Sociology | City sociology » Melissa Ingaruca Moreno - Synergies of radical paradigms and emerging technologies in knowledge production for transforming the modernist urban design. A focus on artificial intelligence, extended reality and sensor technology

MSc Social-Ecological Resilience for Sustainable Development (2017-2019) Student: Melissa Ingaruca Moreno Personal number: 9006198825 Address: Forskarbacken 7, 1315, 11415 Stockholm E-mail: melissa.ingaruca@gmailcom Synergies of radical paradigms and emerging technologies in knowledge production for transforming the modernist urban design. A focus on artificial intelligence, extended reality and sensor technology Theme: Transformations, Urban Table of Contents 1. Introduction . 6 2. Theoretical background . 10 2.1 Why do we need a transformative potential definition? 10 2.2 What are worldviews and paradigms? 10 2.3 Why are paradigm shifts important for transformation? 12 2.4 How do technology and paradigms relate to each other? 13 2.5 Where do we situate innovations? Niche, Regime and Landscape as the cultural space for transformation . 14 2.6 Categories for shifts in the relation between paradigms and technology 15 3. Analytical framework . 21 4. Research design .

25 5. Results and Discussion 32 4.1 Section 1: Vicious loops of emerging tech and knowledge production in the modernist urban design and mechanical worldview . 35 4.11 Vicious loops in the landscape and in urban design knowledge production 35 4.12 How vicious loops influence the “smart” city . 39 4.2 Section 2: Transformative loops of emerging technology and knowledge production for a multifunctional situated design and regenerative post-human worldview . 39 4.21 How transformative loops are forming in the landscape of knowledge production. 40 4.211 Transformative loops in ways of knowing 44 4.212 Transformative loops in modes of production 45 4.22 Transformative loops in Animalesque, Tidmarsh, CityScope, Palimpsest, Biidaaban . 46 4.221 Across cases: Paradigm shifts that challenge ways of knowing and modes of knowledge production of the modernist urban design . 47 4.222 Across cases: How emerging technologies create new modalities of extended and embodied ways of

knowing, and transdisciplinary, democratized modes of production? . 48 4.223 Across cases: How these new modalities of augmented and expanded embodied experiences help us relate differently with nature, power and the future? 53 4.3 Across cases: How these modalities of modes of production help us relate differently with nature, power and the future? . 57 4.4 Across cases: How these transformative loops contribute to transition to alternative design regimes? . 62 5. Conclusions . 66 6. References . 67 7. Main Appendices . 78 Abstract Emerging technologies, such as; Artificial Intelligence, extended reality technologies (MR, AR and VR), and sensor technologies are increasingly used during knowledge production within urban design processes. This thesis shows that the combination of different paradigms underlying experimental initiatives that bring together design and technology can lead to either vicious loops that continue to reinforce the modernist city, or virtuous loops where

the interweaving of fundamentally different paradigms of knowledge production with emerging technology possess potential for radical urban transformation. The key findings of this work include: Sensorial ways of knowing the city can be in synergy with these emerging technologies 1) augmenting our human senses and overcoming spatial-temporal constraints in experiencing ecological change, 2) they can create fully embodied experiences of sidelined or marginalized narratives in urban planning and the future of cities, 3) they open up new space for more collaboration in research design and planning. In the same way, democratization and co-production of knowledge for urban design, can be in synergy with these emerging technologies that; 1) allow for the expansion of collaboration and the integration of multiple sources of knowledge, 2) that promote an open relation with the future by rapid prototyping of alternative scenarios, and that 3) democratize the power over the process of data

collection and data analysis all the way to ‘open-sourcing’ the tools themselves. 1.Introduction Urban design holds and will hold a key role in shaping the future of the Anthropocene, as the planet is increasingly urbanized (Alberti, McPhearson and Gonzalez, 2018). Not only does the design of the city play a key role in relation to the direct impacts of urban development, it also shapes future behavior, i.e how urban citizens will interact and live together (McCormick et al., 2013) How though can urban design contribute to transformation if it is grounded in out of date thinking? It is argued that the default city model is the modernist city, that beginning in the 1920s, has “come to dominate urban development worldwide” (Barnett, 2016). The modern city, with compartmentalized urban functions(Barnett, 2016) and deterministic urban forms has spread across the world (Barnett, 2016) pushing away nature and undermining urban ecologies (Alberti, McPhearson and Gonzalez, 2018).

This city model will continue if urban design comes from the same mechanical worldview. Design that relies on the “assumed effectiveness” (Ratii and Claudel, 2014) of “simple, easily replicated city designs” (Barnett 2016) will reproduce cities “disconnected from in situ dynamics” (Marcus, Giusti, and Barthel 2016). Design based on a dualistic view of nature-city (Gunn et al. 2011) will inevitably, cause a trade off with nature, in the same way that fundamentally top-down design processes will continue to abuse power from masterplanned cities to architecture (Ratii and Claudel, 2014) Knowledge production is a part of urban design that needs to be transformed. We need to question the “effectiveness of current modes of knowledge production () for transformation” (Fazey et al., 2018) as they might also emerge from the mechanical worldview (Du Plessis, 2009). In this context, this thesis wants to explore if the use of emerging technologies in knowledge production can help

transform urban design. This is necessary as there is increasing experimentation with emerging technologies in architecture and urban design as evidenced by technology heavy narratives of cities i.e smart, digital, intelligent cities (Hollands, 2015; Zhan et al., 2015), and tech-driven narratives of urban design i.e responsive design, crowdsourced design, open-sourced architecture, immersive and interactive design, (Armstrong, 2015b; Petkovics et al., 2015; Ratti and Maudel, 2015; Larson and Maes, 2017; Alvear et al., 2018; Tooran, 2018; Y. Zhang et al, 2018) Specifically, in knowledge production of architecture and urban design, there is an increasing use of sensors, extended reality technologies and artificial intelligence (Lane et al., 2007; Resch, Britter and Ratti, 2012; Offenhuber and Ratti, 2014) Although urban design as a system includes practices of knowledge production and manufacturing, this thesis addresses the knowledge production and aims to assess innovations’ use

of artificial intelligence, sensing tech (sensors), and extended reality tech (virtual and augmented reality). In addressing if technology plays a role in transforming the knowledge production component of urban design, we are faced with different positions that lay on a spectrum all the way from extreme techno-optimism (Oelschlaeger, 2017) to the anti-technology movement of neo-luddism (Glendinning, 1990). On one hand, one risk is to assume a techno-reductionist perspective of transformation. If there is reliance on only a technological fix (Westley et al., 2011) the application of emerging technology will fail to address cultural elements i.e worldviews and the underlying paradigms of the modernistic design approach. Technology is not enough to transform systems (Geels, 2005). On the other hand, radical anti-technology perspectives of luddism or neo-luddism dismisses how already existing technology could leverage for change. They belief that “the technologies created and

disseminated by modern western societies are out of control and desecrating the fragile fabric of life on Earth”, that they create a form of e-dependency that makes us “lose some form of mental ability or agility”(Glendinning, 1990). But they do highlight the fact that “in essence, a technology reflects a worldview” (Glendinning, 1990). This thesis acknowledges that technology should not distract us from addressing the cultural aspects of modernist urban design, moreover, we should address the worldview of technology. But at the same time, we can’t deny the potentially disruptive power of technology, because “technology provides conditions and opportunities for change that we may or may not take up” (Coulthard and Keller, 2012). Thesis Aims Given this context, we ask; what is the contribution of transformation theory to help us assess the impact of emerging technology in urban design? We argue that there is a lack of a holistic framework for assessing the

transformative potential of innovations that address underlying paradigms, regarded as key leverage points for transformation by many authors (Du Plessis, 2008, 2009; Folke et al., 2010; Lodder, Huffenreuter, Braungart and den Held, 2014; Göpel, 2016). This thesis aims to address this theoretical challenge and it is concerned with developing and testing a framework to assess the transformative potential of urban design innovations that use emerging technologies. Moreover, this thesis aims to focus on the enabling qualities of both emerging technologies and paradigms. Thus, the aim of this thesis is to describe the synergetic relationship of emerging technology (AI, sensing and extended reality technologies) and radical paradigms underpinning innovations in knowledge production for urban design. Research questions Overarching research question: Can the use of emerging technologies of AI, XR and sensors in knowledge production innovations contribute to transform the modernist urban

design regime, if so, how? In order to answer this overarching question, the thesis is organized according to the following sub-questions: RQ1: How do paradigms underlying the modernist urban design regime and radical paradigms that challenge it, shape the relationship between technology and knowledge production? RQ2: What relation emerges if AI, XR, and sensor technologies are coupled with narratives of technology and knowledge production associated with either status-quo or more radical paradigms? RQ3: How does the relation between radical paradigms and emerging technology i.e AI, XR, sensors, across five innovate cases create opportunities for transformation of the modernist urban design? 2.Theoretical background 2.1 Why do we need a transformative potential definition? We need a transformative potential definition to assess if an innovation has the potential to transform the larger system. Such theoretical framework can help us assess if innovations in knowledge production

of urban design that engages with technologies XR, AI, sensors hold (or not), a degree of transformative potential. Our definition of transformative potential addresses the cultural aspect of innovations i.e paradigms and takes a relational view of paradigms and emerging tech. This perspective has been shaped based on a literature review of fields relevant to transformation1. It has been grounded in scholarship around system transformation in resilience thinking2 and it was complemented with many insights coming from socio-technical, socio-institutional transitions theory and work on worldviews and paradigms. 2.2 What are worldviews and paradigms? In this thesis, regimes -“dynamically stable” systems (Göpel, 2016; Nyström, 2017)- are regarded as what needs to be transformed. Resilience thinking gives us a lens to define both a regime and transformation, both of which are key aspects to understand how innovations can transform a regime. Specifically, we found that cultural

elements have a role in defining a regime i.e deeper and slower variables such as worldviews (Folke et al., 2010; Walker et al, 2012), and accordingly, transformations have a cultural aspect i.e transformations needs to break the path-dependency of worldviews of undesirable regimes and introduce novelty(Westley et al., 2011; Olsson et al, 2017) This is why we focus on defining unpacking what are worldviews. A worldview is a story of the world and our role in that world. However, a worldview is not a single story, it is made of many, internally consistent stories. Paradigms are those smaller stories, shared 1 2 See supplementary appendices 1 See supplementary appendices 2 concepts or assumptions and practices that provide guidance on the nature of the world (how it functions and the nature of the self); how we relate to the world through an epistemology (which provides guidance on what is knowledge and how we know); and a praxeology that provides guidance on what good action is in

the context of a field of practice i.e urban design (see table 1 for a definition of paradigms and worldviews) Table 1. Evidence from the Literature Review for the chosen definition of worldviews and paradigms Worldviews Paradigms A worldview is the set of assumptions or To operationalize the concept of worldviews we shared beliefs about the world and how to use “paradigms”, as they are the constituent relate to it, including scientific knowledge elements of worldviews. and guidelines for action in practice • The term paradigm was introduced by (Kearney, 1984; Aerts et al, 2007; Cobern, Kuhn as “scientific paradigms”, and it 1989 in Du Plessis 2009; Rigolot 2018; was defined as the constellation of Göpel 2016). Worldviews encompass: achievements • • concepts, values, an ontology describes the nature of techniques, etc. – shared by a scientific the world (including how it is community and used by that community structured and how it functions), to

define legitimate problems and the nature of the self and how to solutions”(Capra interact with the world (the self’s Later, Capra further introduced the relationship with the human and concept of “social paradigms” defined as non-human) (cobern, 1989 in Du “a constellation of concepts, values, Plessis 2009); perceptions, and practices shared by a an epistemology or theory of community, that is the basis of the way knowledge, the community organizes itself.” (Capra that includes a knowledge and how we know (Du and Luigi, 2014). and Luigi, 2014). description of the nature of • – • More recently, in the field of socio- Plessis, 2009; Capra and Luigi, technical transitions, based on the 2014); interpretation of Capra, Lodder and and a praxeology or “theory of collegues action”, that includes “a system of Braungart and den Held, 2014) defined rules guide behavior and a set of paradigms as “what members of a directions or goals

to guide community actions” sense-making, unquestioned assumptions underlying and their i.e problem-solving decision- (Lodder, of shared practice view” Huffenreuter, uphold as (Lodder, making. (Aerts, 2007 in Du Plessis Huffenreuter, Braungart and den Held, 2009) 2014). As we can see the term “paradigm” encompasses ontological, epistemological and praxeological assumptions. Together, these group of authors hold that paradigms are the key leverage point to transform a system. 2.3 Why are paradigm shifts important for transformation? Paradigms have leverage for transformation because they can reinforce or disrupt a regime. We argue this based on the literature review which clearly argues that system transformations, connected to a set of innovations, must break through the path dependency governed by established worldviews and thus, paradigm shifts are needed in order to shift the larger worldview. Therefore, innovations that want to transform an

undesirable regime need to introduce paradigm shifts. Table 2. Evidence from the literature review Paradigm shifts can break path dependency of worldviews. System Transformation is constrained Paradigm shifts or radical paradigms by path-dependency of worldviews for worldview shift Several authors suggest that for Several authors have applied paradigm transformation to occur we need to break shifts to sustainability transitions and path-dependencies, specifically of transformations. Sustainable transitions worldviews. Path-dependency refers to “a would require the collective set of limited subset of possible next steps that dominant paradigms to change i.e can be taken based on the history of the paradigm shifts (Lodder, Huffenreuter, system” (Levin 1998). Although, different Braungart and den Held, 2014) The transformation researchers give different recognition of paradigm shifts are degrees of attention to technological (or) important since they “offer

alternative ecological dimensions of path- meaning, and delegitimize the notion that dependency, here we refer to path- there are no alternatives” (Göpel, 2016). dependencies of worldviews (Göpel, Existing alternative practices indicate 2016). The worldview (Folke, Colding paradigm shifts that have already and Berkes, 2004) of a system carries the occurred, since “alternative practices each history of the system i.e “how people have their own focus in changing” the relate to the world and their experience current dominant system” (Lodder, with change” (Folke, Colding and Berkes, Huffenreuter, Braungart and den Held, 2004). 2014). If combined, they could make up alternative regimes (Avelino, 2017). In this context, it is suggested that a transformative innovation needs to break However, one innovation could be path dependency (Folke et al., 2010; carrying both a radical and moderate Olsson et al., 2017) due to the dominance paradigm(Avelino, 2017) That

is why of worldviews (Göpel, 2016) that led us to paradigm shifts need to occur in every our current crisis (Olsson et al., 2017) aspect that makes up a worldview ie from “Society needs to change the worldview the assumptions from which the world is within which it currently operates in order viewed to the way we relate to it (Capra to move into a positive curve towards and Luigi, 2014; Lodder, Huffenreuter, sustainability” (Du Plessis, 2009) Braungart and Den Held, 2014). Capra argues that “we need to be prepared to question every single aspect of the old worldview”(Capra and Luigi, 2014). 2.4 How do technology and paradigms relate to each other? On one hand, paradigms shape technology use. According to Geels, you need a cluster of elements to understand technology, cultural meaning is one (Geels, 2005). But it is also argued that paradigms are disrupted by technology. From that perspective, technology is not reduced to its technical endeavors, but it has ontological

significance (Ferrando, 2013). Buckminster Fuller had the view that “as technical culture progresses, objects produced and iteratively refined- introduce mutations to improve a function or enable a new capability” (Ratti and Maudel, 2015). That means that “introducing into the environment new artifacts () will induce their spontaneous employment by humans and thus, () cause humans to abandon their previously behaviors and devices” (Ratti and Maudel, 2015). If we accept this evolutionary analogy for technology”, the introduction of new technology “produces anomalies (as new ideas) or mutations” (Ratti and Maudel, 2015). Both views are not in opposition, they point towards a relational view of paradigms and technology. “In real-life situations we never encounter artefacts ‘per se’, but artefacts-in-context” (Geels, 2005). A relational view highlights the fact that paradigms frame the way we use technology, but also the use of technology shapes those selfsame

paradigms. This relational view is thus a co-evolutionary view of paradigms and technology. 2.5 Where do we situate innovations? Niche, Regime and Landscape as the cultural space for transformation The multi-level perspective (hereafter MLP) under the theory of socio-technical transitions (Loorbach, Frantzeskaki and Avelino, 2017) suggests situating innovations in the niche, regime, landscape dynamic. Moreover, considering a holistic definition of niche, regime and landscape (see table 3) we develop the cultural space of this multilevel perspective, what we refer to as ‘the cultural space for transformation.’ Based on the MLP, the regime is the dynamically stable configuration of the system, in our case, this is the dominance of modernist urban design. The niche is the space where innovations are situated, and the landscape is the space where systems to urban design are situated. Our space of transformation is cultural, so: • the niche encompasses the paradigms underpinning

