Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In this commentary, we trace processes of ‘social construction’ in the design and implementation of digital twins for cities. We discuss how the layering of a Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) lens on top of already existing perspectives in smart cities and urban planning can help to develop a more nuanced account of participation, inclusion and exclusion. The aim being to facilitate critical reflection on the development trajectory of the UDT concept and highlight that much of what is often described as the natural, inevitable advancement of the technology in fact serves particular interests, with privileged access. We also emphasise that alternative interpretations exist, and should be sought out by technology developers, to facilitate progress in UDT design and implementation.

Keywords

Digital twins participation smart cities urban analytics social construction of technology

Introduction

What exactly is ‘digital twinning’ and why do we need more nuanced approaches to understand, analyse and practice participation in ‘digital twinning’ in the urban context? Digital Twins are broadly understood as realistic digital representations of physical ‘things’ – including various assets, infrastructure or other systems, or processes (Batty, 2018; Wan et al., 2023). In the urban context, this emerging digital twin paradigm encounters historical developments in urban planning and analytics, and the more recent smart city agenda. These traditions feature different understandings and analyses of technology and stakeholders, their interactions and implications for urban planning and management. In contrast, Urban Digital Twin (UDT) research and development has, to date, focused on the technology largely in isolation.

This paper contributes to the nascent socio-technical literature on UDTs which aims at facilitating a move away from technology-centric digital twinning towards a technology-in-society approach (Nochta et al., 2021a; Monstadt, 2022; Yossef Ravid and Aharon-Gutman, 2023). First, we provide brief high-level overviews on how the smart cities and urban planning and analytics literatures have discussed the interplay of technology and society, conceptualising UDTs as a technology emerging at the nexus of these two fields. Highlighting some strengths and limitations of both, we then move on to introduce the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) lens, and trace processes of ‘social construction’ in the design and implementation of UDTs. Our findings indicate that the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) lens – in conjunction with existing perspectives drawn from smart cities and urban planning – reveals important insights into the role of participation patterns in shaping UDT design and implementation.

The implications for UDTs and participation are two-fold. First, processes of digital twinning are not determined solely by technological affordances and necessities. What is considered to be the natural, inevitable advancement of the technology is often driven by specific views or interests with privileged access and influence. On the flipside, alternative technology interpretations exist and should be sought out explicitly by the UDT community, to facilitate meaningful progress in UDT development. Second, particular views or interests regarding UDTs do not always align neatly with ‘societal spheres’ (public and private sectors, research and civil society), as they have been considered in the smart city governance literature. Combining different theoretical perspectives can help developing nuanced accounts of participation to underscore place- and context-sensitive UDT (co-)design and implementation. Through the analysis presented in this paper, we therefore also aim to facilitate critical reflection on the development trajectory of the UDT concept and highlight opportunities for future research and intervention.

Participation and urban technology

Participation in smart cities

UDTs are seen by many as the latest wave of smart city innovation, integrating smart technologies and techniques such as ICTs, sensors, IoT, big data, data science, AI, Building and City Information Modelling and automation (Calzati and Van Loenen, 2023; Dembski et al., 2020). In smart cities, participation is often discussed in terms of stakeholder collaboration within double, triple, quadruple and quintuple helix models following developments in theorising innovation (Paskaleva et al., 2021). A key focus in all of these is on ‘who participates’, with a goal of bringing different types of stakeholders to the table – that is, into the ‘smart city ecosystem’. Stakeholders are viewed as representatives of archetypal societal domains of government, business / industry, academia / research and civil society, each representing largely homogeneous views from their respective groups. Interactions between stakeholders are most often described uncritically as collaborative (cf. Mills et al., 2021).

The double-helix model represents a collaborative arrangement between two stakeholder types, with configurations of business-academia and business-government considered in the literature (Grundel and Dahlström, 2016; Mora et al., 2023). A combination of these models evolved into the influential ‘triple helix’ model in which academia generates intellectual capital, governments represent the public sphere and finance innovation, and businesses bring innovations to market to create wealth (Borkowska and Osborne, 2018). Against this largely top-down conceptualisation of governance and innovation, more recent quadruple and quintuple helix models emphasise an additional role for bottom-up processes (see Figure 1). They explicitly include citizens and community organisations, and the ecological and environmental context, respectively, as part of the helices (Crumpton et al., 2021).

Figure 1.

Smart City Innovation Helix Models (authors’ own elaboration).

