PROGRAM EARTH

Electronic Mediations
Series Editors: N . K at h e r i n e H a y l e s , P e t e r K r a p p, R i t a R a l e y,
and Samuel Weber
Founding Editor: M a r k P o s t e r

49 Program Earth: Environmental Sensing Technology and the Making of a

Computational Planet
J e n n i f e r G a b ry s
48 On the Existence of Digital Objects
Yuk Hui
47 How to Talk about Videogames
Ian Bogost
46 A Geology of Media
Jussi Parikka
45 World Projects: Global Information before World War I
M a r k u s K r a j e ws k i
44 Reading Writing Interfaces: From the Digital to the Bookbound
Lori Emerson
43 Nauman Reiterated
J a n et K r ay na k
42 Comparative Textual Media: Transforming the Humanities in the Postprint Era
N . K at h e r i n e H ay l e s a n d J e s s i c a P r e s s m a n, E d i t o r s
41 Off the Network: Disrupting the Digital World
Ulises Ali Mejias
40 Summa Technologiae
S ta n i s aw L e m
39 Digital Memory and the Archive
Wolfgang Ernst
38 How to Do Things with Videogames
Ian Bogost
37 Noise Channels: Glitch and Error in Digital Culture
P et e r K r a p p

(continued on page 359)

PROGRAM EARTH
Environmental Sensing Technology and
the Making of a Computational Planet

JENNIFER GABRYS

Electronic Mediations 49

U N I V E R S I T Y O F M I N N E S O TA P R E S S
MINNEAPOLIS LONDON
The University of Minnesota Press gratefully acknowledges financial support for the
publication of this book from the European Research Council under the European Unions
Seventh Framework Programme (FP/20072013) / ERC Grant Agreement n. 313347, Citizen
Sensing and Environmental Practice: Assessing Participatory Engagements with
Environments through Sensor Technologies.
An earlier version of chapter 1 was published as Sensing an Experimental Forest:
Processing Environments and Distributing Relations, in Computational Culture 2 (2012),
http://www.computationalculture.net.
Portions of chapter 4 were previously published as Ecological Observatories: Fluctuating
Sites and Sensing Subjects, in Field_Notes, edited by Laura Beloff, Erich Berger, and Terike
Haapoja, 17887 (Helsinki: Finnish Bioarts Society, 2013).
Portions of chapter 5 were published as Monitoring and Remediating a Garbage Patch,
in Research Objects in Their Technological Setting, edited by Bernadette Bensaude Vincent et al.
(London: Routledge, 2016).
An earlier version of chapter 7 was published as Programming Environments:
Environmentality and Citizen Sensing in the Smart City, Environment and Planning D 32,
no. 1 (2014): 3048.
Copyright 2016 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.
Published by the University of Minnesota Press
111 Third Avenue South, Suite 290
Minneapolis, MN 55401-2520
http://www.upress.umn.edu
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Gabrys, Jennifer. Title: Program earth : environmental sensing technology and the
making of a computational planet / Jennifer Gabrys. Description: Minneapolis : University
of Minnesota Press, 2016. | Series: Electronic mediations ; 49 | Includes bibliographical
references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2015022473| ISBN 978-0-8166-9312-2 (hc) | ISBN 978-0-
8166-9314-6 (pb). Subjects: LCSH: Environmental monitoringRemote sensing. |
Environmental managementRemote sensing. | Global environmental changeRemote
sensing. | Remote sensingData processing.
Classification: LCC GE45.R44 .G33 2016 | DDC 363.7/063dc23
LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2015022473
Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper
The University of Minnesota is an equal-opportunity educator and employer.
21 20 19 18 17 16 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
 CONTENTS

Preface and Acknowledgments / vii

Introduction: Environment as Experiment in Sensing Technology / 1

Part I. Wild Sensing

1 Sensing an Experimental Forest: Processing Environments and
Distributing Relations / 29
2 From Moss Cam to Spillcam: Techno-Geographies
of Experience / 57
3 Animals as Sensors: Mobile Organisms and the Problem
of Milieus / 81

Part II. Pollution Sensing

4 Sensing Climate Change and Expressing Environmental
Citizenship / 111
5 Sensing Oceans and Geo-Speculating with a Garbage Patch / 137
6 Sensing Air and Creaturing Data / 157

Part III. Urban Sensing

7 Citizen Sensing in the Smart and Sustainable City:
From Environments to Environmentality / 185
8 Engaging the Idiot in Participatory Digital Urbanism / 207

9 Digital Infrastructures of Withness: Constructing a

Speculative City / 241
Conclusion: Planetary Computerization, Revisited / 267

Notes / 277
Bibliography / 307
Index / 337
 P R E FA C E A N D
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First sparked through an interest in remote sensing and environments

that began with an online project on satellites over ten years ago under the title
of Signal Space, the material gathered together for this study on environmental
sensing technologies has been a long time in the making. From urban sensing to
automated gardens, I have developed an ongoing habit of attending to and work-
ing with technologies that would animate and monitor environments. Developed
alongside prior work that I have assembled on electronic waste, this work on
environmental sensing is also part of a larger project of attending to the environ-
mental and material aspects of computational technologies. Sensor-based tech-
nologies are not only environmentally located; they also in-form and program
environments, have environmental impacts, and take hold in particular environ-
ments, whether for managing or monitoring processes. As I outline in the pages
that follow, this is an interdisciplinary and even postdisciplinary project of attend-
ing to these emerging technical objects and milieus.
As a modest disclaimer, I might also note that this study is inevitably incom-
plete, since it attends to an ever-growing area of environmental computing. There
are many topics I was not able to accommodate fully in these pages. This is not
a handbook for understanding the finer details of sensors as technical objects, nor
is it a survey of the wide range of citizen-sensing or creative-practice projects
using environmental sensors. Despite the earthly expanse of the title, this study is
also not quite as global as it could be, since inevitably quite incisive discussions
could be developed around the commercial, military, and even colonial unfoldings
of ubiquitous computing in locations worldwide, with often uneven outcomes.
While I engage with citizen-sensing practices here, this is also not primarily an
ethnographic or practice-based study, since this work is still in development
through a current collaborative research project that I am leading, Citizen Sense.

vii
viii / Preface and Acknowledgments

Instead, what I have developed here is more of a theoretical and ethico-aesthetic

investigation that emphasizes both the environmental and sensor-based aspects of
ubiquitous computing technologies and practices. As described in these pages,
this work has also taken me to many locations where environmental sensing has
been in use and under active development. This work would not have been pos-
sible if it were not for the generosity and attention of multiple interlocutors who
have met up with me to discuss their research, made field sites available for visits,
sent along notices for related events, and exchanged ideas about environmental
sensors. While this is a far-from-comprehensive account, below are some of the
people (and organizations) who have aided in the development of this work.
Thanks are due to the researchers on the CENS sensing project who hosted
me during fieldwork conducted in 2008 both at UCLA and the UC James Reserve
while writing chapters 1 and 2, including Mark Hansen, Deborah Estrin, Michael
Hamilton, Eric Graham, Josh Hyman, Chuck Taylor, Katie Shilton, Hossein Falaki,
and Becca Fenwick, among others. I am grateful to Matthew Fuller and Mike
Michael for their helpful suggestions for improving and clarifying early versions
of chapter 1. I presented a version of chapter 2 at the Emerging Landscapes con-
ference at the University of Westminster, and I am thankful to the organizers and
participants at this event for their feedback on this work.
Cecilia Mascolo at Cambridge University helped by meeting with me to dis-
cuss her work on monitoring badger movement in 2010 and sent me several key
papers and event references to familiarize me with the field of movement ecology,
which has informed my work in chapter 3. Erich Berger and Laura Beloff were
generous hosts during my residency in Kilpisjrvi in 2012 and in creating a context
for experimenting with the topic of environmental computing, which developed
into the material written for chapter 4. This text has further benefited from par-
ticipant and organizer feedback during the presentation given at Sense of Planet:
The Arts and Ecology at Earth Magnitude, a National Institute for Experimental
Arts symposium at the University of New South Wales (2012).
Chapter 5 would not have emerged if it were not for the generous invita-
tion from Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent to write about the garbage patch for a
workshop on technoscientific objects in 2012. Thanks are due to her, Sacha Loeve,
Alfred Nordmann, and Astrid Schwarz for organizing this engaging writing work-
shop, as well as to participants for their feedback on earlier versions of this text.
Thanks are also due to Richard Thompson, who provided multiple points of clar-
ification and helpful suggestions on the topic of ocean plastics, and to Charles
Moore, who pointed me to useful references on the patches.
The topic of air pollution developed in chapter 6 has benefited from discus-
sions with Citizen Sense researchers, and thanks are due to Helen Pritchard and
Nerea Calvillo for contributing to our first Air Walk in 2013, where we tested
air-monitoring technologies. Benjamin Barratt and Andrew Grieve from the Kings
 Preface and Acknowledgments / ix

