The increasing use of Artificial Intelligence for making decisions in public affairs has sparked a lively debate on the benefits and potential harms of self-learning technologies, ranging from the hopes of fully informed and objectively taken decisions to fear for the destruction of mankind. To prevent the negative outcomes and to achieve accountable systems, many have argued that we need to open up the “black box” of AI decision-making and make it more transparent. Whereas this debate has primarily focused on (...) how transparency can secure high-quality, fair, and reliable decisions, far less attention has been devoted to the role of transparency when it comes to how the general public come to perceive AI decision-making as legitimate and worthy of acceptance. Since relying on coercion is not only normatively problematic but also costly and highly inefficient, perceived legitimacy is fundamental to the democratic system. This paper discusses how transparency in and about AI decision-making can affect the public’s perception of the legitimacy of decisions and decision-makers and produce a framework for analyzing these questions. We argue that a limited form of transparency that focuses on providing justifications for decisions has the potential to provide sufficient ground for perceived legitimacy without producing the harms full transparency would bring. (shrink)

For many years, some urban architecture has aimed to exclude unwanted groups of people from some locations. This type of architecture is called “defensive” or “hostile” architecture and includes benches that cannot be slept on, spikes in the ground that cannot be stood on, and pieces of metal that hinder one’s ability to skateboard. These defensive measures have sparked public outrage, with many thinking such measures lead to suffering, are disrespectful, and violate people’s rights. In this paper, it is argued (...) that these views are difficult to defend and that much more empirical research on the topic is needed. (shrink)

In recent years, the pursuit of social sustainability has intensified, especially in urban development. This has resulted in numerous definitions of ‘social sustainability’ from stakeholders including researchers, non‐governmental organizations (NGOs) and both private and public sector entities. These definitions vary widely, encompassing values such as well‐being, good governance, equality, trust, diversity, and accessibility. Despite extensive contributions, a universally accepted definition remains elusive, indicating the need for further conceptual work. The primary issue is the lack of explicit criteria for adequacy, leading (...) to a stalemate in the literature. To address this issue, de Fine Licht and Folland, in 2019, proposed a framework with nine conditions of adequacy for evaluating definitions. Building on this framework, our paper systematically analyses and critiques existing definitions and proposes new, formal definitions for both ‘sustainability’ and ‘social sustainability’. Our approach identifies central challenges in existing definitions, demonstrates their inadequacy and presents an enhanced formal definition that avoids these pitfalls. Although our definitions do not specify particular values, they offer substantial results relevant to the sustainability discourse. The novelty of our work lies in our formal definition, engagement with the conditions of adequacy and systematic critique of existing definitions. (shrink)