Double and triple helix models have been criticised for promoting smart city innovation that is overly technology-focused, instrumental and technocratic (Grossi and Pianezzi, 2017; Nochta et al., 2018). The shift towards quadruple and quintuple helix models aimed to address this issue, however the role of civil society often remains confined to narrow ‘user’ and ‘consumer’ interpretations – even in smart cities that claim to adopt a ‘citizen centric’ ethos (Cardullo and Kitchin, 2019). Urban Living Labs – designated areas in cities to accommodate smart experiments and demonstrators – have become popular to facilitate bottom-up involvement and civic innovation, but evidence on their real-world impact and contribution to changing the dominant n-helix stakeholder conceptualisations is, at best, mixed (Engels et al., 2019; Paskaleva et al., 2021). Further, even those advocating for integrating bottom-up citizen and community involvement often seem to cluster civil society into a homogeneous ‘unit’ with similar views and interests (Borkowska and Osborne, 2018). Other stakeholders with potentially differing views and roles are also bundled together to represent the public and private sectors, and research and education, with their roles assigned based on this simple, high-level categorisation.

Few publications analyse participation patterns in smart city governance and innovation looking beyond the somewhat simplistic ‘who participates’ lens. There is a lack of focus on how participation takes place, and how more nuanced stakeholder ‘categories’ could or should be developed to better understand participation patterns and their impact. One exception is provided by Cardullo and Kitchin (2019) who focus on the process aspect of citizen participation in Dublin’s smart city projects. Beyond examining the forms, levels and impacts of citizen participation, their analysis also highlights the diversity of views and experiences of different individuals and communities vis-à-vis the smart city. Another interesting example is Soutar et al.’s (2022) analysis which develops a nuanced account of processes, stakeholder types and roles in smart local energy projects. They investigate how ‘project partners’ engage with different types of stakeholders which they categorise as ‘users’ and ‘communities’, highlighting differences and identifying several different types within each category (Soutar et al., 2022). This categorisation enables the authors to reveal complex patterns of engagement and context-dependent project development trajectories, going beyond the explanatory power of the n-helix models.

In summary, whilst the evolution of n-helix models of smart city innovation towards increasingly broader participation is a welcome move, their analytical and practical potential has some limitations. As the above examples show, exclusive focus on n-helices is likely to result in downplaying within-type differences whilst also over-emphasising differences between stakeholder types and over-simplifying roles in smart city innovation. Analytically, this represents a problem for unpacking place-based and context-dependent complex stakeholder constellations and roles, and by extension, smart city outcomes. In practice, the n-helix models offer little guidance on assembling and facilitating participation beyond cross-domain collaboration. Nuanced approaches that integrate insights from various theoretical perspectives to address the aforementioned diversity-, context- and process-related discrepancies could contribute to advancing our existing knowledge on smart city innovation, with important implications for the development and implementation of UDTs.

Participation in urban planning and analytics

Another perspective sees UDTs as the next generation urban analytics tools for urban planning and management. In urban planning and management, the term ‘participation’ is primarily used to refer to citizen engagement (rather than multi-stakeholder collaboration). It is generally seen in a positive light, giving voice to citizens and communities through processes of consultation, collaboration and co-production to shape decisions that impact the environments in which they live (Healey, 2020; Tippett and How, 2020). This is against a conceptualisation of decision-making dominated by interactions between the ‘planning establishment’ (planning committees and officers, developers, investors, etc.) and the ‘urban growth regime’ (elected leaders, businesses, trade associations, universities, etc.) (Laskey and Nicholls, 2019).

The interests of the planning establishment and the growth regime converge around generating economic growth, tax revenue and profits, with local citizens and communities expected to benefit but also borne arising externalities. In parts of the planning literature, citizen participation is intended to negotiate, or secure acceptance for, proposals for urban developments and futures (cf. Wilson et al., 2019; Xu and Zhu, 2021). In others, it is seen as a necessary means to bring diverse local knowledges and experiences – ‘situated’ in different social-cultural settings – into decision-making that complement and/or challenge prevailing understandings in the planning establishment on matters of shared concern (Healey, 2020). Studies of participation patterns (inclusion and exclusion) have a focus on process, but tend to concentrate on often conflictual interactions at the boundary between the regime and the establishment on one side, and citizens and communities on the other. Differences, interactions and conflict within the two sides, and their implications, are less often discussed.

A core concern in both research and practice is process-related and extends to designing appropriate participatory mechanisms for different planning problems and goals. Arnstein’s ‘ladder of participation’ has been an important inspiration in such studies (Arnstein, 1969). It describes 8 levels that represent degrees of participation and transfer of decision-making powers to citizens and communities, placed on a spectrum from ‘tokenism’ to complete ‘citizen control’ (Arnstein, 1969). It has become extremely influential since its publication, promoting increased citizen and community engagement and participation in urban planning (Ianniello et al., 2019; Sharifi et al., 2023). At the same time, some critics have pointed to the risks of simplifying Arnstein’s message by (implicitly or explicitly) assuming that deeper forms of participation are more desirable in any given situation or context (Maier, 2001). Others have also questioned the real-world potential of institutionally designed participation to facilitate genuine and impactful bottom-up processes (Laskey and Nicholls, 2019).