College Environmental Research Group provided useful input on the details of

monitoring air pollution in London. David Holstius, Virginia Teige, and Ron
Cohen from the Beacon project at UC Berkeley, and Gayle Hagler and Ron Wil-
liams at EPA Research all shared their work on monitoring air pollution, which
has provided a valuable resource for this research as well as ongoing Citizen Sense
research. Versions of chapter 6 have been presented at the Citizen Scientist on the
Move conference at Utrecht University (2012), at the Waag in Amsterdam (2012),
at Pixelache in Helsinki (2012), and at the Multimodality Workshop at Cardiff Uni-
versity (2013).
A text that has been through the paces, chapter 7 has benefited from input
from Bruce Braun, Stephanie Wakefield, and Natalie Oswin. Versions of chapter 7
have also been presented at the Green Apparatus session of the American Asso-
ciation of Geographers in Seattle (2011), the Platform Politics conference at Anglia
Ruskin University (2011), the Digital Media Research Seminar at the University
of Western Sydney (2012), the Media Places: Infrastructure, Space, Media sym-
posium at HUMlab at Ume University (2012), the Speculative Urbanisms semi-
nar for the Urban Salon at University College London (2013), and the Mediating
Uncertainty seminar at the London School of Economics (2014).
Chapter 8 has benefited from receptive and helpful comments from audi-
ences at the Digital Citizen events at the Lewisham Library (2013), the Defining
the Sensor Society symposium at Queensland University (2014), the Artistic and
Cultural Strategies, Technology and Urban Transformations roundtable at Aarhus
University (2014), and the Open Data / Smart Citizens seminar for the London
Media Cities Network, Birkbeck, at University of London (2015). Thanks are due
to the organizers and participants at these many events.
The research presented here has benefited from a long gestation while at Gold-
smiths and demonstrates just how much this research environment has informed
my thinking. I am thankful to colleagues and students (past and present), as well
as Citizen Sense researchers, who have informed this work, whether directly or
indirectly. An inevitably incomplete list includes Helen Pritchard, Evelyn Ruppert,
Mike Michael, Bill Gaver and the Interaction Research Studio, Mariam Motamedi
Fraser, Kat Jungnickel, Anja Kanngieser, Bev Skeggs, Roger Burrows, Tomoko
Tamari, Mike Featherstone, Tahani Nadim, Bianca Elzenbaumer, Barbara Neves
Alves, Matthew Fuller, Luciana Parisi, Susan Schuppli, Sarah Kember, Nina Wake-
ford, Rebecca Coleman, Jane Prophet, Lynn Turner, Simon OSullivan, and Ele
Carpenter, along with students in the MA Design and Environment course who
helped me test out ideas and examine environmental-sensing practices at an early
stage of this research.
Further afield, and in addition to those mentioned above, thanks are due
to many colleagues, friends, and students for intellectual and creative exchanges,
as well as logistical support. Again, a partial list includes Gay Hawkins, Adrian
x / Preface and Acknowledgments

Mackenzie, Lucy Suchman, Clare Waterton, Rebecca Ellis, Blanca Callen, Alex
Taylor, Sren Pold, Christian Andersen, Anne-Sophie Witzke, Lea Schick, Winnie
Soon, Geoff Cox, Martin Brynskov, Kristina Lindstrm, sa Sthl, Ruth Catlow,
Marc Garrett, Gillian Rose, Sophie Watson, Doina Petrescu, Nishat Awan, Kim
Trogal, Rosi Braidotti, Nicole Starosielski, Janet Walker, Lisa Parks, Mel Y. Chen,
Kim Fortun, Jennie Olofsson, Finn Arne Jrgensen, Christophe Lcuyer, Mark
Andrejevic, Mark Burdon, Douglas Kahn, Jill Bennett, Ned Rossiter, Soenke
Zehle, Sarah Barns, Etienne Turpin, Tomas Holderness, Cat Kramer, Zack Den-
feld, Cesar Harada, Joel McKim, Scott Rodgers, Kathryn Yusoff, Brandon Labelle,
Christian Nold, Muki Haklay, Dennis Quirin, Vivian Chang, Fernando Domin-
guez Rubio, Amy Zhang, Will Straw, Johanne Sloan, and John Trice. Special thanks
are due to the two initially anonymous reviewers of this text, Steven Shaviro
and Kevin McHugh, who provided insightful and perceptive feedback. At the Uni-
versity of Minnesota Press, Doug Armato, Erin Warholm, and Danielle Kasprzak
astutely guided me through the publication of this text.
The early fieldwork for this research was made possible through seed funding
from Goldsmiths, University of London (2007 and 20092010). The research lead-
ing to these results has also received funding from the European Research Coun-
cil under the European Unions Seventh Framework Programme (FP/20072013) /
ERC Grant Agreement n. 313347, Citizen Sensing and Environmental Practice:
Assessing Participatory Engagements with Environments through Sensor Tech-
nologies (20132017).
This page intentionally left blank
Figure I.1. Scientists at the International Geophysical Year (IGY) 19571958 conference viewing Sputnik
model. Photograph by Howard Sochurek, the LIFE Picture Collection. Courtesy of Getty Images.
 INTRODUCTION

Environment as Experiment in
Sensing Technology

T h e e a r t h b e c a m e p r o g r a m m a b l e , Marshall McLuhan once

wrote, the moment that Sputnik was launched.1 Rocketed into orbit on October
4, 1957, and circling around the earth every ninety-six minutes, Sputnik was a tech-
nological intervention that turned planetary relationships inside out. Inevitably,
what springs to mind with McLuhans easy statement about the transformation
of the earth and our relationship to it are the familiar images of Earthrise and the
Blue Marble, which are often pointed to as simultaneously signaling the rise of
environmentalism as well as the distancing of the planet through a disembodied
space view. And yet, Earthrise, an image captured by Apollo 8, was not to appear for
another eleven years, in December 1968, and the whole-earth view of the Blue
Marble did not appear until 1973.2 In contrast, Sputnik 1 generated not photographic
icons of whole or fragile earths, but rather produced a series of inexplicable beeps
through a radio transponder, and relayed information about the likely conditions
of Earths upper atmosphere.3 If Sputnik made the earth programmable, it was
in part through radio transmissions that encircled the planet and created a live
auditory map of a new orbital environment.
Although the twenty-three-inch Sputnik did not offer up a view of Earth from
afar, it did activate a multitude of new experiences for inhabiting the earth. While
it sent a signal of Cold War triumph (and even suspected propaganda) for the
Soviet Union, in the United States the orbital machine regularly pacing through
the skies portended catastrophe, where GDP and money markets as well as sci-
ence education were all feared to be on the brink.4 The continual revolutions of
Sputnik around the earth, which spurred viewing sessions of its orbits in numer-
ous cities, recast spaces of earthly sensibility and began to reshape environments.
Launched during the International Geophysical Year 19571958 (IGY), Sputnik
1 was in many ways a proof-of-concept technology, which contributed to the