innovations • the regime encompasses the dominant paradigms that make up urban design, • the landscape represents the overarching paradigms that constitute the larger worldview that underpins and nourishes the regime Table 3. A holistic definition of niche, regime, landscape based on MLP Niche Regime Landscape Niches are spaces in which new Both socio-technical and Landscapes are defined as practices can develop, socio-ecological regimes coupled socio-ecological- protected from harsh selection are defined as “dynamically technological systems criteria and resistance from stable” systems (Göpel, operating at a larger scale in prevailing regimes (Olsson, 2016; Nyström, 2017). which a regime is embedded Galaz and Boonstra, 2014; They are structures made of Loorbach, Frantzeskaki and well-established Avelino, 2017) “laboratories for businesses, subsidies forms or the deeper research, networks and organizations, structuration, of lower-level

standards, development government technologies () or infrastructure citizens”(Loorbach, Frantzeskaki level i.e institutional setups, social backdrop, experimental pilots introduced scientific by This and and its or definition and scope depends (Loorbach, on the scope of the regime. Frantzeskaki and Avelino, (Göpel, 2016) Avelino, 2017) and dominant social- 2017). ecological feedbacks (Olsson et al. 2014) The definition of niches has to step away from “single variable solutions” to holistic innovations that accounts for social, technological, ecological and interactions (Westley et al., 2011; Olsson et al., 2017) 2.6 Categories for shifts in the relation between paradigms and technology The categories for paradigm shifts are set in relation to (i) definition of paradigms and in relation to, (ii) our system of interest: urban design. The city paradigm is the ontological paradigm; urban design paradigm is the praxeological paradigm; and the paradigm of

knowledge production in urban design is a combination of praxeological and epistemological paradigm (see table 4). The definition of each type of paradigm gives us the story of what needs to change (see table 4): the overarching view of the relationship nature-culture-technology, relations with nature, relations of power, relations with change or, the future. General categories of paradigm shifts Paradigm shifts categories for urban design Type Category Category Ontological Table 4. Paradigm categories definition Nature of Description of category Name Description of category name This category encompasses assumptions about: the world • This category describes the nature of the city what the city is made of the city of, how is structured and organized and how it behaves and Hierarchy of a system, which explains how social, evolves through time(Du Plessis, 2009). Based on the ontological ecological, and technological subsystems relate to features of the

world, the nature of the city encompasses each other, whether they are addressed with no assumptions about human-nature-technological relations, the hierarchy or nested i.e in the biosphere (Olsson et nature of change and the future and power relations al., 2017) • Paradigm Nature of change, which describes the view of how the future emerges or unfolds in a system (Du Plessis, 2009; Westley et al., 2011; Hodgson, 2013; Du Plessis and Brandon, 2014; Fazey et al., 2018) • Agent-structure relationship and the acknowledgment, or not, of context-bounded action i.e existence of power emerging from structures and/or from agency (Avelino and Rotmans, 2009). Addressing power relations points to the fact the that social structures and global connections are underlying causes of inequality (Fazey et al., 2018) Nature of This category describes what is the notion of the self and self the other or non-self, and where are the boundaries of identity to describe the boundaries

of the body, mind and Praxeological consciousness. (Du Plessis, 2009) Relationsh This category describes how to interact with the world in a Paradigm This category describes how to interact with the city i.e ip with the field of praxis(Lodder, Huffenreuter, Braungart & Den of urban relations with society and nature through the practice of design. system Held 2014). It defines the nature of human action or design Subcategories are: intervention in the system, the relations of power, and the relation with change and the future. It encompasses assumptions about: • The nature of human action via urban design e.g regeneration (Reed, 2007; Cole, 2012; Du Plessis, 2012; Dias, 2015) • • Nature of human action or intervention in the system e.g exploitative, regenerative (Westley et al, 2011; manufacturing (Ratii and Claudel, 2014) • Cole, 2012; Cole, Oliver and Robinson, 2013) • • Power over design e.g throughout the design process to Relation with

change and the future via design e.g from the Relationship with change and the future, in way we envision to the way the built environment relates to correspondence with a notion of change e.g control, constant change (Hensel, Achim and Weinstock, 2010; acceptance of uncertainty (Fazey et al., 2018) Armstrong, 2015a) Power relations, e.g symbiosis, competition (Lodder, Epistemological Huffenreuter, Braungart and den Held, 2014) Nature of The nature of knowledge refers to what is valid knowledge knowledge, from which sources knowledge is to be derived (Du Plessis, 2009) Paradigm This category describes relevant assumptions to knowledge of production in urban design. Based on the epistemological knowledge subcategories described, subcategories for knowledge production production in urban design are the nature of knowledge, ways of knowing, and modes of production. Ways of This category describes what cognition is (Raymond, of urban knowing Giusti and Barthel,

2018)and how it relates to the way we design think we come to know i.e ways of knowing (Carter et (UD) al., 2018; Galafassi, 2018) Modes of This category describes the process of how knowledge is production produced, including which sources are integrated i.e disciplinary siloes or transdisciplinary processes (Tengö et al., 2007; Fazey et al, 2018; Galafassi, 2018), and who produces knowledge i.e elites or increasingly participatory processes (Fazey et al., 2018) 3. Analytical framework This thesis aims to address the relation between the urban design knowledge production paradigm and a set of emerging technology as it relates to the potential for transformation of the modernist urban design regime. Based on the theoretical background, we sum up the analytical framework: Scope of transformative potential • Paradigm categories: Paradigms categories are distributed at the landscape and regime scale. At the scale of the regime and niche we find 3 categories: knowledge

production of urban design, urban design, and the city. At the scale of the landscape, we find overarching paradigms of the world, ourselves, knowledge production, which make up the larger worldview (see graph 1) • Paradigm features: The paradigm categories describe human-nature-technology relations, specifically relations with nature, power relations, relations with the future. We observe these paradigm features across scales (see graph 1) • Relation between paradigm and technology: Across paradigm categories features, we want to harvest the story of the relations between given paradigms and a set of emerging technologies. We denote these relations going forward as different variations of: relation paradigm-emerging technology. We acknowledge paradigms provide a narrative of technology that frames technology use (one direction of arrow); and technology use, in turn, reshapes paradigms (other direction of arrow). A relational view focuses on how paradigms and technology

successively reinforce each other, creating different types of relations Graph 1. Scope of transformative potential based on theoretical findings Scope of relations in the cultural space of transformation Our focus is on: 1) The relation paradigm -emerging technology in knowledge production of urban design, specifically: o Nature of knowledge-emerging technology o Ways of knowing – emerging technology o Modes of production – emerging technology We focus in one direction of the arrow to describe the narrative of technology in the larger worldview, city and design paradigms; and only focus in the other direction of the arrow i.e how use of XR, AI, sensor technology reshapes paradigms in knowledge of the landscape and in knowledge production in urban design. 2) And the loops this relation creates in knowledge production, and whether those can help us transform the modernist urban design regime i.e how this relation either reinforces or disrupts a story of how to relate to nature,

to others, and to change in urban design. Finally, to explain that dynamics that shape these relations, we identify 2 meta relations (see graph 2): 3) The relational paradigms niche- paradigms landscape i.e narratives of the landscape influence the niche and vice versa. 4) The relation ontological paradigms – epistemological/praxeological paradigms i.e narratives of the world influence narratives of knowledge production and, narratives of the city influence narratives of knowledge production in urban design. Graph 2. Relations in cultural space for transformation How do we use this analytical framework? Using this analytical framework, we will describe: • The narrative that we want to depart away from: modernist urban design and its associated paradigms of knowledge production. • The emerging narrative of radical urban design and associated paradigms of knowledge production • An analysis of the dynamics that emerge from the relation emerging technology –

knowledge production in urban design across five cases and their implications. 4. Research design This thesis is aligned with an interpretivist epistemology “as it aims to identify and interpret the meaning of patterns common to both the objective” realm of concepts and theories and subjective perspectives on reality” of the selected practitioners in urban design (Du Plessis, 2009). This thesis is a piece of exploratory research that applies a set of interlinked qualitative methodologies (See table 5). It is exploratory in the sense that is building a definition of transformative potential and testing it in the context of urban design innovations that engage with emerging technology. Table 5. Qualitative methods Qualitative Method Theory Exploratory literature review and Analytical framework RQ1 Exploratory multidisciplinarity literature review RQ2 Exploratory multidisciplinarity literature review Participatory observation (*) RQ3 Semi-structured interviews Gray

literature to complement cases (*)secondary method The methodology consisted of (i) an explorative literature review in fields related to transformation to define an analytical framework to assess transformative potential. The resulting analytical framework shaped the research design for answering RQ1, RQ2, RQ3. It suggested that an innovation has transformative potential if it couples radical paradigms with emerging technologies. Thus, to answer the general research question, there was a need to identify those radical paradigms (RQ1), and find examples in the literature (RQ2) and cases where those radical paradigms are being coupled with use of emerging technology XR, AI, sensors (RQ3). For such a task (ii) an exploratory multidisciplinary literature review was apply for RQ1 and RQ2. This further guided the criteria to identify practitioners. Finally, to answer RQ3 (iii) semi-structured interviews were conducted with practitioners at the frontiers of urban design innovation to

describe how this relation of paradigms and technology can help us transform the modernist urban design. For (i), (ii), (iii) qualitative content analysis was applied Ethics considerations were taken for the application of the research design3 Literature review for a Transformative Potential (TP) Analytical Framework: A theoretical explorative literature review (Seuring and Gold, 2012) was conducted to examine and combine the corpus of theory related to transformation to weave elements for a transformative potential definition. A final list of all sources is listed here (See table 3 in appendices for a description of motivations for each data source). (i) Key articles in resilience thinking (ii) Key articles in socio-ecological transformations (iii) Key articles in socio-technical and socio-institutional (iv) Articles that expand concepts of worldviews, mindset, paradigms (v) Articles that suggest connecting transformations/transitions with worldviews and paradigms

Multidisciplinary literature review for RQ1 and RQ2: A multidisciplinary literature review was applied to articulate worldviews and constituent paradigms, following the suggestion of Du Plessis (Du Plessis, 2009) that “different knowledge sources would reveal different patterns”, giving the researcher the task to “link the consistent themes” (Du Plessis, 2009). The main data sources were (i) texts of relevant disciplines that are at the cutting edge or fringes of their fields because “new worldviews often start with the views of small groups or sub-cultures” (Aerts et al., 2007 in Du Plessis, 2009) And (ii) texts that aim to synthesize or compare thinking from disciplines, or schools of thought e.g literature 3 See main appendices 1 review articles (Seuring and Gold, 2012). The literature sample comprises englishspeaking peer- reviewed literature, books and e-books A theoretical sampling (Glaser, 2013) based on the analytical framework was applied. Articles were

selected (see table 6) to (i) cover the breath of paradigm shifts underlying the modernist urban design, and (ii) to describe examples where knowledge production is couple with use of selected emerging technologies4 Table 6. Multidisciplinary literature review Paradigms Landscape fields (*) World Regenerative Paradigms Niche (*) & City Critics to modernist city Ecological worldview Smart city Post-humanism Living city Democratization of Biophilic city technology Adaptive cities, responsive cities Just cities Reviews of mechanical worldview and associated concepts of technological fix, techno-reducionism Design - Urban Regenerative urban design design Urban political ecology Socio-ecological urban design Interactive urban design / interactive architecture Biophilic architecture / biophilic urban design 4 See supplementary appendices 3 or a description of strategies of literature search Urban biomimicry / biomimicry in architecture Living

architecture Adaptive architecture / responsive environments Material ecology Knowledge Cognitive production (embodied, studies Knowledge Open-sourced architecture extended production cognition) Philosophy in Citizen urban design Urban Crowd-sourced urban design of cognitive studies design Immersive planning (extended mind, Tangible planning extended knowledge) Pervasive sensing Sustainability science (transdisciplinarity). Crowd-science or citizen science Future studies (critical future studies and immersive futuring) *Articles focusing on one concept or literature review articles To complement the overview about the use of the selected emerging technologies in knowledge production, an exploration of the literature about the field of the technologies was conducted: extended reality technology (XR), sensors and artificial intelligence (AI) with emphasis its use in knowledge production in general, and in urban design in particular Finally, the choice of content

analysis for literature review was made to “offer one sound methodological frame for conducting rigorous systematic and reproducible literature reviews" (Seuring and Gold, 2012). Codes were based on the analytical framework5 Coding was conducted in the software Atlas.ti 5 See supplementary appendice 4 for the final list of codes Semi-structured interviews for RQ3 Semi-structured interviews enabled a combination of theory guided structure and a flexible structure that allows for the emergence of answers in unforeseen (by the researcher) ways (Denscombe, 2010). The selection of the participants was guided by purposive sampling (Bryman, 2015): • Criteria for experts: Experts were contacted to clarify or better understand one concept of the multidisciplinary literature review6 • Criteria for practitioners: Practitioners were chosen because they were aligned with some of the emerging radical paradigm shifts in urban design, and specifically engaged with the use of one of

the selected technologies in knowledge production. The search was conducted in design, technology and architecture magazines (mainly; design boom, Dezeen and Wired) and in the reviewed literature (See table 8 for a description of each project) Table 8. Cases and names of practitioners Name Description Interviewees Palimpsest In the context of the UK High Haavard Tveito, Int1 Speed Rail 2 project in Camden, co-creator Code of London, Palimpsests records stories Palimpsest, of residents – some of whom will Master in Design lose their homes and workplaces – for Interaction, and explore how their lives will be Bartlett School transformed. These stories are of Architecture, showcased in a VR experience. MIT UCL City Open-source, tangible interactive Ariel Science City Scope Noyman, Int2 – urban planning. The tools range Research from simulations that quantify the assistant in MIT impact of disruptive interventions CityScience, in cities to collaboration CityScope

applications. The development and 6 See supplementary appendice 5 for final list of selected experts deployment of these tools are in different cities around the world and maintain open-source repositories. Animalesque, Educational and research project in Ana AA Zatezalo Int3 Visiting Berlin that aims to bring back Schenk Int4 School animal presence in the city. They Jorge Extended use Programme experiences to switch the design Co- Directors in Berlin perspective from anthropocentric to AA immersive Godoy multisensory Roman Visiting a human-animal co-perspective. School The insect world was the focus of Extended 2018. Programme in Berlin Biidaaban First Indigenous futurism virtual Mathew Borrett, Int5 reality (VR) art project. Audiences 3D are immersed in artist for futuristic Biidaaban interpretations of popular Toronto locations, based on indigenous visions. Tidmarsh Currently the site of the largest Gershon Int6 freshwater wetland and riverine

Dublon, research restoration in Massachusetts. They affiliated of MIT incorporated an –ubiquitous Responsive sensing framework at each stage of Environments the process of restoration. Lab, Tidmarsh. For interviews with practitioners, interview guides7 focused on 2 aspects (i) paradigms underlying the practice of the case, with focus in knowledge production (ii) their use of emerging technology. The questions were open-ended, allowing the interviewee to 7 See main appendice 2 elaborate points of interest (Denscombe, 2010). A mixed deductive- inductive coding was used to analyze interviews. The initial codes were based on the analytical framework 8 Participatory observation Participatory observation was conducted in a series of events, exhibitions, workshops (see list below). A journal of the experience was kept, which was intended to provide an embodied understanding of the interviews and concepts of the literature review and to help make sense of the emerging patterns of

meaning 9 • VR Sci Fest in Stockholm • Places of Hope Exhibition • Dutch Design Week • Living with Buildings Exhibition • Immersive exhibition “We live in an ocean of air” • Event “The hive mind. Public data& intelligence networks that promote data & AI for commons”, • Immersive Open House: VR/AR • A new design paradigm with AI, Stockholm Design week 8 9 See supplementary appendice 6 for final list of codes for interviews See supplementary appendice 7 for a description of attended events 5. Results and Discussion Based on literature review, RQ1 describes how a larger worldview shapes knowledge production and technology paradigms. Based on literature review, RQ2 describes the 2 directions of the arrow: how those paradigms frame the use of emerging technology in knowledge production, and how the use of XR, AI, sensor technology reinforces those paradigms. Moreover, RQ3 addresses the relationship of radical paradigms and emerging

technologies in knowledge production based on interviews to 5 cases (see graph 3) Graph 3. Articulation of results The answers to the 3 questions are as follow: • RQ1: The regenerative or mechanist worldview shape the relation emerging technology- knowledge production of UD by providing a narrative for both10 • RQ2: Two types of relations emerge from coupling targeted emerging technologies with either the dominant or radical paradigms: vicious feedback 10 See supplementary appendices 8 for tables with extended description of the mechanist and regenerative posthuman worldview, associated city, urban design, technology and knowledge production paradigms loops or transformative feedback loops. Vicious reinforce the modernist urban design regime; and transformative, transform it. • RQ3: The transformative loops across the 5 cases build on paradigm shifts, furthermore, the synergy of radical paradigms of knowledge production and emerging technology can help fulfill new

