Robots in public spaces: implications for policy design

ARTICLE

Michael Mintrom , Shanti Sumartojo , Dana Kuli

c , Leimin Tian ,

Pamela Carreno-Medrano and Aimee Allen

Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

ABSTRACT

Rapid advances in digital technologies have allowed robots to

become more autonomous and efficacious than ever before.

Future developments in robotics hold the potential to transform

human robot interactions. We can expect to see robots perform-

ing a variety of functions in public spaces. Possibilities exist for

robots to greatly improve the quality of our lives and to contrib-

ute positively to the safety, creative potential, and atmosphere of

public spaces. But as this trend develops, the risk emerges of

robots transforming public spaces and social interactions in

undesirable ways. By reviewing previous public policy approaches

to harnessing and regulating disruptive technology, we consider

how public policy could simultaneously enhance opportunities

created by the presence of robots in public spaces and reduce

the risks of undesirable outcomes. We summarize key insights

into a policy design checklist to guide policies on robots in public

spaces. These insights cover (1) safety, (2) privacy and ethics, (3)

productivity, (4) esthetics, (5) co-creation, (6) equitable access, and

(7) systemic innovation.

ARTICLE HISTORY

Received 13 July 2020

Accepted 15 March 2021

KEYWORDS

Robots; co-production;

disruptive technology;

human–robot interactions;

policy design;

technology regulation

Over a century of science fiction writing has given us images of robots, some positive,

some negative. Comics, movies, videos and computer games have made those images

more vivid. Asked to describe or draw a robot, many people could immediately

respond with scenarios inspired by these fictional portrayals (Horstmann and Kr

€

amer

2019). Meanwhile, rapid advances in artificial intelligence and automation technology

have seen actual robots appearing and performing specific functions in public spaces.

Today, they can be spotted in supermarkets, malls, airports, hospitals, parks, and on

streets and sidewalks. Their activities include cleaning, delivering food or parcels, or

providing security or public information. Yet, for now, little is known about how

robots shape our experience of public space as they interact with people and move

through these environments. Moreover, little effort has gone into the development of

public policy anticipating the ways that citizens will increasingly come to interact with

robots. In this paper, we consider how public policy could simultaneously enhance

CONTACT Michael Mintrom [email protected]

! 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/

licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is

properly cited.

POLICY DESIGN AND PRACTICE

2022, VOL. 5, NO. 2, 123–139

https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2021.1905342

opportunities created by the presence of robots in public spaces and reduce the risks of

undesirable outcomes. We summarize key insights into a policy design checklist to

guide refinement of policy concerning robots in public spaces. These insights cover

safety, privacy and ethics, productivity, esthetics, co-creation, equity of access, and sys-

temic innovation.

In the years ahead, robots will become more visible and commonplace, as robotics

and allied technologies continue to advance, and as industries devise more applications

for them. Consider two examples. First, delivery robots are becoming more common.

Starship Technologies, headquartered in San Francisco, has created delivery robots

used primarily to take fast food orders from restaurants to customers, meeting them by

their homes or offices or wherever they intend to eat. The electric-powered robots

resemble small storage lockers on wheels. They ride on sidewalks at the same speed as

adults typically walk. Starship Technologies has targeted university campuses as places

where most of these robots have been deployed to date. As of February 2021, Starships

were operating in the United States, the United Kingdom, Finland and Estonia, and

more than one million meal deliveries had occurred. Nuro, based in Mountain View,

California has developed the R-2, another delivery robot. Unlike the Starship, the Nuro

R-2 travels as a self-driving electric vehicle on roads at the speed of regular traffic. It

too can deliver meals, but its capabilities extend to transporting anything from gro-

ceries to dry cleaning. Nuro seeks to have household errands become a thing of

the past.

Second, robots are being used for surveillance and security purposes. These uses

have grown during the COVID-19 global pandemic. Spot is a robot that runs on four

legs and has the appearance of a dog. Designed to operate in unstructured environ-

ments inaccessible to other robots, Spot has been made commercially by Boston

Dynamics since 2019. During 2020, the Singapore government deployed Spot in parks

across the city to ensure that walkers, runners, and other park visitors were practicing

social distancing. Using remote navigation and equipped with a camera and prere-

corded message, Spot “barks” a warning whenever it comes across someone who is

not complying with safe distancing rules. The Singapore government has also deployed

a fleet of drones to observe parks from above and measure how many visitors are at

each location. The data are then aggregated to a website that locals can use to deter-

mine in real time which parks currently have the lowest number of visitors. In another

surveillance and security application, robots developed by Cobalt Robotics in San

Mateo, California have been used to replace humans in security activities during

COVID-19. The Cobalt robots conduct temperature screening, identify that people are

wearing masks, and monitor for social distancing. In Melbourne, Australia, these

robots have been deployed in COVID-19 quarantine hotels to check that guests are not

opening their doors or leaving their rooms. If the robots detect any breaches or anoma-

lies, they send an alert to authorized officers, including police, who can enforce

the rules.

Well-designed, anticipatory public policy can do much to ensure that society

reaps the greatest benefits from new technology while reducing possible harms

(Cairney and St Denny 2020;G

€

ur et al. 2018). Such policymaking can prove critical

in shaping the trajectory of technology adoption (Aydin 2019; Boucher 2016). Looking

124 M. MINTROM ET AL.

ahead, while many opportunities will emerge for helpful human–robot interactions,

productivity enhancements, and creative problem solving, risks also exist. If robots “in

the wild” are not carefully managed, unfortunate events could occur (Selma,

Michalowski, and Simmons 2006). In turn, these could have the broader spillover effect

of undermining public trust in their use. Poor public management of robots could

serve to undermine their broader utilization and, hence, limit how robots could posi-

tively contribute to the quality of our lives (Belanche et al. 2014; Hubbard, 2014; Li,

Hess, and Valacich 2008).