1
2 / Introduction

development of a method for putting a satellite into orbit, while also testing the
propagation of radio waves through the upper atmosphere and assessing the
endurance of the satellite in space.5 The testing of Sputnik 1 further facilitated the
development of Sputnik 2 and 3, which were launched in 1957 and 1958. Sputnik 2
was sent into space complete with a dog, Laika, whose heartbeats could be heard
through radio transmission. These later satellites were designed to be geophysical
laboratories that collected data on the earths magnetic field, radiation belt, and
ionosphere. The remote sensing that the Sputnik triad undertook consisted of
sending telemetry signals from space to Earth and of experimenting with the
conditions necessary for developing a sensing laboratory that could eventually
provide data about terrestrial ecologies through further satellite development.
Subsequent to Sputnik, satellites such as Landsat became key technologies for
undertaking environmental monitoring, whether to detect change or to identify
natural resources.6 As Andrew Horowitz details in a 1973 issue of Radical Software,
Eastman Kodak Company launched an advertisement in the New York Times that
promoted the environmental benefits of satellite systems and detailed the endless
possibilities for aerial monitoring to aid in the management of the environment,
suggesting that this could not only reveal undiscovered dynamics within nature

Figure I.2. Domestic communication satellites. Image from article by Andrew Horowitz, Radical Software
2, no. 5, chief editors Beryl Korot and Ira Schneider. Courtesy of Radical Software, copyright 1973 by the
Raindance Foundation.
 Introduction / 3

but also extend to identifying resources for extraction, and monitoring land
use and living patterns.7 Satellites were promoted as making an easy transition
from military research and development to ecological and social applications.8
Remote sensing developed into a critical technology and method within environ-
mental science and became a crucial way in which to study environmental change
on a global scale.9
Satellites now regularly monitor environmental change, tracking carbon diox-
ide in the atmosphere and patterns of deforestation. Satellites are referred to as
eyes in the sky that communicate to ground stations while relaying data about
and through environments, as they watch over earthly spaces and even transform
the planet into a digital earth. Our understanding of environmental systems is
now bound up with communication technologies that sense earthly processes.
Satellites have played an important role in this development. And practices of
monitoring environments have further developed from remote sensing to a more
distributed array of sensing technologies.
I begin with this discussion of Sputnik and the programmability of the earth
since this was a moment when a particular approach to sensing emerged that
would inform monitoring and approaches to environments. However, what I
attend to in this book is not a history of satellites or even Earth as understood
from outer space. Instead, I develop an account of more recent developments in
sensing technologies through distributed and networked environmental sensors
within more earthly realms.
As it turns out, sensing has come down to earth since the time of Sputnik.
Environments are now monitored not just by satellites but also increasingly by a
wide range of sensors that track everything from air quality to traffic levels to
microclimates and seismic activity. Such environmental monitoring is a practice
that is computational, often networked, frequently automated, and increasingly
ubiquitous. Many current scientific initiatives suggest that the monitoring of
Earth processes remains one of the core areas of focus and development for the
scientific understanding of environmental change. But sensors are also collecting
data on any number of environmental processes that include managing cities and
facilitating logistics, as well as providing and harvesting a range of data to and
from smartphone users. The programmability of environments has expanded
from the earth as enveloped in an orbital if experimental technology to a distrib-
uted and embedded range of monitoring technologies that inform how environ-
ments are sensed and managed. It is this explosion of environmental sensors and
environmental sensing operations that I discuss in this book.
While there is much to debate in McLuhans characterization of Sputnik and its
relationship to the natural world, I find the provocation of a planet that has be-
come programmable a key point to take up in relation to the current proliferation
4 / Introduction

of environmental sensors. In his characteristically sweeping essay on media envi-

ronments, which ranges from the death of Queen Victoria to poetry and news-
papers as corporate poems, as well as Xerox as enabling everyone to become
a publisher, and the immersive experiences of electronic man, McLuhan sug-
gests that Sputnik is yet another communications-based revolution that remakes
people and environments.
What might he have meant by this rather elliptical discussion, written seven-
teen years after the launch of Sputnik 1? If we take him at his word, Sputnik seems
to have given birth to a new planet and new environment. As he writes, Perhaps
the largest conceivable revolution in information occurred on October 17, 1957,
[sic] when Sputnik created a new environment for the planet.10 The usual way
to read McLuhan and his sudden leaps of logic would indicate that such a state-
ment runs the risk of technological determinism, and so it might. But I take up
in a rather different way the provocation that this proto-remote-sensing device
and that our newer environmental sensing devicesare creating new environ-
ments and are programming Earth in distinct ways. I also depart from McLuhan
in his understanding of the programmability of the planet, where he goes on to
render Sputnik as yet another extension of man, to consider instead how pro-
grammability might signal a quite different and distributed way of remaking
environments. Programmability, the programming of Earth, yields processes for
making new environments not necessarily as extensions of humans, but rather as
new configurations or techno-geographies that concretize across technologies,
people, practices, and nonhuman entities.11
Program Earth addresses the programmability of the planet by focusing on the
becoming environmental of computation. I understand computation to include com-
putationally enabled sensors that are distinct and yet shifting media formations
that traverse hardware and software, silicon and glass, minerals and plastic, server
farms and landfills, as well as the environments and entities that would be sensed.
In other words, I am attending to the extended scope of computation that includes
its environmental processes, materialities, and effects. Through discussing specific
instances where sensors are deployed for environmental study, citizen engage-
ment, and urban sustainability across three areas of environmental sensing, from
wild sensing to pollution sensing and urban sensing, I ask how sensor technolo-
gies are generating distinct ways of programming and concretizing environments
and environmental relations. I further consider how sensors inform our engage-
ments with environmental processes and politics, and in what ways we might
engage with the technicity of environmental sensors to consider the possibility
for other types of relations with these technologies.12 But before I unfold these
concepts and explain how they are important for attending to the specific capaci-
ties of these machines, I first provide a bit more background on the growing
sensorization of environments.
 Introduction / 5

Figure I.3. Types of sensors. Sensors detect and measure stimuli through a wide range of inputs,
including chemical, mechanical, and biological sources. The sensor assemblage typically involves using
electronics and software to convert stimuli into electrical and digital signals. Screen capture.

GROUNDING SENSE
While satellites eventually became fully equipped with numerous sensor pack-
ages, sensors for use in environmental monitoring on the ground have also prolif-
erated from initial military use to scientific study and commercial deployment.
Nonnetworked and analog sensors have been in use in multiple applications for
some time, and depending upon how one classifies sensors these could include
cameras and microphones, not to mention sensors for use in applications such as
radiation detection. For instance, in his work related to the Association for Com-
puting Machinery (ACM) Working Group on Socially Desirable Applications of
Computers and the Citizens Committee for Radiation Information, Edmund
Berkeley proposed that radiation sensors could be put to work for political and
environmental purposes to better understand radiation hazards and in aid of
nuclear disarmament during the Cold War.13 But the development of one of the
first sensor networks has been traced to the air dropping of seismic and acoustic
6 / Introduction

sensors by the U.S. military in Project Igloo, where sensors were used to detect
movement along the Ho Chi Minh Trail in Vietnam.14
Beyond these early instances of sensors and sensor networks, however, the
most usual reference for discussing the distributed and networked possibilities of
sensors in the form of ubiquitous computing is Mark Weisers 1991 text, The
Computer for the 21st-Century. Weiser makes the case for computingand the
sensors that would facilitate computational operationsto be distributed in and
through environments. Identifying how computers were already present in light
switches, thermostats, stereos and ovens [that] help to activate the world,15
Weiser suggested these technologies might allow computing to disappear into
the fabric of everyday life. Rather than the well-known trope of engagement that
involves making the invisible visible, Weiser advocated for further invisibility, to
develop computing not as a project principally of cognition and awareness, but
rather as something that is integrated into environments and experience.
To this end, Weiser stressed that ubiquitous computing was not simply a proj-
ect of populating far-flung places with computers. As he writes, Ubiquitous
computing in this context does not mean just computers that can be carried to
the beach, jungle or airport. Such a strategy would still be focused on the self-
contained box-like quality of computing, which would remain a discrete object
demanding attention. Weiser emphasizes that ubiquitous computing is not vir-
tual reality, which attempts to make a world inside the computer. Rather than
simulating worlds, he was interested to enhance the world already in existence by
making computing an invisible force that runs through the background of every-
day life.16 And he imagined this would take place through networked and compu-
tationally enabled sensors.
A growing wave of interest in sensors and ubiquitous computing has occurred
on either side of Weisers proposal, from the 1984 launch of Sensor Magazine,
to the proposal for technologies such as smart dust in 1998 (ambitiously micro-
scaled sensors that were imagined to drift in clouds or swarms and monitor
environments), to the coining of the term Internet of Things in 1999.17 Earth
Donning an Electronic Skin, a 1999 article in Business Week, made predictions for
the imminent encircling of the planet in electronic sensors that would measure
and transmit data from millions of points:

