CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 18Ethics and Social Impacts of AIExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Smart Cities and Technologies

Tensions in transparent urban AI: designing a smart electric vehicle charge point

Open access
Alfrink, Kars, Keller, Ianus, Doorn, Neelke, Kortuem, Gerd·2023·AI & SOCIETY
DOI 10.1007/s00146-022-01436-9
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) by public actors has led to a push for more transparency. Previous research has conceptualized AI transparency as knowledge that empowers citizens and experts to make informed choices about the use and governance of AI. Conversely, in this paper, we critically examine if transparency-as-knowledge is an appropriate concept for a public realm where private interests intersect with democratic concerns. We conduct a practice-based design research study in which we prototype and evaluate a transparent smart electric vehicle charge point, and investigate experts’ and citizens’ understanding of AI transparency. We find that citizens experience transparency as burdensome; experts hope transparency ensures acceptance, while citizens are mostly indifferent to AI; and with absent means of control, citizens question transparency’s relevance. The tensions we identify suggest transparency cannot be reduced to a product feature, but should be seen as a mediator of debate between experts and citizens.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This practice-based design study prototypes a transparent smart EV charge point and compares how experts and citizens understand AI transparency. It finds that transparency-as-knowledge creates tensions: experts expect truthful explanations to support acceptance and fairness assessment, while citizens often experience explanations as burdensome, irrelevant without control, and only occasionally motivating concern or strategic behavior.

Key findings

  • Experts framed transparency as truthful information about automated decisions and as enabling fairness assessment; project documents described making “black boxes” visible and conveying a “positive tone of voice” about fair representation of interests.
  • Citizens were largely indifferent to AI in EV charging, often trusting technicians or accepting automation as optimizing common interests such as grid stability and sustainability; concern arose mainly around the shared-car priority rule, which some saw as unfair or politically threatening.
  • Citizens experienced transparency as burdensome: participants reported too much information (“I just want to charge”; “it’s confusing”), and many did not read instructions, instead using trial and error.
  • Transparency invited strategic behavior and a desire for control: some participants said they would change charging times for speed, sustainability, or cost, while many expected to be able to choose or override settings; when they could not, some questioned why explanations were provided at all.
  • The paper identifies three tensions: information quality over quantity, level of concern, and sense of control; it concludes transparency should be reframed as a communicative process between experts and citizens, not merely a product feature.

Methods

  • Qualitative-interpretive, practice-based design research in the “field” mode, with participatory action research elements, conducted as part of the “UI for Smart EV Charging” project with commercial partners and the municipality of Amsterdam.
  • Data included project documents, field observations, a reflective field journal, and interviews; the first author observed all design-team meetings, and analysis used reflexive thematic analysis.
  • Design phase included interviews with five EV drivers; evaluation used a 1:1 cardboard prototype with a 12.9-inch tablet at a fast charging facility, in two one-day rounds: round one had five participants (P1–P5; 1 female, 4 male), round two had four participants (P6–P9; 1 female, 3 male).

Limitations

  • The paper states findings relate specifically to smart EV charging, including the challenge of an intuitive charge-speed measure, and that the AI studied was deterministic, so design solutions may not be viable for stochastic systems.
  • The paper states EV driving is accessible mostly to affluent or professionally employed people, the citizen sample skews highly educated, and the expert–citizen distinction leaves out other stakeholders, including non-EV-driving citizens and experts without formal influence.
  • Evident from the text: the prototype was non-functional and evaluated in two one-day rounds with nine EV drivers total, so usability and experience findings are based on a small, situated sample.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00146-022-01436-9

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 50 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Citizens experience transparency as burdensome.

    “citizens experience transparency as burdensome”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The prototype evaluation with a small number of EV drivers is a valid basis for conclusions about how citizens experience transparency in urban AI systems.
    • Rests on an assumption: The prototype's transparency interface accurately represents the smart charging system's rules and behavior.
  • Findingown data

    With absent means of control, citizens question transparency's relevance.

    “with absent means of control, citizens question transparency's relevance”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The prototype evaluation with a small number of EV drivers is a valid basis for conclusions about how citizens experience transparency in urban AI systems.
    • Rests on an assumption: The prototype's transparency interface accurately represents the smart charging system's rules and behavior.
  • Findingown data

    Citizens are mostly indifferent to AI.

