Top-down & bottom-up innovation in an era of COVID-19

Urban innovation rhetoric often differentiates between government-imposed “top-down” measures and community-led “bottom-up” approaches. In the wake of the coronavirus outbreak, we are seeing rapid proliferation of both top-down and bottom-up innovations.

Top-down

Many governments have implemented surveillance technologies to track the location of infected people and monitor quarantines. These innovations are usually re-purposing existing technology but they are also controversial:

• China installed CCTV cameras outside apartment doors of coronavirus carriers to enforce quarantines and uses mobile apps and QR codes to track the health of individuals.
• Hong Kong requires coronavirus carriers to wear a wristband linked to a smartphone app, alerting authorities if the person leaves quarantine.
• Taiwan tracks quarantined people’s phones using data from cell-phone towers. The system which is described as a “digital fence” alerts authorities when someone leaves the area.
• Singapore has deployed an app called TraceTogeher using bluetooth signals between cellphones to monitor whether potential carriers of the virus have been in close contact with other people.
• South Korea uses a “smart city” dashboard that combines smartphone location data, CCTV video data and credit card transaction data to reduce contact-tracing time and inform people who might have come in contact with a coronavirus carrier.
• Moscow uses facial recognition and a 170,000-camera system to enforce quarantine.
• Israel's security agency is using citizens’ cell phone location data collected over the past few years for counterterrorism purposes to track and enforce quarantine controls.

There is some evidence linking surveillance technologies to slowing the spread of the virus, but privacy advocates warn the coronavirus could acclimatize the public into accepting a new normal of intrusive technologies. Fans of surveillance note that citizens who accept surveillance by companies selling advertising should not be upset if the technology is used to save lives and protect society.

The Netherlands is considering the use of cellphone location data to slow the spread of the virus (as is already done in Germany, Italy and Austria), but such data must be aggregated and anonymized. Anonymized data can help authorities understand where people are congregating and reduce the rate of infection, without compromising privacy.
Bottom-up

So what are alternatives to top-down governmental responses to the pandemic?

On March 27, Amsterdam launched WijAmsterdam (WeAmsterdam), a platform to crowd-source social initiatives combating the crisis. WijAmsterdam was built using open-source code developed in previous innovation projects. The platform lists more than 180 initiatives (as of April 1) varying from people delivering meals to neighbors to digital programming by the Rijksmuseum.

Here are a few more inspiring examples of bottom-up innovation:
• Coronavirus Army is a grassroots volunteer initiative developing open-source and privacy-friendly digital solutions to help tackle the pandemic. Examples of tools currently under development include the Outbreak Tracker app which tracks your location but keeps your private data on your phone. If you test positive for COVID-19, you can then “share” the last 10-15 days of your location history to the server and have it matched against other app users to inform those who might be at risk after being in the same location as you.
• Hack the crisis a global movement of hackathons developing tech-based solutions for crisis response and post-crisis era. WirVsVirus (We against the virus) hosted by the German government in March had more than 40,000 participants working on more than 800 ideas. The hackaton is coming to the Netherlands April 3- 5!
• OpenCovid19 is a program that aims to develop low-cost, open-source COVID-19 creating prevention, testing, and treatment kits to fight the pandemic.
• Open Source Ventilator (OSV) is a group of engineers, designers, medical professionals and volunteers working together to generate open source designs for ventilators that can be produced at scale.

The bigger picture

The coronavirus pandemic is fast-tracking many technological and social innovations. Experts are warning the crisis will undermine people’s privacy as governments implement top-down policies that weaken individual liberties.

In recent years, Amsterdam has positioned itself as a leader in responsible digitalization. Amsterdam, Barcelona and New York co-initiated the Cities for Digital Rights coalition to safeguard privacy, freedom of expression, and democracy. And Amsterdam’s government is working on the implementation of the Digital City Agenda and TaDa principles, guided by a conviction that inclusive and fair digitalization contributes to individual freedom.

As authoritarian regimes use this crisis to grab power at the cost of civil liberties, my hope is that Amsterdam and the Netherlands will respond by safeguarding personal freedom from the top and encouraging collaborative innovation from the bottom.