In the next century, planet earth will don an electronic skin. It will use the Inter-
net as a scaffold to support and transmit its sensations. This skin is already being
stitched together. It consists of millions of embedded electronic measuring devices:
thermostats, pressure gauges, pollution detectors, cameras, microphones, glucose
sensors, EKGs, electroencephalographs. These will probe and monitor cities and
endangered species, the atmosphere, our ships, highways and fleets of trucks, our
conversations, our bodieseven our dreams.18
 Introduction / 7

Moving well beyond the singular object of Sputnik in space, this article presents a
much different vision for a programmable earth, composed of the implementa-
tion of trillions of such telemetric systems, each with a microprocessor brain
and a radio,19 which would gather and transmit data on the ground by monitor-
ing people, infrastructures, and events. No realm fell outside the reach of these
sensor systems, where even dream activity could be surveyed.
A planetary brain, working through parallel and distributed computing, these
electronic devices were envisioned to eventually form a whole ecology, an infor-
mation environment thats massively connected.20 Imagined as a huge digital
creature, this ecosystem of electronic sensors, software, and communication net-
works was intended to be designed to help human beings, not harm them.21
With the planetary sensing fabric in place, scientists and technologists could then
also turn their attention back to outer space, where this sensory network could
spread to Mars and beyond.
While this vision for an electronic sensory network spanning the planet is
now nearly two decades past, it continues to influence developments in environ-
mental sensing and the Internet of Things. Today, sensors can be found in traffic
infrastructure and ocean buoys, as well as in trees in forests and planted in soil
underground. Sensors are used to manage urban traffic flows and to aid in the
movement of freight, to signal flooding alerts, and to enable rapid responses in
disaster situations. Sensors are located in environments, attached to infrastruc-
ture, fixed to vehicles, ported around as wearables, and embedded in smart-
phones, of which there are now one billion sold every year.22 As an IBM video
pitch for a Smarter Planet explains, the increasing instrumentation of the planet
is meant to give rise to a system of systems that will facilitate heightened levels
of observation, responsiveness, and efficiency.23 New insights, new activity, new
forms of social relations are meant to come together through an instrumented
planet, which as an information creation and transmission system becomes
newly intelligible. In the aspirations of the Smarter Planet vision, networked envi-
ronmental sensors make it possible to listen in on a planet that has always been
talking to us, but which we can only now begin to hear.24
The drive to instrument the planet, to make the earth programmable not pri-
marily from outer space but from within the contours of earthly space, has trans-
lated into a situation where there are now more things connected to the Internet
than there are people. Some commentators suggest that the defining moment for
implementing the Internet of Things was in 2008, when machinic connectivity
to the Internet outnumbered human connectivity.25 Sensing occurs across things
and people, through environments and within infrastructures. People-to-people
communication is becoming a smaller proportion of Internet and networked
traffic in the complex array of machine-to-machine (M2M), machine-to-people
(M2P), and people-to-people (P2P) circuits of communication. Cisco has projected,
8 / Introduction

somewhat fantastically, that there could be fifty billion connected objects in circu-
lation by 2020.26 Many more objects than this could be eventually interconnected,
since the IPv6 address system creates 1030 Internet addresses per person.27 Intel
ultimately envisions a future where sensors will be monitoring and reacting to us
at every second, which would involve altering reality as we know it.28
The basic diagrammatic flow of how sensors are meant to improve environ-
mental understanding and responsiveness goes something like this: Distributed
computational sensors monitor real-time events while collecting data on environ-
mental conditions. Data on phenomena such as air quality and temperature, as well
as location and speed of bodies and objects, are processed and trigger responses that
may be human- or machine-based. These responses are often oriented toward mak-
ing systems and processes more efficient or balanced. The real-time intelligence
provided by sensors is meant to translate into smart systems that continually
enable corrective actions. The ambition is that environments and infrastructure
can be managed intelligently and cohesively with networked sensor data. Preven-
tative decisions can be taken. And major events such as floods can be instantly
reported to ensure intelligent and immediate environmental management.29
Sensors are devices that typically translate chemical and mechanical stimuli
such as light, temperature, gas concentration, speed, and vibration across ana-
logue and digital sensors into electrical resistors and voltage signals. Voltage sig-
nals further trigger digital circuits to output a series of conversions into zeros and
ones, which are processed to form readable measurements and data.30 Data points
are captured from a distributed multiplicity of sensors that are often measuring
simple variables. By sensing environmental conditions as well as detecting changes
in environmental patterns, sensors are generating stores of data that, through
algorithmic parsing and processing, are meant to activate responses, whether
automated or human-based, so that a more seamless, intelligent, efficient, and
potentially profitable set of processes may unfold. Yet what are the implications
for wiring up environments in these ways, and how does the sensor-actuator logic
implicit in these technologies not only program environments but also program
the sorts of citizens and collectives that might concretize through these processes?
Program Earth takes up these questions and examines the distinct environments,
exchanges, and individuals that take hold through these sensorized projects.

THE BECOMING ENVIRONMENTAL OF COMPUTATION

When Weiser made the case that computing should recede into the background,
he signaled toward the ways in which environments would become the experi-
ential envelope through which computing would unfold. Computation was to
become environmental, or to become even more environmental than it already
was. However, at the time of his writing he notes, Silicon-based technology . . .
is far from having become part of the environment, since although more than
 Introduction / 9

50 million personal computers have been sold, nevertheless, the computer none-
theless remains largely in a world of its own.31 The environment that Weiser
would have computing disappear into was a very particular type of milieu, one of
inattention and everyday activity, an automated surround that did not require
reflection or focus. But the ways in which computation becomes environmental
are not necessarily always a project of disappearing as such, and Weiser articu-
lated a distinct way of understanding what the environment is or would be as
computing became more pervasive.
While Weiser suggested that ubiquitous computing would be a way to en-
hance reality, and Intel goes so far as to propose that sensor networks will create
new versions of the real, I take up the work of writers such as Gilbert Simondon
and Albert North Whitehead to consider how these technologies are involved
in individuating and concrescing environments, entities, and relations. Simondon
uses the term individuate to describe the processes whereby individuals and
collectives take form as they concretize from a preindividual reserve. For Simon-
don, not only are individuals not automatically given but also the process of
becoming individual is always incomplete and continues to provoke new modes
of becoming and individuation.32 Whitehead uses the term concresce to cap-
ture ways in which actual entities and actual occasions are realized and joined up
as distinct and immanent creatures.33 In not dissimilar ways, these writers and
philosophers are searching for and establishing a set of concepts that help us
approach entities not as detached objects for our subjective sensing and contem-
plation, but rather as processes in and through which experience, environments,
and subjects individuate, relate, and gain consistency.
Environment as a term has multiple resonances and genealogies. Within
this space of examining ubiquitous computing and sensor networks, I consider
specifically how environments inform the development of sensor technologies
and how these technologies also contribute to new environmental conditions.
Not only do computational technologies become environmental in distinct ways,
the environments they populate are also in process. The becoming environmental of
computation then signals that environments are not fixed backdrops for the imple-
mentation of sensor devices, but rather are involved in processes of becoming
along with these technologies. Environment is not the ground or fundamental
condition against which sensor technologies form, but rather develops with and
through sensor technologies as they take hold and concresce in these contexts.
Distinct environmental conditions settle and sediment along with these technolo-
gies as they gain a foothold.34 These processes involve not just the creation of the
entities and environments that are mutually informed but also the generation of
the relations that join up entities and environments.
As much as computation becoming environmental, this discussion also attends
to the ways in which environments become computational, or programmable.
10 / Introduction