Before turning to our discussion of robots in public spaces, it is useful to briefly

review the definition of robots and human–robot interactions. Doing so assists in

explaining why the presence of robots in public spaces is a significant development,

one that deserves more attention by public policy researchers and practitioners. At the

most basic level, robots are machines that exhibit intelligence and autonomy. They can

be left alone to complete specified tasks or a program of activities. Contemporary

advances in artificial intelligence and robotics are leading to the creation of robots that

are increasingly exhibiting higher levels of intelligence and autonomy than their prede-

cessors. High functioning robots can learn and adapt to their environments. The multi-

disciplinary field of Human–Robot Interaction (HRI) is driving the development of

robots that engage in complicated interpretative tasks, including understanding speech,

recognizing facial features, and inferring the emotional state of humans they are inter-

acting with (Beer, Fisk, and Rogers 2014; Young et al. 2011). Contributors to this field

seek to combine the skills of both humans and robots to improve performance in a

wide variety of tasks. These fall into the category of Human–Robot Collaboration,

where efforts are underway to advance knowledge of what interactions and collabora-

tions are feasible and how they can be refined to generate even more complex engage-

ments (Gervasi, Mastrogiacomo, and Franceschini 2020).

1. Robots in public spaces

The increasing sophistication of robots and their capabilities to engage in a socially

intelligent manner with humans hold significant implications for public spaces and

how we use them. Del Casino et al. (2020) argue that robots are “increasingly becoming

woven into, and thus helping to create, our complex, continuously evolving, and con-

tingent socio-spatial realities” (p.611). As these changes occur, they will impact on how

we use public spaces. The introduction of robots in public spaces and the likely expan-

sion of their activities and numbers will have implications for public safety and for

human productive capabilities within those spaces. In addition, the presence of robots

will change the look and feel of those spaces, the complex set of conditions that estab-

lish the “atmospheres” within them (Edensor and Sumartojo 2015; Sumartojo, Edensor,

and Pink 2019), and by extension how people make sense of and value those

shared spaces.

Public spaces can be thought of as anywhere that groups of people who may or may

not know each other can freely assemble, move about, and interact. Understood in this

way, many legally private spaces can be seen as functionally public. We might call

them quasi-public. Shopping malls, airports, pubs and restaurants are typically

POLICY DESIGN AND PRACTICE 125

privately-owned, yet people can exercise a high degree of discretion concerning who

they meet with and what they do within those spaces. In contrast, most outdoor public

spaces like streets and parks are publicly owned and subject to governance by councils

or other legislative bodies. However, there are also gardens, parks, and some beach

areas that are quasi-public in nature. As applications for robots grow and people accord

increasing value to their contributions to everyday life, all who govern public and

quasi-public spaces will need to give more consideration to how laws and regulations

can appropriately guide the activities of robots. Questions of public safety will be para-

mount. Yet how robots alter the atmosphere of public spaces must also be carefully

considered. Governors cannot fully control atmospheres, but in allowing robots into

public spaces they can specify the allowable features and functions of those robots, how

many will be allowed to operate in the space, and the hours of operation. This is simi-

lar to how urban planning regulations, for example, co-constitute the atmospheres of

public spaces by determining standards for traffic, lighting, construction materials or

footpath widths. Laws and regulations of this kind related to robots could serve to sup-

port efforts to ensure public safety. Beyond this, they could have implications – both

positive and negative – for advancing productivity.

Among scholars of governance, public management, and public policy, explorations

of the growing capabilities of robots and their social implications have

received limited attention to date. Dickinson et al. (2018) explored the use of robots in

the delivery of care services. They noted that considerable training would be vital, both

for staff working in care services and for patients who could receive some services via

the work of robots. These researchers recognized that limitations in how people per-

ceive and work with robots could limit the effectiveness of the technology. They also

noted the importance of establishing appropriate regulatory regimes, noting that

actions on the part of governments could both support and inhibit the greater use of

robots in the delivery of care services. Similar points have been made by Si Ying

and Taeihagh (2020) in their study of the adoption of robots in long-term care

in Singapore. Many of the issues raised concerning robots and care services could be

generalized as we think about the introduction of robots into public spaces

more broadly.

2. Key public policy issues

Robots have the potential to contribute greatly to the quality of human life, as we have

seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, as robots have been increasingly used for deliv-

ery and cleaning services, as well as telehealth and other health-care specific applica-

tions. Their growing prevalence in public spaces could propel many changes. While

some people might welcome those changes, others might find them deeply confronting.

When people experience changes in their environments and desire to collectively nego-

tiate effective ways to manage such change, they turn to their governments for guid-

ance and support. Policy researchers and practitioners can add much to the ensuing

discussions and aid in the identification of positive ways forward. That advice can be

useful for indicating both policy actions that could be helpful and those that could be

unhelpful. Here, we review previous public policy approaches to harnessing and

126 M. MINTROM ET AL.

regulating disruptive technology. We focus the review around three matters: trust,

planning, and socio-technical transitions. These matters take us from the micro-level,

where the focus is on interactions between individuals and robots, through to the

macro-level, where the focus is on how to capture value for society as a whole from the

greater presence of robots in public spaces. Throughout, we note how public policy

could simultaneously enhance opportunities created by the presence of robots in public

spaces and reduce the risks of undesirable outcomes.