Against this backdrop, urban analytics tools are often seen as another means to uphold the status quo, given the technical and professional knowledge required to navigate, apply and audit them (Williams, 2020; Wilson and Tewdwr-Jones, 2021). Nevertheless, advancements in the digital sphere have also opened up new opportunities for participation in planning decision-making. Examples include, but are not limited to, the use of participatory or voluntary geographical information systems (Daniel and Pettit, 2022), citizen science (Williams, 2020) and decision theatres (Wolf et al., 2023). These examples showcase the opportunities that digitalisation may offer for integrating broad participation processes into planning decision-making. However, in the mainstream, the function of digital tools remains largely focused on one-directional information provision or gathering (preferences, feedback) as opposed to more active forms of participation – such as community or co-design including of co-design of the tools themselves (Potts and Webb, 2023; White et al., 2021; Wilson and Tewdwr-Jones, 2021). So, whilst the urban planning literature has investigated the participation of citizens and communities in (digitally enabled) planning decision-making, and provided evidence on the impact of a variety of types of interactions beyond collaboration, there has been less focus on embedding participation in the design and implementation of urban analytics tools such as UDTs.

UDTs at the Nexus

UDTs can be understood both as the latest smart city innovation and the next generation of urban analytics tools. To better understand the implications of inclusion and exclusion participation patterns for UDT development, it is therefore helpful to investigate how these perspectives discuss participation. Existing studies on smart city innovation and governance emphasise the participation of stakeholders from various societal domains in technology design and implementation. However, they assume that stakeholders are willing and able to participate – in ways pre-determined by their societal domain – and that interactions are collaborative in nature. In turn, the planning literature highlights the importance of power and resource inequalities, competition and conflict in stakeholder interactions, participation patterns and outcomes. Existing studies indicate that such factors may inhibit more active or meaningful forms of citizen and community engagement in planning decision-making, with participation via digital means often restricted to providing and/or collecting information. However, the analytical focus often remains on the broader planning system and decisions rather than on technology design and implementation. Despite the limitations, both strands of literature provide important insights for UDTs and participation.

A few studies have started to explore links between the concepts of UDTs and participation specifically. Among these, some build on the n-helix models (Hämäläinen, 2021; Nijkamp et al., 2023), whilst others explore the use of UDTs as tools to facilitate communication among decision-makers and civil society in urban planning and management (Adade and De Vries, 2023). Some have also started to discuss how participation patterns might shape (built environment) digital twin development. For example, Solman et al. (2022) conceptualise ‘digital twinning’ processes as ‘acts of governance’ to highlight the impacts of participation patterns on digital twins in wind energy sector. Korenhof et al.’s (2021) analysis foregrounds both the role(s) of designers, surrounding institutions, users, and other stakeholders in steering the content of digital twins as necessarily incomplete representations of reality, as well as the role of the twin models in controlling physical systems. Others have expressed critical views on the n-helix models’ potential to facilitate broad participation for UDTs, with Calzati and Van Loenen (2023, p.38) stating that ‘the quadruple helix is not enough; it should be better regarded as the baseline, rather than the optimum’. Expanding on these perspectives, in the next section we illustrate how the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) lens can contribute to interpreting and analysing multi-actor participation in the design and implementation of UDTs.

Understanding participation for Urban Digital Twins through a social construction of technology lens

SCOT presents an approach for investigating interactions between people, technology, and context-specific material and non-material elements (e.g. institutionalised structures and regulations) in technological development (Pinch and Bijker, 1984). According to SCOT, these interactions shape iterations of a technological artefact (out of many other possible versions) in a place through cycles of alteration, variation and selection (Bijker, 2001). Integrating actors, processes and the technological artefacts (UDTs) in this way contributes to developing a more nuanced understanding of participation, inclusion and exclusion, in the broader context of digitally enabled urban planning and management. Below we introduce the core concepts of SCOT, and illustrate how SCOT can be applied to study empirical phenomena, that is, the development of UDTs.

Introducing the core concepts of SCOT

The SCOT approach is operationalized through its constructs of Interpretive Flexibility, Technological Frames; Relevant Social Groups; Closure and Stabilisation, and the Wider Context (see e.g. Oti-Sarpong and Leiringer, 2021). Interpretive flexibility refers to some form of ambiguity of meaning that surrounds technological artefacts (Pinch and Bijker, 1984). As interpretations of a technology change over time, interpretive flexibility can decrease through processes of stabilisation, or increase when new junctures emerge (Bijker et al., 2012).