Following Whitehead, this would be a way of saying that environments and enti-
ties concresce through processes of relating (as well as excluding) and as units of
relatedness and modes of prehension that involve each other.35 From this perspec-
tive, it is possible to see that Whiteheads notion of concrescence does not entail
a simple adding together of preformed subjects and objects into an assemblage,
but rather articulates the very processes by which entities are parsed, are able to
conjoin (or not), and persist in environments. Relations, furthermore, do not pre-
cede the acts of relating and are specific to the entities and environments that
concresce. Following Simondon and his notion of concretization, this would
be another way of saying that how individuals and collectives are individuated
gives rise not just to individuals and the environments in which they form but also
the relations and potentialespecially collective potentialexpressed across those
entities.
Far from being passive matter upon which human or nonhuman sense oper-
ates, environments in this way are an active part of how actual entities come to
concresce and relate, how organisms endure, and how valuesincluding those
values implicit in technologyare expressed.36 These distinctions and approaches
are important since, in discussing the ways in which environments are sensed
and monitored by sensor networks, I am bypassing an automatic understanding
of sensors as merely detecting preformed environmental data as though there is a
world of substantialist phenomena to be processed by a cognizing device. Instead,
I consider how distinct environments and environmental relations emerge, take
hold, and are programmed with and through these technologies.

Programming Environments, Programming Sense

Sensing is in fact a key part of the way in which computation works, as described
in early diagrams outlining the basic components of a computing machine.37
From input to logic, memory, control, and output, the five basic components
of the von Neumanninfluenced computer architecture depend upon sensing as
part of the process by which computation works in the world. While the modes
of input might consist of everything from keyboards to scanners to microphones,
the point is that each of these peripherals is engaged in a transformation and
conversion process. Sensing (broadly understood) in this arrangement has to
do with all the ways in which computers input data into internal calculative pro-
cesses in order to output data in another form. Sensors (as more specific input
devices) emerged within this computational arrangement as just one of many
possible devices for inputting data into the machine. With this system of input-
output, it would seem that you simply need to get a bit of the environment into
the machine, process that input, and output the results for onward action.
Environmental monitoring and sensing are inevitably situated within this
computational diagram. On one level, environmental sensors are input devices
 Introduction / 11

that facilitate monitoring, measuring, and computing. Yet on another level, envi-
ronmental sensors can be described as engaged in processes of individuating by
creating resonances within a milieu, where individual units or variables of tem-
perature and light levels, for instance, are also operationalizing environments in
order to become computable. Simondon uses the term in-forming as a way to
indicate exactly how information-related processes are also ways of giving form,
above and beyond an epistemological project, since for Simondon in-forming
involves registers of affect and experience as much as cognition and rationality.
Sensing is then not just a process of generating information but also a way of in-
forming experience.
The title of this introduction, environment as experiment in sensing tech-
nology, speaks to the ways in which programming and programmability are
approached in this book as experimental engagements in individuatingthrough
sensingenvironments. This is not an experimentalism that requires a control
subject in order to understand results against a stable indicator. Rather, it is a
more speculative way of asking what new entities and environments concresce
through computational and distributed sensors. Programmability, in this way, is
approached less as an ontology and more as an ontogenesis,38 where processes
of operationalizing environments put dynamic attributes into play rather than
simply writing a script against which a workflow is executed.
In her discussion of the regime of computation, Hayles suggests a salient
characteristic of computation is that it is more than a practice of observing and
simulatingit is also a process of generating new conditions.39 While one could
argue that multiple practices of scientific instrumentation are also generative,
Hayles calls attention to the ways in whichwithin its own inherent logic
computation undertakes generative, rather than merely descriptive, engagements.
Computing computes. It processes data to arrive at another point of synthesis.
Programming is a way of making operative. In some ways, it attempts to enable
processes of self-replication and automaticity. In other ways, it unfurls processes
that are potentially open-ended and even speculative.40 Throughout Program
Earth, I address these varying ways of understanding programmability in relation
to the becoming environmental of computation to consider how environments
become programmable and are made to be operational through sensor technolo-
gies, as well as the ways in which they might open into speculative engagements
and inhabitations.
Programmability, as I employ the term, has a somewhat wider use than just
software or code. Instead, this expanded engagement with programmability con-
siders how code is not a discursive structure or rule that acts on things, but rather
is an embodied and embedded set of operations that are articulated across devices,
environments, practices, and imaginations.41 Programmability then exceeds soft-
ware (and even computation) to encompass the formation of events, spaces, and
12 / Introduction

things. In this study, I open the concept and practice of programmability out into
a question of how environments are generated and made operational through
sensors and to the ways in which programmability often yields unpredictable (or
unscripted) results.

The Multiple Milieus of Environmental Computation

In developing this analysis of the processual environments of sensor technologies,
I work across discussions of environments, milieus, technologies, and sensing
practices as found in Simondon, Whitehead, Isabelle Stengers, Michel Foucault,
and Georges Canguilhem to consider the implications of how computation
becomes environmental, and to what a/effects. I start from a point of understand-
ing environments as made up of multiple milieus. Milieu is a term with a rich
and long history within the history of science and technology, and as Canguilhem
draws out in his arresting analysis of milieus, the term has moved from connot-
ing a mechanical-fluid space, to something like the ether, a seemingly necessary
binding agent or surround that would bring entities into communication even
if not directly connected, an environment influencing genetic adaptation and
evolution, and to the contrary, even an environment to which living entities are
indifferent.42
Both Simondon and Foucault were students of Canguilhems, and both use
milieu as a way to variously describe spaces of transfer, influence, and environ-
mental inhabitation. Foucaults use of milieu often signals the material-spatial
conditions in and through which modes of governance may be experienced and
lived.43 Milieus in this respect have relevance for discussions of power and politics.
Simondon used multiple terms in his discussion of milieu, including inner milieu,
exterior milieu, and associated milieu. These concepts describe the processes
whereby environments and entities are formed across individuals (inner) and envi-
ronments (exterior) through energetic and material exchanges that occur through
the transversal field of the associated milieu.44
I take up these discussions of milieus to consider how they become situated
and multiple zones of transfer and inhabitation within environments. My use of
the term environment is perhaps closest to Simondons exterior milieu, which
is one milieu of several that designate spaces in communication. I also draw con-
nections across these discussions of milieu to engage with Whiteheads desig-
nation of environment as the processual condition and datum influencing the
formation of feeling subjects. Environment and milieu are concepts that are
threaded throughout Whiteheads and Simondons approaches to the processual
formation of subjects. In varying but not dissimilar ways, for both Whitehead and
Simondon there is no such thing as a founding or original subject that cognizes
discrete objects. Instead, subjects concresce together with environments to form
 Introduction / 13

subject-superjects, where everythingeven a stone, as Whitehead would say

counts as an experiencing subject;45 or where everything is individuated from a
shared preindividual reserve, which includes a preformed collective of nonhumans
both natural and technical, as Simondon has noted.46
In his rather distinct understanding of mediation, Simondon develops a use
of this term that addresses phases of being and becoming that occur through
communication. As an example, he describes a plant communicating and medi-
ating between the cosmic and the mineral, the sky and the ground, taking up and
transforming energies and materials through its processes. The associated milieu
operates as this mediatory space, a transversal ground through which transfor-
mations play out and new phases of being emerge. Mediation is not, however, a
negotiation between two preformed units, but rather is a process in and through
which entities transindividuate through communicative exchange. And it is not
simply the entities that are individuated but also a milieu with which these entities
interact. As Muriel Combes writes in relation to Simondon, No individual would
be able to exist without a milieu that is its complement, arising simultaneously
from the operation of individuation: for this reason, the individual should be seen
as but a partial result of the operation bringing it forth.47
I take up a parallel approach to how sensors harness energies and materials,
transforming their own configurations and the environments they would tap into
in the process.48 Sensors are exchangers between earthly processes, modified elec-
tric cosmos, human and nonhuman individuals. The environmental computation
that materializes here could be described as individual-milieu dyads that become
as they communicate, subject-superjects that concresce as entities, and thereby
enable particular environments to materialize and sediment. In this way, I am
extending an understanding of communication-as-exchange to address the pro-
grammability of environments, the conversions across electronics and environ-
ments, and the material redistributions of environments and electronics through
distinct phases and processes of individuation.