What do you think? How should government and civil society cooperate during the outbreak? Do you have examples of top-down or bottom-up innovations that help without compromising civil liberties? Please comment below.

Comments

Topics

Maybe you will also like these updates

Naomi Vrielink, Projectmedewerker at Future City Foundation, posted Nov 18th

(Er zijn slechts 100 plekken beschikbaar, waarbij City Deal-partners voorrang krijgen) Aan alles komt een eind, dus ook aan zoiets leuks als de City Deal ‘Een slimme stad, zo doe je dat.’

We stoppen ermee
De City Deal ‘Een slimme stad, zo doe je dat’ loopt formeel af op 31 december en de stuurgroep heeft besloten de City Deal niet te verlengen. Dat is omdat we vinden dat de smartcitymarkt in een volgende fase is gekomen. Van innovatie naar opschaling . Het DMI-ecosysteem is daar het mooiste voorbeeld van. De City Deal stopt dus wegens succes.

Er zijn slechts 100 plekken beschikbaar, waarbij City Deal-partners voorrang krijgen. Meld je snel aan om verzekerd te zijn van een plek op dit inspirerende event. Meld je hier aan

Slotevent City Deal ‘Een slimme stad, zo doe je dat’ – Vier samen met ons de toekomst van slimme steden

Kom naar het feestelijke slotevent van de City Deal ‘Een slimme stad, zo doe je dat’, waarin we in een talkshow-setting terugblikken op alles wat we samen hebben bereikt én een blik vooruit werpen op wat er nog in het verschiet ligt. Dit event markeert het einde van een bijzondere samenwerking, en biedt jou de kans om inspiratie op te doen en waardevolle inzichten te delen.

Wat kun je verwachten (concept)?
Lessen en Visies – Samen verkennen we wat we hebben geleerd: van de kracht van samenwerken in een ecosysteem tot het belang van visie en doorzettingsvermogen. We delen onze inzichten over de uitdagingen en successen die we tijdens corona hebben doorstaan en hoe die ons sterker hebben gemaakt.
Lancering van ons nieuwe boek – Dit boek wordt een onmisbare bron voor iedereen die zich inzet voor slimme steden. Ontdek hoe de City Deal ook jou kan inspireren en ondersteunen.

Initiatieven als ‘AI in de Stad’ en DMI – Samen met de zaal gaan we in gesprek over belangrijke nieuwe initiatieven zoals DMI en ‘AI in de Stad’. Waar liggen kansen en wie kunnen we nog verbinden om verder te groeien?
Resultaten en Toekomstige Thema’s – We delen enkele hoogtepunten en resultaten van onze City Deal en belichten thema’s die klaar zijn voor verdere verdieping en groei.

Let op: Beperkte plekken beschikbaar! – Er zijn slechts 100 plekken beschikbaar, waarbij City Deal-partners voorrang krijgen. Meld je snel aan om verzekerd te zijn van een plek op dit inspirerende event. Meld je hier aan

Mis deze unieke gelegenheid niet om met gelijkgestemden te praten, jouw ideeën te delen en geïnspireerd te raken door de resultaten en toekomstvisies van slimme steden. Samen maken we van deze afsluiting een startpunt voor iets nieuws.
Dit jaar ronden we de City Deal af en borgen we de resultaten. Dat laten we zien in dit slotevenement. Zorg dat je erbij bent!
__________________________________
Datum: 23 januari 2025
Tijd: 12:00 – 18:00
Locatie: Prodentfabriek Amersfoort
Meld je hier aan

Emma Schep, Communicator at Waag, posted Nov 11th

Nog nooit was het zo makkelijk om je DNA te laten testen, op afkomst, verwantschap en op gezondheid. Je staat daarbij je meest persoonlijke data af, zonder controle te hebben over wat er met die gegevens gebeurd. Gelukkig kan het digitaliseren van DNA binnenkort ook anders - op zo’n manier dat we een bruikbare database voor de samenleving bouwen, terwijl jij controle over je eigen data behoudt. Tijdens Waag Open op donderdag 12 december duiken we in de waarde en in de risico’s van een digitale DNA databank. Maak kennis met de eerste testpersonen en ontwerp zelf mee!

