Spark the light in twilight zones in public spaces in Lombardijen

In the past year, our AI MAPS team has been active in the Rotterdam district of Lombardijen. That is a ‘seventies-style’ residential district in the south part of the city. It was designed to provide nice living in a green environment, but there were recent reports of serious perceptions of unsafety. Our question for this area, its inhabitants and the connected institutional actors, was: what does positive safety in public space mean for you and to what extent can we assist with AI to define and promote that positive safety?

A range of activities: conversations, workshops, walks and observations, brought out a great diversity of voices. Not surprisingly,  the variety of answers to our question was very relevant for the ethical, legal and social aspects of public safety promotion with AI. The common definition of positive safety that we found can be expressed in two words: green and clean. If garbage lies around in public space, people associate that with feeling unsafe. If public spaces are enriched with trees, bushes, grass, flowers and animals, people tend to associate that with safety.

Indeed, actors like the city government and the public housing corporation dedicate resources to keeping Lombardijen green and clean. And they expect some level of dedication from the community – the residents themselves. My observation was that with varying levels of dedication all stakeholders try to contribute to a green and clean residential district, within their respective tasks and circles of influence. The city’s effort of improving garbage handling, especially preventing dumping practices, could in theory benefit from an AI tool. But it remains undecided whether alternative, not AI-powered measures would be simpler to achieve, less intrusive and more effective in the long run.

Adding to that, my learning outcome was also that, even if every actor performs up to standard, enjoyment of public safety is not yet safeguarded for all stakeholders. This is even more so, when including other than human co-inhabitants of the public areas; birds, insects, pets. Apparently, there remain twilight zones, actual areas or social issues, for which no actor takes responsibility. That can be the result of buck-passing, negligence or ignorance. It could also stem from incomplete or outdated responsibility mapping. All this leads to my call for the stakeholders to – of course – quit underperformance and to turn to the two following questions:

1. What can I do to facilitate the other actors to fulfill the expectations I have for them? Just one example: The city expects that newly arrived inhabitants handle their garbage according to garbage service practice. To achieve that, the least – but certainly not the only thing -  the city could do is working on the communication gap. It could better ascertain that the information on this practice has actually reached these people timely and in a form that they can process easily.
2. Should we not sit down with all stakeholders – institutional and residents - for redrafting and implementing a practical and detailed responsibility map for a green and clean Lombardijen, including the voice of nature? Also just one example: stretches of soil around apartment buildings seem to belong to no one, no matter what the legal property situation is. Green ambitions there (e.g. to promote/support biodiversity) can better be accompanied by an explicit and durable maintenance commitment, irrespective of the legal status.

In sum, twilight zones can become lighted spaces for humans and nature when all stakeholders positively enable others in joining the collective efforts and when a responsibility map carries the commitment of all to perform on what is agreed beyond ‘legal duties’.