Public Participation and (Dis)Empowerment in Smart Cities

Participants reflected on the issues of involvement and participation in the smart city agenda. In discussion on the progress of smart city development, older people reflected that there is neither the chance to participate in local development, nor has there been tangible improvements as a result of smart city initiatives. Whilst many had heard of smart cities, older people felt that smart city development had afforded little impact on their everyday lives:

Interviewer: “Do you know there is a smart community in Shiyoulu, Yuzhong District? Can you feel the change?”

Participant: “Yes. We know it. Our district has one as well. I heard that our universities and governments spent 30 million to build one. But I haven't felt any changes.” (Female, 75, Shiyoulu Community)

There were few opportunities for older people to input into the decision-making process within communities, reflecting a lack of formal engagement opportunities as part of the smart city agenda. The lack of citizen engagement in smart cities has been noted as a shortcoming in the literature (94). Many felt as if they were not listened to and lacked knowledge of where to go to in order for their voice to be heard:

Interviewer: “Can you make advice or suggestions?”

Participant: “No. Nobody listens. Nowhere to speak, report and appeal. We cannot find that place.” (Male, 67, Shiyoulu Community)

Due to the lack of consultation and engagement between older people and government, participants expressed a feeling of distrust toward the government. Many were sceptical as to the extent to which the policy around smart cities would be translated into actual practise:

“Now the old people mostly complain that the government do not follow their words. They say one thing but do another.” (Female, 75, Shiyoulu Community)

In having their voice heard, many felt that there was a stigma around ageing and older people, with their opinions and expertise being afforded lower priority than others in the smart city agenda. Participants reported a sense of helplessness, reflecting on their perceived lack of value to the local community, and a feeling of marginalisation:

Interviewer: “What do you think is the best way for older people to improve the current problems?”

Participant: “Nothing needed. An old person can do nothing. Others dislike older people.” (Female, 83, Hualongqiao Community)

“It is nonsense to participate in the local development, because nobody wants to hear our voice. Nobody really cares what we say whenever we give suggestions and comments on developments such as the smart city. We've been marginalised. Who cares about you? No one care about you.” (Male, 67, Shiyoulu Community)

Participants emphasised the value of participation in the community in terms of being informed and aware about what is happening. In the types of participation which could be better supported through the smart city agenda, older adults specified both online and offline. For those experiencing mobility challenges, then online participation provided an opportunity to participate, providing they had the technology and means to do so. For others, collective participation through in-person and face to face engagement was important. In all cases, engagement and participation in the smart city agenda were seen as integral to feeling a sense of purpose and citizenship in society:

“So participating in making smart city policies or getting involved with the society should be accessible from both online and offline.” (Female, 87, Dahuanglu Community)

“I think so. It can broaden our views. It would be convenient. And we can have a better involvement with society, which is also a kind of way to participate in society.” (Male, 84, Hualongqiao Community)

In addition to having the opportunity for older people to participate in the planning process, many reported on the need to ensure that the experiences of older people are incorporated into the smart city agenda. By involving multi-agency groups and engaging rights and advocacy organisations in the smart city agenda, then the rights and interests of older people can be increasingly protected. To others, the role of older people as community leaders was central to developing smart city interventions that reflected the requirements of older people. An enhanced role for older people's champions as advocates for change was important in delivering meaningful interventions:

“Then we need the community leaders to manage the community well. They can lead us and guide us. If they do not manage the community, then no matter what things we do is meaningless.” (Male, 67, Shiyoulu Community)

For others, participation in the smart city agenda was closely related to the quality of engagement with services. Although older people felt that accessing services and information online was important, smart technologies cannot replace manual and face-to-face service delivery. The importance of “local navigators” was crucial here, having offline services and guidelines available in the local community, advising people through the technologies and services to facilitate access for older people:

“Those digital services are good, I know. But the problem is that we don't know how to use it. For example, if you want to take a taxi outside, you have to book it online, because there are many internet cars now, we, older people don't know how to take that digital taxi. So we don't even take a taxi because we don't know how to use that app and there's no one to teach us, no one to guide us. For example, if you don't know how to use it, it would be helpful if the community or the platform could have someone around to teach you how to use the application and guide you when we are using these services. Without someone to teach us, we don't know how to use them, and we won't use it.” (Female, 76, Dahuanglu Community)

Perceptions of participation and engagement raise critical questions for the smart city and ageing agenda. A lack of opportunities to participate in smart city development could potentially exclude older adults from the decision-making process resulting in disengagement and disillusionment with smart cities. In our participant accounts, this was linked to feelings of disempowerment and disenfranchisement, as well as undermining their sense of citizenship in the smart city. Building trust and reciprocity among government, service providers and older people is an essential step toward developing inclusive smart age-friendly cities. Different forms of participation are needed to reflect the desire and ability of older people to participate in different ways. Likewise, the voice of older people needs to be shared and heard in a more meaningful way, prioritising their experiences of living in communities.