Kijk voor meer informatie op waag.org.

Datum: Donderdag 12 december
Tijd: 19:30 - 22:00 uur
Locatie: Waag, Nieuwmarkt 4, Amsterdam

Waag Open

Elke eerste donderdagavond van de maand opent Waag haar deuren! Kom langs om te discussiëren en te doen. Want we gaan niet alleen in discussie over maatschappelijke thema's en de toekomst – je leert daarnaast ook altijd iets praktisch. Iets dat je altijd al hebt willen uitproberen, zoals de 3D-printer in het FabLab, of juist iets dat je nooit had verwacht, zoals uitpluizen hoe DNA in elkaar zit in ons biotech-lab. Waag Open vindt plaats in de maakplaatsen op de eerste en tweede verdieping van het historische Waaggebouw op de Nieuwmarkt.

Pelle Menke, Communications and Programme officer Mobility at Amsterdam InChange, posted Oct 16th

On September 26th, our community gathered in the AHK Culture Club at Marineterrein Amsterdam for our Datadilemma’s series. This edition focused on the use of Data and AI to create a more accessible Amsterdam. This article presents some of the key highlights and insights from the afternoon.

Together with the three speakers, Vishruth Krishnan, Hans Voerknecht, Michiel Bontenbal, and our audience we discussed how data and AI can help make our city more accessible for all. Which dilemma’s do we encounter when we use new technologies for an accessible city? How can data help to get more understanding of unequal access to mobility in the country? And what about sounds and noise pollution; how can data help make te city more livable?

What the three speakers had in common; a personal motivation to get away from the surface and dive deeper into the data, attempting to get closer to people’s experiences and perceptions. From an ordinary routeplanner, to one paying specific attention to challenges for people in weelchairs. From generic accesibility data for the region, to data highlighting the unequal distribution of access to mobility. And from recording noise levels, to measuring and classifying all different sounds in urban settings. In the paragraphs below, I will delve deeper into the different speakers and their topics.

Visruth Krishnan – Personalized Route Planner for People in a Wheelchair
To help individuals with limited mobility navigate the city more easily, the city’s innovation department has developed a prototype route planning tool. This route planner maps out the most accessible routes based on personal needs, considering preferences like maximum curb height at crossings, minimum sidewalk width, and whether to prioritize sidewalks or bike paths.

Visruth Krishnan, Data Scientist at the Innovation Department of the Municipality of Amsterdam, explained how data helps facilitate travel from point A to point B. However, to ensure route planning tools address the challenges faced by wheelchair users, we must feed these systems with data drawn from real-world experiences. A person’s journey might present specific challenges, such as detours, improperly parked bicycles, slopes, and narrow footpaths.

Working with a group of wheelchair users, Visruth studied the obstacles and experiences they encountered on their routes. This research generated precise data to feed the route planner, enabling it to provide personalized route suggestions that account for each individual’s freedom of movement.
Visruth presented several dilemmas encountered during the project:

Subjectivity in the data: How busy is a sidewalk or intersection perceived to be? Are cyclists at a certain point fast and aggressive, or is that just a feeling?
Minimal vs. comprehensive data collection: How much data should be gathered? While more data might provide deeper insights, it could also increase privacy risks.
Accurate vs. timely data: Timely data may not always be accurate, and accurate data may not always be available in time for critical decision-making. Consider issues like illegally parked bikes, construction work, and terraces that vary in size and location depending on the season.
Transparency vs. complexity: How transparent should data-driven processes be, especially when the algorithms or analytics behind them are complex? AI is often seen as a "black box"—people don’t understand how it works or how data is processed, which can lead to less trust from the start.

To address these challenges, Visruth and his team maintain an ongoing dialogue with the target audience. It’s an iterative process, and they keep the ‘human in the loop.’ The prototype is now ready, and hopefully, it can be further developed!

Hans Voerknecht – Unequal Accesibility and Data to Support The Narrative
Hans Voerknecht, strategist for sustainable accessibility at Een Nieuwe Kijk, presented the Integrated Perspective on Accessibility method, which he developed to get a deeper understanding of people’s accessibility. This method assists in collecting data and analyzing the severity of current inequalities and the effects of policy measures. The method has already been applied in nearly twenty projects, including four in the Amsterdam region, such as the Multimodal Future Vision of the Metropoolregio Amsterdam (MRA).

