Reviewer: Renato D’Alençon Castrillón

1. Is the subject matter relevant?

The subject of the article in relevant and appealing to the reader. The contrast of prescriptive mapping practices and bottom-up approaches is not new, but it does pose a provoking contrast worth elaborating, especially when it spans from IT to community engagement in less advantaged communities/countries. The penetration of technologies such as the cell phone have proven a tool of democratization in contexts where traditional infrastructures are in deficit and social conditions under stress (e.g. Haiti in the years after the earthquake). Decentralizing GIS mapping data sources does entail a further degree of democratization along these lines and is indeed promising.

2. Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?

A strong contrast posed to the empirical part of the work by the historical approach to XXth century experiences or utopias of communist urbanism and cybernetic economic monitoring under socialist governments such as Allende’s in Chile opens a wide span for the problem and in in its own terms interesting and well documented and referenced. However this elaboration of what could be termed a conceptual framework (sections “A Case of Vernacular Mapping” and “Cybernetic Cities and Double-Binds”) does not achieve a fruitful, substantial articulation with the empirical part of the work (sections “Urban Clamour” and “Mapping Mirpur”), which remain rather descriptive of the methodology (though interesting in itself) and elaborate only in part the transformative potential suggested. Several references and quotes are made to the programmers and NGO members’ experience, yet the end user view is only incidentally mentioned and not elaborated, as in the community workshops, or actual street mapping experience, which might have provided a strong insight in what does the GIS / OpenStreetMap platform mean or suggest for the citizens (or not). The five figures selected reinforce this impression: all of them show screenshots of the map tool interface and output; none of them shows the city reflected in the maps or the users living in it.

3. Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?

The work departs from an assumption of validity of the collected data as selected by the users, because of them being users. This is a plausible assumption yet not unproblematic, and in the context of the mentioned critical framework certainly worth discussing or at least documenting. How do users actually select the places they flag? Do they follow systematic paths or randomly stroll the city? Are they representative of ages, genders, social groups? Is the technology inclusive or maybe it discriminates a few? Issues of the sort are probably not absent in the considerations of the work, yet they are not explicit in the article and seem necessary to complete a broad understanding of the work. This seems necessary because the paper does emphasize the social dimension of the work. In sum, I would encourage to attempt more of a balance between “community” and “mapping”.

4. Is the article well written?

The article is well written in general, but adding to the mentioned discontinuity of the conceptual and the empirical sections, writing is also differing in tone. The whole would benefit from more continuity in writing. Some concepts (Double binds, e.g.) are not necessarily obvious and would need clarification; sub-titles could be more explanatory; acronyms should be explained.

5. Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?

N/A

Suggestions for improvement:

1. Clarifying the articulation between the conceptual and the empirical parts

2. Elaborating the empirical part with an emphasis of the phenomena that are mapped; reduce the discussion on the tools / methods

3. Clarifying the Sections Headers to help the reading

Reviewer: Gary Leggett

1. Is the subject matter relevant?

Yes.

2. Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?

First, I’d recommend that the authors decide whether the article is primarily aimed at other ICT4D project developers or a more general, critical public. I find the story of how the Kolorob app was developed much less compelling than the larger political implications of vernacular mapping (particularly coming from people working in the field). Second, despite the authors’ recognition of the “conceptual difficulty of either endorsing Kolorob as a case of counter-mapping or, conversely, criticizing it as yet another example of INGO meddling in local political economies…”, the article could do a better job at fleshing out what this conceptual difficulty entails. Simply mentioning a difficulty or a contradiction does not exonerate one from addressing it. Finally, regarding other literature, it might be interesting to think about ICT4D projects in light of James C. Scott’s Domination and the Arts of Resistance, particularly his idea that most political struggles occur somewhere between overt defiance and total compliance under a structure of power. Also, Gregory Bateson’s writings on information systems might be good to revisit in the context of smart city discourses.

3. Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?

Yes. I came out of the reading not knowing exactly what a “double bind of the informal smart city” might look like. This is a problem. The paragraph that starts with “Dependent upon technological mediators…” lists some of the “impossible injunctions” made on the informal smart city, but I can’t see how these play out as double binds. They just seem to me to be issues, not inherent contradictions—especially not according to Martin’s definition of the double bind as a no-win scenario that reconciles “mutually exclusive possibilities in a manner that is far more intractable than any ordinary contradiction.” This needs to be clarified. Also, the article refers to an ideological tension—very much at the heart of today’s ICT4D agenda— that “tore at the dual pursuit of economic rationalization and political emancipation” in Santiago’s Cybersyn project. I suspect, however, that Allende’s cybernetic vision can be treated less superficially. For one, the article glosses over the more sinister aspect of the project, not to mention its political context and ultimate fate. So I would be careful of using any part of it as an example without developing a more robust framework.

4. Is the article well written?

Barring a few grammatical mistakes and a couple of incomplete sentences, I would say, yes, for the most part. However, it could use less jargon, a more consistent tone, and a less disjointed structure. I found myself jumping too frequently between logistical anecdotes, historical accounts, theoretical reflections and a handful of techno-optimistic claims. Also, when the article discusses the double bind, it goes down a rabbit hole of references that does little to clarify the authors’ argument.

5. Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?

Based on the authors’ decision of whether the article will ultimately be aimed at other project developers or a more general public, I would suggest re-editing the whole piece. Personally, an article about the history and ideological underpinnings of vernacular mapping, ICTD4 and participatory systems, with a few present-day examples, would be far more interesting than a theory-steeped case report on Dhaka.

Suggestions for improvement:

–Decide whether the article is primarily aimed at other ICT4D project developers or a more general, critical public.

–Clarify what a “double bind of the informal smart city” might look like.

–Use less jargon, a more consistent tone, and a less disjointed structure.

Reviewer: Anonymous

1. Is the subject matter relevant?

Yes, the subject aligns with the call for paper on peer production in the city. The case study presented encapsulates the tensions between top-down neoliberal renderings of the smart city and grassroots experiments in community agency.

2. Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?

Yes, the paper is intellectually stimulating and thoughtful. It would have been nice to see some broader reference to literature on community mapping in relation to empowerment (Parker 2006) and governance (Fahy & Cinnéide 2009).

3. Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?

I found the section on Cybernetic Cities and double binds disconnected from the previous section on the Kolorob case study.

4. Is the article well written?

Yes.

5. Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?

The notion of double bind should be explained more clearly in the introduction. I would also like to see a clearer conceptual link in the Cybernetic Cities section between double bind in the context of the Kolorob case study. The Megaphonic section should be expanded to make this link between double bind and Kolorob really clear. The conclusion could point towards implications for future research beyond a discussion of technical considerations and community actor competencies.

Suggestions for improvement:

• Explain double bind more clearly up front.
• Make stronger linkages between Cybernetic Cities section and case study.
• Expand discussion section (Megaphonic Amplifications, Wireless Feedback) to make connection between double bind and Kolorob much clearer.
• Use conclusion to develop some ideas for future research directions in light of theoretical observations.