“…Thus, as soon as the analysis accounts for the possibility of fine-tuning each action as part of combinations of four actions (at level 2 and upwards), choices confronting space users become very complex. Panel B presents another approach whereby granularity is defined using the prism of Lecomte’s (2021a) interaction-based model of smart real estate. Actions are characterized in terms of standard (Std) and specific (Sp) interactions, which yields 256 possible combinations at level 3.…”
Section: Behavioural Control As Externality In the Production Of Smar...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ceteris paribus, control will organically grow over time and space to the point of full completeness (i.e. total appropriation of space users’ Umwelts in Lecomte, 2021a). Figure 3.Control in smart real estate as a co-produced common pool resource.…”
Section: Behavioural Control As Commonsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among these challenges are the issue of behavioural control in space and, more generally, the agency relationships that digital technologies powering smart buildings enable among stakeholders, that is, building occupants and parties who can control smart space. To deal with this issue, Lecomte (2021a) proposes a property rights regime whereby parties controlling space users' experiences in smart space are digital usage rights (DUR) holders.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Whoever control smart space either owing to de jure digital rights or de facto appropriation have the ability to monitor, control and shape building occupants' digital surrounding worlds, or Umwelt 1 as defined in Lecomte (2019aLecomte ( , 2020Lecomte ( , 2021a. Experiential customization underpinned by data collection, information processing and realtime feedbacks allows for enhanced user centricity (Lecomte, 2021a). But, in doing so, it opens the door to behavioural control in buildings dominated by the culture of computation (Lecomte, 2019b(Lecomte, , 2021a(Lecomte, , 2021b.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Experiential customization underpinned by data collection, information processing and realtime feedbacks allows for enhanced user centricity (Lecomte, 2021a). But, in doing so, it opens the door to behavioural control in buildings dominated by the culture of computation (Lecomte, 2019b(Lecomte, , 2021a(Lecomte, , 2021b. As pointed out by Penny (2014), spaces powered by pervasive computing are never neutral since computation is not 'value-free cognitive bedrock'.…”
The implementation of smart technologies in the built environment presents unprecedented opportunities and challenges for the real estate sector. Among the challenges is building occupants’ behavioural control due to smart buildings’ technological apparatus underpinned by pervasive computing. Since the early days of cybernetics, control stemming from information technology has generated many arguments about freedom, privacy and surveillance. Arguments only focused on technology or ethics tend to foster a Manichean view which obscures our ability to rationally assess calm and transparent technology’s role in controlling space users’ behaviours in smart buildings. The paper applies two classic economic frameworks to decipher the economic nature of behavioural control in smart real estate. In the process, it sheds some light on the complex utilitarian relationship between behavioural control and smart space’s user centricity. It concludes by assessing whether regulators should step in, for instance, through de jure property rights allocation among all parties.
“…Thus, as soon as the analysis accounts for the possibility of fine-tuning each action as part of combinations of four actions (at level 2 and upwards), choices confronting space users become very complex. Panel B presents another approach whereby granularity is defined using the prism of Lecomte’s (2021a) interaction-based model of smart real estate. Actions are characterized in terms of standard (Std) and specific (Sp) interactions, which yields 256 possible combinations at level 3.…”
Section: Behavioural Control As Externality In the Production Of Smar...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ceteris paribus, control will organically grow over time and space to the point of full completeness (i.e. total appropriation of space users’ Umwelts in Lecomte, 2021a). Figure 3.Control in smart real estate as a co-produced common pool resource.…”
Section: Behavioural Control As Commonsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among these challenges are the issue of behavioural control in space and, more generally, the agency relationships that digital technologies powering smart buildings enable among stakeholders, that is, building occupants and parties who can control smart space. To deal with this issue, Lecomte (2021a) proposes a property rights regime whereby parties controlling space users' experiences in smart space are digital usage rights (DUR) holders.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Whoever control smart space either owing to de jure digital rights or de facto appropriation have the ability to monitor, control and shape building occupants' digital surrounding worlds, or Umwelt 1 as defined in Lecomte (2019aLecomte ( , 2020Lecomte ( , 2021a. Experiential customization underpinned by data collection, information processing and realtime feedbacks allows for enhanced user centricity (Lecomte, 2021a). But, in doing so, it opens the door to behavioural control in buildings dominated by the culture of computation (Lecomte, 2019b(Lecomte, , 2021a(Lecomte, , 2021b.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Experiential customization underpinned by data collection, information processing and realtime feedbacks allows for enhanced user centricity (Lecomte, 2021a). But, in doing so, it opens the door to behavioural control in buildings dominated by the culture of computation (Lecomte, 2019b(Lecomte, , 2021a(Lecomte, , 2021b. As pointed out by Penny (2014), spaces powered by pervasive computing are never neutral since computation is not 'value-free cognitive bedrock'.…”
The implementation of smart technologies in the built environment presents unprecedented opportunities and challenges for the real estate sector. Among the challenges is building occupants’ behavioural control due to smart buildings’ technological apparatus underpinned by pervasive computing. Since the early days of cybernetics, control stemming from information technology has generated many arguments about freedom, privacy and surveillance. Arguments only focused on technology or ethics tend to foster a Manichean view which obscures our ability to rationally assess calm and transparent technology’s role in controlling space users’ behaviours in smart buildings. The paper applies two classic economic frameworks to decipher the economic nature of behavioural control in smart real estate. In the process, it sheds some light on the complex utilitarian relationship between behavioural control and smart space’s user centricity. It concludes by assessing whether regulators should step in, for instance, through de jure property rights allocation among all parties.
Due to the increasing embeddedness of pervasive and immersive technologies in the built environment, a new type of spaces known as smart environments emerges. With them arise many ethical issues related to freedom, agency, consciousness, and the governance of human-machine interactions. In this paper, I use Jakob von Uexküll’s Umwelt theory to devise principles for an applied ethics of umwelt, as part of a broader ethics of smart environments. Umwelt ethics is one of human beings’ surrounding world in the context of environmental capitalism. As umwelt becomes a resource to be exploited by economic agents with de facto or de jure rights to control space, defining ethical principles pertaining to the digitalization of space in the built environment is more important than ever.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