    “citizens are mostly indifferent to AI”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The prototype evaluation with a small number of EV drivers is a valid basis for conclusions about how citizens experience transparency in urban AI systems.
    • Rests on an assumption: The prototype's transparency interface accurately represents the smart charging system's rules and behavior.
  • Findingown data

    Those who were more or less indifferent to AI typically did not respond too strongly to the revelation they in fact could not exercise any control.

    “Those who were more or less indifferent to AI typically did not respond too strongly to the revelation they in fact could not exercise any control.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Not all participants were as keen on changing their behavior.

    “It should be noted not all participants were as keen on changing their behavior.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 61
  • May combine two claims. 37
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 3

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    Experts hope transparency ensures acceptance.

    “experts hope transparency ensures acceptance”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The experts participating in the design project represent the views of experts involved in urban AI systems more broadly.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    P2 made a connection between shared car priority and local politics, and expressed fear of politicians pushing for more extreme forms of shared car priority at the expense of private car owners.

    “P2, a resident of Amsterdam, made a connection between shared car priority and local politics, which recently had taken a more left-leaning, progressive turn than in years before.They expressed fear of politicians pushing for more extreme forms of shared car priority at the expense of private car owners.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Most participants were able to translate a session's worth of energy charged measured in kWh to range, because they had memorized the capacity of their EV battery.

    “Most participants were also able to translate a session's worth of energy charged measured in kWh to range, because they had memorized the capacity of their EV battery.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Many participants latched on to the shared car priority feature, while ignoring most of the other rules made transparent.

    “Many participants latched on to this, while ignoring most of the other rules made transparent.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingreasoning

    The system is imagined to convey a message that people are indeed being treated fairly.

    “The system is imagined to convey a message that people are indeed being treated fairly.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingown data

    Truthfulness is seen as a quality of information provided by the system, producing transparency about how a person is treated.

    “Truthfulness is seen as a quality of information provided by the system, producing transparency about how a person is treated.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingreasoning

    The concern is that opacity threatens acceptance of EV driving and charging by citizens.

    “The concern is that opacity threatens acceptance of EV driving and charging by citizens.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Prioritization appears to produce dilemmas: some people will lose and others will win out in resource distribution.

    “Prioritization appears to produce dilemmas.Some people will lose and others will win out in resource distribution.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: When a city service is scarce, prioritization is required.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Some participants wondered about what was considered a shared car, who determined this, and how the system would deal with shared cars from outside of Amsterdam.

    “Some participants wondered about what was considered a shared car, who determined this, and how the system would deal with, for example, shared cars from outside of Amsterdam.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    A few participants did express concerns about situations in which they would be disadvantaged by the system, and the impossibility of making a one-time exception.

    “A few participants did express concerns about situations in which they would be disadvantaged by the system, and the impossibility of making a one-time exception.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Participants expressed intent to adapt their behavior to the system, something that could be considered an unintended side effect of providing more transparency.

    “Participants expressed intent to adapt their behavior to the system, something that could be considered an unintended side effect of providing more transparency.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingreasoning

    Truthfulness and fairness recur on different levels throughout the project.

    “We see truthfulness and fairness recur on different levels throughout the project.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Another reason for changing behavior particularly in relation to solar power availability was sustainability.

    “Another reason for changing behavior particularly in relation to solar power availability was sustainability.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Some participants recognized shared car priority would be beneficial for sustainability reasons, so they did accept its rationale.

    “Some recognized it would be beneficial for sustainability reasons, so they did accept its rationale.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Participants suggested they might pick a different time to charge, so that they would benefit from increased speed during off-peak hours, or would enjoy extra speed when the sun was out.

    “Participants suggested they might pick a different time to charge, so that they would benefit from increased speed during off-peak hours, or would enjoy extra speed when the sun was out.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    V2 switched to kilowatt (kW), and participants could at least extrapolate from this real-time measure to an expected amount of energy received at session end.

    “V2 switched to kilowatt (kW), a measure of power.Participants could at least extrapolate from this real-time measure to an expected amount of energy received at session end.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingcitation

    Experts talk about transparency as something created by providing truthful information about automated decisions.