Planetary Computerization and Media Ecologies

The programmability of the earth and its environments as operation-spaces acti-
vates distinct ways of approaching the planet as a modifiable object. However, the
earth of Program Earth is not a stable object undergoing a certain modification.
Instead, one could say that, from Sputnik to the multiplicity of networked sensors
that have since developed, sensing technologies are involved in parsing and mak-
ing present certain entities and capacities that are bound up in the relational proj-
ect of programmability. The earth, as this discussion so far has suggested, is an
entity that might be approached as both an antecedent object or datum as well as
an entity in process and formed through modes of individuation and concrescence
14 / Introduction

that enable this entity to stabilize and have consistencyas a unit of relatedness,
concern, observation, and experience. The planetary then describes processes of
individuation and concrescence that in-form the potential of this entity, Earth, to
take hold and be experienced in particular ways. Programmability is one way of
characterizing a particular process of individuation and concrescence that acti-
vates the planet and its entities as an operation space.
Earthly observations can be generative of distinct engagements and relation-
ships. As discussed earlier, Earthrise is typically discussed as sparking international
environmental initiatives through a Spaceship Earth photographic perspective
and a counterculture ethos that was simultaneously a sort of neoliberalism in the
making.49 A planetary perspective can at once prove to be limiting and enabling
for environmental practices.50 It can also be the basis for an infrastructural glo-
balism, as Paul Edwards argues, that binds certain types of scientific practice
together in the interest of understanding the planet as a discrete system.51
If the satellite view has largely been narrated as a project of making a global
observation system and of seeing the earth as a whole object, then the more
distributed monitoring performed by environmental sensors points to the ways
in which the earth might be rendered not as one world, but as many. Here are
multiple earths, in process, programmed and in operation, unfolding through dis-
tinct environmental conditions, sites of study, and responsive inhabitations. Where
global observation systems might be working toward a planetary-scale project of
knowing the earth as an entire system through (ideally) linked-up data sets,52 in
contrast multiple earths are articulated through numerous distributed sensors
that as currently implemented rarely form a system of systems, and more likely
produce discrete and localized data sets for particular purposes. What counts as
an environmentand Earththen concresces in different ways in relation to the
sensors sensing within distinct conditions.
The multiple views or senses that environmental sensors concretize might
be approached through the machinic polyphony described by Flix Guattari in his
discussion of the age of planetary computerization.53 At the time of his writing,
Guattari suggested there was an emerging age characterized by a polyphony of
machine voices along with human voices, with databanks, artificial intelligence,
etc. In addition, New materials made to order by chemistry (plastic matters,
new alloys, semi-conductors, etc.) would take the place of previous materials. In
this age, where time and experience were shifting, the temporality put to work
by microprocessors, enormous quantities of data and problems can be processed
in miniscule periods of time. With the new machinic subjectivities that he antic-
ipated would arise, as well as the indefinite remodeling of living forms that
would occur through biological engineering, he imagined there would be a
radical modification of the conditions of life on the planet, and as a consequence,
all the ethological and imaginary references relating to it.54
 Introduction / 15

Guattari captures a sense of how the earth and its inhabitants are remade
through planetary computerization. In resonance with Simondon, Guattari iden-
tifies how the material, energetic, and machinic conditions that take hold and gain
consistency become the basis both for remaking environments and remaking the
human-machinic subjectivities that unfold in those environments.55 In this sense,
environments are not merely antecedent objects to be translated through infor-
mational devices, but rather are entities that concretize along with technologies.
Computerization, in Guattaris view, becomes at once planetary and polypho-
nous, generating new living conditions, subjectivities, and imaginaries.
As the planet becomes a space of newly modified connections and relations,
it also joins up and gives rise to new ecologies. McLuhan described Sputnik as a
machine for generating ecologies.56 The programmability that he identified as
being key to this proto-remote-sensing technology was bound up with notions of
what environments are and what it means to monitor and understand them. Con-
temporaneous with Sputnik and the rise of remote sensing, ecology shifted from
an embedded field practice to an informational and even cybernetic undertaking,
where the earth materialized as an object of management and programmability.
Ecology is a term that has multiple resonances and, as discussed throughout
this study, also refers to informational or cybernetic management of environ-
ments as much as a philosophy of interconnectedness. Moreover, our postWorld
War II understanding of ecology is predominantly articulated through communi-
cation technologies, systems theories, and information science.57 Donna Haraway
has described how ecosystems, similar to immune systems or organisms, materi-
alize through specific technoscientific practices that are in-formed by cybernetic
logics. She therefore suggests a project of probing the history and utility of the
concept of the ecosystem.58 Numerous textsmany of them referring to Hara-
ways early insightsengage with the question of how information theory and
cybernetics have influenced the understanding and practice of ecology.59 I draw on
these informational and cybernetic approaches to ecology to consider how envi-
ronmental processes and relations are not only increasingly studied through com-
putational technology but also seen to be analogous to computational processes.
Read through devices such as sensors and satellites, and assembled into networks
and code, ecology is now a shifting entity that typically becomes visibleand
manageableas information. In this way, such ecologies in-form our lived mate-
rial, political, and ethical engagements, and they contribute to the scope of our
environmental practices.
Clearly, in developing these articulations of environment and ecology, I am also
situating this work in relation to research on media ecologies. Media ecologies
as a term and area of media research has expanded from its former associations,
where ecologies and environments might have been used rather interchangeably
to discuss the at-times deterministic effects that media spaces were assumed to
16 / Introduction

have on subjects.60 Newer work on media ecologies focuses on discussing the

material-spatial conditions of media as part of an extended way of understanding
what media are and the effects they haveencompassing but also extending
beyond devices.61 More recent approaches to media ecologies also draw extensively
on Guattaris notion of the three ecologies, which makes the case for approach-
ing ecologies across mental, socio-cultural and environmental realms.62 Within
this space, some work on media ecologies goes so far as to even disavow the use
of the term environment as a problematic term leaning toward unquestioned
environmentalisms.63
An important point of clarification that is stressed throughout Program Earth
is that a practice of attending to the milieus of media technology does not auto-
matically translate into an environmentalist encounter with media. While these
are often discussed in the same space in relation to sensors for environmental
monitoring, I make a point of understanding environment as not always already
environmentalist in order to consider the distinct ways in which environmentalist
practices and politics concresce in and through computation technologies as they
become environmental. Environmentalism might then be articulated as a response
to having monitored environments, for example, in relation to declining habitat or
increasing temperatures. Or it might provide the impetus to monitor in the first
place, where sensors are tuned to looking for patterns of change or disturbance,
and where data is seen as the necessary resource for motivating political action.
Furthermore, environmental media as a term often signals a media-based
focus on environmentalist topics and environmentalist modes of representation,
or alternately points to the greenness of media. However, I discuss the becoming
environmental of computation through the technoscientific processes that envi-
ronmental sensors enable, rather than assume that this is automatically a project
in sustainability.64 Computational media unfolds not only through the capacities
of devices but also through their environmental entanglements and effects, where
material conditions such as soil and air together with circuits and screens generate
concrete sensor-entities and experiences. With this focus, I am also building on
my previous work that has attempted to draw out the environmental aspects of
media by, on the one hand, attending to the atmospheric modalities and milieus
of media and,65 on the other hand, by considering the environmental effects of
media in the form of electronic waste, which includes disposed gadgets as well as
the extended spaces of mining, manufacturing, use, storage, recycling, and decay
in and through which electronics circulate.66 Computational technologies are
constitutive of environments, have environmental effects, and also in-form envi-
ronmentalist practices.
Program Earth then builds on research into media ecologies while making a
distinction between environment as referring to conditions that form through
multiple milieus, in the first instance, and to ecology as articulating the connections
 Introduction / 17