IKOB stands for "Integrale Kijk Op Bereikbaarheid" (Integrated Perspective/view on Accessibility). IKOB examines the travel time and costs that people face to reach their workplace by bike, car, or public transport and it visualizes how many jobs people can access from a specific area.

IKOB uses 'distance decay curves<strong>,'</strong> meaning that jobs located closer are given more weight than those further away. Travel time and costs are adjusted depending on the target group. Factors considered include income, access to a car, travel cost reimbursement, public transport options, and preference for a mode of transport (car, public transport, or bike). For people with a lower income, costs weigh more heavily than for those with higher incomes.

Throughout his talk, Hans discussed how data can be used to support a narrative, either consciously or unconsciously. Regional research on the state of mobility can quickly paint a positive picture if you're working with averages and fail to examine differences between people. There are groups that experience less access to mobility, and for whom this issue carries more weight due to financial constraints. The way data is researched and how deeply you investigate determines to what extent this group and their challenges are brought into focus.

One of the dilemmas Hans mentioned was the fact that poor accessibility is a personal experience. It’s subjective, and there can be a lot behind it. Regardless of the detail and quality of your data, you can never be completely sure if it truly reflects the human experience it’s supposed to represent.

Michiel Bontenbal – The Urban Sounds Sensor
Our third and final speaker discussed sounds and noise pollution in an urban environment. It may not seem to immediately fit with the rest of the speakers, but urban sound is also important to consider when creating an accessible and liveable city. Michiel Bontenbal, lecturer in business and IT courses at the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, told us more about the Urban Sounds sensor, developed in collaboration with the volunteer organization Sensemakers. He explained us more about the challenges they face with this AI-driven solution and raised some dilemmas in his work.

The Urban Sounds Sensor project was developed in response to the need for evidence of nighttime noise disturbances. It was crucial to be able to distinguish between different types of sounds, such as music, mopeds, alarms, doors, car noises, and honking.

Together with the volunteers from Sensemakers, Michiel designed the sensor in such a way that the recorded sounds are neither stored nor released. The microphone registers the sound, and the algorithm in the sensor immediately categorizes it within the device. This approach ensures privacy by design.

Training the sensor is still an ongoing process. Achieving high accuracy is challenging, as even humans sometimes have trouble identifying certain sounds. And, while measuring noise disturbances is definitely getting more attention in the city now. However, this specific method of distinguishing between sound categories is still lagging behind in both development and interest from government authorities.

Michiel concluded his presentation by discussing his dilemmas with the audience. One of his dilemmas, as expected, was about placing microphones in public spaces; how desirable is that, really? It's important to talk about ethics and privacy when measuring in public spaces, especially with a sound sensor that isn’t visible. His second point focused on the experience of city sounds. How you perceive sounds depends on personal experiences and preferences. Some people enjoy urban sounds, like the noise of a tram or ringing bike bells. People may have associations with certain sounds that determine whether they find them annoying, don't even notice them, or actually enjoy them. This is a factor that a sound sensor and the data it collects have difficulty accounting for.

Panel Discussion
After the presentations, we brought the speakers together for a panel discussion. Led by Chris de Veer, programme manager Mobility at Amsterdam InChange, there was an engaging conversation with the audience. To wrap things up, I’d like to highlight three key statements made by the speakers in response to some critical questions from the audience:

"We often try to objectify the world with data, but there is no objective truth. However, diving deep into data can give you a better and more diverse understanding of an issue or region." – Hans
"Data is always messy. If the data we input is messy, the outcome will also be messy. Garbage in, garbage out." – Michiel
“The Route Planner method and platform could be of great use in gaining a better overview of building accessibility throughout the city.” - Visruth

Thanks to the speakers for their stories and to the audience for the lively discussions afterwards. Want to join us for our next Data Dilemmas event? The next edition of this series of open events will be announced soon. We’re also always open to new themes and topics for this series; we’re curious to hear about the data dilemmas you encounter in your work!