Data Ecosystems for Protecting European Citizens' Digital Rights

This paper aims to spark a debate by presenting the need for developing data ecosystems in Europe that meet the social and public good while committing to democratic and ethical standards; suggesting a taxonomy of data infrastructures and institutions to support this need; using the case study of Barcelona as the flagship city trailblazing a critical policy agenda of smart cities to show the limitations and contradictions of the current state of affairs; and ultimately, proposing a preliminary roadmap for institutional and governance empowerment that could enable effective data ecosystems in Europe.,This paper draws on lessons learned in previous publications available in the sustainability (Calzada, 2018), regions (Calzada and Cowie, 2017; Calzada, 2019), Zenodo (Calzada and Almirall, 2019), RSA Journal (Calzada, 2019) and IJIS (Calzada, 2020) journals and ongoing and updated fieldwork about the Barcelona case study stemming from an intensive fieldwork action research that started in 2017. The methodology used in these publications was based on the mixed-method technique of triangulation via action research encompassing in-depth interviews, direct participation in policy events and desk research. The case study was identified as the most effective methodology.,This paper, drawing from lessons learned from the Barcelona case study, elucidates on the need to establish pan-European data infrastructures and institutions – collectively data ecosystems – to protect citizens’ digital rights in European cities and regions. The paper reveals three main priorities proposing a preliminary roadmap for local and regional governments, namely, advocacy, suggesting the need for city and regional networks; governance, requiring guidance and applied, neutral and non-partisan research in policy; and pan-European agencies, leading and mobilising data infrastructures and institutions at the European level.,From the very beginning, this paper acknowledges its ambition, and thus its limitations and clarifies its attempt to provide just an overview rather than a deep research analysis. This paper presents several research limitations and implications regarding the scope. The paper starts by presenting the need for data ecosystems, then structures this need through two taxonomies, all illustrated through the Barcelona case study and finally, concludes with a roadmap consisting of three priorities. The paper uses previous published and ongoing fieldwork findings in Barcelona as a way to lead, and thus encourage the proliferation of more cases through Cities Coalition for Digital Rights (CCDR).,This paper presents practical implications for local and regional authorities of the CCDR network. As such, the main three priorities of the preliminary roadmap could help those European cities and regions already part of the CCDR network to establish and build operational data ecosystems by establishing a comprehensive pan-European policy from the bottom-up that aligns with the timely policy developments advocated by the European Commission. This paper can inspire policymakers by providing guidelines to better coordinate among a diverse set of cities and regions in Europe.,The leading data governance models worldwide from China and the USA and the advent of Big Data are dramatically reshaping citizens’ relationship with data. Against this backdrop and directly influenced by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Europe has, perhaps, for the first time, spoken with its own voice by blending data and smart city research and policy formulations. Inquiries and emerging insights into the potential urban experiments on data ecosystems, consisting of data infrastructures and institutions operating in European cities and regions, become increasingly crucial. Thus, the main social implications are for those multi-stakeholder policy schemes already operating in European cities and regions.,In previous research, data ecosystems were not directly related to digital rights amidst the global digital geopolitical context and, more specifically, were not connected to the two taxonomies (on data infrastructures and institutions) that could be directly applied to a case study, like the one presented about Barcelona. Thus, this paper shows novelty and originality by also opening up (based on previous fieldwork action research) a way to take strategic action to establish a pan-European strategy among cities and regions through three specific priorities. This paper can ultimately support practice and lead to new research and policy avenues.

[1]  Miltiadis D. Lytras,et al.  Disruptive innovation of cryptocurrencies in consumer acceptance and trust , 2019, Information Systems and e-Business Management.

[2]  H. Mora,et al.  Chapter 12 Virtual Currencies in Modern Societies: Challenges and Opportunities , 2019, Politics and Technology in the Post-Truth Era.

[3]  Virginia E. Eubanks Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor , 2018 .

[4]  Igor Calzada Technological Sovereignty: Protecting Citizens’ Digital Rights in the AI-driven and post-GDPR Algorithmic and City-Regional European Realm , 2019, Regions.

[5]  Igor Calzada Deciphering Smart City Citizenship: The Techno-Politics of Data and Urban Co-Operative Platforms , 2019, Smart City Citizenship.

[6]  Marijn Janssen,et al.  The challenges and limits of big data algorithms in technocratic governance , 2016, Gov. Inf. Q..

[7]  Tina Kempin Reuter Human rights and the city: Including marginalized communities in urban development and smart cities , 2019, Journal of Human Rights.

[8]  K. Fu,et al.  Chinese Social Media and Big Data: Big Data, Big Brother, Big Profit? , 2018, Policy & Internet.

[9]  M. Dziembała Smart city as a steering center of the region's sustainable development and competitiveness , 2019, Smart Cities: Issues and Challenges.

[10]  Esteve Almirall,et al.  Transparency in policy making: A complexity view , 2019, Gov. Inf. Q..

[11]  Trebor Scholz,et al.  Platform Cooperativism. Challenging the Corporate Sharing Economy , 2016 .