    “Experts talk about transparency as something created by providing truthful information about “automated decisions” (D4).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites D4

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    Throughout the documents, decision-making and prioritization are used interchangeably.

    “However, throughout the documents, decision-making and prioritization are used interchangeably.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The design agency emphasized they had moved away from determining fairness by comparison.

    “For example, at one point during the design process, the design agency emphasized they had moved away from determining fairness by comparison.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingcitation

    The core of the message is that the interests of different parties are fairly represented in order to arrive at solutions that work for citizens, government and private parties as smoothly as possible.

    “The core of the message is that the interests of different parties are fairly represented in order to arrive at solutions that work for citizens, government and private parties as smoothly as possible.(D4)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites D4

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Not only decisions, but motivations for them must be made transparent.

    “We can also see that not only decisions, but motivations for them must be made transparent.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    All this mental arithmetic meant more work for participants, and although some did take pride in their ability to perform it, most were perfectly happy to offload all of it onto a system.

    “Needless to say, all this mental arithmetic meant more work for participants, and although some did take pride in their ability to perform it, most were perfectly happy to offload all of it onto a system.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingcitation

    Project members agreed this message should be conveyed using a positive tone of voice.

    “Project members agreed this message should be conveyed using a “positive tone of voice” (D4).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites D4

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Algorithms that currently control smart city objects are black boxes: the public is affected by their decisions but does not know what factors are taken into consideration and how they are weighed against each other to reach a decision.

    “However, algorithms that currently control smart city objects are “black boxes”: the public is affected by their decisions, but does not know what factors are taken into consideration and how they are weighed against each other to reach a decision.(D10)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites D10

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted). May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Experts believe that, because automated decisions might benefit some more than others, and because AI is by its nature hidden, they need to be made visible.

    “Experts believe that, because automated decisions might benefit some more than others, and because AI is by its nature hidden, they need to be made visible (X1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    EV charging is often a suboptimal experience, made worse by the additional demands transparency puts on people.

    “With this theme, we capture how EV charging is often a suboptimal experience, made worse by the additional demands transparency puts on people.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingcitation

    Visibility of the automatic decision making in the smart charging process can help the adoption of this new technology.

    “Visibility [of] the automatic decision making in the smart charging process can help the adoption of this new technology. (D10)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites D10

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingcitation

    One of the aims of the design project is to convey a positive message about the municipality's role in the transition to fully electric driving in the city.

    “One of the aims of the design project is to convey a “positive message” (D4) about the municipality's role in the transition to fully electric driving in the city.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites D4

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Findingnone given

    Using transparency, users should be able to determine if they have been fairly treated.

    “Using transparency, users should be able to determine if they have been fairly treated.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingnone given

    The expert participants presume explanations make it possible for citizens to assess the fairness of decisions by evaluating inputs, processes and outcomes of the AI, by having access to a justification for the AI's design, and by knowing who owns the AI.

    “Experts presume explanations make it possible for citizens to assess the fairness of decisions by evaluating inputs, processes and outcomes of”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    The expert participants believe explanations are actionable by citizens.

    “Experts believe explanations are actionable by citizens (X2).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    A typical line of reasoning is that technology can improve on contested issues, and should, therefore, be welcomed.

    “A typical line of reasoning is that technology can improve on these issues, and should, therefore, be welcomed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    At the same time it is felt AI lacks transparency and that this should be fixed.

    “At the same time it is felt AI lacks transparency and that this should be fixed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingreasoning

    Experts pursue transparency because citizens may reject use of automated decision-making in public infrastructure.

    “Experts pursue transparency because citizens may reject use of automated decision-making in public infrastructure (X1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Findingnone given

    AI opacity as such is hardly ever an issue for citizens.

    “AI opacity as such is hardly ever an issue for citizens.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The experience of citizens is characterized by an overall acceptance of, or even indifference to, the presence of automated decision-making.

    “The experience of citizens is characterized by an overall acceptance of, or even indifference to, the presence of automated decision-making (C1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    Experts implement AI to achieve energy infrastructure reliability and sustainability.

    “Experts implement AI to achieve energy infrastructure reliability and sustainability.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In this project, the experts did not express worries about gaming behavior or exposure of intellectual property.