A technological frame is a collective lens that emerges from converging interpretations of, and meanings attached to, a particular technological artefact by a social group. Whilst it results from actors’ interpretations, a technological frame in turn also guides, and constrains, such interpretations (Basu, 2023). A technological frame may include both material and non-material elements such as actors’ problem framings, goals, current theories, tacit knowledge, practice (e.g. design methods and criteria) and specialized testing procedures (Bijker, 2001, 2010). A technological frame is specific to an actor group, place and time. Hence, technological frames are context-dependent products of thoughts, past experiences and accumulated knowledge of similar technologies (Leonardi and Barley, 2010). The composition of technological frames is not fixed, and actors (un)wittingly mobilize these to (re)shape a technological artefact to reflect collective interests of relevant social groups. However, once a technological frame emerges it will shape understandings, behaviours and interactions in the social group that subscribes to this frame (Prell, 2009).

Relevant social groups are groups of actors who coalesce around particular technological frames that reflect their shared interpretations of a technical artefact (Bijker et al., 2012). In contrast with the helix models’ categorisation of actor groups based on societal domains, relevant social groups in SCOT are constructed based on the proximity of actors’ views about the technological artefact (Bijker et al., 2012). In another important difference with the n-helix models, social groups change over time in tandem with technological frames. Previously separate social groups may merge as their interpretations converge, reducing the artefact’s interpretive flexibility (Orlikowski, 1992). Interpretive flexibility can also increase if previously common interpretations are questioned by some actors in a social group, or new actors become interested in a technology and constructing new technological frames over time (Doherty et al., 2006).

Interactions within and among different groups and technological frames that lead to collectively accepted interpretations are described as processes of stabilisation and closure in SCOT. Stabilisation may occur within a social group. Individual actors’ views in a social group may be more or less aligned with the common technological frame. The more homogenous actors’ interpretations of an artefact are, the higher degree of stabilisation is achieved within this social group (Bijker, 2010). An example of processes of stabilisation could be the gradual simplification of the design or name of a technological artefact (cf. Prell, 2009). Stabilisation however does not automatically lead to closure given that different interpretations can ‘stabilise’ in different groups. Closure occurs between relevant social groups, and leads to particular meanings becoming, often irreversibly, attached to a technological artefact. It can develop in diverse ways: First, different groups may reach a consensus on the meaning of an artefact. Second, rhetorical closure occurs when relevant social groups perceive the problem as ‘resolved’ – this is often achieved through advertising. Third, the redefinition of the problem that the technology is seen to be addressing can also lead to closure (Bijker et al., 2012).

The wider context comprises a wide array of factors, including geopolitical and socio-cultural elements, as well as legal regulations, conventions and norms; as well as sectoral, national and international factors. Beyond shaping socio-technical interactions, the factors also provide insights about the contextual elements that influence technological developments. The wider context is therefore not merely a geographical locus within which socio-technical interactions take place (Aibar and Bijker, 1997). Rather, an active component in shaping how a technology develops in a place (Oti-Sarpong and Leiringer, 2021).

Despite the novel insights it provides on how technological development unfolds in a place, SCOT has some shortcomings (Basu, 2023). Critics have pointed out the strong emphasis on agency and relative neglect of structural forces that constrain agency and technological development (Klein and Kleinman, 2002). Others have also noted analytical issues which may limit the explanatory power of the theory, including the continuously changing composition of relevant social groups, and the apparent endless nature of closure and stabilisation processes (Humphreys, 2005). However, in our view, SCOT can offer an option to improve the conceptualisation of participation in UDT design and implementation, in the context of existing prominence of structural accounts in both the smart cities and urban planning literatures.

Applying the SCOT concepts in UDT development

Using the SCOT lens, UDTs can be characterised as a technological artefact that carries multiple interpretations and design possibilities (cf. Bijker et al., 2012 p.34). This recognises that no fixed UDT concept exists (yet), providing space for interpretive flexibility. For some, digital twins are sensing systems designed to monitor the behaviour of complex physical systems to identify, and mitigate and/or eliminate undesirable emergent behaviour (Grieves and Vickers, 2017; Lu et al., 2020). Others describe digital twins for cities as cyber–physical–social eco-systems that couple not only the physical and digital system components but also people (Tomko and Winter, 2018). Yet another perspective places the emphasis on the importance of predictive capability in UDTs, and specifically the possibility experimenting with ‘what if’ scenarios (Mohammadi and Taylor, 2021). Although these different interpretations suggest certain commonalities across different visions of UDTs, they also highlight differences and varied options for designing UDTs in (to) practice.

