied experience and interaction at the human-scale, accepting technological innovation in a precautionary sense. The Smart City is based on systematic inte-gration of digital technology into the function and so-ciability of urban life. Both visions of the city assume that social and ecological benefits ensue (or will) from their progress. Yet the future is radically uncer-tain because of the overwhelming scale of the eco-logical crisis that we are beginning to recognize, and, at the same time, the acceleration of human popula-tion and technological change (Borenstein). These conditions influence the economic, ecological and social aspects of people’s lives, including the social interactions that are the basis of democratic practice. Nonetheless, each generation of a democratic nation must learn, question, and affirm or adjust the political forms by which they govern themselves.

In terms of public participation in democratic practice, will the Smart City ideal lead to improved civic capac-ity? Is digital technology transformative in the civic sphere or does it reinforce the existing, unsustain-

 

 

23

able state? Can the profit motive and political influ-ence of technology and energy corporations be bal-anced by the participation in governance of a grow-ing diversity of users? Brandon Pierce of Facebook says that “the greatest illustration of democracy in the world is access to information and ability to have a voice” (Castle 2014). In what Pierce calls “the tech-centered world”, 39% of the global population regularly use the internet, supposedly so they can join in a great freedom of access to information and ability to communicate with anyone, anywhere, any-time (Internet World). In this view, the ubiquity of ICT is the great driver of democracy because it evens out distinctions among people. We are all the same, and we all matter. However, “having a voice” is not the same as being heard and understood. On-line visi-bility is not the same as being known.

To explore democratic participation from the stand-point of fast and slow, let us consider what democ-racy requires. What capacities are necessary that enable people to participate effectively in self-governance? Among the capacities that could be discussed are the following three.

People need a free flow of information and the capacity to make reasonable sense of it.

People need social interaction that builds and sustains trust in fellow citizens, those they know

 

 

24

and those they don’t know who participate in a sense of civic identity and common interest.

People need widely distributed good health – bodies, minds, and the natural environments that sustain life on Earth.

Evidence of the secondary effects of high speed as-sociated with ICTs presents significant implications for building and sustaining these capacities among residents of the Smart City. The purpose of the fol-lowing discussion is to raise questions about the as-sumed benefits of ubiquitous digital technology for democratic decision-making and to suggest the need for a thorough discussion of Smart City and Slow City benefits.

Basic literacy and the right of free speech are fun-damental capacities that support the free flow of in-formation. Beyond these, people need to understand information, to think about it critically so that they are able to look at problems or opportunities from differ-ent angles, and to evaluate bias, relative merits and implications. Such discernment in decision-making is necessary for effective democratic practice (Center for Media Literacy 2005). At the same time, people need to understand how human limitations are re-flected in messages, and to practice forbearance, so that they can listen to others with the intent to under-stand. Does the Smart City priority on ICT support the free flow of information and the capacity to make

 

 

25

sense of it? It is clear that the digital revolution has increased the amount, sources, and type of informa-tion available, and that “anyone” can be part of that great melée via a prodigious number of computing programs and applications. But the use of digital technology presents problems for comprehension. Information overload and time pressure results in poor decision-making, while attention spans are shortening (Heitz and Schall 2012, Eppler and Men-gis 2004, Schwartz 2004, Eriksen 2001). For many, it is more difficult to comprehend and retain what is read on a screen than what is read on paper (Carr 2010). Studies demonstrate an intensification of bias through specializing what information one receives, which leads to communities segregated by interest, and less attention to the difference that place makes in realizing the common good (American Friends 2012, Iyengar and Hahn 2009, Galloway 2004).

Another requirement of democratic participation con-cerns meaningful civic interaction. To be able to re-spond constructively to the problems and opportuni-ties of civic life, people must experience a sense of common interest or “community.” Social capital is built among people who live in the same area and who engage in responding to common problems by interacting in shared social institutions, such as neighborhood groups, service clubs, city government meetings, church groups, and so forth. Through de-veloping and maintaining social capital, people learn

 

 

26

to trust others because they have a common com-mitment to public well-being. People learn tolerance because they are working together as imperfect peo-ple with good intentions. People accept individual responsibility for collective issues. People and insti-tutions are held accountable for their values and ac-tions. People learn to take creative initiative, to try new things without too much risk, and where future leaders are first identified and nurtured. These ex-periences and practices are the foundation for what people expect to occur throughout civil society, and in this way community social capital supports similar experiences and democratic practices at greater scales of region, state, and nation. It is the context in which people learn to believe in the potential good-ness of human persons and how to appeal to a moral standpoint.