    “In our project, we did not see experts express such worries.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The reasoning in the project seems to be that once citizens understand the workings of a system, they can ascertain its fairness, and once they know it is fair, they will accept the system.

    “Various factors may lead to this acceptance, but the reasoning in the project seems to be that once citizens understand the workings of a system, they can ascertain its fairness, and once they know it is fair, they will accept the system.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingnone given

    For our experts, the goal is acceptance by the public, EV drivers in particular.

    “For our experts, the goal is acceptance by the public, EV drivers in particular.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Transparency enabled citizens to see some of the decisions affecting charge speed, and in some cases had them wondering about system developer motivations to include those factors, most notably in the case of the shared car priority feature.

    “Transparency enabled them to see some of the decisions affecting charge speed, and in some cases had them wondering about system developer motivations to include those factors, most notably in the case of the shared car priority feature.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingreasoning

    This is certainly a general driver behind the push for electric mobility in Amsterdam.

    “This is certainly a general driver behind the push for electric mobility in Amsterdam.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingown data

    The expert participants expect citizens are able to assess system fairness using the provided information.

    “They expect citizens are able to assess system fairness using this information, and that they can act on this information.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    The citizens do not want to, or believe they are not able to, petition experts for changes to system behavior, despite the presence of explanations that could be leveraged for purposes of recourse.

    “Citizens do not want to, or believe they are not able to, petition experts for changes to system behavior, despite the presence of explanations that could be leveraged for purposes of recourse.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    To improve ecological validity, the study did not provide participants with details on how the system operates beyond telling them it was a 'smart' EV charge point adjusting speed based on unspecified factors.

    “To improve ecological validity, we did not provide participants with details on how the system operates, beyond telling them we were testing the design of a”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    In HCI research, transparency is typically framed as a form of objective knowledge that empowers people to make informed choices about how best to use and govern AI systems.

    “In this HCI-research, transparency is typically framed as a form of objective knowledge that empowers people to make informed choices about how best to use and govern AI systems.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Abdul et al. 2018

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Almost all the data were included in the themes.

    “Almost all the data were included in the themes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Many ethical and policy frameworks see transparency as an important prerequisite for ensuring fairness and public acceptance.

    “Many ethical and policy frameworks see transparency as an important prerequisite for ensuring fairness and public acceptance (Brauneis and Goodman 2018;Stoyanovich and Howe 2018).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Brauneis and Goodman 2018

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Stoyanovich and Howe 2018

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Trust does not appear to be impacted by people's objective understanding of systems, nor by the form of explanation used.

    “Trust does not appear to be impacted by people's objective understanding of systems, nor by the form of explanation used (Cheng et al. 2019).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Cheng et al. 2019

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The second author independently coded a subset of the data, and a refined set of themes was jointly developed.

    “The second author independently coded a subset of the data, and a refined set of themes was jointly developed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Transparency cannot be reduced to a product feature, but should be seen as a mediator of debate between experts and citizens.

    “The tensions we identify suggest transparency cannot be reduced to a product feature, but should be seen as a mediator of debate between experts and citizens.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The prototype evaluation with a small number of EV drivers is a valid basis for conclusions about how citizens experience transparency in urban AI systems.
    • Rests on an assumption: The experts participating in the design project represent the views of experts involved in urban AI systems more broadly.
    • Rests on an assumption: The prototype's transparency interface accurately represents the smart charging system's rules and behavior.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The first author checked the codes and themes with the commercial collaborators.

    “The first author also checked the codes and themes with the commercial collaborators.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationown data

    Three tensions were constructed from a comparison between the two groups of narrative themes: information quality over quantity, level of concern, and sense of control.

    “In this next section, we reflect on three tensions constructed from a comparison between the two groups of narrative themes (Fig. 4).These are: (1) information quality over quantity; (2) level of concern; (3) sense of control.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Since participants are largely indifferent to AI, this information is experienced mostly as a burden.

    “Since, as we captured with the previous theme, participants are largely indifferent to AI, this information is experienced mostly as a burden.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    For an explanation to be actionable, it must be usable as currency in a person's decision-making process.

    “For an explanation to be actionable, it must be usable as”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Vakarelov and Rogerson 2020 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    People find AI useful, but the AI systems people find most useful is not necessarily the one they find most fair.

