Bits, Atoms, and Information Sharing: new opportunities for participation

The particular characteristics and affordances of technologies play a significant role in human experience by defining the realm of possibilities available to individuals and societies. Some technological configurations, such as the Internet, facilitate peer-to-peer communication and participatory behaviors. Others, like television broadcasting, tend to encourage centralization of creative processes and unidirectional communication. In other instances still, the affordances of technologies can be further constrained by social practices. That is the case, for example, of radio which, although technically allowing peer-to-peer communication, has effectively been converted into a broadcast medium through the legislation of the airwaves. How technologies acquire particular properties, meanings and uses, and who is involved in those decisions are the broader questions explored here. Although a long line of thought maintains that technologies evolve according to the logic of scientific rationality, recent studies demonstrated that technologies are, in fact, primarily shaped by social forces in specific historical contexts. In this view, adopted here, there is no one best way to design a technological artifact or system; the selection between alternative designs—which determine the affordances of each technology—is made by social actors according to their particular values, assumptions and goals. Thus, the arrangement of technical elements in any technological artifact is configured to conform to the views and interests of those involved in its development. Understanding how technologies assume particular shapes, who is involved in these decisions and how, in turn, they propitiate particular behaviors and modes of organization but not others, requires understanding the contexts in which they are developed. It is argued here that, throughout the last century, two distinct approaches to the development and dissemination of technologies have coexisted. In each of these models, based on fundamentally different ethoi, technologies are developed through different processes and by different participants—and therefore tend to assume different shapes and offer different possibilities. In the first of these approaches, the dominant model in Western societies, technologies are typically developed by firms, manufactured in large factories, and subsequently disseminated to the rest of the population for consumption. In this centralized model, the role of users is limited to selecting from the alternatives presented by professional producers. Thus, according to this approach, the technologies that are now so deeply woven into human experience, are primarily shaped by a relatively small number of producers. In recent years, however, a group of three interconnected interest groups—the makers, hackerspaces, and open source hardware communities—have increasingly challenged this dominant model by enacting an alternative approach in which technologies are both individually transformed and collectively shaped. Through a in-depth analysis of these phenomena, their practices and ethos, it is argued here that the distributed approach practiced by these communities offers a practical path towards a democratization of the technosphere by: 1) demystifying technologies, 2) providing the public with the tools and knowledge necessary to understand and shape technologies, and 3) encouraging citizen participation in the development of technologies.

How to improve urban mobility in Lisbon: intermodality and information and ticketing systems

Urban mobility is one of the main challenges facing urban areas due to the growing population and to traffic congestion, resulting in environmental pressures. The pathway to urban sustainable mobility involves strengthening of intermodal mobility. The integrated use of different transport modes is getting more and more important and intermodality has been mentioned as a way for public transport compete with private cars. The aim of the current dissertation is to define a set of strategies to improve urban mobility in Lisbon and by consequence reduce the environmental impacts of transports. In order to do that several intermodal practices over Europe were analysed and the transport systems of Brussels and Lisbon were studied and compared, giving special attention to intermodal systems. In the case study was gathered data from both cities in the field, by using and observing the different transport modes, and two surveys were done to the cities users. As concluded by the study, Brussels and Lisbon present significant differences. In Brussels the measures to promote intermodality are evident, while in Lisbon a lot still needs to be done. It also made clear the necessity for improvements in Lisbon’s public transports to a more intermodal passenger transport system, through integration of different transport modes and better information and ticketing system. Some of the points requiring developments are: interchanges’ waiting areas; integration of bicycle in public transport; information about correspondences with other transport modes; real-time information to passengers pre-trip and on-trip, especially in buses and trams. After the identification of the best practices in Brussels and the weaknesses in Lisbon the possibility of applying some of the practices in Brussels to Lisbon was evaluated. Brussels demonstrated to be a good example of intermodality and for that reason some of the recommendations to improve intermodal mobility in Lisbon can follow the practices in place in Brussels.