Does the Smart City ideal support building social capital in local communities? Mobile technology fa-cilitates communication among people who know each other, as well as among those who are anony-mous, but without the condition of shared place ex-perience. There are some effective on-line networks of neighbors, such as Italy’s SocialStreet, or NextDoor in the U.S.. However, digital devices can be addictive to the extent that some users become unable to socially interact where they live (Bian and Leung 2014). The “plugged-in” person is often dis-tracted from their immediate physical environment,

 

 

27

who is there, and what is going on (Grabar 2013, Pang 2013). Misra et al. (2014) shows that the pres-ence of mobile phones during a personal conversa-tion, even if they are not in use, can inhibit interper-sonal closeness, trust, empathy, and understanding. It has never been easy for people to engage in mat-ters of common concern. It becomes even more dif-ficult if ubiquitous mobile technology influences so-cial interaction to become more shallow, especially between people who don’t know each other.

Good health is another requirement for democratic participation. A society needs most of its people to be in good health in order to participate in self-governance: people who are well-rested, nourished, safe, pain-free, interested in the future, and some-what confident in themselves and others. Effective participation depends on people who are not chroni-cally stressed by their individual circumstances or social inequity, people who are not depressed or anxious, and people who want to interact with others throughout their lives, giving and getting help. In ad-dition, a safe, functional, and beautiful built environ-ment is a democratic expression of the common good (Shutkin 2000). Further, the health of natural environments may be the most significant require-ment for self-governance because it ensures our very existence. Yet Louv (2008) raises the concern that children in the U.S. are so carefully managed that they have no time for the natural world. People

 

 

28

who do not go outside and spend time in nature be-come fearful and avoid it, becoming more comfort-able indoors where they are increasingly drawn to using digital devices and more likely to be obese and depressed. Meanwhile, studies show mounting evi-dence of the health benefits of immersing oneself in nature: heightened immune system function (Tsao et al. 2014), reduced attention-deficit disorder (Kuo and Taylor 2004), boosted creative problem-solving, improved confidence, a feeling of belonging, and an increased sense of well-being (Selhub and Logan 2012). While the natural world is the source of all ecosystem services, those indispensable and natu-rally occurring functions that support life, people who do not spend time in nature are less likely to support conservation efforts (Dailey et al. 1997, Larson, Whit-ing and Green 2011). As human impacts increas-ingly stress ecosystem services despite conservation attempts, human health and safety is increasingly at risk (Costanza 2014).

IV. CONCLUDING THOUGHTS ON CIVIC CAPAC-ITY

The way forward is uncertain. People who value self-governance have the responsibility to make intel-ligent choices that sustain the capacity for collective

 

 

29

decision-making. Over the coming years, urban ad-aptation to climate change will take more attention at every level of government, as well as the full efforts of business and private sectors. Civic capacities, such as the three requirements of democratic prac-tice outlined above, are necessary to democratically support needed adaptive policies and programs. To this end, inclusionary processes of public engage-ment are more promising than merely providing pub-lic input as “participation” in government programs (Quick and Feldman 2011, Carp 2012a). But inclu-sionary practices require localized, interpersonal in-volvement over time, an approach that seems to be eroded by ICTs. Should people put their hope for our collective future in the fast ideals of the Smart City and the promises of improved performance on the basis of business and engineering? Or should people put their faith in the Slow City ideal, embodied awareness of social and ecological well-being, and the natural capacity to be responsible for securing the shared experience of pleasure as a collective right? Regarding either of these ideals, or a hybrid that may emerge, societies should use their tools in ways that sustain and improve human capacities to think creatively and critically, to collaborate with oth-ers in local communities, and to guard public and en-vironmental health.