2.1. Trust

A prerequisite for human acceptance and use of new technology is that the technology

is viewed by people as trustworthy (Hancock et al. 2011). Transparency concerning the

nature of the technology and its capabilities and limitations is essential to allowing trust

to develop (Wortham and Theodorou 2017). In the case of robots, the key constituents

of trust are perception of safety, perception of competence, and perception of integrity

in the use of information. These constituents parallel those people apply when

working with professional service providers. For example, when choosing a medical

specialist to perform a procedure or treat an illness, individuals will seek someone who

they feel safe with, who they judge to be highly capable to address the presenting con-

dition, and who will maintain patient-doctor confidentiality. These key constituents of

trust present a high bar for the acceptance of robots in the public space. People must

trust that the presence of robots will not cause them any physical harm. This suggests

the need for robots and those responsible for their operation to pass threshold tests of

safety (Kuli

c and Croft 2007; Lindblom and Wei 2018). This is equivalent to the typical

government regulation of cars and their drivers. Cars are usually required to be regu-

larly tested for their roadworthiness. Those who drive cars that lack a current

certificate of safety can face fines. And drivers, too, must hold licenses, which are sub-

ject to regular renewal rules. Renewal can often require the passing of tests. These

may focus on knowledge of road rules or practical operating skills. More recently, the

operation of drones has been subjected to similar kinds of rule-making (Boucher

2016). For robots to be trusted in public spaces, it is likely that new regulations will

need to be developed relating to the safety of the robots themselves and the compe-

tency of those seeking to release them in public spaces. Publication of ISO 13482, a

safety standard for personal care robots, has led the way here. Until it was promul-

gated, only general safety standards for machines were available and the lack of a speci-

alized safety standard with detailed requirements resulted in uncertainty and a

relatively high residual risk for manufacturers (Jacobs and Singh Virk 2014). A compli-

cating factor here is that as robots become more autonomous, the relationships

between the operator and the robot becomes more indirect. This raises challenges for

those making public policy around the operation of robots in public spaces (Hubbard

2014; Hancock 2019).

Beyond being judged as safe, robots in public spaces must also be judged as compe-

tent (Jensen et al. 2018; Park, Jenkins, and Jiang 2008). Even if they are deemed safe,

public trust in robots will rapidly erode if the robots do not perform their specified

tasks at expected levels of quality (Dzindolet et al. 2003). For example, people will not

POLICY DESIGN AND PRACTICE 127

trust robots designed to deliver meals if they find a robot has delivered a different meal

than was ordered, or if the meal arrives cold, incomplete or not at all. But reputation

also matters. Even if people have not had a bad experience with a robot, they will soon

judge them untrustworthy if they hear stories of other people who have had unfortu-

nate robot experiences. The competency of robots will be dependent on both the capa-

bilities they have, the effectiveness of robot operators in programming them and their

abilities to cope with the unpredictable nature of public space. Given this, the gover-

nors of specific public spaces might choose to test task competency before allowing

robots to operate there. Operating licenses could be restrictive, so that robots would be

licensed to perform certain tasks but not others.

To perform effectively, robots frequently access information from datasets. For

example, how they get from place to place can be dependent, in part, on their ability to

engage with global positioning systems, just as smart phones give directions to humans.

The ability of robots to continuously collect information through cameras, micro-

phones, and other sensors means that they are both dependent on datasets and

actively contributing to the continuous expansion of those datasets. Through such cap-

ability, robots can potentially acquire and maintain expert ability to recognize

people and remember key details about them. This raises major privacy concerns

(Xu et al. 2014). When a robot is making a delivery, there are multiple other ways that

it could be acquiring information about the humans around it – and not just those that

it interacts with directly. To the extent that robots are viewed as agents of “big broth-

er,” trust in them will erode. Major public policy issues arise concerning how

much information robots collect and share with remote databases. Without being

addressed, these concerns could severely limit the acceptance of robots in pub-

lic spaces.

2.2. Planning

Public policies are often devised to address challenges arising from human behavior in

public spaces. It has long been recognized that problems arise when spaces are shared

and demarcation of property rights is deemed expensive (Olson 1965). The tragedy of

the commons arises when shared spaces become congested or overused (Hardin 1968).

These considerations are relevant to the use of robots in public spaces. At a minimum,

there is the possibility that the presence and actions of robots in public spaces will

prove inconvenient or unpleasant to people. That situation is equivalent to the creation

of a negative externality, where consensual transactions between specific parties have

spillover effects that are not accounted for in the original transaction. Air pollution

and industrial noise are common examples of negative externalities. Societies deal with

them through planning procedures and the creation of rules and regulations about

actions that can be taken in specific spaces. Often, externalities become most apparent

with population increases. Actions taken when few others are around might be deemed

acceptable in those circumstances. The same actions, when many people are engaging

in them, serve to create negative externalities and calls are made for government regu-

lation. All of this suggests that planning is vital to ensure that robots in public spaces

contribute to the quality of life of as many people as possible in those spaces and that

128 M. MINTROM ET AL.

negative consequences for people in those same spaces are minimized. Most import-

antly, it is clear that the rules to be established will differ depending on the nature of

the public space, what types of robots are in such spaces, how many there are, and

what kinds of things they are doing (like security patrols or surface disinfection, which

are both about public safety but look and feel very different). In the public manage-

ment literature, a fair amount has been written about the creation of public value

(Moore 1995, 2013). Here, governors (who establish the authorizing environment)

assess proposals for procedural changes and also make decisions about whether public

resources should be devoted to support specific proposals. That perspective could use-

fully inform future explorations of how to effectively govern the use of robots in pub-

lic spaces.