    “This echoes others' findings that people find AI useful, but crucially also that the AI systems people find most useful is not necessarily the one they find most fair (Dolin et al. 2018).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Dolin et al. 2018

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Users can have favorable cost-benefit perceptions of explanations if they are able to act on provided information by adjusting system behavior.

    “Users can have favorable cost-benefit perceptions of explanations if they are able to act on provided information by adjusting system behavior (Kulesza et al. 2013).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kulesza et al. 2013

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Being critical is not necessarily the same as being distrustful, but uncritical acceptance is unlikely to be the result of transparency.

    “Being critical is not necessarily the same as being distrustful, but uncritical acceptance is unlikely to be the result of transparency.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    If acceptance is the aim, relying on transparency is likely insufficient or may even backfire, for example when an excess of information decreases people's trust.

    “What this means is that if acceptance is the aim, relying on transparency is likely insufficient or may even backfire, for example when an excess of information decreases people's trust (Kizilcec 2016).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kizilcec 2016

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Each response impacts citizen trust in positive or negative ways, which in turn affects social acceptance desired by experts.

    “Each response impacts citizen trust in positive or negative ways, which in turn affects social acceptance desired by experts”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Transparency paired with control can alleviate anxiety caused by automated decisions.

    “Others have shown transparency paired with control can alleviate anxiety caused by automated decisions (Jhaver et al. 2018).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Jhaver et al. 2018

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationcitation

    The position of experts mirrors the idea that transparency has no moral content, it is a means towards an end.

    “The position of experts here mirrors the idea that transparency has no moral content (Menéndez-Viso 2009), it is a means towards an end.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Menéndez-Viso 2009 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The tension between transparency and the possibility of gaming behavior, and concerns over exposure of intellectual property, have been noted previously.

    “The tension between transparency and the possibility of”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Alvarado and Waern 2018

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Jhaver et al. 2018

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationcitation

    Information quality over quantity is the actual moral problem of transparency.

    “In other words, information quality over quantity is the actual moral problem of transparency (Menéndez-Viso 2009).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Menéndez-Viso 2009 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The various motivations our participants have for EV driving may influence how they respond to AI features exposed to them in the interface.

    “The various motivations our participants have for EV driving (e.g., saving money, protecting the environment) may influence how they respond to AI features exposed to them in the interface.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    This transparency increases citizen awareness, which triggers several responses: concern over optimization targets, increased cognitive burden, various forms of adaptive behavior, and an increased desire for control.

    “This transparency increases citizen awareness, which triggers several responses: concern over optimization targets, increased cognitive burden, various forms of adaptive behavior, and an increased desire for control.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Potentially, also in our project, people are making trade-offs between fairness and usefulness.

    “Potentially, also in our project, people are making trade-offs between fairness and usefulness.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    This point of tension is of particular importance when dealing with street-level touch-points of urban AI systems, because people's attention tends to be even more limited due to pressures of everyday urban activities.

    “This point of tension is of particular importance when dealing with street-level touch-points of urban AI systems, because people's attention tends to be even more limited due to pressures of everyday urban activities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The information produced in the interest of transparency can occlude as much as it reveals, and in the process add to anxiety already felt in response to being subjected to automated decision-making.

    “The information produced in the interest of transparency can occlude as much as it reveals, and in the process add to anxiety already felt in response to being subjected to automated decision-making (Ananny and Crawford 2018;Caduff 2017).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Ananny and Crawford 2018 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Caduff 2017 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Different people respond to transparency in different ways, and as a result, people also trust a given system in different ways.

    “Others have pointed out different people respond to transparency in different ways.As a result, people also trust a given system in different ways (Ananny and Crawford 2018).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ananny and Crawford 2018 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    What is not considered is how a person's view on an issue like spatial justice may affect the extent to which they welcome EV charging, and by extension a smart charging system, regardless of how transparent it is.

    “What is not considered is how a person's view on an issue like spatial justice may affect the extent to which they welcome EV charging, and by extension a smart charging system, regardless of how transparent it is.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Transparency shifts the responsibility of ensuring fairness onto people, reinforcing a neoliberal model of agency.

    “Transparency puts additional cognitive demands on people, and shifts responsibility of ensuring fairness onto them, reinforcing a neoliberal model of agency.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Transparency invokes a neoliberal model of agency.