emerging radical paradigms of urban design11. The discussion won’t present individual cases but will discuss them together. • These 3 answers will be combined and discuss to respond to the general question, articulating them in two big stories: the story of the vicious and transformative loops Overarching question: Can the use of emerging technologies of AI, XR and sensors in knowledge production innovations contribute to transform the modernist urban design regime, if so, how? We argue that, depending on which paradigms they are coupled with, emerging technology XR, AI, sensors can either reinforce the modernist urban design, or help us depart away from modernist urban design regime and realize new paradigms of urban design. A co-evolution of radical paradigms and emerging technologies can achieve the latter (see graph 4). The emphasis of this discussion is showing how Graph 4. Transformative loop 11 See supplementary appendice 9 for tables for each case: paradigm shifts,

synergy with emerging technology, new modality of ways of knowing or mode of production and technological details of either XR, AI, sensors A theoretical finding is that technology co-evolves with paradigms, but it is important to distinguish with which paradigms. We found that a larger worldview ie mechanistic or regenerative, and associated city paradigms and urban design paradigms frame the narratives of knowledge production and technology. Furthermore, we found that emerging technology i.e XR, AI, sensors coupled with paradigms of either of those worldviews can reinforce them. To support this claim discussion is divided in 2 sections: The first section introduces the story that we want to depart away from i.e dominant paradigms of knowledge production and technology of the mechanical worldview and modernist urban design and highlights that emerging technology can become couple with this story, thus, reinforcing it. We call this the story of the vicious loops The second section

articulates radical paradigms and highlights that emerging technology can become couple with them, thus enabling transformation of the modernist urban design. We call this the story of the transformative loops Although the emphasis of this discussion are on the latter, we will first show the vicious loops to warn that coupling emerging technology with status-quo paradigms, can indeed, reinforce the regime, and bring about a smart city, which is in essence, the same modernist city with technology that makes it more efficient. 4.1 Section 1: Vicious loops of emerging tech and knowledge production in the modernist urban design and mechanical worldview 4.11 Vicious loops in the landscape and in urban design knowledge production Based mainly on the literature review and interviews with practitioners of the 5 cases, as they referred to how technologies they use can be coupled with the regime they are trying to challenge, we found that coupling emerging technologies i.e AI, XR, sensors

with knowledge paradigms of the modernist urban design and mechanical worldview can create vicious cycles that will only reinforce the regime. We found that vicious loops are shaped by a view of technology and a view of knowledge of the mechanical worldview. The mechanistic worldview is a worldview of dualisms and fragmentation ”(Capra and Luigi, 2014; Du Plessis and Brandon, 2015). Moreover, framing the use emerging technology in this narrative of technology and knowledge production can deepen the dualisms and reinforce the modernist urban design. This can happen if innovations in knowledge production hold on to its associated knowledge paradigms i.e mind-body dualism, disembodied ways of knowing and reductionist, deterministic, hierarchical, top-down, centralized production of knowledge (Chabay and Ta, 2012; Fazey et al., 2018); and couple those stories with techno reductionist narratives of technology i.e technology disembodied from nature and functioning against nature,

technology to dominate nature; and as the only means to evolve humans and deal with crisis in the future(Majs, 2008; Ferrando, 2013; Oelschlaeger, 2017). At the landscape level, we argue these couplings of the knowledge production of the mechanical worldview with the targeted emerging technologies can reinforce each other in the following way: • The separation of biotic knowledge and sociocultural knowledge(Majs, 2008) is introduced with a new dualism of human knowledge- machine knowledge, where the latter is regarded as superior. Moreover, the development of knowledge generating technologies hardware are still disembodied from the natural world e.g microelectronic technologies (Majs, 2008) • The mind-body dualism expressed in the sensorial-rational dualism of ways of knowing (Capra and Luigi, 2014; Johnson, 2015), with the rational being regarded as superior(Farina, 2010), leads (i) to disembodied virtual experiences with VR, that isolate that subject from the context(Murray

and Sixsmith, 2004), and (ii) to the development of information-centric augmented reality, where AR overlaps information on site(Raja and Calvo, 2017). This can lead to greater separation of the mind and body, an overload of virtual information overlaps in our daily lives • The centralization of power in knowledge production (Westley et al., 2011; Chabay and Ta, 2012; Cornell et al., 2013)becomes augmented by the centralization of power in relation to who creates technology(Feenberg, 2001) and who can access it to produce knowledge, and who can access the new large amounts of data that is produced. There is a centralized use of sensors and data produced by them by big ICT corporations(Tooran, 2018). This is worrying because it is argue that technologically advanced societies “dominated by large scale organizations and the mass media” might “diminish agency of individuals” (Feenberg, 2001). We found that some of those vicious loops are manifested in urban design knowledge

production (including research, planning, futuring). Although this was not based on an extensive literature review, it constitutes an early exploration; moreover, these literature review findings were complemented with the interviews to the practitioners of the 5 cases explored. They recognized, with different emphasis, that the use of VR, sensors and AI can be coupled with paradigms of knowledge production of the modernist urban design and mechanical worldview. • The domination of disembodied ways of knowing in urban research and planning i.e an “information-processing theory of perception and an ocular-centricity” (Adams and Guy, 2007) guides the use of new technology to interact with data. Urban studies rely on “reading or visualizing” the city (Adams and Guy, 2007) with dashboards, (Kitchin, Lauriault and McArdle, 2015), or superposing an overload of information with AR(Raja and Calvo, 2017). In the same line, Gershon, from Tidmarsh, argues AI is most often seen as

an oracle, where you ask questions and get quick answers, this focus on consuming “already digested information in a quick an efficient way diminishes perceptual ways of knowing”(int6). He also argues that the way we interface with vast amounts of sensor data could follow under technologies that don’t mind spatial attention i.e cellphones for example can distract people from having meaningful nature conexions (int6). We argue the proliferation of these applications of AI, VR, AR, and sensorially narrow ways of interfacing with sensor data, could further reinforce our disembodied or ocular-centric practices of knowing the city. • The reductionist approach in urban research “that ignores the systemic relationships between problems, and the dynamic processes of change” (Du Plessis, 2009) of cities (Alberti, McPhearson and Gonzalez, 2018) can frame the use of sensors based on reductionists views of dynamics in cities, the use of VR to render deterministic views of urban form

(int2). Ana, from Animalesque, highlights the first issue, she acknowledges that sensors, a key component of smart cities, are “being used mostly to track human behavior” (int3), dismissing the animal realm in the city. So, although sensors can give us great among of data they can still be reductionist if only produce human-centric knowledge. On the second issue, Ariel, from CityScope, argues that, increasingly, the final product of urban design and architecture are renders which “say nothing about how the proposed urban form will perform” and interact with the dynamics of the complex city (int2). • The so-called “pseudo participation” (Ratii and Claudel, 2014) in urban planning can be validated with the use of VR, AR, where these technologies are being used only to visualize renders of already decided plans. Havard, from Palimpsest, acknowledges that VR is being used by architects to show renders of beautiful buildings and by politicians to sell future developments, in

a top down manner, where there is little people can say, at that late stage of design (int1). Moreover, the power these actors already have, is reinforce by their power to have access to these sophisticated technologies, while citizen activists could only show their visions of the city with pamphlets. We should be careful of the uses of these technologies when only involves giving “information or are used for “manipulation” (Ratii and Claudel, 2014) • The centralization of knowledge production is reinforced by the centralization of power on who creates, owns and uses technology in smart urbanism (Luque-Ayala and Marvin, 2015). Thus, the use of sensors is currently framed in top-down, centrally controlled technological infrastructure of big ICT corporations (Tooran, 2018) (Hollands, 2015). The use of sensors can be reduced to a technical issue where the corporate expertise of ICT validates their power (Krivý, 2018). Furthermore, centralization of power could be relocated

in sensors and artificial intelligence (Zambonelli et al., 2018) “If most of our everyday activities can be automated, we could be tempted to increasingly delegate the governance of such activities, and the governance of the whole city, to the algorithmic engines of the smart city infrastructure” (Zambonelli et al., 2018), leaving humans off the loop of decision making. • Finally, the corporate power that once helped shape the modern funcionalist city is still the driving force of smart cities visions. Marteen Hajer (int7) argues that the modern functionalist city imaginary was a “corporate dream”, with two key actors shaping this vision: real estate development and the car industry. Today one of the focus of dominant city imaginaries is “the corporate driven technological fixes, like smart cities(Pelzer and Versteeg, 2019), which, “so far has been led by producers; competing corporations offering their own technology to cities as an ostensibly comprehensive solution to

every urban problem”. Apart from the “profit motive”, this is problematic because the “techno-utopia” is neither an inclusive vision necessarily, nor the only one, “it is spun by the CEOs and smart city technocrats of corporate ICT companies” (Hollands, 2015). In this line, it is argued that the use of VR to visualize the future might just advertise the technocentric corporate-driven vision of smart cities (int7). Mathew, from Biidaaban, acknowledges that VR are used to validated corporate visions of the future of cities 4.12 How vicious loops influence the “smart” city These vicious loops influence urban design, and thus cities. Coupling these uses of technology and assumptions of knowledge might be contributing to reinforce a technocentric vision of “smart” in design. If interfaces to connect with data are based on an “information-centric view of knowing we can lose critical attention” (Zambonelli et al., 2018) to our embodiment in society and nature;

if relying on either ICTs power on data or “collective computational governance” of our cities, we can “abandon individual decision making”, ultimately losing power” (Zambonelli et al., 2018); or we can reinforce visions of technocentric cities by rendering more sophistically “one-size-fits-all models” of architecture and urban production (Ratii and Claudel, 2014). The way we use XR, AI and sensors will define the smart city. The vicious cycles we described might contribute to create a technocentric smart city, where technology is just another piece of the machine, of separation of nature, and where the city is subjected to corporate power, or where power is being relocated in the machine. In fact, it is argued that (i) the smart city model might “disconnect citizens from nature experiences” e.g due to “increased proportion of daily screen time” (Colding and Barthel, 2017), (ii) the techno-centric and corporate definitions of smart city are the dominant narratives

of smart cities (Tooran 2018) where global digital corporations benefit the most (Tooran 2018). The general trajectory on the rise is the ‘neo-liberal urban utopias”(Krivý, 2018), which favors “interests of multinational corporations” (Krivý, 2018). These trends are fueling visions of smart cities where citizens are disempowered, where either “planners and technological gurus know exactly what citizens desire and how to provide it to them, much in line with the approach assumed in the tradition of colonial and modernist utopian planning” or where “citizens will be subjugated by technologies”, what is called “totalitarian smartness” (Vanolo, 2016) 4.2 Section 2: Transformative loops of emerging technology and knowledge production for a multifunctional situated design and regenerative post-human worldview Across 5 cases we found transformative loops that can contribute to depart away from the modernist urban design in the following way: (i) they have challenged

its associated paradigms of knowledge production i.e the stories of what knowledge is, how we come to know, how we produce knowledge (ii) they are reinforced by emerging technologies that create new modalities within the radical paradigms, thus (iii) these loos help realize new paradigms of urban design that relate to the narratives of the “multifunctional regenerative smart urban design” found in the literature review This section articulates the radical paradigms of knowledge production and technology of the regenerative posthuman worldview that influence the knowledge production paradigm- emerging technology relation. Then it showcases the transformative loops in the landscape. Most importantly, it showcases those loops across 5 cases 4.21 How transformative loops are forming in the landscape of knowledge production In an emerging worldview, radical paradigms are co-evolving together. Radical paradigms of knowledge production and technology in urban design are in the making,

being shaped by the paradigms of knowledge and technology of the “regenerative posthuman worldview”. In this worldview, technology exists in synergy with the world, in the following way: • The parts of the mechanistic worldview are reconnected with a view of a world that is fundamentally interconnected and alive(Du Plessis and Brandon, 2014) with technology playing a role in the co-evolution of the larger system. The aim of development is to build healthy, mutually beneficial relationships, while accepting change and uncertainty is a condition of life (Du Plessis and Brandon, 2014). Technology becomes a force to achieve this(X Zhang et al, 2018) In the co-evolution of culture and nature, our culture and physical systems follow the rules of nature and cooperate with nature to contribute to the wellbeing of the whole system (Du Plessis and Brandon, 2015). Thus, technology is embedded in the biosphere and evolves as nature does “to achieve system integrity” (Westley et al.,

2011; Oppermann, 2016) • This worldview reconnects the fragmented self and starts a quest for decentering the human (Forlano, 2017). The “expansion of the self” goes “all the way to the identification with nature” (Capra and Luigi 2014). Situated in the notion of the extended self, posthumanism introduces the idea of further human evolution by means of technology, which is "post to hierarchical social constructs and humancentric assumptions” (Ferrando, 2013), and ultimately about dismantling “the boundary of technology and self” (Oppermann, 2016). The notion of posthumanism brings technology as part of co-evolution, not as a separate entity but as evolving our natures i.e both for humans and the extended life community(Forlano, 2017). • Moreover, this worldview acknowledges that we need a shift in structures of dominance to avoid “realigning elite power bases in the face of change” (Fazey et al., 2018), while at the same time shifting towards

cooperation, partnership, synergies (Capra and Luigi, 2014; Avelino, 2017). democratization of technology, should both This implies that “involve changes not only in technological design, but also in the distribution of power between lay and expert, (Feenberg, 2001); and create new cultures of collaboration e.g “by means of doit-yourself culture, open-source sharing, and small-scale manufacturing” (Waldman-Brown et al., 2015) As it can be observed the shifts in the paradigmatic features of the world i.e relations with nature, power and the future have brought about shifts in narratives of technology (table9) Table 9. Paradigm shifts of technology Paradigm shifts of technology Mechanical worldview Regenerative post-human worldview Technology disembedded from nature, Technology embedded in nature, for functioning against nature, to dominate regeneration nature; Techno-reductionism driving society and Technology for co-evolution of nature and human evolution culture.

Technological fix to deal with crisis in the Human evolution by means of technology future. situated in the notion of the extended self Centralized production of technology Democratization of technology In the same way, this worldview introduces a paradigm shift in knowledge i.e from a closed and disembodied uniform system to knowledge as interrelated multiple, open, embodied systems that integrate technology (table 10). The goal of knowledge production in the regenerative posthuman worldview is to improve relational and holistic understanding of the system. Moreover, knowledge as self-transcendence implies a deep connectedness of the self and the world, and “decentering” the self (Ferrari and Weststrate, 2013). This view of the nature of knowledge brings a new understanding in: • The ways in which we come to know: A shift to embodied and extended cognition acknowledges that cognition is neither bounded by the brain, nor perhaps even by the body itself. To the contrary, it

depends on bodily experiences in the world, and, is, even distributed in the environment, including objects, artefacts and technology (Farina, 2010; Kiran & Verbeek, 2010). These shifts reconnect the self i.e mind and body, the self with the context where knowing happens • The modes of production of knowledge. Holism reintegrates the parts of the world that have fragmented by reductionism, bringing a focus in relations and emergence; and introducing co-production of knowledge i.e interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary. In the same way, the embedded nature of knowledge systems is a call for situated production of knowledge; and embracing uncertainty introduces modes of production that promote adaptive learning and an open relation with the future i.e exploratory scenarios and emergence-based modes of production Furthermore, a democratization of knowledge points out to distribute knowledge production. Table 10. Paradigm shift in knowledge production Paradigm shifts in knowledge

production Mechanical worldview Regenerative post-human worldview Closed and social-ecological Multiple, disembodied uniform system embodied, knowledge systems. A separation of biotic knowledge Sociocultural and sociocultural open knowledge in knowledge. synergy with biotic knowledge Superiority of the latter Knowledge as self-transcendence Mind-body dualism Sensorial-rational Embody and extended cognition dualism. Sensorial and extended ways of Hierarchy of the rational over the knowing sensorial. Reductionism Holism Dualism research-practice Situated production of knowledge Silo production of knowledge. Co-production of knowledge i.e interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary Deterministic view of the future Embracing uncertainty, open relation with the future. Adaptive learning. Knowledge to exert control, optimize and reduce uncertainties Locally and emergence-based environmentally modes of production Hierarchies of knowledge systems Validity

and importance of nonscientific knowledge systems. Centralization of production of Democratization of knowledge knowledge Expert-driven, centralized, and top-down production of knowledge Transformative loops build on these paradigms of technology and knowledge: they emerged from (i) embracing radical stories of knowledge i.e of how we come to know and how we produce knowledge (ii) and couple those stories with embedded, democratized, post-humanists’ ways of applying emerging technology. These radical narratives of knowledge and technology shape and are reshaped by emerging technologies i.e AI, XR, sensors At the landscape level, we found that these transformative loops i.e emerging technologies - radical paradigms exist 4.211 Transformative loops in ways of knowing Across the reviewed literature, we found synergies between embodied and “extended” ways of knowing and emerging technologies, where all of technologies introduce new embodiments of the world. Synergies of

technology and embodied ways of knowing Wearables can help us augment existing senses, in multisensorial ways. In doing so, “the interface of such wearable technology should be transparent to the user, non-intrusive, non-distracting”(Dewitz et al., 2018) On the other hand, VR and multisensory systems can induce an artificial situated sense of presence or the sense of embodiment (Kilteni, Groten and Slater, 2012). This is been used in journalism for example to create an embodiment of a story (De la Peña et al., 2010) VR can also create embodiments of remote places and situations (Maselli and Slater, 2013) inducing what is known as “telepresence” (Lemmon, 2014). Moreover, VR (Petkova, Khoshnevis and Ehrsson, 2011) can induce a full body ownership, which hacks the ego-centric(Kilteni, Groten and Slater, 2012) sensorial perspective of the individual. We can embody the sensorial perspective of other subjects and even nature. “In the eyes of the animal”, by the collective