 

 

 

30

REFERENCES

AMERICAN FRIENDS OF TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY (2012) "Smart phones are changing real world privacy settings." ScienceDaily. 10 May. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120510114105.htm

ANTTIROIKO, Ari-Veikko (2013) “U-cities reshaping our future: reflections on ubiq-

uitous infrastructure as an enabler of smart urban development”, AI & Society: Knowl-edge, Culture, Communication, 28:491-507.

BIAN, Menwei, and LEUNG, Lous, (2014) “Linking Loneliness, Shyness, Smartphone

Addiction Symptoms, and Patterns of Smartphone Use to Social Capital” Social Science Computer Review April 8.

BORENSTEIN, Seth (2014) “Draft Of Upcoming IPCC Report Presents Stark View Of

The Future As Climate Change Rages On” Huffington Post, August 28. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/26/un-panel-global-warming-_n_5717139.html

CASTLE, Teresa (2014) “In our high-tech world, are the liberal arts dead?” Saint

Mary’s Magazine, Spring, p. 21. CARP, Jana (2012a) “The study of Slow” in Bruce E. Goldstein, ed., Collaborative re-

silience: moving through crisis to opportunity.” Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CARP, Jana (2012b) “The Town’s Abuzz: Collaborative opportunities for environ-

mental professionals in the Slow City movement” Environmental Practice 14(2): 130 – 142.

CARR, Nicholas (2010) The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. New

York: W.W. Norton. CENTER FOR MEDIA LITERACY (2005) “Five key questions of media literacy”

MediaLit Kit: Five key questions that can change the world, http://www.medialit.org/sites/default/files/14B_CCKQPoster+5essays.pdf

CITTASLOW INTERNATIONAL (nd) http://www.cittaslow.org/.

COSTANZA, Robert, DE GROOT, Rudolf, SUTTON, Paul, VAN DER PLOEG,

Sander, ANDERSON, Sharolyn J., KUBISZEWSKIA, Ida, FARBERE, Stephen, TURNERF, R. Kerry (2014) “Changes in the global value of ecosystem services,” Global Environmental Change Volume 26, May 2014, Pages 152–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002

DAILEY, Gretchen, ALEXANDER, Susan, EHRLICH, Paul, GOULDER, Larry,

LUBCHENCO, Jane, MATSON, Pamela, MOONEY, Harold, POSTEL, Sandra, SCHNEIDER, Stephen, TILMAN, David, WOODWELL, George (1997) “Ecosystem services: Benefits supplied to human societies by natural ecosystems” Issues in Ecol-ogy. Ecological Society of America 2 (Spring).

DAVIS, Jocelyn and ATKINSON, Tom (2010) “Need Speed? Slow Down” Harvard

Business Review Magazine May, http://hbr.org/2010/05/need-speed-slow-down/ar/1.

 

 

31

DIAMANTINI, Davide, BORRELLI, Nunzia, and BERNARDI, Monica (2014)

“Smart and Slow City: The Case-Study of Milan EXPO 2015”. Proceedings of the Arte-Polis 5 International Conference – Reflections on Creativity: Public Engagement and the Making of Place.

EPPLER, M.J., and MENGIS, J. (2004) “The concept of information overload: A re-

view of literature from organization science, accounting, marketing, MIS, and related disciplines.” Information Society 20(5): 325–344.

ERIKSEN, Thomas Hylland (2001) Tyranny of the Moment: Fast and Slow Time in the

Information Age. London: Pluto Press. GALLOWAY, Anne (2004) “Intimations of everyday life: Ubiquitous computing and

the city” Cultural Studies 18:2/3: 384-408. GRABAR, Henry (2013) “Smartphones are killing us – and destroying public life” Sa-

lon, Nov. 2, http://www.salon.com/2013/11/02/smartphones_are_killing_us_and_destroying_public_life/