2.3. Socio-technological transitions

Over the past two decades, a literature has emerged to explore the processes through

which norms and practices associated with new technologies introduced in experimen-

tal or “niche” settings (Rip and Ren

e 1998) become adopted more widely

(Berkhout, Adrian, and Andy 2004). These processes have come to be referred to as

“socio-technological transitions.” Much of the contemporary literature is concerned

with transitions associated with promoting more sustainable development and mitigat-

ing against climate change (Geels and Kemp 2007). However, the concept of “socio-

technical transition” is well-suited to considering how the growing prevalence of robots

in public spaces might lead to broad acceptance and application of robots

throughout society. Beyond the trust and planning issues already discussed, robots in

the public space open other issues. There is the issue of value capture. If the introduc-

tion of robots in public spaces leads to many positive contributions to the quality of

human life, then there would be value for society in as many people as possible being

able to enjoy those benefits. Relatedly, there is the issue of unfair distribution of bene-

fits. For example, with the growing use of food delivery robots, a concern is raised

that people who can afford to use the service benefit substantially, while those who

cannot afford the service both fail to benefit from it and also have their ability to

use public space degraded. That is because the food delivery robots take up significant

sidewalk space and make walking on sidewalks less attractive. As we know from litera-

ture on the digital divide, both lack of access to technology and lack of skills in using

technology contribute to major differences across society in who benefits from advan-

ces in information technology (Van Deursen and Van Dijk 2011). Moreover, the spe-

cific tasks that robots perform may be valued very differently for different members of

the public. An example here is the brief deployment in 2017 of a robot in San

Francisco to monitor spaces where homeless people were living. The robot ended up

wrapped in a tarp and smeared in barbeque sauce, which effectively ended its patrols

(Holley 2017).

Table 1 summarizes the key issues that we have introduced here concerning robots

in public spaces. Potentially, a role exists for governments in supporting the deploy-

ment of robots being used in the public space. That role can be executed in a number

of ways, ranging from ensuring that everyone knows of the benefits of robots to

POLICY DESIGN AND PRACTICE 129

subsidization of the introduction of robots in specific public spaces. Room also

exists for the development of various “policy mixes” to drive innovation processes

(Kern, Rogge, and Howlett 2019). The greater use of robots in public spaces also

opens possibilities for innovations in how people and robots interact. While a growing

literature has explored the relationship between provision of government services and

the agency of service clients (Alford 2014), much scope remains for exploring how peo-

ple work with robots and discovering the benefits that can flow from those

interactions.

3. A policy design checklist

Having reviewed key issues raised by the growing presence of robots in public spaces,

we here collate emerging insights into a policy checklist. The checklist contains key

questions relating to seven topics: (1) ensuring safety, (2) addressing privacy and eth-

ical concerns, (3) advancing productivity, (4) attending to esthetics, (5) encouraging

co-creation, (6) promoting equitable access, and (7) facilitating systemic innovation.

The checklist and key questions have been uniquely developed for this discussion.

However, the matters covered map onto classic goals of public policy analysis

which include defending people and property, promoting human flourishing, promot-

ing efficiency, and promoting social equity (Mintrom 2019). Ethical concerns have also

long been a primary concern in policy analysis (Mintrom 2012). Questions of

esthetics have been less commonly discussed by policy scholars, although they have

certainly been apparent in discussions of urban design (Jacobs 1961 ; Kunstler 1994;

Sumartojo, Edensor, and Pink 2019). Questions of co-design and co-creation have

received more attention by public policy and public management researchers in recent

years (Alford 2014 , Mintrom and Luetjens 2016; Osborne, Radnor, and Strokosch

2016). While the questions in the checklist are nonexhaustive, they reflect established

discussions among policy researchers and practitioners concerning matters to address

in policy design.

Table 2 summarizes the policy design checklist. The following discussion

elaborates on how the seven questions in the Checklist might be addressed. For each

question in the checklist, we briefly review why it matters, what the ideal outcome

Table 1. Robots in public spaces – key issues.

Issue Explanation

1 Safety Robots can create safety risks to the public due to both physical design features and

how operators design and control their functionality.

2 Privacy and Ethics Robots can raise privacy concerns because they collect large amounts of unique information

during their interactions with people and the environment and can contribute that

information to existing datasets for potentially many subsequent, unrelated uses.

3 Productivity Robots might enhance productivity in specific activities but hinder or obstruct

other activities.

4 Esthetics Robots might detract from the esthetics of a public space, making that space less

convenient for citizens, more crowded, and unattractive.

5 Co-Creation Robot designers could develop robots without considering whether or not their presence

and actions are broadly acceptable to the communities where they will be deployed.

6 Equitable Access Greater use of robots in public spaces could produce benefits only enjoyed by affluent

individuals and communities while imposing unwelcome challenges for poorer ones.

7 System Innovation If the operations of robots in public spaces are poorly handled, their potential to

enhance the quality of human life could be limited.

130 M. MINTROM ET AL.

would be, and starting points for policy design. Consideration is also given to points of

connection across these topics. Given the foregoing review, we are confident that

efforts by policymakers to systematically answer the questions on this checklist will

contribute strongly to the development of effective policy governing robots in pub-

lic spaces.

Question 1: How Can We Ensure Safety? The operation of robots in public spaces

raises safety concerns that must be addressed from the outset. Safety matters relating to

a single robot increase as multiple robots enter a public space. The first concern must

be with human safety, to ensure that people are not placed at risk of injury due to the

operation of robots around them. Additional concerns relate to the safety of other

objects and property. Further, the safety of robots themselves also matters. To the

extent that robots are at risk of damage through accidents, the efficiency gains prom-

ised by their introduction could quickly erode. The ideal outcome is for robots to be

functioning in public spaces in ways that do not pose risks to the people and things

around them. When people perceive robots as safe, they are more likely to trust them

and, hence, come to treat them as “normal” parts of the environment. The creation of

rules for the safe operation of robots will be crucial for ensuring safety, just as the

many rules concerning the operation of automobiles have been essential to them

Table 2. Robots in public spaces – a policy design checklist.

Checklist Questions

Proposed

Policy Responses Explanation

1 How Can We

Ensure Safety?

Regulation, Monitoring,

and Enforcement

Regulation and monitoring could reduce safety risks to

the public through prescribing specific features of

robots and requiring operators hold licenses.

2 How Can We Address

Privacy and

Ethics Concerns?

Regulation, Monitoring,

and Enforcement

Privacy and ethics concerns could be addressed

through specification of appropriate uses of what

can be done with the information robots collect

and monitoring to reduce the risk that privacy

breaches go undetected.

3 How Can We

Advance

Productivity?