Mashmellow Laser Feast, which combined a VR experience with binaural audio and a vibrating backpack, allow users to embody the visual and sensory perspectives of 3 creatures of British forests: a midge, a dragonfly, a frog, and an owl (int1). These experiences, is argued, increase empathy (Shin, 2018). Synergies of technology and extended ways of knowing Sensors have become abundant i.e pervasive sensing, network connectivity has exploded, but to channel “this abundance of data” into the language of human perception” we need “more natural ways to interact with sensor data” (Lemmon, 2014), such as wearables. Sensors embedded in the environment could function “as extensions of the human nervous system” where “wearable computing devices could become sensory prosthetics" to access the information this vast network of sensors generate (Lemmon, 2014) Augmented Reality and Mixed reality can blend “the physical and virtual worlds so that real objects can be used to

interact with three-dimensional digital content” (Mark Billinghurst and K, 2002).In mixed reality environments “the surrounding real objects play a vital role in design and spatial collaboration tasks” (Mark Billinghurst and K, 2002) e.g Tangible User Interfaces afford more collaboration because they “make it possible to freely alter the model as desired and to have these changes reflected immediately in the digital reconstruction” (Schubert et al., 2015) Artificial Intelligence can assist in “modelling and simulation, integration of qualitative and quantitative knowledge, theoretical development, and, natural resource management” (Rykiel, 1989). AI is said to increase “data-driven modelling (DDM) capabilities, allowing artificial intelligence to infer the behavior of a system by computing and exploiting correlations between observed variables within it (Willcock et al., 2018) 4.212 Transformative loops in modes of production Across the literature reviewed, we found

synergies between co-production, democratized and emergence-based modes of production and emerging technologies, where all of technologies enhance the capacities to collaborate, integrate knowledge and have more adaptive modes of production. Synergies of technology and emergence-based production: Emergence-based knowledge production and exploratory scenarios as means for social learning(Robinson, 2003; Evely et al., 2012) help us to depart away from deterministic knowledge production. But we need to account for the new possibilities that algorithms bring for simulation of emergence. AI can be a tool for “the exploration, design, modification, illustration, and evaluation of alternative planning scenarios” (Li and Liu 2008) and algorithms that introduce “environmentally aware computational form- generation”(Oxman, 2008) can help us design as nature, by means of an adaptive process. Synergies of technology and democratization of knowledge: Democratization of knowledge

brings a new understanding about power over data (who can access), over production of data (who produces), over design of production of data (under which rules)(Mueller et al., 2018) The introduction of technology opens up opportunities for participatory modes of production e.g crowd-sourced modes of production(Ratii and Claudel, 2014), participatory sensing(Shilton et al., 2008) Synergies of technology and co-production of knowledge: Transdisciplinary modes of production help to bridge knowledge system separations (Du Plessis, 2009) integrate multiple sources of knowledge, and situate knowledge production. But we need to account for the new possibilities that the introduction of emerging tech brings for availability of data and integration of knowledge i.e sensors make new sources of data available to us e.g big data, real-time data (Resch, Britter and Ratti, 2012) and new ways of analyzing data are possible with AI. 4.22 Transformative loops in Animalesque, Tidmarsh, CityScope,

Palimpsest, Biidaaban We argued that an innovation has transformative potential if it introduces paradigm shifts and leverages the disruptive power of emerging technologies for transformation. All 5 cases, in that sense, showcase one or more transformative loops, so they have a degree of transformative potential. In this discussion we won’t discuss each case individually but articulate them to focus in answering the question of whether technologies used in knowledge production can help transform the modernist urban design. 4.221 Across cases: Paradigm shifts that challenge ways of knowing and modes of knowledge production of the modernist urban design All 5 cases built on a number of paradigms shifts (see table 11). With different emphasis all cases are shifting from a vision knowledge as a closed and disembodied system to knowledge as interrelated multiple, open, embodied systems that integrates technology. Furthermore, they are shifting away from the separations of

modelling, research, planning or ‘futuring’ that only exist in the modernist urban design knowledge production paradigm (see graph 5) and all cases embrace a view of embodiment of knowledge production. Table 11. Paradigm shifts in knowledge production of urban design across cases Paradigm shifts Cases A shift form mind-body dualism & sensorial-rational Animalesque, Palimpsest, dualism to situated, embodied and extended cognition Biidaaban, CityScope, & Sensorial and extended ways of knowing Tidmarsh A shift from deterministic view of the future & Biidaaban, CityScope, knowledge to exert control to embracing uncertainty, Tidmarsh adaptive learning & locally and environmentally emergence-based modes of production A shift from reductionism, dualism research-practice Animalesque, CityScope, (design-planning, research-planning, research-design) Tidmarsh, Palimpsest & silo production of knowledge to complexity thinking, situated production of

knowledge and coproduction of knowledge i.e interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary A shift from hierarchies of knowledge systems, Animalesque, Palimpsest, expert-driven, centralized, and top-down production Biidaaban, CityScope, of knowledge to validity and importance of non- Tidmarsh scientific knowledge systems & democratization of knowledge Graph 5. Paradigm shifts of knowledge nature of urban design in 5 cases 4.222 Across cases: How emerging technologies create new modalities of extended and embodied ways of knowing, and transdisciplinary, democratized modes of production? Across all cases there is one baseline narrative of embodied and extended ways of knowing and collaborative, democratized modes of production; however, the introduction of XR, AI, sensors is continuously reshaping these paradigms. We see that different technologies are expanding or “upgrading” the ways in which we come to know and produce knowledge to relate differently with nature, power

and the future. This is where each technology has a different emphasis, but we also show how they are complementary. Table 12. New modalities enable by emerging technologies Ways of knowing Extended & AI Sensors XR Co-sensing with AI Pervasive sensing Enhanced embodied presence (augmented senses) Embodied (*) Telepresence Sensor-based multisensory Tangible planning experiences Immersive/embodied planning Immersive urban futurism Modes of Co-production production Co-production with AI Sensor-based Co-production via TUI: e.g research multi-stakeholder performance-based planning tangible planning Open-ended transdisciplinary Democratized Open sensor-based data knowledge Participatory Participatory immersive sensing planning production Open-sourced planning (open-sourced Inclusive immersive urban futurism algorithms) Open-sourced planning (open-sourced TUI) (*) many of these modalities build on a combination of extended and embodied Sensor

technology Sensors are expanding our capacity to document and access to real-time information of the sensed landscape. Tidmarsh introduces a Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) that enables pervasive sensing i.e large scale sensing applications(Costanza et al, 2010), thus sensor-based research. CityScope also introduces new sources of data, some of them from large scale sensing applications such as telecom data, thus enabling performance-based planning. Moreover, Tidmarsh articulates heterogeneous sensor systems, to avoid that sensor data remains silo for specific applications invisible to most of us(Lemmon, 2014). Tidmarsh created ChainAPI with that in mind i.e data from sensors flows to the ChainAPI and is distributed in real-time to different users and applications. By giving access to sensor data, Tidmarsh enables open-ended transdisciplinary collaboration. One result from this collaborations was sensor network-driven music where mix parameters of music were “determined by the

environmental conditions” at the wetland (Lemmon, 2014). Animalesque showcased more discrete use of sensors. Its strength was to situate the use of sensors in a design task and engage local stakeholders and urban designers. The investigation of insect life in Berlin with sensors related to the task of designing for insect life. Moreover, Ana and Jorge (from Animalesque) argue that the way in which sensordata is used matters They used this data to translate it into sensorial experiences ie audiovisual products to augment sensor-driven data, thus enabling sensor-based multisensory experiences. They used sensor data “to augment the size of a worm or the larvae from cockroach” (int3). They projected the sensor data on the floor in a way that the “insect was bigger than a human being” (int3). Complementary, Tidmarsh show us a way to interface large streams of sensor data with human senses. XR: augmented reality, virtual reality, mixed reality Across the cases, augmenting

sensorial ways of knowing with AI, VR, MR enables artificial embodied sensorial realities i.e enhanced presence, new forms of physical presence such as telepresence, tangible planning. Each of these technologies bring a new modality of the “embodied”. Tidmarsh introduced AR acoustic wearables for acoustic augmentation on site, enabling enhanced presence. In developing HearThere, the AR acoustic wearable, Gershon highlighted that an important consideration was to not “replace the primary sense but overlay it” (int6). Thus, they used bone-conduction headphones, where “audition occurs when vibration is conducted through a listener’s skull and into the inner ear, bypassing the eardrum” (Dublon and Portocarrerro, 2015). Another challenge was to be responsive to user’s auditory attention for what they introduce head tracking and eyetracking(Mayton et al., 2018) to HearThere Another modality of embodied experience that Tidmarsh introduced was telepresence. Combing sensor

data, VR and spatial sonification it was possible to create virtual worlds aligned with data from the real wetland. For this experience, it was really important to enable different modalities of navigation through the virtual wetland i.e 1st person view and top-down view and control over parameters of time and space. In relation to VR embodied experiences, Palimpsest, and Biidaaban introduced the terms immersive planning, and immersive futurism respectively. Moreover, those 2 cases plus Tidmarsh showed the importance of multisensory embodied experiences that go beyond the ocularcentric focus of VR i.e sonification was a key part to induce embodiment Moreover, Tidmarsh introduces an AR acoustic system embedded in trees i.e ListenTree Thanks to “an audio exciter transducer in tree trunks” (Dublon and Portocarrerro, 2015). , trees became speakers, and users were able to hear the sound through bone conduction by resting their head against the tree” (Dublon and Portocarrerro, 2015).

But the unexpected happened, rabbits listened too. This showed the potential for (remote) “interspecies interaction” (int6). Kirsh argues that “perhaps some animals may actually think with objects that are separate from their bodies” (Kirsh, 2013). This is a subject of speculation. For example, Augmented Nature is a project that speculated that biotags or biomarkers could became a means to communicate data to animals (via vibration) to help me navigate their endangered ecosystems. In a different way, we see how CityScope also challenges human-computer interaction introducing mixed reality, thus creating a Tangible User Interface that largely pays attention to the haptic sense, in difference to the other cases. As Ariel puts it “for 50 years or 40 years we're using a screen and a keyboard” for urban design or planning and “basically every day (.) in the lab is about questioning that” (int2) With that in mind, CityScope has been evolving different versions of a TUI.

The general TUI set up includes an urban maquette made of legos, projectors and sensors to detect human interactions (Noyman, Sakai and Larson, 2018), and a computational analysis and a feedback module(Noyman et al., 2017) Ariel argues a user should seamlessly have an experience: “you should feel that you move a brick and a new simulation of transportation or energy (or any other variable being studied) happens”(int2), even though a lot of things are happening there e.g interactions with legos are scanned and that is processed by algorithms somewhere in the cloud (int2). CityScope TUI has enabled tangible and multi-stakeholder planning. Moreover, CityScope have added AR to enhance community engagement enabling crowdsourced participation from remote locations. Artificial intelligence In the same way, CityScope enhanced the computational analysis of the TUI with AI, both for integrating data and for rapid prototyping of multiple scenarios of decision making, thus, enabling

performance-based decision making. The underlying assumption is that “decision quality could be improved by the combination of both strength of human intelligence and machine intelligence” (Larson and Maes 2017). The strength of AI was to enable real-time urban simulation prediction. The system collects user input through reading the optically tagged lego bricks, the server takes the input and runs calculations to evaluate urban performance based on chosen variables (Larson and Maes, 2017) Similarly, Tidmarsh introduced machine learning algorithms to process the vast amounts of sensor data to categorize wildlife. Tidzam relies on a “training feedback mechanism between humans and the algorithms” (Duhart et al., 2019), enabling a new collaboration AI-humans for co-production of knowledge. Moreover, Tidzam can also enhance the augmented embodied acoustic experience, enabled by HearThere. The output from Tidzam currently is only weighing down or suppressing certain channels

carrying undesirable sound, such as wind”(Duhart et al., 2019) However, Gershon wants to take this further. “AI can promote channels in which you're more likely to discover something that you want to find, (), in the same way that our own cognition promotes the things that we care about. We can program those same preferences externally () or the AI would have to learn about your preferences” (int6) 4.223 Across cases: How these new modalities of augmented and expanded embodied experiences help us relate differently with nature, power and the future? New modalities of way of knowing help us to augment our capacities to sense nature, sense the future, sense neglected or sidelined narratives in urban design. (i)Relation of new modalities of ways of knowing with nature Tidmarsh shows that sensors distributed in the landscape can enable to document ecological change with higher resolution in many parameters with continuously sampling, and access to real time information.

Moreover, both Animalesque and Tidmarsh have a focus on using sensors for documenting ecological change to translate that data into sensorially augmented experiences. For example, Tidmarsh show us that sensing should not only focus on documenting change in nature in classic environmental metrics such as indicators of temperature, air quality, but it should also collect visuals and acoustic data can be directly interface with human senses. Another point of reflexion is whether we need new modalities of sensorial experiences of nature. We have our own human senses to connect with nature Animalesque shows the value of traditional methods of immersion in nature i.e learning about trees and the ecology of the city through the flavor of honey, taking walks or cycling tours across beehives routes, having anatomic illustrations of bees. And Gershon, from Tidmarsh, acknowledges that sometimes technology i.e cellphones narrowed down spatial attention to the device, and we lose opportunities to

connect with nature i.e if we are walking with a cellphone in a forest. Nevertheless, these two cases have also shown that augmenting our senses allow us to engage with nature in novel ways. Although Animalesque translates the sensor data into multisensory experiences with traditional media i.e projectors and speakers and not emerging technologies, this still shows how augmenting the visuals and the sounds of our small least notice neighbors in the city i.e the insects captures people’s attention a different way Ana described that "something beautiful happened when you are for two weeks observing, something that you can’t see with your eyes. First of all, the fear disappeared, and then there's even some kind of emotional thing that developed” (int3). These experiences are quite different from digesting static data i.e seeing a picture of a bee or listening to a fact about bees in Berlin Tidmarsh makes the case that using technology can augment senses where human

senses have limitations i.e to perceive ecological change They introduced VR and AR wearables to interface unprecedented vast streams of information of ecological change of the wetland with human senses. The first lesson is that is important not to distract people from their primary sensorial conexion to nature. HereThere’ use of bone-conduction audio allows this seamless adoption of the wearable. “In the field the sound would become louder (for the user) so slowly that they couldn’t differentiate between what’s being produced by the headphones from what they were hearing from their own ears” (int6). This augmented soundscape is a new world to the user, with HereThere users had “immediate sensory access to otherwise imperceptible properties like aquatic oxygen levels” (Mayton et al., 2018) From an acoustic perspective, it was possible to witness the transition of that wetland from a quiet landscape to a noisy landscape where wildlife has returned. Moreover, Tidmarsh shows

a way of connecting an “urban audience to a remote natural environment in transition” (Dublon and Portocarrerro, 2015), which otherwise might be ignore in daily city routines. This enabled people and other species ie rabbits to access the wetland soundscape i.e “croaking frogs, chirping crickets, and squawking geese birdsongs” (Dublon and Portocarrerro, 2015). It is argued that sound from nature is a way of restoring our conexion to nature (Kellert, 2008). In the same way exposing other species to these sounds can help in restoration. If “certain wildlife in the presence of certain sounds could behave differently () if it's time for the frogs to mate and they're hearing other frogs mating they could also want to mate” (int6) It might seem also questionable if we really need virtual nature. We have only explored one case in Tidmarsh where Doppelmarsh introduced a virtual wetland. From that, we have learned that if used virtual nature has to enable different things

than real nature. In Doppelmarsh, by no means the virtual world is meant to replace nature, but to allow for open exploration of sensor-driven data, in a way that the user can collapse time and space and navigate through data in an artificially situated way. We haven’t found examples of full-body ownership of nature across the cases. However, based on findings of the landscape, we argue embodied experiences of nature that go as far as to induce full body ownership illusion can help decenter the self, disrupting our ego-centric human perspective to one of nature. Situating us in the sensorial world of plants and animals can have impacts on empathy to nature and understanding the subjectivity of nature. Finally, the amount of information has already exploded with sensors collecting sound data continuously, so in a way, the AI is key to assist processing this information. Cosensing with AI can help researchers to conduct an automated analysis and classification of the sensor data

which is important because “wildlife acoustic monitoring is a crucial metric during post-restoration” to evaluate of the processes (Duhart et al., 2019) Moreover, co-sensing wildlife with AI offered interesting opportunities to enhance HereThere acoustic augmentation experience, for example, birdwatchers could benefit from a system that has learned their attention preferences and help them target acoustic sounds of birds (int6) (ii) Relation of new modalities ways of knowing with power dynamics: We already showed that the focus of Animalesque and Tidmarsh was to document change and translated it into a sensorially experience; a different way to go about this is to document sensorially rich information that becomes an extended memory of change, to which we can also interface ubiquitously (int1) i.e with VR headsets Palimpsest shows that in the face of urban development, embodied storytelling allows to have a richer documentation of change i.e “richer in information” and