    “Some have argued transparency invokes a neoliberal model of agency (Ananny and Crawford 2018;Cardullo and Kitchin 2017;Kitchin 2019).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Ananny and Crawford 2018 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Cardullo and Kitchin 2017

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Kitchin 2019

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Understanding of a system is not the product of simply receiving and processing information.

    “Understanding of a system is not the product of simply receiving and processing information.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    All three tensions identified in the study (information quantity, level of concern, desire for control) point to the need for additional channels for voice through which debate between stakeholders can be facilitated.

    “All three tensions we identify (information quantity, level of concern, desire for control) in various ways point to the need for additional channels for voice through which this debate can be facilitated.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    It is likely that the high education of the citizen sample informs their attitudes to issues such as sustainability and automation.

    “It is likely this informs their attitudes to issues such as sustainability and automation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: At the time of the study, EV driving is accessible mostly to significantly affluent or professionally employed people.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    This project is a clear illustration of the neoliberal logic of transparency in action.

    “We think our project is a clear illustration of this logic in action.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study's sample of citizens skews highly educated.

    “Certainly, our sample of citizens skews highly educated.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Understanding emerges from debate between stakeholders and is always provisional.

    “Understanding emerges from debate between stakeholders, and is always provisional.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The study's expert-citizen distinction leaves out a lot of other relevant stakeholders to investigate.

    “Our expert-citizen distinction leaves out a lot of other relevant stakeholders to investigate.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: There are many citizens who are not EV drivers but who are likely to be impacted by the roll-out of EV charging infrastructure in various ways.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    There are many stakeholders who have relevant expertise but who are not considered experts in the sense used in this study, that is, those with some level of formal influence over the shape the system takes.

    “There are also a good deal of stakeholders who have relevant expertise, but who are not considered”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: There are many citizens who are not EV drivers but who are likely to be impacted by the roll-out of EV charging infrastructure in various ways.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Transparency should not be seen as a property of technology or of a system through which information flows from experts to individual users, but must be understood as a communicative process between experts and citizens, mediated by AI systems.

    “In closing, we argue these tensions show transparency should not be seen as a property of technology, but must be understood as a communicative process between experts and citizens, who are more than mere users.”
    • Also stated in: § 7 Conclusion · plain
      “It should not be seen as a property of a system through which information flows from experts to individual users.Rather, transparency must be seen as a communicative process between experts and citizens, mediated by AI systems.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The citizens' desire for control appears to be at odds with the experts not being willing or able to offer direct control over system behavior and anticipating explanations alone to be a sufficient form of accountability.

    “This desire for control appears to be at odds with the fact that experts are not willing or able to offer direct control over system behavior and anticipate explanations alone to be a sufficient form of accountability.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The design solutions pursued in this project may not be viable when dealing with stochastic AI systems.

    “The design solutions pursued in our project may not be viable when dealing with stochastic systems.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
84 of 84

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The prototype evaluation with a small number of EV drivers is a valid basis for conclusions about how citizens experience transparency in urban AI systems.

    “Overall, we conducted two rounds of one-day long design evaluations: round one included five participants (P1 through P5; 1 female, 4 male), whereas round two included four participants (P6 through P9; 1 female, 3 male).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The experts participating in the design project represent the views of experts involved in urban AI systems more broadly.

    “we collaborated with commercial companies and the municipality of Amsterdam to prototype and evaluate a transparent smart EV charge point”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The prototype's transparency interface accurately represents the smart charging system's rules and behavior.

    “The prototype screens were created in a graphics package and data reflecting the imagined scenario of use was added.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    When a city service is scarce, prioritization is required.

    “When a city service is scarce, prioritization is required.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In city charging, less is at stake compared to fast charging; charge speed is slow, session duration is short, and public charge points are the least depended on.

    “People's indifference to AI may be in part due to the fact that when charging in the city, less is at stake compared to say a fast charging session.Charge speed is slow, session duration is short, and out of all charging options (at home, at work, at a fast charging facility, in the city) public charge points are the least depended on.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Users do not read instructions (a usability truism).

    “It is a usability truism users do not read, and people charging an EV are clearly no exception.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    People charging an EV at a public charge point are likely to be in a rush and have somewhere else to be.