Interpretive flexibility also points to the (co-)existence of multiple technological frames that attach different meanings to UDTs, promoted by different social groups. The UDT concept is thus subject to alternation and variation depending on context, place, envisioned use and actors involved. UDTs are often positioned as innovative data products that keep pace with, and make use of, cutting-edge technological developments (Callcut et al., 2021). This framing tends to exaggerate notions of novelty, expected benefits and universal applicability. Whilst it could be expected based on (assumed) stakeholder interests, this view is not confined to certain companies or research teams acting as product developers (Austin et al., 2020). In practice, in contrast, those working on UDTs of subterranean assets developed different interpretations due to case and place-specific constraints and use requirements. Given the financial resources and effort required to secure access to good-quality data, ‘fitness-for-purpose’, standardisation for data sharing and economic viability have become key considerations. This led to diverging from the focus on cutting-edge technology in general, and led to significantly different trajectories for technology development and stakeholder involvement across different contexts, for example, in the UK (Kessler et al., 2023), Flanders (Rombouts, 2023) or Singapore (Schrotter and Van Son, 2019). Moving beyond the focus on technical content, these examples also highlight the importance of varied interactions (including negotiations or conflict resolution) across a range of stakeholders, and the wider context, in shaping UDT conceptualisations in different places.

The case of the subterranean asset UDTs indicates that relevant social groups, coming together around particular place-specific technological frames, may be more diverse than what the n-helix models can capture. Many of these projects would fall into the double-helix category, with typically only public sector bodies and private sector utility companies involved. However, the examples above showcase the diversity of views and requirements among stakeholders within each type, and of the resulting digital twins. Nevertheless, researchers often tend to stick with the n-helix categories. For example, Batty et al. (2023) argue that different social groups’ interpretations led to three different UDTs for a single location in London, representing different urban scales (Quantitative Urban Analytics (QUANT), Virtual London (ViLo) and Here East (HE)). In comparing QUANT and ViLo, Batty et al. (2023, p.73) conclude that ‘although both these models can be used in public participation, QUANT is more likely to be useful to technical experts, whereas ViLo is more suited to a non-expert audience’. The HE model’s content is driven by university researchers’ interest, with sensors monitoring key performance indicators of energy use in university buildings. Different purposes, and the participation of different groups of stakeholders, culminated in three distinct models for the same place being developed largely in separation (Batty et al., 2023). In the Cambridge CDT / UDT case, Nochta et al. (2021a) report on high-level UDT requirements according to stakeholder background types (local authority, citizens). Subsequent more detailed accounts however show that certain local authority officers and ‘expert’ citizens shared an interpretation of the UDT as a cutting-edge data product – despite not having a ‘stake’ in product development (Nochta et al., 2021b). Other mixed groups downplayed the importance of technical features and considered it as ‘just another’ planning support tool which, however, could contribute to communication across policymakers and civil society (Nochta et al., 2021b).

Despite the existence of multiple technological frames, we can also identify processes that, over time, may lead to some degree of stabilisation or closure. One might recognise an attempt at facilitating rhetorical closure by certain industry stakeholders who view UDTs as smart city innovation, advertising ready-made digital twin products assumed to be applicable to both engines and cities without much modification or reflection (Korenhof et al., 2021). Another interesting example is a gradual move away from ‘real-time’ to ‘near-real-time’ to ‘right time’ in how the frequency of data collection is discussed in relation to UDTs, and digital twins more broadly (Callcut et al., 2021). For example, the status of the Cambridge CDT /UDT as digital twin has been questioned by some who consider it rather as a static model (Jeddoub et al., 2023; Nochta et al., 2021a). It could also be questioned whether subterranean asset digital representations can be considered UDTs. At the same time, there has been a growing recognition that digital twins must be purpose driven. The appropriate ‘refresh rate of data’ is, in turn, determined by this purpose and there are ‘some use cases where using real-time data would not be possible or even necessary’ (Callcut et al., 2021, p.15; see also Austin et al., 2020; Pregnolato et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2023).

As the above discussion demonstrates, a combination of the SCOT concepts of technological frames, relevant social groups and stabilisation and closure can help to analyse and reflect on the current landscape of UDT developments. SCOT concepts appear well-suited to understand how different versions of UDTs may emerge and get implemented in different places and settings, through uncovering inclusion and exclusion participation patterns and their impact, and highlighting the strategies that actors employ to influence UDT iterations. At the same time, SCOT-informed analysis can also reveal structural constraints from the wider context that may facilitate similar UDT constructs in different places or settings – as opposed viewing these simply as being a product of inevitability and technological determinism.

Concluding remarks: Implications for UDT design and implementation

Our aim in this short commentary was to investigate how integrating SCOT concepts, and insights from the smart cities and urban planning literatures, can help understanding the role of inclusion and exclusion participation patterns in shaping UDT research, design and implementation. The analysis shows that a mainstream narrative, shared by different types of stakeholders (including some citizens), can be identified which emphasises technical features and novelty. In contrast, emerging practical applications of the concept diverge from this technology-focused perspective highlighting interpretive flexibility. Social groups relevant to UDTs span various disciplines, policy and societal domains, and are made up of different constellations of stakeholders in different places – who attach distinct technological frames to the UDT concept. Certain powerful stakeholders with privileged access and influence in digital twinning processes may attempt to facilitate rhetorical stabilisation and/or closure to further their own economic or other interests. Nevertheless, alternative place- and context-based conceptualisations (co-)exist with such dominant frames, and could be unearthed and mobilised more explicitly to facilitate democratic decision-making in digitally-enabled urban planning, progress in the development of UDTs, and successful implementation.