complexity and “richer sensorially” (int1). Havard argues that documenting change should not be simplified (int1). “A lot urban planners tend to simplify urban developing showing diagrams of the old and new part of the city as if there is nothing else in between” (int1). He also acknowledges that even when people are interviewed, like was the case in Camden, the information is simplified in text, and in fact some Camden community members felt that their concerns were filed. Embodied storytelling is a way to keep that complexity of the city, to capture the sensorial atmosphere e.g visual and acoustic landscape of the places that will be lost This is important, because it is argued that people in context of displacement of their local communities experience a loss of sense of place(Wolff and Avner, 2007). Palimpsest shows a way to document that memory in a way that those connections with the place can be, at least, virtually recreated and access by any user (int1). Moreover,

whose stories are documented matters. At the time when Palimpsest intervened in the case of the HS2 train project in Camden, the project was already too developed. It would be difficult to turn all the project around But Palimpsest documented the visions that didn’t make it into the final version of the city, the stories of the periphery of power; and offer a way for other audiences to embodied them. “There's one lady in the (VR) experience. She's in a wheelchair, she has refurbished her entire apartment to fit her needs and she's afraid of what is going to happen when she has to move out of her apartment. But she's able to scan that, she can show you what in this apartment has she changed, what it's important to her” (and) You can be there right. it's not something that's written in a document () VR can be an empathy machine. it's not unmediated”, though, but “it definitely can (develop) awareness or compassion” (int1) Moreover,

tangible user interfaces in CityScope afford more collaboration. The multiuser aspect of the TUI combined with the tangible interaction is said to be suited for spatial collaboration tasks(Mark Billinghurst and K, 2002). The TUI is a place of encounter It reconnects isolated processes of research, collaboration, decision making, by reconnecting those processes it also reconnects people that could have not even be in the same room in a traditional planning and design process. The TUI is a place for iterations “Architecture, planning and design are iterative processes that take () a lot of people into account”, and people is able to see that their opinions for decision making have impacts in the overall performance of city. The TUI makes the city tangible, although abstracted in lego models. This directly “challenge the notion that you know urban design architecture or planning is done through your computer you and yourself” (int2). In the TUI you can get hands-on interaction

with data, is basically “people playing with Legos”. And when CityScope added some “some scanning ability”, “some projection ability” and some algorithmic computational analysis that affords people to play with data, where people’s actions become part of that data. (iii)Relation of new modalities of ways of knowing with the future Biidaaban immerses users into a future of Toronto seen from a north-american indigenous perspective i.e film director, Lisa, builds on her indigenous heritage to create Biidaaban As Matthew explains indigenous people are often seen as stuck in the past, but they are part of the cities (int), half of Canada’s indigenous population live in cities. In that sense, Biidaaban is a way to bring what is being left in the past to the future of the city. The choice of a part of the city that people can recognize - Toronto’s Nathan Phillips Square, was key to show a Toronto reclaimed by nature. For example, “there's a river flowing down the

subway tunnels now with canoes” (int5). People can walk into a dome, which is an indigenous type of structure, and when they do “the dome () melts away” leaving people in a “magical starry void space” (int5) in time to hear a Thanksgiving in languages of the place originally known as Tkaronto. At dawn, from a rooftop people can see a “view of the city with little windmills and some gardens on the rooftop with corn growing” (int). Moreover, the soundscape of the city is the sound of nature ie birds, wind. To Matthew Biidaaban aesthetic of the city is also “a reaction to what (he) sees as a very sterile () urban environment”. TH argues, Toronto “is being overrun by shiny glass box condos”, so he was interested in how those urban environments “could evolve into something much more organic”(int5). We can see that reflected for example in Nathan Square with its “brutalist style of architecture () overgrown with vegetation”(int5), that remind us that nature is

still fighting its nature into the future, and VR can help us counterbalance the modernist, or now, technocentric visions of cities. 4.3 Across cases: How these modalities of modes of production help us relate differently with nature, power and the future? New modalities of modes of production help us to enhance co-production and integration of multiple sources of knowledge, adapt to the future and democratize the production of the city (i) Relation of new modalities of co-production with the future and complexity We should keep in mind that including new sources of data e.g real-time data, sensor data doesn’t mean disregarding other sources of knowledge. CityScope shows a way to integrate new sources of knowledge without leaving the community behind, or out of the loop of decision making. CityScope’s multi-stakeholder tangible planning, based on the use of a TUI, has proved useful for co-production of knowledge in decision-making processes because it enabled an enhanced

visualization and interaction with different sources of data. For example, in the city of Hamburg CityScope was used to find accommodations for refugees across the city. Citizens would gather around the lego model of the city, where “Hamburg’s smallest administrative units (parcels), were enriched by any available and relevant data” e.g general ownership or land use “to allow citizens to discuss these places’ suitability for refugee accommodation in an informed manner” (Noyman et al., 2017) In this way, “citizens felt as partners in an ‘eye-level’ dialogue with policy makers and city administration, being able to supply planning authorities with relevant information based on their local knowledge”(Noyman et al., 2017) As a result of this process 161 locations were suggested by the community participants. Another issue is that integrating vast amounts of information i.e sensor-based data is a new challenge. This is when coproducing with AI proves useful Artificial

intelligence has become an assistant for manipulation of ever-growing information (Rykiel, 1989). For example, Tidmarsh used an AI system i.e Tidzam for automated analysis of sound data of the wetland, which helped them to process large sets of data faster and with more accuracy to characterize biodiversity over the course of restoration. Moreover, Tidzam allowed for a continuous feedback between the algorithm and the users. This human – AI collaboration allowed both birdwatchers and the algorithms to improve the knowledge of both in relation to wildlife categorization. In CityScope, AI also increased their “data-driven modelling” capabilities for better insights of the current state of the city. Moreover, performance-based planning in CityScope, is a form of collaboration with AI that is fundamentally based on an iteration of data with the stakeholders. Co-producing with AI in the context of decision-making enables real-time modelling based on interaction with the data. In

CityScope´s TUI, AI can process data and human interaction with the data (simulation of decision making) in real-time, which effectively supports the rapid prototyping of multiple scenarios of decision making and urban performance, for their discussion (Noyman et al., 2017) This performance-based planning allows to design based on how design will perform within the city dynamics, making it, in a way, a future-proof design. Furthermore, the strength of co-planning with AI is beyond the accuracy of prediction. Performance-based planning is not good only because of the accuracy of an AI prediction, but because it helps users to explore multiple alternative scenarios i.e users learn about relations of variables, trade-offs in urban performance, not just the likelihood (Robinson, 2003). (i) Relation of new modalities of democratized modes of production with power dynamics Across the cases, we see trends of democratizing the power over data, over the process of data collection and

data analysis, and over the tools to create knowledge (software and hardware). Thus, we argue the democratization of knowledge production (Cornell et al, 2013) combined with the democratization of technology (Feenberg, 2001), contributes to democratizing the process of production of cities (Kaika et al., 2006) “Small-scale interventions of sensing”(Hollands, 2015) such as Animalesque help to envisage a “different way of doing smartness” (Hollands, 2015) where smartness is about empowerment i.e “engaging citizens to act on complex collective urban problems” (Hollands, 2015). Participatory sensing is about “individuals ie non-experts collecting, sharing and analyzing local data by means of place-based low-cost modular sensors” (Kuznetsov and Paulos 2010) which challenges the role assumed by citizens in sensing systems (Lane et al. 2007), putting them in the driving seat In Animalesque, architecture students were given the power to initiate their own processes of

investigation. They used sensors to collect their own data about the animal world of Berlin. As Ana argues “students had plastic boxes with the worms inside, with (microscopic) cameras that are amplifying these worms like 200-300 times () and different sensors of temperature and humidity, and vibration” that would help them “understand everything they could about these species, for example their metamorphosis, or their eating habits” (int3). Moreover, visualizing the collected data – in multisensory experiences – created bonds between all actors involved i.e local beekeepers, biologists, etc Those experiences helped them “build up new associations, connections” that maybe they didn’t could have seen if they are too “framed on their own disciplines." (int3) Similarly, Havard argues that they were inspired by participatory sensing ideas when building Palimpsest. Havard recalls one example of participatory sensing in China where people were using sensory

devices to measure the amount of pollution in the city, “this data is not given out in China. Absolutely not The cities are smart enough they have it, the government has it, but they're not giving this out”. Citizen collected data (Kuznetsov and Paulos, 2010) is on itself balancing out the power of dominant narratives about the dynamics of the city. Providing alternative narratives became a driving force for Palimpsest. They introduced a spin-off of participatory sensing, but instead of sensors they addressed immersive technologies. We called this “participatory immersive storytelling” They wanted to leverage the accessibility to low-cost cardboards, and 3D cellphone scanning tools. For example, 3D scanning devices could give people the power to record their spaces, so that people could create immersive content and use it to drive the debate on how we develop our cities. Community residents were given the power to show how much they value the spaces that will be lost in

the face of displacement due to the HS2. Ideally, Havard argues, they would have liked that the embodied storytelling could contribute to reach decision makers. However, they arrived at a late stage of the HS2 planning process. Community consultation had already taken place Even though HS2 had documented that data, they had an official narrative about the HS2 development that rather omitted people’s concerns, and they were using VR to show renders of that at the information office of the project. Harvard argues that what they show “it's quite selective, the shiny parts are going to be the persuasive parts”. In the VR experience “the station itself is rendered fantastically () they have the interior of the luxurious new train () with the champagne in the corner, beautiful nature outside” (int1). But they don’t render the problematic parts eg “the construction the noise of the train itself”. And on the other hand, the protesters had their banners or were shouting in

the streets, “that’s their technology” (int1). And Havard argues “if you're not directly affected you would be a bit like why can't these guys shut up” (int1). So the power that was already unbalance becomes more unbalance with who has access to which technology. In this context, Palimpsest could be seen as a new tool for activism, to balance out the power of citizens with respect to HS2 dominant narrative. In the idea of Palimpsest as a platform, they planned to help people use 3d scans so they can upload their own stories that could be seen in also low-cost VR cardboards. This was about democratizing technology, which also involves changes “in the distribution of power between lay and expert” (Feenberg 2001). Harvard argues that “3D modelling tools have been regarded as the “the tools of the professionals (architects) so how do you expect someone off the street to be able to draw or model what they imagine”. But even when “people don't

necessarily have these tools”, these days “everyone can do a 3D scan () everyone can record a 3D audio recording of their favorite pub or () favorite part of the corner” (int1). However, in the scope of the master in which they develop this project, what they managed to do was create content base on people’s narrative, and in collaboration with people, that was exhibited in Oculus. Palimpsest as a platform would constitute a second stage of the project. The democratization of technology also “involves changes in technological design” (Feenberg, 2001). CityScope is an example that we can decentralize not only the process of planning but the framework of planning. As cities change rapidly, we need to improve the frameworks of planning, including the new technologies we use. Technologies should keep being developed by the needs of the people. On one hand, CityScope open sources the software behind the TUI to help people to recreate and customize the TUI. As Ariel puts it they

share “the technical details about how you scan the table, how you project into the table, how you analyze the data ()to reduce the amount of effort you need to do in order to get the interactive platform up and running” (int2) Moreover, CityScope open sources algorithms not only to give people power to use them in their cities, but to make AI transparent to people, and let people be in the driving seat to constantly improve the algorithms. Ariel argues that there is no magic in algorithms They are “a computerized system that gets data, processes the data and gives you a result, so it depends on what is the data, and what is the algorithm” (int2). People tend to think of AI as a black box, but they opensource the algorithms to encourage people to “dive into the black box”. Their attempt is “be very honest and clear” about the algorithms He believes on putting the tools out there for people to try them and improve them. Ariel argues “if you want to challenge why this

platform has told you the congestion would be 20 percent more, go ahead look into the algorithm. We hope that we did a good job in referring to the right research on which we based the algorithms, but we might be wrong” (int2). This open-sourcing has been the driving force of the growth of CityScope Thanks to this dynamic CS is in many cities i.e Hamburg, Helsinki, Andorra, Shanghai Taipei, Guadalajara, etc. 4.4 Across cases: How these transformative loops contribute to transition to alternative design regimes? Alongside with an emerging regenerative posthuman worldview, a new story of a ‘multifunctional, regenerative and smart design’ is emerging (table 13), as evidence in concepts such as biomimicry, biophilic design, regenerative design, living architecture, open-source architecture, responsive environments, etc that were consulted in the literature review. Emergent design perspectives, with different emphasis, aim to “better support values such as equality and justice

for humans and nonhumans that have been traditionally ignored” (Forlano, 2017). Overall, urban design is departing away from the idea of compartmentalization of human-centric functions to one of mutifunctionality (Buck, 2017) to perform for the social-ecological system (Marcus et al. 2016) or the extended community of life; from separation of function and form, to the idea that form follows function (Benyus, 2011) i.e the generation of form is a process that should be “engendered by the physical forces of nature”(Oxman, 2008) and be locally and culturally optmized (Ratii and Claudel, 2014); from top-down design to open-sourcing design to harness the “inventive power of the world to locally design solutions to local problems”, across each link of the chain of the prodcutioihn of the built enviornment “from funding to production to assembly” (Ratii and Claudel, 2014) (3) Table 13. ‘Multifunctional regenerative smart’ urban design World Holism and Emergence,

uncertainty interdependence. Embeddness in the Distributed power biosphere. Technology as part of Technological non-linear Technology Democratization of complex systems. change embedded in the technology biosphere City Cities as hybrids of Cities as embodied Cities as hybrids of Crowdsourced smart design, technology intelligence for design, technology city and nature adaptation. Alive built and nature environment as organic and as augmented by technology Urban Multifunctionality, Responsive interactive Environmentally Locally, culturally design smart for design. fitted grounded Responsive to nature Open-sourced design regeneration This thesis didn’t address the tangible aspect of urban design, it focused on showing casing transformative loops in knowledge production, that we argue can contribute to this emerging urban design paradigms. Relating to nature for eco-centric regenerative design Designing the built environment as nature refers

have different degrees, from addressing restoration and regeneration of the local ecosystems (Zhang et al., 2018), to addressing psychosocial factors (X. Zhang et al, 2018) (Beatley, 2018), to overcoming “humancentered design” to include “non-humans – whether animals or the natural environment” (Forlano, 2017). But these narratives tend to focus on the end result of the built enviornment. Our cases revelead that the process of generating knowledge for design needs to provide opportunities for extensive and deep contact with nature Tidmarsh acknowledges that biophysical restoration needs restoring sensorial conexions to nature. Beyond restoring what has been damaged, Animalesque has an ecocentric design perspective and acknowledges that sensorial conexions to nature can make us understand the habitats of other species so we can build a city for all living forms of life. Both cases show us we can leverage technology to augment our capacity to sense the animal world, to sense

ecological change, and hopefully extend our empathy to nature. Restoration and ecocentric design can be smarter, but not in a techno-reductionist way. It is not the use of sensors that make design smarter, it is the augmentation of sensorial or perceptual relations. Relating to power for inclusive democratized and emphatic cities Democratizing the production of the city refers to “more inclusive modes of the production” (Kaika et al., 2006), which includes the production of knowledge that informs design. We found that there are “technologically-enabled ways of making people’s voices be heard in decision-making” (Tooran, 2018) , but “being heard” is not only including more people in a process that is dominated by a few. Our cases revealed that democratizing the production of knowledge is a spectrum that goes from distributing power over of the process of production, to distributing power over the access to tools, to the production of the tools. But for inclusive cities

we also need to see beyond data New modalities of sensorial ways of knowing allow us to embody the stories of the periphery of power and afford more horizontal collaboration. On one hand, participatory sensing, participatory immersive storytelling, and open sourcing in Animalesque, Palimpsest and CityScope managed to democratize the use of technologies by putting sensors in the hands of local stakeholders and designers; by putting 3D modeling tools, which have been in the hands of designers and architects, in the hands of citizens; and by putting the software to build TUIs and algorithms in the hands of citizens across the world, respectively. But we also need more empathic design. This has sensorial ways of knowing at its core Tangible multi-stakeholder planning, as CityScope showed, can enable more horizontal collaboration. Palimpsest and Biidaaban showed us a way to more empathic planning and futuring, where we acknowledge and embodied the “others” narratives of the city, and

when we embody a future scenario of the city based on indigenous visions. We need to break the modern city imaginary, but no with corporate visions of the smart city, or lead by mainstream persuasive narratives of powerful actors that ignore to render people’s concerns. Relating to the future for adaptive urban design The aspiration of adaptive and responsive urban design is that the built environment has real-time responsiveness and can constantly adapt to its inhabitants and the environment(Fernández, Rubio and González, 2013; Armstrong, 2015b; Rachel, 2018). We found that much of these narratives focus on the materiality of responsiveness e.g responsive materials. This thesis didn’t address that material dimension of design manufacturing practices - but sheds light into the adaptiveness that our extended cognitive systems have. Cognition systems – that are embodied and extended by technology- can be responsive and ever-more adaptive. Exploring alternative futures builds