that take shape within a milieu and across environments, in the second instance,
as a way to develop sufficient analytical clarity to be able to discuss both the con-
nections and the conditions whereby the environmental media of sensors take
hold. By making this distinction, I am also working in relation to the descriptions
of ecology made within scientific literature, which this study draws on in consid-
ering how computational sensors are used to study environmental change and
advance engagements in citizen sensing.
As mentioned above, the earth in Program Earth is not a whole or singular fig-
ure. Instead, the earth articulated here is multiple in the ways in which it is put
to work, and in the ways it is drawn into experiences of environmental change,
practices of environmental citizenship, and optimizations of urban systems. In
this sense, I look at this multiplicity not to celebrate the more-than-singular ways
in which earth-ness is animated, but instead to consider how a multiplication and
accumulation of programming-earth projects shifts the ways in which the prac-
tices and effects of digital media unfold. And one of the primary ways in which
I take up these environmental sensing practices is by examining the modes of

Figure I.4. One basic example of a DIY sensor in the form of Arduino open-source electronics with a
carbon monoxide (CO) sensor that would typically be found in a smoke detector. Assembled at a citizen-
science workshop in London. Photograph by author.
18 / Introduction

citizen sensing that are expressed in and through the use of sensors. Since many
environmental sensor applications are oriented toward understanding environ-
mental change or managing environments, so too do the ways in which environ-
ments come to be articulated through sensing technologies have relevance for the
types of environmental politics and citizenship that take hold along with these
technologies.

FROM ENVIRONMENTAL SENSING TO CITIZEN SENSING

A key tool within ubiquitous computing, sensors are the technologies that make
possible the distribution of computational logics beyond the screen and interface
to spatial and environmental applications. While sensors have become embedded
in everyday spaces and infrastructures, practices of monitoring and sensing envi-
ronments have also migrated to participatory applications such as citizen sensing,
where users of smart phones and networked devices are able to engage with DIY
modes of environmental observation and data collection. Beyond monitoring
ecological processes, sensors have then become key apparatuses within citizen-
sensing projects that monitor air quality, radiation concentrations, noise levels,
and more.
Yet how did the ostensibly technoscientific technology of environmental sen-
sors migrate from computational and scientific uses to more everyday applica-
tions? And how effective are practices of citizen sensing in monitoring and
addressing environmental issues and in giving rise to new modes of environmen-
tal awareness and practice? Program Earth examines the migration of environmen-
tal sensors from ecological research and commercial applications to a wider array
of environmental and citizen engagements. By analyzing informational ways
of understanding environments, I map the trajectory of the computational and
informational approach to environments from ecological sensing applications to
more citizen-focused undertakings, and to urban and infrastructural developments
that join the objectives of sustainability, intelligent cities, and engaged citizens. I
further identify the material, political, and spatial relationships that environmen-
tal sensor practices enable; and I ask how a particular version of the environmen-
tal citizen has become entangled within these relationships and practices. The
becoming environmental of computation includes processes of making citizens
and milieus.
From citizen science to participatory sensing, crowdsourcing, civic science,
street science, DIY media, and citizen sensing, a number of widespread practices
of environmental monitoring and data gathering are emerging that variously
work through ways of democratizing the technoscientific tools and understand-
ings of environments.67 While these terms are used in different ways to stress the
scientific, big data, or civic aspects of these practices, I work with the term citizen
sensing in order to draw explicit attention to the ways in which computational
 Introduction / 19

and mobile practices of environmental monitoring might be discussed as modes

of citizen sensing, specifically.
Citizen-sensing practices have been described as making inventive contribu-
tions to both the research and development of technological tools, as well as to
modes of environmental monitoring.68 These practices range from the use of sen-
sor data to complement other environmental observations, including remote-
sensing; ubiquitous-computing approaches that often focus on the capacities and
practices of sensor technologies to achieve efficiencies; and engagement with
social or civic media projects that emphasize the ways in which social networking
can mobilize collected data to influence policy and political action.69 Citizen sens-
ing as I am defining the practice for the purposes of this study encompasses
or refers to those sensing activities that use computational sensing technologies
in the form of smartphones, as well as mobile and low-cost electronic devices
such as Arduino and Raspberry Pi, and online platforms to monitor and poten-
tially act on environmental events through the collection of environmental data.70
Such distribution of sensing capabilities across sensor networks and multiple
mobile and individualized platforms has become a focused site for environmental
and technological engagement.
Citizen-sensing projects are often closely related to citizen-science studies, but
differ in the ways in which they seek to enable environmental practice through
direct engagement with environmental monitoring technologies. Such citizen-
sensing applications, similar to citizen-science, are frequently based on practices
of individuals voluntarily tracking and monitoring everything from pollution lev-
els to biodiversity counts.71 Citizen-science projects are even increasingly trans-
forming into citizen-sensing projects, where digital devices equipped with sensors
are used to monitor environments and gather data.
In some cases, sensor technologies have enabled more thorough practices of
environmental monitoring and observation that have already been underway
through citizen-science initiatives, as in counting and tagging biological activities.
In other cases, the capacities of sensor technologies have facilitated more dis-
tributed and potentially more accurate collection of data, such as urban air or
noise pollution. Some applications extend the scope of citizen sensing not only
to encompass sensor data and use of smart phones but also to draw on remote
sensing and mapping to enable the tracking of deforestation or animal move-
ments. In still other instances, these mobile sensor applications have sparked new
forms of democratic organization and communication about environmental issues
by effectively crowdsourcing environmental observations in order to influence
environmental policy and action.
Another reason for engaging with these practices as sensing practices is then to
draw out the ways in which computational devices are at once sensing and actuat-
ing technologies, as well as modes for sensing and experiencing environments.
20 / Introduction

Citizen- or participatory-sensing projects often propose to create shorter circuits

between environmental information and the observers of that information, and
in this way technologists and environmental practitioners have suggested that a
more direct line of environmental action may be possible.72 Program Earth specifi-
cally charts the ways in which citizen-sensing projects configure environmental
practice through data gathering and sensing in order to offer a more in-depth
understanding of how environmental practices and politics materialize in relation
to observing technologies and communication networks.73 I consider how envi-
ronmental monitoring and citizen sensing consist not just of observations of
environmental change but also of technical, political, and affective practices that
are part of a complex ecology of sensing for environmental action.
What is typically activated in this diverse set of practices is a set of proposals
for democratizing environmental engagement and developing other ways of doing
environmental science and politics. Yet just as many new questions arise about
the ways in which citizen engagement with environments and environmental
concerns are in-formed with and through sensing technologies. By using the term
concern, I am here specifically drawing on Whiteheads discussion of concern as
an affective tone drawn from objects and placed in the experiences of subjects.74
The becoming environmental of computation includes these ways in which dis-
tinct monitoring practices and modes of reporting are enabledand delimited
through environmental sensors, as well as the citizens and publics that would be
activated and affected by these technologies and sensing practices.
Working across citizen-sensing projects that take the form of proposals,
experiments, and established practices, Program Earth examines the ways in which
the distributed and accessible capacities of computational sensors are meant to
enable greater engagement with environmental issues. It asks: In what ways do
computationally based citizen-sensing engagements influence modes of envi-
ronmental participation? Citizen-sensing initiatives often depend upon forms of
monitoring, reporting, managing, and even self-managing in order to establish
environmental engagement. How might the practices of environmental citizens
as data gatherers be advanced through a more intensive understanding of these
modes of environmental and political practice?

