Cited by 518Smart Cities and TechnologiesEthics and Social Impacts of AIUrban Planning and Governance

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 76 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

The ethics of smart cities and urban science

Open access
Kitchin, Rob·2016·Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences

Abstract

Software-enabled technologies and urban big data have become essential to the functioning of cities. Consequently, urban operational governance and city services are becoming highly responsive to a form of data-driven urbanism that is the key mode of production for smart cities. At the heart of data-driven urbanism is a computational understanding of city systems that reduces urban life to logic and calculative rules and procedures, which is underpinned by an instrumental rationality and realist epistemology. This rationality and epistemology are informed by and sustains urban science and urban informatics, which seek to make cities more knowable and controllable. This paper examines the forms, practices and ethics of smart cities and urban science, paying particular attention to: instrumental rationality and realist epistemology; privacy, datafication, dataveillance and geosurveillance; and data uses, such as social sorting and anticipatory governance. It argues that smart city initiatives and urban science need to be re-cast in three ways: a re-orientation in how cities are conceived; a reconfiguring of the underlying epistemology to openly recognize the contingent and relational nature of urban systems, processes and science; and the adoption of ethical principles designed to realize benefits of smart cities and urban science while reducing pernicious effects. This article is part of the themed issue ‘The ethical impact of data science’.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Kitchin argues that smart cities and urban science are underpinned by an instrumental rationality and realist epistemology that treats cities as knowable, controllable systems, generating ethical risks around privacy, dataveillance/geosurveillance, social sorting, and anticipatory governance. He calls for recasting cities as complex and relational, reconfiguring urban science’s epistemology, and adopting ethical principles to realize benefits while reducing pernicious effects.

Key findings

  • Data-driven urbanism reduces urban life to calculative rules and procedures, while urban science/informatics sustain a computational understanding of cities that seeks to make them more knowable and controllable.
  • Ethical concerns include intensified datafication and geosurveillance; predictive privacy harms from inferencing; re-identification of anonymized/pseudonymous data; obfuscation and reduced control; and notice/consent that is often empty or absent. Data uses such as social sorting and anticipatory governance can profile people and places, with predictive policing designating some as “precriminals.”
  • The paper cites examples and figures: Rio’s operations centre is staffed by 400 professional workers and draws real-time data from 30 agencies; London’s Renew sensors on 200 bins captured identifiers from over four million devices in a single week in 2014; the UK has an estimated 8,300 ANPR cameras capturing 30 million number plates each day; New York and Chicago each have over 24,000 cameras; 25 of 50 iPhone apps and 21 of 50 Android apps transmitted location data to a third party; between a quarter and a third of smartphone apps lack a privacy policy; in 2014, 212 US data brokers were identified, only 92 allowed opt-outs, and of 58 mobile location tracking companies only 11 offered opt-outs; knowing the sexual orientation of just 20% of social media users can enable inference of all other users with high accuracy.
  • Kitchin proposes three recasting moves: reorient how cities are conceived (fluid, open, complex, contingent, relational; complement analytics with phronesis and metis); reconfigure epistemology (data are never raw; analytics are socio-technical and political); and adopt ethical principles (notice/consent, transparency, duty of care, professional standards, city contracting and privacy impact assessments).

Methods

  • Conceptual/ethical review and argument, not an empirical study; no dataset or sample is used.
  • The paper examines the forms, practices, and ethics of smart cities and urban science, focusing on instrumental rationality and realist epistemology, privacy/datafication/dataveillance/geosurveillance, and data uses such as social sorting and anticipatory governance.
  • The main analysis is a critical synthesis of literature and illustrative examples, culminating in three proposed dimensions for recasting smart cities and urban science.

Limitations

  • The paper states no formal limitations section; it acknowledges that what constitutes harm is often difficult to define and that a sharing/gifting ethical model is currently a long way from being enacted.
  • Evident from the text: it is a conceptual argument without empirical testing or systematic review, its examples are illustrative and drawn largely from UK/US/Rio contexts, and its proposed ethical remedies are not operationalized or evaluated.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rsta.2016.0115

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

54 Not checked yet · 45 Own interpretation · 9 No basis given

Verify all 76 references — free account

Show all 46 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 30
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 42
62 of 62
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Privacy is a basic human right in many jurisdictions and is enshrined in national and supra-national laws.

    “Privacy-to selectively reveal oneself to the world-is considered a basic human right in many jurisdictions (particularly democratic states), enshrined in national and supra-national laws in various ways.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Notice and consent are treated as a foundational element of data and privacy protection.

    “Notice and consent-considered the cornerstone of data and privacy protection-are significantly weakened within smart city technologies and in data/urban science becoming an empty exercise or being entirely absent.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Individuals interact with many smart city technologies daily, each generating data about them.

    “Individuals interact with a number of smart city technologies on a daily basis, each of which is generating data about them.”
3 of 3

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Ratti C, 2014, Decoding the city: how big data can change urbanism
  2. Bunge W, 1962, Theoretical geography
  3. Tomlinson RF, 1968, Land evaluation, 200
  4. Solove D, 2013, Privacy management and the consent dilemma, Harvard Law Rev., 126, 1880
  5. Tene O Polonetsky J. 2012 Big data for all: privacy and user control in the age of analytics. Social Sciences Research Network 20 September 2012. See http://ssrn.com/abstract=2149364 (accessed 15 July 2013).
  6. Solove DJ. 2007 ‘I've got nothing to hide’ and other misunderstandings of privacy. Social Sciences Research Network 12 July 2007. See http://ssrn.com/abstract=998565 (accessed 16 July 2013).
  7. Angwin J, 2014, Dragnet nation

Metadata

Authors
Kitchin, R.
Affiliations
National University of Ireland, Maynooth (IE)
Corresponding author
Kitchin, Rob
Venue
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences
Published
2016-12-28
Volume
374
Issue
2083
Pages
20160115
ISSN
  • 1364-503X (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-2962
OpenAlex
W2552464140
Cited by
491
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 70 · 2025: 61 · 2024: 62 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 65 · 2019: 52 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 1
FWCI
29.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Maynooth University ePrints and eTheses Archive (Maynooth University) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
ERC Advanced Investigator (ERC-2012-AdG 323636-SOFTCITY)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Smart Cities and Technologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Urban Planning and Governance
Keywords
smart cities, urban science, urban informatics, data-driven urbanism, instrumental rationality, privacy, datafication, dataveillance, social sorting, anticipatory governance, data ethics, urban big data

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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