in people the capacity to learn to deal with uncertainty in CityScope. CityScope showed us that rapid prototyping of future decision-making scenarios not only can make urban design futureproofed, but it can help people to relate to the future more adaptively by learning about relations among variables and trade-offs. 5. Conclusions This study provides new insights concerning transformative potential of innovations that engage with emerging technologies. Based on an analytical framework of transformative potential that accounts for a relational view of paradigms and technology use, results indicate that uses of XR, AI and sensors can either be framed by paradigms of the mechanical worldview of the modernist urban design, or by radical paradigms of an emerging worldview, reinforcing either. A contribution of this thesis is the articulation of that regenerative post-human worldview, to provide a view of the world where technology is in synergy with the extended community of life, and

to identify knowledge production paradigms, embedded in that worldview, that coupled with XR, AI, and sensors could provide ways to depart from the modernist urban design. This study suggests, based on empirical data from 5 cases paradigm shifts to embodied, extended ways of knowing and collaborative, democratized modes of production have be, furthermore, “enhanced” or “augmented” by technology, creating new modalities e.g cosensing with AI, pervasive sensing, telepresence, enhanced presence, sensor-based multisensory experiences, tangible multi-stakeholder planning, embodied planning, immersive urban futurism, participatory sensing, participatory immersive planning, opensourced planning among others. The diversity of these terms reflects that radical paradigms are in the making. Pointing out to these new narratives is at best, a picture of the moment. What is most important to highlight is that these new modalities of ways of knowing help us to augment our capacities to sense

nature, sense the future, sense neglected or sidelined narratives in urban design; in the same way that new modalities of modes of production help us to enhance co-production and integration of multiple sources of knowledge, adaptation to the future and radically democratize the production of the city. 6. References Alberti, M., McPhearson, T and Gonzalez, A (2018) Embracing Urban Complexity, Urban Planet. doi: 101017/9781316647554004 Alvear, O., Calafate, C T, Cano, J C and Manzoni, P (2018) ‘Crowdsensing in smart cities: Overview, platforms, and environment sensing issues’, Sensors, 18(2), pp. 1–28 doi: 10.3390/s18020460 Armstrong, R. (2015a) ‘An experimental approach towards characterizing Architectural Ecologies’, Systema: connecting matter, life, culture and technology, 3(2), pp. 91–113 Armstrong, R. (2015b) ‘Embodied intelligence : changing expectations in building performance’, Intelligent Buildings International, (July). doi: 10.1080/1750897520151050581

Avelino, F. (2017) ‘Power in Sustainability Transitions: Analysing power and (dis)empowerment in transformative change towards sustainability’, Environmental Policy and Governance, 27(6), pp. 505–520 doi: 101002/eet1777 Avelino, F. and Rotmans, J (2009) ‘Power in transition: An interdisciplinary framework to study power in relation to structural change’, European Journal of Social Theory, 12(4), pp. 543–569 doi: 101177/1368431009349830 Barnett, J. (2016) ‘Modernist City Design’, in City Design : Modernist, Traditional, Green and Systems Perspectives. London: Routledge, pp 13–62 Beatley, T. (2018) ‘Toward Biophilic Cities: Strategies for Integrating Nature into Urban Design’, in Biophilic Design : The Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life. Hoboken, NJ, pp 277–296 Benyus, J. M (2011) ‘A Biomimicry Primer’, Biomimicry Resourse Handbook, p 9 Available at: www.biomimicrynet Buck, N. T (2017) ‘The art of imitating life: The potential

contribution of biomimicry in shaping the future of our cities’, Environment and Planning: Urban Analytics and City Science, 44(1), pp. 120–140 doi: 101177/0265813515611417 Capra, F. and Luigi, P (2014) The system view of life: A unifying vision New York, NY, US: Cambrigde University Press. Carter, J. A, Clark, A, Kallestrup, J, Palermos, S O and Adams, F (2018) ‘Oxford Scholarship Online Extended Epistemology Extended Knowledge’, (January 2019), pp. 1–18. doi: 101093/oso/97801987698110010001 Chabay, I. and Ta, J D (2012) ‘Coupling Human Information and Knowledge Systems with social – ecological systems change : Reframing research , education , and policy for sustainability’, Environmental Science & Policy, 8(28), pp. 71–81 doi: 10.1016/jenvsci201211005 Colding, J. and Barthel, S (2017) ‘An urban ecology critique on the “Smart City” model’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 164, pp. 95–101 doi: 10.1016/jjclepro201706191 Cole, R. J (2012) ‘Regenerative

design and development: current theory and practice’, Building Research & Information, 40(1), pp. 1–6 doi: 101080/096132182012617516 Cole, R. J, Oliver, A and Robinson, J (2013) ‘Regenerative design, socio-ecological systems and co-evolution’, Building Research and Information, 41(2), pp. 237–247 doi: 10.1080/096132182013747130 Cornell, S., Berkhout, F, Tuinstra, W, Tàbara, J D, Jäger, J, Chabay, I, de Wit, B, Langlais, R., Mills, D, Moll, P, Otto, I M, Petersen, A, Pohl, C and van Kerkhoff, L (2013) ‘Opening up knowledge systems for better responses to global environmental change’, Environmental Science and Policy, 28, pp. 60–70 doi: 10.1016/jenvsci201211008 Costanza, E., Panchard, J, Zufferey, G, Nembrini, J, Freudiger, J, Huang, J and Hubaux, J.-P (2010) ‘SensorTune: a mobile auditory interface for DIY wireless sensor networks’, Audio, 4(April). doi: 101145/17533261753675 Coulthard, D. and Keller, S (2012) ‘Technophilia, neo-Luddism, eDependency and the

judgement of Thamus’, Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 10(4), pp. 262–272 doi: 101108/14779961211285881 Dewitz, B., Wiche, R, Geiger, C, Steinicke, F and Feitsch, J (2018) ‘Enabling Augmented Sense-Making (and Pure Experience) with Wearable Technology’, in Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social-Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering, LNICST, pp. 59–76 doi: 101007/978-3-319-730622 5 Dias, B. D (2015) ‘Beyond Sustainability – Biophilic and Regenerative Design in Architecture’, European Scientific Journal, 7881(March), pp. 1857–7881 Dublon, G. and Portocarrerro, E (2015) ‘Listentree : Audio-Haptic Display in the Natural Environment’, Proceedings of CHI’15 (ACM), pp. 395–398 Duhart, C., Dublon, G, Mayton, B and Paradiso, J (2019) ‘Deep learning locally trained wildlife sensing in real acoustic wetland environment’, Communications in Computer and Information Science, 968, pp. 3–14 doi:

101007/978-981-13-5758-9 1 Evely, A., Reed, M, Scott, A and Hardman, M (2012) ‘Future Tools Literature Review’, Computer-Aided Design, (i). Available at: http://wwweatmetreeorguk/pdfs/futures tools literature review fullpdf Farina, M. (2010) ‘Book review - Supersizing the mind : embodiment, action, and cognitive extension’, Humana.Mente, (14), pp 225–233 Fazey, I., Moug, P, Allen, S, Beckmann, K, Blackwood, D, Bonaventura, M, Burnett, K., Danson, M, Falconer, R, Gagnon, A S, Harkness, R, Hodgson, A, Holm, L., Irvine, K N, Low, R, Lyon, C, Moss, A, Moran, C, Naylor, L, O’Brien, K., Russell, S, Skerratt, S, Rao-Williams, J and Wolstenholme, R (2018) ‘Transformation in a changing climate: a research agenda’, Climate and Development. Taylor & Francis, 10(3), pp. 197–217 doi: 101080/1756552920171301864 Feenberg, A. (2001) ‘Democratizing technology: interests, codes, rights’, (October 2000), pp. 177–195 Fernández, M. L, Rubio, R and González, S M (2013)

‘Architectural envelopes that interact with their environment’, Conference and Exhibition - 2013 International Conference on New Concepts in Smart Cities: Fostering Public and Private Alliances, SmartMILE 2013, pp. 0–5 doi: 101109/SmartMILE20136708189 Ferrando, F. (2013) ‘Posthumanism, Transhumanism, Antihumanism, Metahumanism and New Materialisms’, Existenz, 08(2), pp. 26–32 doi: 101075/is11201sha Ferrari, M. and Weststrate, N M (2013) ‘Relevance, Meaning and the Cognitive Science of Wisdom’, The Scientific Study of Personal Wisdom: From Contemplative Traditions to Neuroscience, (November 2013), pp. 1–356 doi: 101007/978-94-0077987-7 Folke, C., Carpenter, S R, Walker, B, Scheffer, M and Chapin, T (2010) ‘Resilience Thinking : Integrating Resilience , Adaptability and Transformability’, 15(4). Folke, C., Colding, J and Berkes, F (2004) ‘Navigating social–ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change’, Biological Conservation, 119(4),

p. 581 doi: 10.1016/jbiocon200401010 Forlano, L. (2017) ‘Posthumanism and Design’, She Ji Elsevier, 3(1), pp 16–29 doi: 10.1016/jsheji201708001 Galafassi, D. (2018) The Transformative Imagination: Re-imagining the world towards sustainability. Geels, F. (2005) ‘Co-evolution of technology and society: The transition in water supply and personal hygiene in the Netherlands (1850-1930) - A case study in multilevel perspective’, Technology in Society, 27(3), pp. 363–397 doi: 10.1016/jtechsoc200504008 Glaser, B. (2013) ‘Grounded theory methodology’, Introducing Qualitative Research in Psychology, pp. 69–82 doi: 101191/1478088706qp063oa Glendinning, C. (1990) ‘Notes toward a Neo-Luddite Manifesto’ Göpel, M. (2016) The Great Mindshift Hensel, M., Achim, M and Weinstock, M (2010) Emergent Technologies and Design : Towards a Biological Paradigm for Architecture. Routledge, London Hodgson, A. (2013) ‘Towards an ontology of the present moment’, On the Horizon, 21(1), pp.

24–38 doi: 101108/10748121311297049 Hollands, R. G (2015) ‘Critical interventions into the corporate smart city’, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8(1), pp. 61–77 doi: 101093/cjres/rsu011 Johnson, M. (2015) ‘Embodied understanding’, 6(June), pp 1–8 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg201500875 Kaika, M., Heynen, N, Kaika, M and Swyngedouw, E (2006) ‘In the Nature of Cities: Urban Political Ecology and The Politics of Urban Metabolism’, (January). Kellert, S. (2008) ‘The Theory of Biophilic Design’, Biophilic Design; The Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life, pp. 1–20 Kilteni, K., Groten, R and Slater, M (2012) ‘The Sense of Embodiment in Virtual Reality’, Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 21(4), pp. 373–387 doi: 10.1162/PRES a 00124 Kirsh, D. (2013) ‘Embodied cognition and the magical future of interaction design’, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 20(1), pp. 1–30 doi: 10.1145/24421062442109

Krivý, M. (2018) ‘Towards a critique of cybernetic urbanism: The smart city and the society of control’, Planning Theory, 17(1), pp. 8–30 doi: 101177/1473095216645631 Kuznetsov, S. and Paulos, E (2010) ‘Participatory sensing in public spaces’, p 21 doi: 10.1145/18581711858175 De la Peña, N., Weil, P, Llobera, J, Spanlang, B, Friedman, D, Sanchez-Vives, M V and Slater, M. (2010) ‘Immersive Journalism: Immersive Virtual Reality for the FirstPerson Experience of News’, Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 19(4), pp. 291–301 doi: 101162/PRES a 00005 Lane, N. D, Eisenman, S B, Miluzzo, E, Musolesi, M and Campbell, A T (2007) ‘{U}rban {S}ensing: {O}pportunistic or {P}articipatory?’, First Workshop on Sensing on Everyday Mobile Phones in Support of Participatory Research (6 November 2007), held at ACM SenSys 2007 (6–9 November 2007, Sydney, Australia), pp. 11–16 Available at: http://urban.censuclaedu/sensys07/indexphp/Accepted Papers and Workshop Agen

da. Larson, K. and Maes, P (2017) ‘CityMatrix – An Urban Decision Support System Augmented by Artificial Intelligence’. Lemmon, V. W (2014) ‘Extra-sensory perception’, Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 4(1), pp. 227–238 doi: 10.1080/0022398019379917533 Lodder, M., Huffenreuter, R L, Braungart, M and den Held, D (2014) ‘Regenerative Sustainable Development : Towards a Triple Top Line approach and Increasing Positive Externalities’, Conference Paper for the 5th International Sustainability Transitions Conference, August 27-29, 2014, Utrecht., pp 1–22 Lodder, M., Huffenreuter, R L, Braungart, M and Den Held, D (2014) ‘Regenerative Sustainable Development: Towards a Triple Top Line approach and Increasing Positive Externalities’, 5th International Sustainability Transitions Conference, (August 2014), pp. 1–13 doi: 101016/jneuroimage200312033 Loorbach, D., Frantzeskaki, N and Avelino, F (2017) ‘Sustainability Transitions Research :

Transforming Science and Practice for Societal Change’. Luque-Ayala, A. and Marvin, S (2015) ‘Developing a critical understanding of smart urbanism?’, Urban Studies, 52(12), pp. 2105–2116 doi: 101177/0042098015577319 Majs, J. (2008) Evolutionary ontology : Reclaiming the value of nature by transforming culture. BRILL Mark Billinghurst and K, H. (2002) ‘Collaborative Augmented Reality’, Communications of the ACM, 45(7). Maselli, A. and Slater, M (2013) ‘The building blocks of the full body ownership illusion’, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7(March), pp. 1–15 doi: 10.3389/fnhum201300083 Mayton, B., Dublon, G, Russell, S, Lynch, E F, Haddad, D D, Vasant Ramasubramanian, C. D, Davenport, G and Paradiso, J A (2018) ‘The Networked Sensory Landscape: Capturing and Experiencing Ecological Change Across Scales’, Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 26(2), pp. 182–209 doi: 10.1162/PRES McCormick, K., Anderberg, S, Coenen, L and Neij, L (2013) ‘Advancing

sustainable urban transformation’, Journal of Cleaner Production. Elsevier Ltd, 50, pp 1–11 doi: 10.1016/jjclepro201301003 Mueller, J., Lu, H, Chirkin, A, Klein, B and Schmitt, G (2018) ‘Citizen Design Science: A strategy for crowd-creative urban design’, Cities. Elsevier, 72(August 2017), pp. 181–188 doi: 101016/jcities201708018 Murray, C. D and Sixsmith, J (2004) ‘The Corporeal Body in Virtual Reality’, Ethos, 27(3), pp. 315–343 doi: 101525/eth1999273315 Noyman, A., Holtz, T, Kröger, J, Noennig, J R and Larson, K (2017) ‘Finding Places: HCI Platform for Public Participation in Refugees’ Accommodation Process’, Procedia Computer Science. Elsevier BV, 112, pp 2463–2472 doi: 10.1016/jprocs201708180 Noyman, A., Sakai, Y and Larson, K (2018) ‘CityScopeAR: Urban Design and Crowdsourced Engagement Platform MIT Media Lab’. Available at: https://www.mediamitedu/publications/cityscope ar/ Nyström, M. (2017) Resilience, Regime shifts & Alternative Stables

States Oelschlaeger, M. A X (2017) ‘The Myth of the Technological Fix Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article : The Myth of the Technological Fix’, 10(1), pp. 43–53. Offenhuber, D. and Ratti, C (2014) Decoding the city: Urbanism in the Age of Big Data. Olsson, P., Galaz, V and Boonstra, W J (2014) ‘Sustainability transformations: A resilience perspective’, Ecology and Society, 19(4). doi: 105751/ES-06799-190401 Olsson, P., Moore, M-L, Westley, F R and McCarthy, D (2017) ‘The concept of the Anthropocene as a game-changer : a new context for social innovation and transformations to sustainability’, 22(2). Oppermann, S. (2016) ‘From Posthumanism to Posthuman Ecocriticim’, Relations, (4.1), pp 23–37 doi: 107358/rela-2016-001-oppe Oxman, N. (2008) ‘Material Ecology’, Computer-Aided Design Pelzer, P. and Versteeg, W (2019) ‘Imagination for change: The Post-Fossil City Contest’, Futures. Elsevier Ltd, 108(April 2018), pp 12–26 doi:

10.1016/jfutures201901005 Petkova, V. I, Khoshnevis, M and Ehrsson, H H (2011) ‘The perspective matters! Multisensory integration in egocentric reference frames determines full-body ownership’, Frontiers in Psychology, 2(MAR), pp. 1–7 doi: 103389/fpsyg201100035 Petkovics, Á., Simon, V, Gódor, I and Böröcz, B (2015) ‘Crowdsensing solutions in smart cities: Introducing a horizontal architecture’, Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Advances in Mobile Computing and Multimedia - MoMM 2015, pp. 33–37 doi: 101145/28371262837171 Du Plessis, C. (2008) ‘A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Social-ecological systems’, in Exploring Sustainability Science- A southern African perspective. Stellenboch, South Africa: Sun Press. Du Plessis, C. (2009) An approach to studying urban sustainability from within an ecological worldview. University of Salford, UK Du Plessis, C. (2012) ‘Towards a regenerative paradigm for the built environment’, Building