SCOT offers a theoretical approach for a constructivist examination of participation from diverse actors in the development of UDTs. Whilst it can provide background and baseline understanding of technology development from an agency-focused participatory perspective, it is agnostic to methods that may be deployed to facilitate participation (e.g. charrette, Public Delphi, collaboratories and simulation-gaming) (cf. Glenn and Gordon, 2009; Howard and Somerville, 2014; Wilson et al., 2019). Taking charrettes as an example (a currently popular participatory co-design method in urban design; Kennedy, 2017; Palmer et al., 2013), we see the value of a SCOT-informed analysis as part of the pre-charrette preparation phase. Providing a more inclusive baseline understanding on UDTs and their future development possibilities, it can help identifying diverse (locally relevant) technological frames, social groups and stakeholders, and discrepancies in terms of existing participation patterns. It thus has the potential to facilitate a truly ‘people ready’, ‘data ready’ and ‘place ready’ UDT charrette in the subsequent phase (Madill et al., 2018). In doing so, whilst SCOT does not prescribe the charrette as the most appropriate method, it may contribute to improving its outcomes - that is, place-based UDT iterations - in terms of inclusion, fairness and democratic quality. We therefore encourage more theory-informed participatory action research to facilitate meaningful progress in UDT design and implementation.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research has been supported by The Ove Arup Foundation: Kwadwo Oti-Sarpong acknowledges the funding of the Digital Cities for Change Programme by The Ove Arup Foundation (RG89525).

ORCID iD

Timea Nochta

Data availability statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Timea Nochta is Assistant Professor in Public Policy and Governance at the University of Birmingham. She is an urban studies scholar with an interdisciplinary background rooted in public policy, and architecture and engineering. Her research centres on public governance and its interactions with technological change, specifically decarbonisation and digitalisation in cities.

Kwadwo Oti-Sarpong is a Senior Research Associte at the University of Cambridge. His interdisciplinary research, often inspired by a social constructivist perspective, falls under the overarching theme of technological innovations in the built environment. With a background in construction technology and project management, his work has evolved to focus on how technical and social elements interact to shape technological advancements in the creation and management of the built environment. Currently, he conducts research into leading urban digital innovations for delivering public value, and ethically rooted AI applications in the public sector.

References

Adade

de Vries

(2023) Digital twin for active stakeholder participation in land-use planning. Land 12(3): 538.

Aibar

Bijker

(1997) Constructing a city: the Cerdà plan for the extension of Barcelona. Science, Technology & Human Values 22(1): 3–30.

Arnstein

(1969) A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35(4): 216–224.

Austin

Delgoshaei

Coelho

, et al. (2020) Architecting smart city digital twins: combined semantic model and machine learning approach. Journal of Management in Engineering 36(4): 04020026.

Basu

(2023) Three decades of social construction of technology: dynamic yet fuzzy? The methodological conundrum. Social Epistemology 37(3): 259–275.

Batty

(2018) Digital twins. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 45(5): 817–820.

Batty

Hudson-Smith

Signorelli

, et al. (2023) More than one twin: an ecology of model applications in East London. In: Wan

Nochta

Tang

, et al. (eds) Digital Twins for Smart Cities: Conceptualisation, Challenges and Practices. Lancashire: ICE Publishing.

Bijker

(2001) The social construction of technology. International encyclopedia of the social and behavioural sciences 23: 15522–15527.

Bijker

(2010) How is technology made? that is the question. Cambridge Journal of Economics 34(1): 63–76.

10.

Bijker

Parke Hughes

Pinch

(eds) (2012) The Social Construction of Technological Systems. Cambridge: MIT Press.

11.

Borkowska

Osborne

(2018) Locating the fourth helix: rethinking the role of civil society in developing smart learning cities. International Review of Education 64(3): 355–372.

12.

Callcut

Cerceau Agliozzo

Varga

, et al. (2021) Digital twins in civil infrastructure systems. Sustainability 13(20): 11549.

13.

Calzati

van Loenen

(2023) Towards a citizen-and citizenry-centric digitalization of the urban environment: urban digital twinning as commoning. Digital Society 2(3): 38.

14.

Cardullo

Kitchin

(2019) Being a ‘citizen’ in the smart city: up and down the scaffold of smart citizen participation in Dublin, Ireland. Geojournal 84(1): 1–13.

15.

Crumpton

Wongthanavasu

Kamnuansilpa

, et al. (2021) Assessing the ASEAN smart cities network (ASCN) via the quintuple helix innovation framework, with special regard to smart city discourse, civil participation, and environmental performance. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 13(1): 97–116.

16.