    “It is likely this situation is even worse outside of a prototype evaluation because when EV charging at a public charge point, people are likely to be in a rush.They might have someone else waiting to use the same charge point, and in any case, they will probably have somewhere else to be.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Time and place of a charging session is strongly dictated by circumstances, such as availability of free parking spots.

    “It could also be because, particularly in the context of city charging, time and place of a charging session is strongly dictated by circumstances, such as availability of free parking spots.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A vast number of decisions are made by city governments benefiting some more than others, and a lot of city governance recedes from the view of ordinary citizens.

    “A vast number of decisions are made by city governments benefiting some more than others, and a lot of city governance recedes from the view of ordinary citizens.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    At the time of the study, EV driving is accessible mostly to significantly affluent or professionally employed people.

    “At the moment, EV driving is accessible mostly to significantly affluent or professionally employed people.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There are many citizens who are not EV drivers but who are likely to be impacted by the roll-out of EV charging infrastructure in various ways.

    “There are plenty of citizens who are not EV drivers, but who are likely to be impacted by the roll-out of EV charging infrastructure in various ways.”
11 of 11

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Providing decision subjects with information beyond outcome explanations could support contestations that apply to the system lifecycle as a whole.

    “Our results (e.g., Q.13) suggest that providing decision subjects with information that goes beyond outcome explanations could support contestations that are not only limited to post-decision mechanisms but that apply to the system lifecycle as a whole [2].”

    From Disentangling Fairness Perceptions in Algorithmic Decision-Making: the Effects of Explanations, Human Oversight, and Contestability (2023) · cites this paper as [2]

    In “Experts believe explanations are actionable by citizens” (page unavailable), the paper describes information about inputs, processes, outcomes, design, and ownership—not just decision outcomes. In the discussion of citizens’ responses (page unavailable), it proposes dialogue with designers, developers, and operators, but says information alone is insufficient without channels for citizens to voice disagreements. It does not establish that providing broader information would support contestation across the system lifecycle as a whole. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 78 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. perceptions of justice in algorithmic decisions. In: Conference on human factors in computing systems-proceedings, 1-14 Apr 2018
  2. Brauneis R, Goodman EP (2018) Algorithmic transparency for the smart city. Yale JL Tech 20:103
  3. Foth M, Brynskov M, Ojala T, Sassen S (eds) (2015) Citizen’s right to the digital city: urban interfaces, activism, and placemaking. Springer, Singapore Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London
  4. Foth M, Mann M, Bedford L, Fieuw W, Walters R (2021) A capitalocentric review of technology for sustainable development: the case for more-than-human design. In: Global information society watch 2020: technology, the environment and a sustainable world: responses from the global south, pp 78–82
  5. Koskinen IK (ed) (2011) Design research through practice: from the lab, field, and showroom. Morgan Kaufmann/Elsevier, Waltham
  6. Muratori M (2019) Integrating EVs in the electricity system. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1576477.
  7. Ortar N, Ryghaug M (2019) Should all cars be electric by 2025? The electric car debate in Europe. Sustainability (switzerland) 11(7):1–16
  8. Turel T, Joskin D, Geerts F, van Kaathoven E, Schouwenaar M (2017) Designing a transparent smart charge point. In: 30th international electric vehicle symposium (EVS30), vol 1. Stuttgart, Germany

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Alfrink, K., Keller, I., Doorn, N., & Kortuem, G.
Affiliations
Delft University of Technology (NL)
Corresponding author
  • Alfrink, Kars
  • Keller, Ianus
  • Doorn, Neelke
  • Kortuem, Gerd
ORCID
Venue
AI & SOCIETY
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-03-31
Volume
38
Issue
3
Pages
1049-1065
ISSN
  • 0951-5666 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-5655
DOI
10.1007/s00146-022-01436-9
OpenAlex
W4220787911
Semantic Scholar
6722fee8ba64985bd25d82dc183e5d5f3c639304
Cited by
18
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3
FWCI
4.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • AI & Society (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Repository (Delft University of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Canadian Institute of Steel Construction
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (CISC.CC.018)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Media Technology › Smart Cities and Technologies
Keywords
AI transparency, electric vehicle charging infrastructure

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-08.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-08.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review