Regulations and

Provision

of Incentives

Regulations could ensure that robots only operate in

public when they are deemed to enhance

productivity. Incentives could be provided to

encourage robot designers to ensure robots

enhance productivity and do not hinder

other activities.

4 How Should We

Attend to Esthetics?

Monitoring and

Co-Design

Monitoring could ensure robots contribute to the

esthetics of public spaces. Mechanisms for co-design

could increase the likelihood that ideas and

concerns of citizens are incorporated into the

calibration of robots for specific public spaces.

5 How Can We

Encourage

Co-creation?

Provision of Incentives Incentives could be provided, including prizes, to

encourage robot designers to work with citizens in

developing robots for use in public spaces.

6 How can we promote

equitable access?

Monitoring

and Subsidies

Deployment of robots could be monitored to assess

who benefits most from their use in public spaces.

Provision of subsidies could increase the likelihood

that the benefits of robots would be enjoyed by all

members of society.

7 How Can We

Facilitate

Systemic Innovation?

Monitoring and Funding Government monitoring could include environment

scans to assess how new and promising

developments could be broadly introduced. Funds

could be used to support system innovation, in the

same way that funds have frequently been allocated

to aspects of Research and Development.

POLICY DESIGN AND PRACTICE 131

becoming part of everyday life in many places. Policy design for the safe operation of

robots could be usefully informed by review of the regulations that have facilitated

introduction and increasing use of other mobile technologies, such as automobiles,

motorbikes, scooters, and drones. Consideration must also be given to management of

congestion. While this is unlikely to be an immediate concern, the increasing presence

of robots in public spaces could lead to congestion, which could be managed through

clear demarcation of operating spaces, equivalent to the introduction of highways dedi-

cated to specific vehicles and the creation of bicycle lanes.

Question 2: How Can We Address Privacy and Ethical Concerns? Public space is com-

plex and inherently political because of the various power structures and inequalities

implicit and reflected in it. Any new technologies enter into an already contested realm

and provoke new forms of discussion and debate. Like all other technologies, robots

have biases in their design and implementation. It is not hard to imagine robots being

coupled with facial recognition software that is racially discriminatory, for example.

Already, robots have tangled with homeless people who should also have rights within

public spaces. Here we connect to bigger literatures on urban public space on the one

hand and ethical and responsible approaches to the development and application of

technologies on the other. Recently, concerns have been raised about the use of drones

and robots to conduct security patrols (Aydin 2019; Boucher 2016). An “ethics first”

and people-focused approach involves taking technological possibilities to be just that

– possibilities (Pink 2020; Pink and Lanzeni 2018). Anthropological research shows

that people do not use technologies as engineers and designers imagined they should.

There will always be unintended consequences. The challenge is to ensure that, as far

as possible, those consequences are positive. Our lives are not governed by technologies

created for us, but by how the possibilities they offer fit with our everyday needs and

priorities. To work effectively and ethically in public spaces, the affordances of robots

and their applications must remain flexible. Public policies must create opportunities

for people in specific localities to engage, learn and create their shared sense of mean-

ing regarding the activities of robots in public spaces.

Question 3: How Can We Advance Productivity? While the novelty of robots might

lead some to view them as large toys primarily of entertainment value, their introduction

is motivated by the drive for efficiency. Among the attractive features of robots, high on

the list are their ability to work without getting bored or tired, and their ability to per-

form tasks that might be dangerous or injurious to human workers (see Maeda 2019).

Robots have potential to perform many tasks previously performed by humans. As well

as reducing risks to human workers associated with specific tasks, robots can often per-

form those tasks more effectively than humans. Their extensive use in factories confirms

this. Consequently, increased use of robots in public spaces represents a major opportun-

ity for advancing productivity. The extent to which robots advance productivity will be

influenced by the safety considerations already noted and, relatedly, by how receptive

people are to having robots operating around them. Two contrasting scenarios emerge.

In one, robots could operate in public spaces when humans are not present. This would

avoid various human–robot interactions and would avoid problems arising from human

132 M. MINTROM ET AL.

fears or dislikes for robots. But many opportunities to advance productivity would be

lost. A more attractive scenario would involve robots sharing public spaces with humans,

both going about their activities in ways that combine independent routines with explicit

human interactions. The ideal outcome would be human–robot interactions that are

encouraged to advance productivity gains. Such gains will arise from continuous explor-

ation of how robots can enhance the quality of human experiences in public spaces.

Policy design needs to ensure regulation of robots in public spaces for safety reasons

and also to protect valued human rights, such as privacy and freedom of association.

At the same time, policy designers should avoid making regulations that “lock in” cur-

rent technology, and that unnecessarily inhibit opportunities for robots to advance

productivity. Evidence from the literature on environmental regulation suggests long-

term productivity growth is most likely to occur when regulations stipulate valued out-

comes and encourage measurement of progress toward those outcomes rather than

when regulations focus on the specifications of the technology intended to meet those

outcomes (Bardach and Kagan 1982; Schultze 2010). The stipulation of valued out-

comes creates incentives for on-going improvements in the design and deployment of

robots in public spaces.

Question 4: How Should We Attend to Esthetics? Like any change in the structures

and details of public spaces, the introduction of new technology into public spaces can

potentially enhance or erode the overall quality of our experiences within them. Often

with the management of public spaces, controversy arises when changes are made.

Some people like them. Others loathe them (Kunstler 1994). We can expect contro-

versy of this sort will accompany the increasing deployment of robots in public spaces.

Related to the productivity discussion above, some might be in favor of the deployment

of cleaning robots, for their potential to improve the cleanliness and appearance of

public spaces. On the other hand, others might be opposed to such a change because

they fear the resulting increased surveillance and potentially the loss of human jobs.

While esthetics will be part of the debate, it is not the only reason for the resistance to

change. However, much needless controversy can be avoided through the creation of

processes where issues of esthetics are openly debated among those who govern public

spaces. Who gets to contribute to those debates will depend crucially on ownership of

the spaces being discussed.