Research & Information, 40(1), pp. 7–22 doi: 10.1080/096132182012628548 Du Plessis, C. and Brandon, P (2014) ‘An ecological worldview as basis for a regenerative sustainability paradigm for the built environment’, Journal of Cleaner Production. Elsevier Ltd, 109, pp 53–61 doi: 101016/jjclepro201409098 Du Plessis, C. and Brandon, P (2015) ‘An ecological worldview as basis for a regenerative sustainability paradigm for the built environment’, Journal of Cleaner Production. Elsevier Ltd, 109, pp 53–61 doi: 101016/jjclepro201409098 Rachel, A. (2018) Soft Living Architecture: An Alternative View of Bio-informed Practice. London: Arts, Bloomsbury Visual Raja, V. and Calvo, P (2017) ‘Augmented reality: An ecological blend’, Cognitive Systems Research. Elsevier BV, 42(November), pp 58–72 doi: 10.1016/jcogsys201611009 Ratii, C. and Claudel, M (2014) Open Source Architecture Available at: https://www.researchgatenet/publication/280879901 Book Review Open Source Arc

hitecture by Carlo Ratti with Matthew Claudel/references. Ratti, C. and Maudel, M (2015) The city of tomorrow: sensors, networks, hackers and the future of urban life. Raymond, C. M, Giusti, M and Barthel, S (2018) ‘An embodied perspective on the co-production of cultural ecosystem services: toward embodied ecosystems’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. Taylor & Francis, 61(5–6), pp 778–799 doi: 10.1080/0964056820171312300 Reed, B. (2007) ‘Shifting from “sustainability” to regeneration’, Building Research & Information, 35(6), pp. 674–680 doi: 101080/09613210701475753 Resch, B., Britter, R and Ratti, C (2012) ‘Live urbanism - Towards SENSEable cities and beyond’, Springer Optimization and Its Applications, 56, pp. 175–184 doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-0745-5 10 Rigolot, C. (2018) ‘Sustainability transformations as shifts in worldviews: A dynamic view of complementarity issues’, Ecology and Society, 23(2), pp. 2016–2019 doi:

10.5751/ES-10101-230222 Robinson, J. (2003) ‘Future subjunctive : backcasting as social learning’, 35, pp 839– 856. doi: 101016/S0016-3287(03)00039-9 Rykiel, E. (1989) ‘Artificial intelligence and Expert systems in ecology and natural resource management’, Ecological Modelling, 46, pp. 3–8 Schubert, G., Schattel, D, Tönnis, M, Klinker, G and Petzold, F (2015) ‘Tangible mixed reality on-site: Interactive augmented visualisations from architectural working models in urban design’, Communications in Computer and Information Science, 527, pp. 55–74 doi: 101007/978-3-662-47386-3 4 Seuring, S. and Gold, S (2012) ‘Conducting content-analysis based literature reviews in supply chain management’, Supply Chain Management, 17(5), pp. 544–555 doi: 10.1108/13598541211258609 Shilton, K., Ramanathan, N, Reddy, S, Samanta, V, Burke, J, Estrin, D, Hansen, M and Srivastava, M. (2008) ‘Participatory Design of Sensing Networks : Strengths and Challenges’, Design, pp. 285–288

doi: 101111/j1469-8137200902811x Shin, D. (2018) ‘Empathy and embodied experience in virtual environment: To what extent can virtual reality stimulate empathy and embodied experience?’, Computers in Human Behavior. Elsevier Ltd, 78, pp 64–73 doi: 101016/jchb201709012 Tengö, M., Johansson, K, Rakotondrasoa, F, Lundberg, J, Andriamaherilala, J-A, Rakotoarisoa, J.-A and Elmqvist, T (2007) ‘Taboos and forest governance: informal protection of hot spot dry forest in southern Madagascar.’, Ambio, 36(8), pp 683–691 doi: 10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[683:TAFGIP]20CO;2 Tooran, A. (2018) ‘Crowdsourced Smart Cities versus Corporate Smart Cities’, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. Vanolo, A. (2016) ‘Is there anybody out there? The place and role of citizens in tomorrow’s smart cities’, Futures. Elsevier Ltd, 82, pp 26–36 doi: 10.1016/jfutures201605010 Waldman-Brown, A., Wanyiri, J, Adebola, S O, Chege, T, Fab, M M and Nairobi, L. (2015)

‘Democratising Technology: the Confluence of Makers and Grassroot Innovators’, Proc of ICCIG ’15, (January 2015), p. 22 Walker, B. H, Carpenter, S R, Rockstrom, J and Peterson, G D (2012) ‘Drivers , " Slow " Variables , " Fast " Variables , Shocks , and Resilience’, 17(3), pp. 1–4 Westley, F., Olsson, P, Folke, C, Homer-Dixon, T, Vredenburg, H, Loorbach, D, Thompson, J., Nilsson, M, Lambin, E, Sendzimir, J, Banerjee, B, Galaz, V and Van Der Leeuw, S. (2011) ‘Tipping toward sustainability: Emerging pathways of transformation’, Ambio, 40(7), pp. 762–780 doi: 101007/s13280-011-0186-9 Willcock, S., Martínez-López, J, Hooftman, D A P, Bagstad, K J, Balbi, S, Marzo, A., Prato, C, Sciandrello, S, Signorello, G, Voigt, B, Villa, F, Bullock, J M and Athanasiadis, I. N (2018) ‘Machine learning for ecosystem services’, Ecosystem Services. The Authors, 33, pp 165–174 doi: 101016/jecoser201804004 Wolff, J. and Avner, D-S (2007) Disadvantage Oxford

Scholarship Online Zambonelli, F., Salim, F, Loke, S W, De Meuter, W and Kanhere, S (2018) ‘Algorithmic Governance in Smart Cities: The Conundrum and the Potential of Pervasive Computing Solutions’, IEEE Technology and Society Magazine. IEEE, 37(2), pp. 80–87 doi: 101109/MTS20182826080 Zhan, C., Schraven, D, Weijnen, M, Joss, S and de Jong, M (2015) ‘Sustainable– smart–resilient–low carbon–eco–knowledge cities; making sense of a multitude of concepts promoting sustainable urbanization’, Journal of Cleaner Production. Elsevier Ltd, 109, pp. 25–38 doi: 101016/jjclepro201502004 Zhang, X., Bayulken, B, Skitmore, M, Lu, W and Huisingh, D (2018) ‘Sustainable urban transformations towards smarter, healthier cities: Theories, agendas and pathways’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 173, pp. 1–10 doi: 10.1016/jjclepro201710345 Zhang, Y., Grignard, A, Lyons, K, Aubuchon, A and Larson, K (2018) ‘Real-time Machine Learning Prediction of an Agent-Based Model for Urban

Decision-making (Extended Abstract)’, Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems – AAMAS 2018, pp. 2171–2173 7.Main Appendices Appendice 1. Ethics review SRC Ethics Assessment Form Please highlight YES/NO boxes, adding short statements where appropriate/ requested to explain which has been selected. 1. Legal, and Moral Responsibilities, and Codes of Conduct This section must be completed for all research projects. 1. Could conflicts of interest conceivably arise between the researcher(s), funding bodies, the institution, and/or research subjects/environments? YES x¨ NO ¨ How will any conflicts of interest be addressed? Parties Type of conflict Mitigation measures Student Intellectual An oral agreement between supervisors and the ownership and researcher will address this. Student Interviewees may The PLS and consent form clearly detail the and people want to be portraed purpose of the research to

frame the being in a good way expectations of participants involved supervisors interviewed Interviewees will also have the option to review their transcripts in the PLS in order to check their opinions are properly reflected. 2. What is the moral responsibility to provide feedback or results to the research participants/ funders/ partners? If there are any legal obligations to provide feedback or results these should also be listed here. To the best of my knowledge at this point I have no formal responsibility to provide feedback or results of my study with participants. 3. Are you aware of codes of conduct from professional associations that should guide your research? Please identify the relevant code(s). x¨ YES NO ¨ • The Ethical guidelines of Stockholm University and of of Stockholm Resilience Centre • The FAIR principles of scientific data management • The respect EU project guidelines 4. Does the research need to be, or has the research been,

ethically reviewed in the host country? How has/ will the review be arranged? YES ¨ NO ¨x Guidance relating to legal and moral responsibilities and a sample list of relevant Codes of Conduct can be found in the Ethics Self-Assessment Guidance Notes. If applicable, include a statement on how conflicts of interest will be addressed in the Additional Statement at the end of the form. 2. Rights of Human Subjects If the research involves living human subjects, or if your work requires interaction with people in the course of your research (e.g gaining access to land-owners’ land) I) THE PARTICIPANTS 1. How many participants will be involved in the study? 10-20 participants 2. Vulnerable Groups If you answer YES to the following then you are likely addressing a vulnerable group and a special consideration must be given to achieving informed consent and preventing harm. Please discuss mitigation measures that will be taken below. Does the research specifically target (tick as

appropriate): YES ¨ NO ¨x Children under 18 years of age? YES ¨ NO ¨x People known to have special educational needs? YES ¨ NO ¨x Anyone who is physically or mentally ill (to the extent that they may not be able to provide consent)? YES ¨ NO ¨x Anyone who might be under the influence of drugs or alcohol? YES ¨ NO ¨x Members of a vulnerable or stigmatized minority? YES ¨ NO ¨x Anyone who is vulnerable in other ways? (If yes, explain) If you have answered YES to any of these, discuss mitigation measures below: 3. Potential Conflicts of Interest/ Influence on results Are any participants (tick as appropriate): YES ¨ NO ¨x In a client or professional relationship with the researcher(s) YES ¨ NO ¨x In an unequal working relationship with the researcher(s)? YES ¨ NO ¨x In any other dependent relationship with the researcher(s)? If you have answered YES to any of these, discuss mitigation measures below: II) PARTICIPANT SELECTION 1. What are the criteria for the

selection of participants? How will you decide who will be included/excluded from the study? For the interviews, the criteria for selection of practitioners in urban design is as follows: i) initiatives that are divergent from the current dominant urban design regime across the activities of the system: data collection, sense-making, envisioning, modelling, ii) initiatives that engage with some form of technology (to be better defined as exponential technology) in the urban design practice I will identify these people in both academic journals and media news (magazines of design, architecture, technology) and organize a directory of people to contact and having more than one option for a type of innovation. So, in this sense my strategy is to contact a lot of people and exclude those who don’t reply. 2. How will participants be recruited? (eg adverts, personal contacts, email, recruitment through employer) They will be contacted through email. 3. If contact details will be obtained

from public sources, does it fulfil the conditions in the Personal Data Act? Motivate your response: I will send an email to the official email address I find public *Required Appendices: • If using advertisements append a copy of the advertisement or a description of its contents and details of where it will be advertised. • If contact details will be obtained from private sources, you will need an approval letter? Please append a copy. • If recruitment will be conducted by a third party (e.g employer, doctor) do you have a letter requesting their assistance, and/or a letter confirming their willingness to assist? Please append a copy. III) PARTICIPANT REWARDS 1. Will participants receive any financial or other material benefits because of participation? YES ¨ NO ¨ x If YES, describe the benefits and how these will be distributed. Consider if it will be appropriate to the local context, and how will you avoid it becoming an inducement that interferes with free

consent of participants? IV) PARTICIPANT INFORMATION AND CONSENT Consider the measures that will be used to protect and/or to inform participants: YES ¨ NO x¨ Is anyone to be interviewed in a language that they are not fluent in? YES ¨ NO x¨ Is anyone who might have difficulty in reading and/or comprehending any printed material distributed as part of the study? When the research interacts with living humans you must have a Plain Language Statement (PLS) that explains to potential participants what your research is about. In some contexts the provision of a written PLS will be inappropriate. Nonetheless, a statement such as this should form the basis of any verbal communication with participants about your research objectives. In some contexts, it may be appropriate to supplement verbal communication with an illustrated/visual equivalent of the PLS. Please append the document you will use to the Ethics Form. See attached PLS 1. Checklist of PLS contents If your PLS does

not include any of these, please motivate why: Does your PLS include: YES x¨ NO ¨ Institution and research unit identification YES x¨ NO ¨ Details of the project title YES x¨ NO ¨ Details of the researcher(s) and how to contact them YES x¨NO ¨ Details of what the project will require (e.g involvement in interviews, completion of a questionnaire, audio/film recording), the estimated time of commitment, and any risks involved YES x¨ NO ¨ The source of funding YES x¨ NO ¨ Advice that ethics have been considered YES x¨ NO ¨ Advice about parameters of anonymity and confidentiality YES x¨ NO ¨ A statement that participation will not affect any on-going interaction (if the research subject(s) is/are in a dependent relationship with the researcher) YES x¨NO ¨ Advice that involvement in the project is voluntary and that participants are free to withdraw consent at any time YES x¨ NO ¨ Advice as to the arrangements to be made to protect confidentiality of

data, including that confidentiality of information may be subject to limitations YES x¨ NO ¨ Advice as to whether data is to be destroyed after a minimum period YES x¨ NO ¨ Advice that if participants have any concerns about the conduct of the research they can contact the SRC Ethics Committee YES x¨ NO ¨ Any other relevant information 2. Will the PLS be translated into the local language? YES ¨ NO x¨ Note that back-translation may be necessary to avoid misinterpretation of essential information. 3. Will written consent be sought from participants? YES x¨ NO ¨ Note that in some contexts written consent may not be obtainable or meaningful. If written consent will not be obtained for some or all participants please explain why circumstances make obtaining written consent problematic or inappropriate. Checklist of written consent. If your written consent does not include any of these, please motivate why. Does the written consent include: YES x¨ NO ¨

Institution and research unit identification YES x¨ NO ¨ Details of the project title YES x¨ NO ¨ Details of the researcher(s) and how to contact them YES x¨ NO ¨ Confirmation that the project is for research purposes YES x¨NO ¨ Confirmation that involvement is voluntary and that participants are free to withdraw at any time YES x¨ NO ¨ Confirmation of the particular requirements of participants YES x¨ NO ¨ Advice on legal limitations of data confidentiality YES x¨ NO ¨ Any other relevant information 4. Informed consent should be obtained in the native language of participants What arrangements will be made to do this? YES ¨ NO x¨ Written consent form will be translated into the local language YES ¨ NO x¨ Written consent form will be back-translated to ensure accuracy If not, why: Fluency in English is assumed for people which research or initiatives are being communicated in English. My research in academic journals and media news will be in English so

this already a way to avoid language issues later in interviews. 5. Will verbal consent be sought from participants? YES x¨ NO ¨ How this will be recorded, and will you need a witness? With a simple recording device such as the ones in cell phones. I won’t need a witness 6. In some cultures (eg hierarchical societies) it may be appropriate to obtain consent from a community leader or a ‘senior family member’ (e.g father, husband) before approaching a prospective participant. What arrangements will be made to obtain the appropriate consent? This doesn´t apply to my study Note that this should not be construed as a substitute for individual consent, which must still be obtained from each prospective participant. 7. In the case of minors participating in the research on an individual basis, the consent or assent of parents must be obtained. How will this consent or assent be obtained? This doesn´t apply to my study 8. Will the consent or assent (at least verbal) of

minors participating in the research on an individual basis be obtained? How will this assent be obtained? And if it will not be obtained motivate why this is not needed. This doesn´t apply to my study 9. In the case of participants with special educational needs, will arrangements be made to ensure informed consent? What arrangements will be made? And if it will not be arranged motivate why this is not needed. This doesn´t apply to my study 10. Will the research require the collection of personal information about individuals without their direct consent? (For example from educational establishments, employers, other agencies) YES ¨ NO x¨ Please describe what information will be sought and why written/verbal consent for access to this information will not be obtained from the participants themselves. V) CONFIDENTIALITY 1. Will any part of the research involving participants be audio/film recorded or recorded using any other electronic medium? YES x¨ NO ¨ Please state what

medium is to be used and how the recordings be will used. A simple recorder from a smartphone. This audio will be used to then conduct a qualitative content analysis of the interviews. 2. Who will have access to the raw data and how will confidentiality be maintained? I will access to the raw data. This data will be stored on a portable hard drive with a password. 3. Will participants be identifiable? YES x¨ NO ¨ Consider how their consent to quotations/identifications will be sought. A possibility is that if I quote one somebody and he/she gives reference to some urban design initiative he/she has been involved in, therefore, it would be easy to identify him/her. This is a clarification made in the written/oral consent 4. Will the data files/audio/film footage be disposed of after the study? YES x¨ NO ¨ 5. How long will the data files/audio/film footage be retained? • Raw data: I will be disposed right after I finish my study and defend it. • Transcription of the