Daniel

Pettit

(2022) Charting the past and possible futures of planning support systems: results of a citation network analysis. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 49(7): 1875–1892.

17.

Dembski

Wössner

Letzgus

, et al. (2020) Urban digital twins for smart cities and citizens: the case study of Herrenberg, Germany. Sustainability 12(6): 2307.

18.

Doherty

Coombs

Loan-Clarke

(2006) A re-conceptualization of the interpretive flexibility of information technologies: redressing the balance between the social and the technical. European Journal of Information Systems 15(6): 569–582.

19.

Engels

Wentland

Pfotenhauer

(2019) Testing future societies? Developing a framework for test beds and living labs as instruments of innovation governance. Research Policy 48(9): 103826.

20.

Glenn

Gordon

(2009) Futures Research Methodology: Version 3.0. Washington, DC: Millennium Project.

21.

Grieves

Vickers

(2017) Digital twin: mitigating unpredictable, undesirable emergent behavior in complex systems. In: Transdisciplinary Perspectives on Complex Systems: New Findings and Approaches. Berlin: Springer, 85–113.

22.

Grossi

Pianezzi

(2017) Smart cities: utopia or neoliberal ideology? Cities 69: 79–85.

23.

Grundel

Dahlström

(2016) A quadruple and quintuple helix approach to regional innovation systems in the transformation to a forestry-based bioeconomy. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 7: 963–983.

24.

Hämäläinen

(2021) Urban development with dynamic digital twins in Helsinki city. IET Smart Cities 3(4): 201–210.

25.

Healey

(2020) Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

26.

Howard

Somerville

(2014) A comparative study of two design charrettes: implications for codesign and participatory action research. CoDesign 10(1): 46–62.

27.

Humphreys

(2005) Reframing social groups, closure, and stabilization in the social construction of technology. Social Epistemology 19(2-3): 231–253.

28.

Ianniello

Iacuzzi

Fedele

, et al. (2019) Obstacles and solutions on the ladder of citizen participation: a systematic review. Public Management Review 21(1): 21–46.

29.

Jeddoub

Nys

Hajji

, et al. (2023) Digital Twins for cities: analyzing the gap between concepts and current implementations with a specific focus on data integration. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 122: 103440.

30.

Kennedy

(2017) Scotland's approach to participatory planning: characterising the charrette. ArchNet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research 11(2): 101–122.

31.

Kessler

Zeiss

Brammall

(2023) The national underground asset register, UK. In: Wan

Nochta

Tang

, et al. (eds) Digital Twins for Smart Cities: Conceptualisation, Challenges and Practices. Lancashire: ICE Publishing.

32.

Klein

Kleinman

(2002) The social construction of technology: structural considerations. Science, Technology & Human Values 27(1): 28–52.

33.

Korenhof

Blok

Kloppenburg

(2021) Steering representations—towards a critical understanding of digital twins. Philosophy & technology 34: 1751–1773.

34.

Laskey

Nicholls

(2019) Jumping off the ladder: participation and insurgency in Detroit’s urban planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 85(3): 348–362.

35.

Leonardi

Barley

(2010) What’s under construction here? Social action, materiality, and power in constructivist studies of technology and organizing. The Academy of Management Annals 4(1): 1–51.

36.

Parlikad

Woodall

, et al. (2020) Developing a digital twin at building and city levels: case study of West Cambridge campus. Journal of Management in Engineering 36(3): 05020004.

37.

Madill

Lennertz

Beyea

(2018) Crafting charrettes that transform communities. https://www.planning.org/pas/memo/2018/nov/ (Accessed 26 09 2024).

38.

Maier

(2001) Citizen participation in planning: climbing a ladder? European Planning Studies 9(6): 707–719.

39.

Mills

Izadgoshasb

Pudney

(2021) Smart city collaboration: a review and an agenda for establishing sustainable collaboration. Sustainability 13(16): 9189.

40.

Mohammadi

Taylor

(2021) Thinking fast and slow in disaster decision-making with smart city digital twins. Nature Computational Science 1(12): 771–773.

41.

Monstadt

(2022) Urban and infrastructural rhythms and the politics of temporal alignment. Journal of Urban Technology 29(1): 69–77. DOI: 10.1080/10630732.2021.2007205.

42.

Mora

Gerli

Ardito

, et al. (2023) Smart city governance from an innovation management perspective: theoretical framing, review of current practices, and future research agenda. Technovation 123: 102717.

43.

Nijkamp

Kourtit

Scholten

, et al. (2023) Citizen participation and knowledge support in urban public energy transition—a quadruple helix perspective. Land 12(2): 395.

44.

Nochta

Wan

Schooling

, et al. (2018) Digitalisation for smarter cities: moving from a static to a dynamic view. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Smart Infrastructure and Construction 171(4): 117–130.

45.