Many public spaces are legally private spaces, in the sense that the properties in

which the public assemble or move about are privately owned and managed. Shopping

malls, airports, pubs and restaurants are common examples. But most outdoor public

spaces like streets and parks are publicly owned and subject to governance by councils

or other legislative bodies. All who govern public spaces need to consider how the pres-

ence of robots will alter the “atmospheres” of those spaces. Governors cannot fully con-

trol atmospheres, but in allowing robots into public spaces they can specify the

allowable features and functions of those robots, how many will be allowed to operate

in the space, and the hours of operation. Regulations of this kind could serve to sup-

port efforts to ensure safety. They could also have implications for advancing product-

ivity and supporting social justice. A key design concern should be to balance esthetics

of robots in a public space with the preservation or development of a specific

POLICY DESIGN AND PRACTICE 133

atmosphere. Recognition must be given to the possibility that strict regulation around

esthetics could have implications for advancing productivity. But there need not be a

tradeoff here. Indeed, the possibility arises for esthetic considerations to promote

improvements in overall robot design or to make them specific to the environments in

which they are deployed. For example, people are much more likely to be tolerant of

robots and open to engaging with them if they are considered to be a positive public

presence and contribute to the enjoyment and safety of shared public spaces.

Question 5: How Can We Encourage Co-creation? Many products and services in soci-

ety are co-produced. People play crucial roles in determining the quality of the experi-

ences they have with particular products and services. For example, personal fitness is

co-produced. The quality of a set of fitness equipment will make little difference if a

person does not make time to use it. Likewise, the services of a personal trainer

will contribute to a person’s fitness only if that person shows up for training sessions

and engages in appropriate follow-up activities. Co-creation happens when the con-

sumer plays a central role in designing the experience. With respect to personal

fitness, co-creation occurs when a personal trainer and a customer discuss and

decide the features of the exercise session they will conduct together. Digital technolo-

gies, including robots, introduce new opportunities for co-creation between

people and service providers. Continuing our fitness example, robots have been

deployed to assist people with their rehabilitation from accidents. They are able to

monitor how an individual is responding to a specific activity and then make appropri-

ate adjustments, such as raising or lowering the level of effort required to complete

the activity.

With the increasing deployment of robots in public spaces, there is much to be

gained from robotics engineers continually assessing, devising, and exploring human-

robot interactions in the specific spatial contexts of their use with the purpose of

encouraging new opportunities for co-creation. At heart, this requires people to

become sufficiently comfortable interacting with robots that they identify helpful varia-

tions on the actions that robots can perform, or even propose completely new actions.

The astounding development of so many creative applications for smart phones offers

clues of the massive opportunities in store as robots become more common in public

spaces. For policy designers, the challenge is to ensure that robots are suitably regulated

so that people value their interactions with them sufficiently to suggest ways to enhance

future interactions. Beyond setting broader parameters, policy designers could contrib-

ute to the otherwise organic process by which co-creation will evolve. For example,

policy designers should look for ways to encourage co-creation with individuals and

groups that could otherwise be marginalized in public spaces, but who have a stake in

its safety and amenability. Supporting such processes could contribute to better out-

comes for all people interacting with robots in public spaces. A related point is that co-

creation must account for the particular settings in which people will engage with or

encounter robots. An outcome that suits one community or public space may not be

appropriate for another, and genuine co-creation processes must speak to the specific

conditions and concerns of individuals and groups involved. This suggests that applica-

tions of robots that work effectively for specific locations, spaces, populations,

134 M. MINTROM ET AL.

languages, needs, and so on, are more ethical and necessary, which means that policy

should be flexible enough to allow localized discussions of how robots will be deployed

and the affordances they display. This possibility of localization is consistent with the

“unfinished” nature of robot applications like the popular Pepper, a robot that is

intended to be completed by users through novel programming. The scope for genuine

co-creation is broad, but it will need to be carefully managed.

Question 6: How can we promote equitable access? Given the resources needed to

effectively introduce and maintain robots in public spaces, it is reasonable to anticipate

that innovations along these lines will happen first in more prosperous locations. The

concern here is that the social benefits to be derived from robots in public spaces will

be realized mainly by affluent individuals and groups, along with a few others who

gain access to their semi-exclusive realms. A classic function of public policy is to

address inequalities in society. In this regard, policy design efforts regarding robots in

public spaces have much to offer. Policy designers could monitor cutting edge develop-

ments in these emerging uses of robots and explore ways that the introduction of

robots performing similar roles in disadvantaged communities could be funded or sub-

sidized. Just as governments at many jurisdictional levels have long had agencies

devoted to policymaking on transportation issues, there could be merit in governments

establishing a unit or division specifically devoted to public robotics that treats it as

similarly entangled with many other policy areas.

Question 7: How Can We Facilitate Systemic Innovation? There is a risk that the ben-

efits of introducing robots in the public space will not be fully realized, as businesses,

governments, and citizens become satisfied with limited gains. Governments can pro-

mote systemic innovation. Much scope exists for monitoring, learning, and the

sharing of “best practice” knowledge. As with the encouragement of co-creation, it is

reasonable to expect that improvements in practice over time will be driven mainly

by the actions of business people and various players in the robotics industry,

although these actors must account for public concerns. Here, the facilitative role of

government is vital and should be encouraged. It can do much to ensure a range of

voices will be heard and new insights will emerge through discussions among people

and groups who might not otherwise take the time to listen to and learn from

each other.