interview: I will keep it for 2 years, in case is needed for a publication of my thesis results 6. If relevant, how will the data be disposed of? Erase it from my personal hard drive. 7. How do you intend for the results of the research to be used? • Since this is an exploratory study I hope the results open opportunities to expand the research to include depth of analysis on practices, and/or the scope of types of practices, and/or the geographic location of practices. • I also hope to publish results in an article format to be distributed among the scientific community and urban design practitioner’s community. 8. Will the data collected in this research be made available for secondary use? YES ¨ NO x¨ If YES, what arrangements are in place to ensure the confidentiality and consent agreements? 9. Will feedback of findings be given to participants? YES x¨ NO ¨ If YES: how, when and in what format will this feedback be provided. If NO why not? Participants will

receive, if requested, a summary version. And if an article on the findings of the thesis is published then this will be also distributed to participants. 3. Potential Harm, Discomfort or Stress for Living Human Subjects or Non-humans This section must be completed for all research projects. If the answer to any of this is YES, please provide a response showing that you have considered the nature of the risk and state what measures will be taken to prevent, mitigate and/or minimise the potential problems and to protect the participants. If you answer NO provide a brief motivation for your answer. YES ¨ NO x¨ Could the research induce any psychological stress or discomfort? Experts/ practitioners are consulted in their field of expertise, so no personal or potentially emotional information is going to be address that may lead to psychological stress. YES ¨NO x¨ Does the research require any physically invasive or potentially physically harmful procedures? No, the field work is just

interviews will be in a urban setting. YES ¨ NO x¨ Does the research involve the investigation of any illegal behaviour? YES ¨ NOx ¨ Is it possible that this research will lead to the disclosure of information about child abuse or neglect? If there is a real risk of such disclosure triggering an obligation to make a report to the relevant authority, a warning to this effect must be included in the information and consent documents. YES ¨ NOx ¨ Is there any purpose to which the research findings may be put that could adversely affect participants (e.g cause conflict)? YES ¨ NOx ¨ Could the research adversely affect members of particular groups of people? YES ¨ NOx ¨ Is there foreseeable potential for violation of, or clash with, cultural or social norms/practices? YES x¨ NO ¨ Is this research expected to benefit the participants, directly or indirectly? Yes, the results might be helpful for understanding what paradigm shifts are needed for urban design

innovations to be divergent from the current dominant regime. In this sense, this contribution in transformation literature might be helpful for practitioners to reflect upon their initiatives or assess them with new lenses. YES ¨ NO x¨ Will the true purpose of the research be concealed from the participants? Describe what information will be concealed and why. YES x¨ NO ¨ Will participants be debriefed at the conclusion of the study? If not explain why: Three-pager and thesis upon completion. YES ¨ NO x¨ Could this research adversely affect participants in any other way? Please explain: YES ¨ NO x¨ Is there foreseeable potential for psychological harm or stress to the researcher or other members of the research team (including those recruited locally)? YES ¨ NO x¨ Is there foreseeable potential for physical harm or discomfort to the researcher or other members of the research team (including those recruited locally)? Guidance relating to the minimisation of harm,

discomfort, or stress can be found in the Ethics Self-Assessment Guidance Notes. If applicable, include a statement on procedures to minimise harm or stress or to reduce the potential for violation of cultural norms and practices. 4. Effect on the Environment Will your research involve environmental fieldwork that involves sampling or directly monitoring a site, or involve movement in sensitive environments? YES ¨ NO ¨ If you answer YES please answer the questions below: 1. The fieldwork will be conducted in an environmentally sensitive area YES ¨ NO x¨ 2. Appropriate steps been taken to gain permission to access field sites? Clarify YES ¨ NO x¨ My field work only includes interviews 3. Does your field site require crossing sensitive or privately held land? YES ¨ NO x¨ 4. Have you made an arrangement with the landowner/ responsible bodies? YES ¨ NO x¨ 5. Will samples be collected and removed in sufficient quantities to have a negative physical/environmental

impact on the site and/or its ecosystem? YES ¨ NO x¨ 6. Will the conduct of the fieldwork significantly disrupt the site and/or its environment? YES ¨ NO x¨ 7. Does the fieldwork involve sampling rare/endangered or harmful taxa/species? If YES, has the appropriate permits been acquired (if not why not)? YES ¨ NO x¨ 8. Will the research involve transporting samples/specimens/soil between countries? If YES, has the appropriate permits been acquired (if not why not)? YES ¨ NO x¨ If you answer YES to 1, 5, 6, 7 or 8 please also answer and consider the following questions about field sites, sample collection and transportation of samples: I) FIELD SITES 1. How many field sites will be involved in the study? None. The interviews will be conducted through skype if needed, and in the site of choice of the interviewee (potentially an office). 2. What are the criteria for the selection of the field site(s)? The suggested place by the participant, and if it’s not feasible

to meet personally then skype format. 3. Will prior informed consent to use the field site(s) be sought from the relevant authorities (e.g government, national co-operation partner)? YES ¨ NO x¨ This doesn´t applied to my study. Note that informed consent is necessarily sometimes an iterative, progressive process, which benefits significantly from collaboration with local intermediaries and support organisations. Note also that national regulations may require that consent be obtained from additional stakeholders (e.g indigenous communities) Checklist for field site consent. Please justify if your consent does not contain any of these. Does your consent to access field site include: I won’t need a field site consent. YES ¨ NO ¨ Information about the primary investigator and their affiliation YES ¨ NO ¨ Information about local partners and their affiliation(s) YES ¨ NO ¨ Project structure and organisation YES ¨ NO ¨ Confidentiality policies YES ¨NO ¨

Comprehensive information on the source and nature of the resources to which access is sought YES ¨ NO ¨ Timing and duration of the research activity YES ¨ NO ¨ Exact geographic data on the area where the research is to take place YES ¨ NO ¨ Purpose and objectives of the research, type of research activity YES ¨ NO ¨ Potential utilisation of research findings YES ¨ NO ¨ Definition of the research benefits derived from the purely scientific use of the resources and how they will be shared YES ¨ NO ¨ Clear and agreed designation of the beneficiaries under the benefitsharing agreement YES ¨ NO ¨ Transparent information 4. If relevant, will the request for consent be translated into the national/local language? YES ¨ NO ¨ 5. Will the above authorities and/or stakeholders receive any financial or other material benefits for providing access to the field site(s)? Consider what benefits will be offered and why, if it will be appropriate to the local context, and how you will

avoid it becoming an inducement to grant access that would not otherwise be considered. 6. Will the field site(s) and location(s) be made anonymous? Why? 7. Who will have access to the raw data and how will anonymity (if relevant) be maintained? 8. Will the data collected in this research be made available for secondary use? YES ¨ NO ¨ If YES, what arrangements are in place to ensure the confidentiality and consent agreements? II) SAMPLE/SPECIMEN COLLECTION 1. Are the proposed concepts, methods and techniques of research the most appropriate approach to investigate the region(s) in which the field site(s) is/are located? 2. Will sample/specimen collection be kept to a minimum? What steps will be taken to ensure this. 3. Will the disturbance caused to local residents/wildlife be kept to a minimum? Have they been informed about the study? What steps will be taken to ensure this. 4. Will steps be taken to alert the host country about any impending threat to the field site

area(s) (e.g depletion of plant populations, erosion) and to make recommendations for remedial action? 5. Could the research jeopardise access to the field site(s) or country for other researchers in the future? III) TRANSPORTATION OF SAMPLES/SPECIMENS 1. Are you aware of the correct classification of the samples/specimens to be transported? 2. Are the samples/specimens to be transported considered as Dangerous Goods? Note that Dangerous Goods include ‘any goods, including articles and substances, which may pose a danger to the health and safety of people, or damage to property or the environment during carriage, except where they have been diluted to such an extent that they no longer have the hazardous properties of those goods’. See the UNECE Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, Model Regulations (Rev. 17) (2011) 3. If relevant, are you aware of the specific legislation for transporting Dangerous Goods by road, rail, sea and/or air? 4. Is there reason to

suspect that the samples/specimens to be transported might include infectious substances? Note that infectious substances are ‘substances which are known, or reasonably expected, to contain pathogens which are defined as micro-organisms (including bacteria, viruses, rickettsiae, parasites, and fungi), plasmids and other agents such as prions, which can cause disease in humans or animals’. See the WHO Guidance on the Regulations for the Transport of Infectious Substances 2009-2010. 5. Do the samples/specimens to be transported contain genetically modified microorganisms (GMMOs) or organisms (GMOs)? If these GMMOs or GMOs meet the definition of an infectious substance or are vectors that can transfer genetic material to other organisms, consider how they will be handled. 6. What procedures are planned for effective co-ordination between the sender, the carrier and the receiver? Please describe methods of communication, the partner relationship between, and the responsibilities

of each of the three parties. 7. Do any other individuals need to be involved in the transportation arrangements (eg Institution Safety Officer)? 8. If relevant, are you aware of the regulations and licensing procedures that cover the import of plants, plant material, plant pests, soil and growing medium into the European Union? Useful information is provided by CITES, DEFRA on animal health, DEFRA on plants and DEFRA on biological translocation policies, the Food and Environment Research Agency, and ECOLEX. Some specimens may need a Phytosanitary Certificate or a Plant Health Movement Document. 9. Is there a requirement to repatriate samples/specimens once the research is complete? 5. Institutional/ Agency Consent This section must be completed for all research projects. 1. Have permissions for research been obtained from national authorities in partner countries (as required)? YES ¨ Please describe and enclose copies in this form as appendix NO ¨ x Please explain why

not. To the best of my knowledge, I was not required to do so. 2. Will all researchers have appropriate permission to work in other countries, including the correct entry visas? YESx ¨ NO ¨ 3. Where data are, or have been, obtained from another agency, archive or source, is it clear that the intended usage adheres to their terms of supply? YES ¨ NO ¨ N/A x¨ I’m not using any data that is not public 4. Where other researchers’ data are being used, is it clear that the intended usage adheres to their terms of supply? YES ¨ NO ¨ N/A x¨ I ‘m not using any researcher’s data that is not published. 5. Are issues of data handling and consent dealt with adequately and following procedures agreed with agencies, archive, and/or land managers? YES ¨ NO x¨ N/A ¨ Guidance relating to data protection and consent can be found in the Ethics SelfAssessment Guidance Notes. 6. Collaborative Working This section must be completed for all research projects. 1. Will the

research be undertaken in academic collaboration with representatives of the host country? YES ¨ NO x¨ 2. Will the research involve collaborating with an NGO or other non-academic organisation/group? YES ¨ NO x¨ 3. Have you a written agreement pertaining to the collaborative relationship? Please include a copy of the agreement, or the key points to be agreed on YES ¨x NO ¨ N/A ¨ 4. Have you reached agreements relating to intellectual property, publication and authorship with all relevant research partners/stakeholders/supervisors? Please include a copy of the agreement, or the key points to be agreed on YES ¨ NO ¨ N/Ax ¨ 5. Will the research involve employing local field assistants (including guides and translators)? YES ¨ NO x¨ 6. Has the local community been involved in the preparation of the research proposal? YES ¨ NO x¨ Guidance relating collaborative working and the employment of local field assistants can be found in the Ethics Self-Assessment Guidance

Notes. 7. Dissemination This section must be completed for all research projects. 1. Will the findings be reported accurately, honestly and within a reasonable time frame? YES x¨ NO ¨ Right after defending my thesis, I plan to make a three-pager with the results and distribute it through email. 2. Will the research findings, associated publications and, where feasible, data be made available in the country where the research took place? YES ¨ Please describe how NO ¨ Please describe why not As soon as the publication of my master thesis is ready I expect to share it with parties involved in the research process. 3. Are publications for a wider audience planned as well as scientific papers in national and international journals? YES x¨ NO ¨ I remain open to do it, but the feasibility of this doesn’t depend of me but on opportunities we have to explore with my supervisor. 4. Have plans been made for the dissemination of results to the study participants and

local people? YES Please describe how NO ¨ Please describe why not x¨ Yes, I have already mentioned how in question 1. of this section Guidance relating to dissemination and intellectual property rights can be found in the Ethics Self-Assessment Guidance Notes. 8. Benefit Sharing This section must be completed for all research projects. 1. Will the research result in benefits to the participants, local communities, or local collaborating researchers (directly or indirectly)? YES x¨ Please describe how NO ¨ If NO, motivate the value of the project and people’s involvements Guidance relating to benefit sharing can be found in the Ethics Self-Assessment Guidance Notes. This research aims to make a theoretical contribution to the transformation research field, in the context of urban design. In this way, the results offer insights for the practitioners that they can use or not depending on how relevant they find them. 9. Additional Statement Please add any additional

explanation of ethical issues and how you will address them not covered in the comments above (500 words maximum). Participant Information Sheet (Plain Language Statement) Leading researcher: Melissa Ingaruca To be contacted at: melissa.ingaruca@gmailcom Supervisors: Andrew Merrie (SRC), Maria Schewenius (SRC), Contact for ethical concerns: Sarah Cornell - sarah.cornell@suse Thesis project: Transformative potential of innovations in urban design engaging with exponential technologies You are invited to take part in this master’s research project at Stockholm Resilience Centre. Participation is voluntary It is important for you to understand why the research is being done and what it will involve. Please take time to read the following information carefully. I am available if you have any questions or want to know more about the project. Thank you! Focus of the project We are becoming an urbanized planet. In the next 30 years, there will be more urban areas built than in the

whole of human history combined. So urban design is a leverage point for transformation. However, current dominant views and practices of urban design are locking-in cities in unsustainable patterns. My thesis aim is to define and describe radical urban design innovations engaging with exponential technologies that are challenging the dominant urban design regime i.e challenging long-held unquestioned practices and assumptions about the world e.g wellbeing, human-nature relations, power relations, the future, knowledge and the use of technology, across the activities of urban design i.e data collection, sensemaking, envisioning, modeling and manufacturing. This thesis will be informed by a literature review and in-depth interviews with practitioners at the frontiers of some of these practices. Why have you been chosen? After mapping of initiatives, experts and practitioners working at the frontiers of some of these innovations, your initiative was selected for an in-depth

interview What will happen if you take part and contribute to the study? Your involvement in this project includes the completion of an interview, the time required being approximately 60-90 minutes. Your involvement is voluntary, and you are free to withdraw your consent at any time during this interview. Audio will be recorded during the interview and you also have the option of requesting to see your interview transcript when this is available What about data handling and anonymity? The transcribed interviews will be coded and kept separate from your personal data. Both the recordings and the transcribed interviews will be stored in a hard drive with password and will solely be accessible to Melissa Ingaruca during the study. The anonymized transcripts will also be archived by Stockholm University for a duration of 10 years and be kept by Melissa Ingaruca for 2 years after the completion of the thesis. Also, in the attached consent form the degree of anonymity is specified. If you

are a participant that is a part of an urban design project/initiative, you should also note that you may be identifiable through the description of your initiative in the thesis and quotes. Results of the study After the completion of the thesis you will be sent a 3-page research summary of the main findings. The complete thesis will be sent upon request Melissa Ingaruca Moreno Master’s student, Stockholm Resilience Centre Consent form for interviewees Leading researcher: Melissa Ingaruca To be contacted at: melissa.ingaruca@gmailcom Supervisors: Andrew Merrie (SRC), Maria Schewenius (SRC), Victor Galaz (SRC) Contact for ethical concerns: Sarah Cornell - sarah.cornell@suse Thesis project: Transformative potential of innovations in urban design engaging with exponential technologies I have read the written Participation Information Sheet, voiced any concerns or asked for clarifications where needed and received answers. Participation is voluntary and includes one recorded

interview of 60 to 90 minutes. The interview data will be coded, and your personal information will be kept separated from the interview data. After the interviews have been transcribed you will have the chance to check the interview transcripts to correct any misinterpretations. For further information on data handling see attached PLS. I consent to participating in this research project ☐ I agree to audio being recorded during the interview☐ I agree to this degree of anonymity in the results: Usage of the name of my organization ☐ Usage of my work position Usage of quotes in the thesis Name and signature of participant: Appendice 2. Interview guide ☐ ☐ Date and location: Interview guide Paradigms: What are your design goals? Can you describe the philosophy (principles, values, mindset, paradigms) underlying those goals? • What is the view of city that you have? • What is the view of urban design that you have? • In case they don’t mention it in

the previous question. What is your view of ways of knowing, modes of producing knowledge in urban design (planning, research, modelling)? In relation to regime: Would you say that philosophy is a reaction/ a counternarrative to any specific dominant view of design? Do you see your initiative challenging any ideas (and practices) of that dominant (status quo) design practice? Specifically of knowledge production. Influences: What are the influences that have shaped this mindset e.g including art, design movements, philosophy, science? Practice of knowledge production: How this philosophy reflects in the practice? Describe the process of knowledge production (planning, research, modelling, envisioning) Use of technology in practice of knowledge production: How do you (or your team) make use of technology (XR, AI or/and sensors) in each of the steps of your practice of knowledge production? (for data collection, analysis) How the tech was helping you fulfill your mindset regarding

(paradigms they mentioned)? Has the use of technology enabled new opportunities that can keep changing the practice of urban design?