GREEN, Gary and HAINES, Anna (2008) Asset Building and Community Develop-

ment, Los Angeles: Sage Publications. HEITZ, Richard, SCHALL, Jeffrey (2012) “Neural mechanisms of speed-accuracy

tradeoff” Neuron, Vol. 76, Issue 3, p616–628. HOLLANDS, Robert (2008) “Will the real smart ciy please stand up?” City: analysis of

urban trends, culture, theory, policy, action, 12:3, pp. 303-320. HSIANG, Soloman, BURKE, Marshall, MIGUEL, Edward (2013) “Quantifying the in-

fluence of climate on human conflict” Science, Vol. 341 no. 6151. INTERNET WORLD STATS “Internet Usage Statistics.” Accessed 30 July 2014,

www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm. IPCC / INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (2014) Climate

Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. IPCC Working Group I Contribution to As-sessment Report 5. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

IYENGAR, Shanto, HAHN, Kyo (2009) “Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideo-

logical Selectivity in Media Use”, Journal of Communication 59: 19–39. JOHNSON, Leo (2013) “Petropolis now” New Statesman, November, pp. 8-14.

KALMAN, Maira (2009) “Back to the land” The New York Times, The Opinion Pages

(Nov. 26), http://kalman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/26/back-to-the-land KANE, Hal (2000) Triumph of the Mundane: The unseen trends that shape our lives

and environment. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. KUO, FE. and TAYLOR, A Faber (2004) “A potential natural treatment for

ADD/ADHD: evidence from a national study”, American Journal of Public Health 94(9) 1580-6.

 

 

32

LARSON, Lincoln, WHITING, Jason, and GREEN, Gary (2011) “Exploring the influ-

ence of outdoor recreation participation on pro-environmental behaviour in a demog-raphically diverse population” Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, Volume 16, Issue 1, 2011.

McCAFFERTY, Dennis (2014) “Surprising statistics about big data” Baseline Maga-

zine, Feb. 18. http://www.baselinemag.com/analytics-big-data/slideshows/surprising-statistics-about-big-data.html

MISRA, Shalini, CHENG, Lulu, GENEVIE, Jamie, and YUAN, Miao (2014) “The

iPhone Effect: The Quality of In-Person Social Interactions in the Presence of Mobile Devices” Environment and Behavior July 1, 2014.

ORR, David (2002) The Nature of Design: Ecology, Culture and Human Intention.

New York: Oxford University Press. PANG, Alex Soojung-Kim (2013) The Distraction Addiction: Getting the Information

You Need and the Communication You Want, Without Enraging Your Family, Annoying Your Colleagues, and Destroying Your Soul Little, Brown, and Company.

SCHEFFER, Martin, WESTLEY, Frances, and BROCK, William (2003) “Slow re-

sponse of societies to new problems: Causes and costs” Ecosystems 6: 493-502. SCHWARTZ, B. (2004) The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. New York:

HarperCollins. SELHUB, Evan and LOGAN, Alan (2012) Your Brain on Nature: The Science of Na-

ture's Influence on Your Health, Happiness and Vitality. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

SEMMENS, Jaimee and FREEMAN, Claire (2012) “The value of cittaslow as an ap-

proach to local sustainable development: A New Zealand perspective” International Planning Studies, 17(4) 353–375.

SHUTKIN, William (2000) The land that could be: Environmentalism and democracy

in the twenty-first century, London: MIT Press. TECHAMERICA FOUNDATION (2012) “Demystifying Big Data: A practical guide

to transforming the business of government” http://www.techamerica.org/Docs/fileManager.cfm?f=techamerica-bigdatareport-final.pdf

TSAO, Tsung-Ming, TSAI, Ming-Jer, WANG, Ya-Nan, LIN, Heng-Lun, WU, Chang-

Fu, HWANG, Jing-Shiang, HSU, Sandy-H.J., CHAO, Hsing, CHUANG, Kai-Jen, CHOU, Charles- CK. (2014) “The Health Effects of a Forest Environment on Subclini-cal Cardiovascular Disease and Heath-Related Quality of Life” PLOS One, July 28, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.010323

TWILLEY, Nicola (2014) “The price of cold: What do Chinese dumplings have to do

with global warming?” The New York Times Sunday Magazine, 25 July. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/magazine/what-do-chinese-dumplings-have-to-do-with-global-warming.html?_r=0