4. Conclusion

Rapid advances in digital technologies have allowed robots to become more autono-

mous and efficacious than ever before. We can expect to see robots performing an

increasing variety of functions in public spaces, with future developments in robotics

holding the potential to transform human robot interactions, and to shape how people

engage with each other and with technology more generally. Possibilities exist for

robots to greatly improve the quality of our lives and to contribute positively to the

safety, creative potential, and inclusive atmospheres of public spaces. But as this trend

develops, the risk emerges of robots transforming public spaces and social interactions

in undesirable ways. There are vital roles here for government, although discussion of

POLICY DESIGN AND PRACTICE 135

the public policy implications of advances in robotics has so far been limited. We seek

to encourage considerably more exploration by policy scholars and policy practitioners

of how policy design can promote good outcomes with respect to the increasing pres-

ence of robots in our lives.

In this paper, we have reviewed previous public policy approaches to harnessing and

regulating disruptive technology. In so doing, we considered how public policy might

simultaneously enhance opportunities created by the presence of robots in public

spaces and reduce the risks of undesirable outcomes. We then presented a policy

design checklist to guide policies on robots in public spaces, covering safety, privacy

and ethics, productivity, esthetics, co-creation, equitable access, and systemic innov-

ation. Looking to the future, many possibilities exist for broad, societal benefits to

occur from the growing prevalence of robots in public spaces. It is incumbent on

the governors of public and quasi-public spaces to devise regulatory regimes that

are flexible and fit for purpose, while not inhibiting innovations that are necessary

to match the pace of continuous advances in human robot interactions. The

policy design checklist presented here is intended to aid the development of policy

approaches that promote ethical outcomes and value capture for as many people

as possible.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding

This work was supported by the Monash University Interdisciplinary Research

Support Program.

ORCID

Michael Mintrom http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7163-3997

Shanti Sumartojo

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8609-7493

Dana Kuli

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4169-2141

Leimin Tian

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8559-5610

References

Alford, John. 2014. “The Multiple Facets of co-Production: Building on the Work of

Elinor Ostrom.” Public Management Review 16 (3): 299–316. doi:10.1080/14719037.2013.

806578.

Aydin, Burchan. 2019. “Public Acceptance of Drones: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice.”

Technology in Society 59: 101180. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101180.

Bardach, Eugene, and Robert Kagan. 1982. Going by the Book: The Problem of Regulatory

Unreasonableness. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.

Beer, Jenay M., Arthur D. Fisk, and Wendy A. Rogers. 2014. “Toward a Framework for Levels

of Robot Autonomy in Human-Robot Interaction.” Journal of Human-Robot Interaction 3

(2): 74–99. doi:10.5898/JHRI.3.2.Beer.

136 M. MINTROM ET AL.

Belanche, Daniel, Luis V. Casal

o, Carlos Flavi

an, and Jeroen Schepers. 2014. “Trust Transfer in

the Continued Usage of Public e-Services.” Information and Management 51 (6): 627–640.

doi:10.1016/j.im.2014.05.016.

Berkhout, Frans, Smith Adrian, and Stirling Andy. 2004. “Socio-Technological Regimes and

Transition Contexts.” System Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability: Theory,

Evidence and Policy 44 (106): 48–75. doi:10.4337/9781845423421.

Boucher, Philip. 2016. “’You Wouldn ’t have Your Granny Using Them’: Drawing Boundaries

Between Acceptable and Unacceptable Applications of Civil Drones.” Science and

Engineering Ethics 22 (5): 1391–1418. doi:10.1007/s11948-015-9720-7.

Cairney, Paul, Emily St Denny. 2020. Why Isn’ t Government Policy More Preventive? Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Del Casino, Vincent J., Lily Jr, House-Peters, Jeremy W. Crampton, and Hannes Gerhardt.

2020. “The Social Life of Robots: The Politics of Algorithms, Governance, and Sovereignty.”

Antipode 52 (3): 605–618. doi:10.1111/anti.12616.

Dickinson, Helen, Smith Catherine, Carey Nicole, and Gemma Carey. 2018. Robots and the

Delivery of Care Services.” Melbourne: ANZSOG.

Dzindolet, Mary T., Scott A. Peterson, Regina A. Pomranky, Linda G. Pierce, and Hall P.

Beck. 2003. “The Role of Trust in Automation Reliance. ” International Journal of Human-

Computer Studies 58 (6): 697–718. doi:10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00038-7.

Edensor, Tim, and Shanti Sumartojo. 2015. “Designing Atmospheres: Introduction to Special

Issue.” Visual Communication 14 (3): 251–265. doi:10.1177/1470357215582305.

Geels, Frank W., and Ren

e Kemp. 2007. “Dynamics in Socio-Technical Systems: Typology of

Change Processes and Contrasting Case Studies.” Technology in Society 29 (4): 441–455. doi:

10.1016/j.techsoc.2007.08.009.

Gervasi, Riccardo, Luca Mastrogiacomo, and Fiorenzo Franceschini. 2020. “A Conceptual

Framework to Evaluate Human-Robot Collaboration.” The International Journal of

Advanced Manufacturing Technology 108 (3): 841–865. doi:10.1007/s00170-020-05363-1.

€

ur, O. Can., Benjamin Rosman, Fikret Sivrikaya, and Sahin Albayrak. 2018. “Social

Cobots.” Anticipatory decision-making for collaborative robots incorporating unexpected

human behaviors.” In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on

Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 398–406.

Hancock, Peter A. 2019. “Some Pitfalls in the Promises of Automated and Autonomous

Vehicles.” Ergonomics 62 (4): 479–495. doi:10.1080/00140139.2018.1498136.

Hancock, Peter A., Deborah R. Billings, Kristin E. Schaefer, Jessie Y. C. Chen, Ewart J. De

Visser, and Raja Parasuraman. 2011. “A Meta-Analysis of Factors Affecting Trust in

Human-Robot Interaction.” Human Factors 53 (5): 517–527. doi:10.1177/0018720811417254 .

Hardin, Garrett. 1968. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science 162: 1243–1248. doi:10.1126/

science.162.3859.1243.

Holley, Peter. 2017. “Crime-fighting robot retired after launching alleged ‘war on the home-

less.’” The Washington Post December 15.