[12]  Blayne Haggart The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power, S. Zuboff (2018) , 2019, journal of digital media & policy.

[13]  Marco Minghini,et al.  From Spatial Data Infrastructures to Data Spaces - A Technological Perspective on the Evolution of European SDIs , 2020, ISPRS Int. J. Geo Inf..

[14]  J. Forester,et al.  Enacting reflective and deliberative practices in action research , 2019, Policy Studies.

[15]  Hyojin Song,et al.  Policy transfer and role of policy entrepreneur in international aid: exploring international development cases of Korea and Vietnam , 2018, Policy Studies.

[16]  Danel Draguljic,et al.  From persecutors to protectors: Human rights and the F&M Global Barometer of Gay RightsTM (GBGR) , 2019, Journal of Human Rights.

[17]  Rónán Kennedy,et al.  Algorithmic governance: Developing a research agenda through the power of collective intelligence , 2017, Big Data Soc..

[18]  Marcelo Iury S. Oliveira,et al.  Investigations into Data Ecosystems: a systematic mapping study , 2019, Knowledge and Information Systems.

[19]  Natascha Just Governing online platforms: Competition policy in times of platformization , 2018, Telecommunications Policy.

[20]  Randy H. Katz,et al.  Above the Clouds: A Berkeley View of Cloud Computing , 2009 .

[21]  Igor Calzada,et al.  Unplugging: Deconstructing the Smart City , 2015 .

[22]  Igor Calzada,et al.  Beyond Smart and Data-Driven City-Regions? Rethinking Stakeholder-Helixes Strategies , 2017 .

[23]  Raquel Pérez-delHoyo,et al.  Management City Model Based on Blockchain and Smart Contracts Technology , 2019, RIIFORUM.

[24]  David Bailey Competition policy in the digital era , 2018 .

[25]  M. Lytras,et al.  It’s Not a Fad: Smart Cities and Smart Villages Research in European and Global Contexts , 2018, Sustainability.

[26]  Fernando Prego,et al.  The Value of Everything: Making and Taking in the Global Economy , 2018, Forum for Development Studies.

[27]  R. Welke,et al.  Managerial challenges to realizing IT shared services in a public university , 2019, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy.

[28]  Van Bavel Rene,et al.  Understanding our Political Nature: How to put knowledge and reason at the heart of political decision-making , 2019 .

[29]  Carolin Gerlitz,et al.  Data infrastructure literacy , 2018, Big Data Soc..

[30]  Johannes Flacke,et al.  Towards Supporting Collaborative Spatial Planning: Conceptualization of a Maptable Tool through User Stories , 2020, ISPRS Int. J. Geo Inf..

[31]  Shoshana Zuboff The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power , 2019 .

[32]  Genia Kostka China’s social credit systems and public opinion: Explaining high levels of approval , 2019, New Media Soc..

[33]  Didier Bigo,et al.  Data politics , 2017 .

[34]  Bernadette Farias Lóscio,et al.  Investigations into Data Ecosystems: a systematic mapping study , 2019, Knowl. Inf. Syst..

[35]  S. Pink,et al.  Broken data: Conceptualising data in an emerging world , 2018, Big Data Soc..

[36]  C. Ducuing Data as infrastructure? A study of data sharing legal regimes , 2020 .

[37]  P. Cardullo The Right to the Smart City , 2019 .

[38]  Marijn Janssen,et al.  Citizen Engagement With Open Government Data , 2020, International Journal of Electronic Government Research.

[39]  Widia Resti Fitriani,et al.  Factors influencing internet users’ intention to sign e-petitions , 2019, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy.

[40]  E. Almirall,et al.  Barcelona’s Grassroots-led Urban Experimentation: Deciphering the ‘Data Commons’ Policy Scheme , 2019, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[41]  Rogier Creemers,et al.  China's Social Credit System: An Evolving Practice of Control , 2018 .

[42]  Alex Pentland,et al.  Data Cooperatives: Towards a Foundation for Decentralized Personal Data Management , 2019, ArXiv.

[43]  Pak-Hang Wong,et al.  Democratizing Algorithmic Fairness , 2019, Philosophy & Technology.

[44]  M. Lytras,et al.  Reflecting on oikos and agora in smart cities context , 2019, Smart Cities: Issues and Challenges.

[45]  Xabier E. Barandiaran,et al.  Deliberative Platform Design: The case study of the online discussions in Decidim Barcelona , 2017, SocInfo.

[46]  Pablo Aragón,et al.  Decidim: redes políticas y tecnopolíticas para la democracia en red. , 2017 .

[47]  COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS , 2008 .

[48]  Jitka Komarkova,et al.  Big and open linked data analytics ecosystem: Theoretical background and essential elements , 2019, Gov. Inf. Q..

[49]  Igor Calzada (Smart) Citizens from Data Providers to Decision-Makers? The Case Study of Barcelona , 2018, Sustainability.

[50]  Simona Chiodo,et al.  The greatest epistemological externalisation: reflecting on the puzzling direction we are heading to through algorithmic automatisation , 2019, AI & SOCIETY.