Speaker
Description
The inclusion paradigm involves creating spaces where everyone feels comfortable, yet it raises a paradox: how can we achieve inclusivity in contexts where discomfort—stemming from extreme social and economic vulnerability in marginalized areas—defines daily life? How truly inclusive is inclusion, and which inequalities remain unaddressed or even worsened? This paradox forces us to consider how inclusion is translated from an abstract idea into urban policies and practices.
Of the disruptive processes shaping our cities, digitalization has been one of the loudest claiming inclusion. The "smart city" model, in particular, continues to be promoted as the foundation for more inclusive urban environments, however, it falsely assumes that computational and data-driven methods to urban life inherently create innovative solutions and improve transparency. In reality, technocratic approaches shift the responsibility for "smartness" onto individuals, overlooking systemic and structural barriers preventing equitable access to services. As a result, digitalization not only reinforces existing inequalities but also creates new forms of socio-spatial divides, intensifying disparities as new technologies continue to emerge (Eubanks, 2018; Maalsen, 2022; Crampton & Krygier, 2015).
It is crucial to move beyond the "smart city" as an idealized, one-size-fits-all solution (Leszczynski & Elwood, 2022). A promising alternative is adopting an ecological thinking towards the digitalization of welfare systems. This entails focusing on "how" we can live together more sustainably rather than "what" the technological outcomes are, emphasizing collective responsibility and engagement in shaping digital futures (Haraway, 2019). Rethinking inclusion through this lens, we move beyond static comfort zones toward more dynamic forms of engagement, centering marginalized experiences to challenge power structures and create new, meaningful connections across diverse social groups (hooks, 1984).
Underscoring these issues, the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of digital tools in almost every sector, including welfare, while simultaneously deepening the digital divide. In Italy, the pandemic’s impact has led to initiatives like the PNRR ("National Recovery and Resilience Plan"), a strategic framework developed to access funds from the European Union’s NextGenerationEU program. Among other foci, the PNRR emphasizes digitalization and supports large-scale academic projects, which also fund initiatives aimed at vulnerable populations. However, how can a national plan like the PNRR translate into place-based programs? And, more crucially, how can these programs address the specific needs of vulnerable groups in diverse urban settings?
This paper focuses on the ‘(E)Welfare in the City’ project, which is part of the PNRR-funded M.U.S.A. (Multilayer Urban Sustainability Action) program. Drawing on insights from urban planning, sociology, and social policy, it discusses our experience applying an ecological approach to address digital disparities in the municipality of Rozzano, located south of Milan. Rozzano stands out as it displays one of the largest public housing areas in Italy and Europe. It faces significant socio-economic challenges, including high poverty rates, elevated school dropout rates, and a large share of young people not in education, employment, or training; and, demographically, it is characterized by a significant presence of foreign-born residents, second-generation immigrants, and an aging population.
Despite these challenges, Rozzano has a strong network of social services, including the "Tavolo Connessioni," a long-standing initiative connecting educators, social services, and schools to address youth distress and school dropout. Building from this culture of engagement, our research group is co-designing alongside two key social groups experiencing digital disparities: young people and the elderly. We aim to co-create programs that are responsive to the unique needs of Rozzano’s communities. This process is not just about digital access but rethinks the relationship between urban planning, social policy, and technology to build truly inclusive communities.
References
Crampton, Jeremy W., and John Krygier (2015) An Introduction to Critical Cartography, ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 4 (1), pp. 11–33.
Eubanks, Virginia (2018) Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor. New York: St Martin’s Press.
Haraway, Donna (2019) It Matters What Stories Tell Stories; It Matters Whose Stories Tell Stories. a/b: Auto/Biography Studies, 34 (3), pp. 565–575.
hooks, bell (1984) Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. Cambridge: South End Press.
Leszczynski, Agnieszka, and Sarah Elwood (2022). Glitch cities. Dialogues in Human Geography, 12 (3), 401–405.
Maalsen, Sophia (2022). The hack: What it is and why it matters to urban studies. Urban Studies, 59 (2), 453–465.
| Keywords | digital divide; welfare; co-design |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | Yes |