Horstmann, Aike C., and Nicole C. Kr

€

amer. 2019. “Great Expectations? Relation of Previous

Experiences with Social Robots in Real Life or in the Media and Expectancies Based on

Qualitative and Quantitative Assessment.” Frontiers in Psychology 10: 939 doi:10.3389/fpsyg.

2019.00939.

Hubbard, F. Patrick. 2014. “Sophisticated Robots: Balancing Liability, Regulation, and

Innovation.” Florida Law Review 66: 1803.

Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.

Jacobs, Theo, and Gurvinder Singh Virk. 2014. “ISO 13482-The new safety standard for per-

sonal care robots.” In ISR/Robotik 2014; 41st International Symposium on Robotics,1–6.

VDE.

Jensen, Theodore, Yusuf Albayram, Mohammad Maifi Hasan Khan, Ross Buck, Emil

Coman, and Md Abdullah Al Fahim. 2018. “ Initial Trustworthiness Perceptions of a Drone

System Based on Performance and Process Information.” In Proceedings of the 6th

POLICY DESIGN AND PRACTICE 137

International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction, 229–237. doi:10.1145/3284432.

3284435.

Kern, Florian, Karoline S. Rogge, and Michael Howlett. 2019. “Policy Mixes for Sustainability

Transitions: New Approaches and Insights through Bridging Innovation and Policy

Studies.” Research Policy 48 (10): 103832. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2019.103832.

Kuli

c, Dana, and Elizabeth Croft. 2007. “Pre-Collision Safety Strategies for Human-Robot

Interaction.” Autonomous Robots 22 (2): 149–164. doi:10.1007/s10514-006-9009-4.

Kunstler, James Howard. 1994. The Geography of Nowhere: The Rise and Decline of America’ s

Man-Made Landscape. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Li, Xin, Traci J. Hess, and Joseph S. Valacich. 2008. “Why Do we Trust New Technology? A

Study of Initial Trust Formation with Organizational Information Systems.” The Journal of

Strategic Information Systems 17 (1): 39–71. doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2008.01.001.

Lindblom, Jessica, and Wang Wei. 2018. “Towards an Evaluation Framework of Safety, Trust,

and Operator Experience in Different Demonstrators of Human-Robot Collaboration.”

Advances in Manufacturing Technology 32: 145–150.

Maeda, John. 2019. How to Speak Machine: Laws of Design for a Digital Age. London:

Penguin.

Mintrom, Michael, and Joannah Luetjens. 2016. “Design Thinking in Policymaking Processes:

Opportunities and Challenges.” Australian Journal of Public Administration 75 (3): 391–402.

doi:10.1111/1467-8500.12211.

Mintrom, Michael. 2012. Contemporary Policy Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.

Mintrom, Michael. 2019. Public Policy: Investing for a Better World. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Moore, Mark H. 1995. Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government.

Cambreidge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Moore, Mark H. 2013. Recognizing Public Value. Cambreidge, Massachusetts: Harvard

University Press.

Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups.

Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Osborne, Stephen P., Zoe Radnor, and Kirsty Strokosch. 2016. “Co-Production and the co-

Creation of Value in Public Services: A Suitable Case for Treatment?” Public Management

Review 18 (5): 639–

653. doi:10.1080/14719037.2015.1111927.

Park, Eui, Quaneisha Jenkins, and Xiaochun Jiang. 2008. “Measuring Trust of Human

Operators in New Generation Rescue Robots.” Proceedings of the JFPS International

Symposium on Fluid Power 2008 (7-2): 489–492. doi:10.5739/isfp.2008.489.

Pink, Sarah. 2020. Exploring an Ethics First and People Focused Approach to Accelerating

Digital Infrastructure.” Melbourne: City of Melbourne, Participate Melbourne.

Pink, Sarah, and Debora Lanzeni. 2018. “Future Anthropology Ethics and Datafication:

Temporality and Responsibility in Research.” Social Media þ Society 4 (2): 205630511876829.

doi:10.1177/2056305118768298.

Rip, Arie, and Kemp Ren

e. 1998. “Technological Change.” Human Choice and Climate Change

2 (2): 327–399.

Selma, Sabanovic, Marek P. Michalowski, and Reid Simmons. 2006. “Robots in the Wild:

Observing Human-Robot Social Interaction outside the Lab.” in 9th IEEE International

Workshop on Advanced Motion Control, 596–601.

Schultze, Charles L. 2010. The public use of private interest. Washington, DC: Brookings

Institution Press.

Sumartojo, Shanti, Tim Edensor, and Sarah Pink. 2019. “Atmospheres in Urban Light.”

Ambiances (5). doi:10.4000/ambiances.2586.

Si Ying, Tan, and Araz Taeihagh. 2020. “Governing the Adoption of Robotics and

Autonomous Systems in Long-Term Care in Singapore.” Policy and Society doi:10.1080/

14494035.2020.1782627.

Van Deursen, Alexander, and Jan Van Dijk. 2011. “Internet Skills and the Digital Divide.”

New Media and Society 13 (6): 893–911. doi:10.1177/1461444810386774.

138 M. MINTROM ET AL.

Wortham, Robert H., and Andreas Theodorou. 2017. “Robot Transparency, Trust and Utility.”

Connection Science 29 (3): 242–248. doi:10.1080/09540091.2017.1313816.

Xu, Lei, Jiang Chunxiao, Wang Jian, Yuan Jian, and Ren Yong. 2014. “Information Security in

Big Data: privacy and Data Mining.” Ieee Access. 2: 1149–1176. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2014.

2362522.

Young, James E., JaYoung Sung, Amy Voida, Ehud Sharlin, Takeo Igarashi, Henrik I.

Christensen, and Rebecca E. Grinter. 2011. “Evaluating Human-Robot Interaction.”

International Journal of Social Robotics 3 (1): 53–67. doi:10.1007/s12369-010-0081-8.

POLICY DESIGN AND PRACTICE 139