Nochta

Wan

Schooling

, et al. (2021a) A socio-technical perspective on urban analytics: the case of city-scale digital twins. Journal of Urban Technology 28(1-2): 263–287.

46.

Nochta

Wahby

Schooling

(2021b) Knowledge politics in the smart city: a case study of strategic urban planning in Cambridge, UK. Data & Policy 3: e31.

47.

Orlikowski

(1992) The duality of technology: rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science 3(3): 398–427.

48.

Oti-Sarpong

Leiringer

(2021) International technology transfer through projects: a social construction of technology perspective. International Journal of Project Management 39(8): 902–914.

49.

Palmer

Chiveralls

Pullen

, et al. (2013) Transdisciplinary charrettes: a research method for sustainable design. The International Journal of Architectonic, Spatial, and Environmental Design 7(1): 95–106.

50.

Paskaleva

Evans

Watson

(2021) Co-producing smart cities: a Quadruple Helix approach to assessment. European Urban and Regional Studies 28(4): 395–412.

51.

Pinch

Bijker

(1984) The social construction of facts and artefacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science 14(3): 399–441.

52.

Potts

Webb

(2023) Digital planning practices: benchmarking planners’ use of information and communication technologies (ICTs). Planning Practice and Research 38(4): 520–540.

53.

Pregnolato

Gunner

Voyagaki

, et al. (2022) Towards civil engineering 4.0: concept, workflow and application of digital twins for existing infrastructure. Automation in Construction 141: 104421.

54.

Prell

(2009) Rethinking the social construction of technology through ‘following the actors’: a reappraisal of technological frames. Sociological Research Online 14(2): 36–47.

55.

Rombouts

(2023) Cable and pipe information portal: Flanders case study. In: Wan

Nochta

Tang

, et al. (eds) Digital Twins for Smart Cities: Conceptualisation, Challenges and Practices. Lancashire: ICE Publishing.

56.

Schrotter

van Son

(2019) Digital underground. Towards a reliable map of subsurface utilities in Singapore. https://ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/dual/sec-dam/documents/Digital-Underground-1.pdf (Accessed 01 03 2024).

57.

Sharifi

Khavarian-Garmsir

Allam

, et al. (2023) Progress and prospects in planning: a bibliometric review of literature in urban studies and regional and urban planning, 1956–2022. Progress in Planning 173: 100740.

58.

Solman

Kirkegaard

Smits

, et al. (2022) Digital twinning as an act of governance in the wind energy sector. Environmental Science & Policy 127: 272–279.

59.

Soutar

Devine-Wright

Rohse

, et al. (2022) Constructing practices of engagement with users and communities: comparing emergent state-led smart local energy systems. Energy Policy 171: 113279.

60.

Tippett

How

(2020) Where to lean the ladder of participation: a normative heuristic for effective coproduction processes. Town Planning Review 91(2): 109–132.

61.

Tomko

Winter

(2019) Beyond digital twins–A commentary. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 46(2): 395–399.

62.

Wan

Nochta

Tang

, et al. (2023) City digital twins: fundamentals, conceptualisation and challenges Digital Twins for Smart Cities: Conceptualisation, Challenges and Practices. London: ICE Publishing.

63.

Wang

Zaheer

Qiu

, et al. (2023) Introduction to digital twin technologies in transportation infrastructure management (TIM) Digital Twin Technologies in Transportation Infrastructure Management. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 1–25.

64.

White

Zink

Codecá

, et al. (2021) A digital twin smart city for citizen feedback. Cities 110: 103064.

65.

Williams

(2020) Data Action. Using Data for Public Good. Cambridge: MIT Press.

66.

Wilson

Tewdwr-Jones

(2021) Digital Participatory Planning: Citizen Engagement, Democracy, and Design. London: Routledge.

67.

Wilson

Tewdwr-Jones

Comber

(2019) Urban planning, public participation and digital technology: app development as a method of generating citizen involvement in local planning processes. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 46(2): 286–302.

68.

Wolf

Fürst

Geiges

, et al. (2023) The Decision Theatre Triangle for societal challenges—an example case and research needs. Journal of Cleaner Production 394: 136299.

69.

Zhu

(2021) Evaluating the impact mechanism of citizen participation on citizen satisfaction in a smart city. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 48(8): 2466–2480. DOI: 10.1177/2399808320980746.

70.

Yossef Ravid

Aharon-Gutman

(2023) The social digital twin: the social turn in the field of smart cities. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 50(6): 1455–1470. DOI: 10.1177/23998083221137079.

Participation matters: The social construction of digital twins for cities

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Participation and urban technology

Participation in smart cities

Participation in urban planning and analytics

UDTs at the Nexus

Understanding participation for Urban Digital Twins through a social construction of technology lens

Introducing the core concepts of SCOT

Applying the SCOT concepts in UDT development

Concluding remarks: Implications for UDT design and implementation

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Data availability statement

References