SITUATING THE FIELD

From the Internet of Things to the quantified self, there is a new set of terms
circulating that engage with the ubiquitous aspects of digital media. Within this
overarching area there are specific studies that focus on the imagined futures of
ubiquitous computing, the distributed and spatial qualities of wireless or perva-
sive digital technologies,75 and the ways in which sensor hardware and software
move computation out of the black box and into the environment.76 New texts
are also emerging that provide an overview or wide-ranging survey of ubiquitous
 Introduction / 21

computing,77 yet these collections often do not focus intensively on issues of envi-
ronmental sensing and practice.78 Other texts engage with the use of ubiquitous
computing for social activism, for instance, but the focus on environmental topics
is also less intensive.79 These existing ubiquitous computing texts are useful in
establishing context for this emerging area of computing, as well as participatory
approaches to digital technology. However, I address sensors explicitly as environ-
mental sensor technologies, a function that becomes more evident when devices
are used for monitoring environments and collecting environmental data. And
although the speculative aspects of computational sensors do influence this study,
I especially focus on the ways in which sensors are actually being used and deployed.
Program Earth considers environmental sensing as a technological practice
that spans environmental studies, digital culture and computation, the arts, and
science and technology studies. As discussed above, the becoming environmental
of computation includes considering not just how environments concresce along
with individuals and objects but also how distributions of experience might be
recast in and through environmental processes. Environmental sensing technolo-
gies open up new ways of approaching digital technology as material, processual,
and more-than-human arrangements of experience and participation.
While there is comparatively less research within digital media studies that
focuses specifically on the environmental articulations and capacities of sensors,
there is a significant body of literature dealing with social media and the partici-
patory aspects of digital devices, typically in the form of the mobile and online
platforms.80 Research into social and participatory media is a rapidly burgeoning
field, where social media are often analyzed through considerations of alternative
content generation, community formation, or social change,81 as well as the poli-
tics and practices of observation, control, and tactical intervention.82 This work
forms an important reference point for understanding the rise in participatory
engagements with digital media. However, Program Earth is situated somewhat
obliquely to studies of participatory and social media, in that while it is focused
on the political and participatory enablement of environmental sensing, it is pri-
marily oriented toward more-than-human, environmental, and distributed analy-
ses of how citizens and citizen-based engagements are expressed through this
distinct set of technologies. At the same time, this research focuses on the ways
in which computing has not only moved beyond screens to environments but
also given rise to new imaginaries for how to program environments for digital
functionality and participation.
Rather than focusing primarily on individual use or content generation for
human-led manipulation of Internet- or screen-based media, I consider how envi-
ronmental sensors variously articulate practices constitutive of citizenship in and
through sensed environments that come into formation through an extended
array of technologies and practices. Participation, as I engage with the concept and
22 / Introduction

practice, is also a more-than-human undertaking.83 I investigate how machines,

organisms, energy, networks, code, and atmospheres in-form how distributed
and environmental computing materializes and operates. Taking up the more-
than-human, machine-to-machine, and algorithmic operations of wireless sensor
networks, Program Earth addresses the proliferation of environmental and com-
putational entities that concretize and participate in wireless sensor networks.
While this research synthesizes and draws on emerging media theories that
deal with ubiquitous and participatory computing applications, it also seeks to
develop a new terrain for thinking through distributed sensing technologies as
articulating distinct modalities of environmental politics and practices. This book
makes the case for different approaches to sensing within digital media studies,
arguing that distributions and processes of sensation might be more effectively
understood by not simply collapsing sensation into fixed sensing categories such
as sight or hearing. Environmental sensing technologies entail a transformation
of the objects that are turned into information; to produce information is a
technological intervention that generates distinct types of realities, rather than
simply mirroring them. With these insights in mind, it is possible to move beyond
the notion that environments are something out there to be studied and acted
upon by citizen sensors with their sensing devices and instead to look specifically
at how the spread of informational techniques co-constitute monitored envi-
ronments and informed environmental citizens. I draw on the work of Stengers
specifically as she discusses the philosophy of Whitehead to develop a construc-
tivist approach to environmental sensors to suggest not that environments are
constructed (in the sense of being concocted) through sensing technologies,
but rather that distinct capacities for feeling the real are articulated through these
monitoring practices.84
It is important to note that in focusing on environmental sensing, Program
Earth is working in a register that is not a phenomenological treatment of sense
and sensation. In existing literature, sensemaking aspects of media technologies
are often discussed through theories of mediation or individual attention and
embodiment.85 In related approaches, sensing is focused on a human subject
and often rendered through theories of phenomenological or prosthetic engage-
ment. The difference in this approach pertains to how environmental sensors
are not simply providing access to new registers of information for established
subjects but are changing the subjects of experience as well as the sensing relation-
ships in which subjects are entangled and through which they act. Hence, vis--vis
Whiteheads notion of the superject, we could say that the superjects of experience
are also changing. Program Earth works to develop new theories of sensing that
do not rely on an a priori human-centric subject or mediated subjectobject rela-
tionship. Sensing here is not primarily or exclusively about human modalities of
sensing, but rather has to do with distributed formations and conjunctions of
 Introduction / 23

experience across human and nonhuman sensing subjects, in and through envi-
ronments. Sensing, in this respect, is understood as a multifaceted process of par-
ticipating, individuating, and concrescing.

Methods and Chapters

Program Earth examines the monitoring and sensing of environments to question
how sensing technologies give rise not just to new modes of environmental data
gathering but also to new configurations of citizen engagement, environmental
relationality, sensing, and action. Along the way, this work raises questions about
the politics and practices of sensing that concresce at the intersection of sensor
technologies, citizen participation, and environmental change.
Methods used in developing this material include fieldwork at sites of environ-
mental sensing and testing, interviews with scientists and creative practitioners
who have developed environmental sensing applications and devices, residencies
and fieldwork at scientific field stations and sensing laboratories, ethnography at
creative and scientific conferences and events where sensors for environmental
monitoring have been exhibited or under active development (e.g., urban proto-
typing festivals), a visit to a sensor factory, attending and developing events for
using sensing equipment to monitor environments, inventories of sensors and
tests with sensor toolkits, virtual ethnography of online sensing communities, and
an extensive review of environmental sensing literature, media, and practices.
This book works across this research material while developing a theoretical
account of how sense, environmental participation, and politics shift through
ubiquitous computing and environmental sensing technologies. Working within
a radical empiricism modality, I do not apply theory to empirical material, but
rather attend to the emergent intersections across theory and practice in order
to create openings to inventive encounters with environmental sensing, as well as
to enable propositions for practice.
In order to undertake this study of environmental sensing and its migration to
more participatory applications, I have divided this text into three main sections
that address key aspects of environmental sensing, including Wild Sensing, Pol-
lution Sensing, and Urban Sensing. The first section, Wild Sensing, discusses
the development of sensor networks within ecological applications to track flora
and fauna activity and habitats and the ways in which these technologies have
moved out of the woods to be deployed in more urban and citizen-focused
applications. Within this section, chapter 1 focuses on fieldwork conducted at one
sensor test site, the James Reserve in California. This chapter suggests that these
experimental environmental sensor arrangements mobilize distinct sensing prac-
tices that are generative of new environmental abstractions and entities, which
further influence practices such as citizen sensing. In chapter 2, I discuss two web-
cams, a Moss Cam and a Spillcam, to consider how images now operate as sensor
24 / Introduction

data, even more than as stand-alone pictures. Often located as one mode of input
within sensor networks, images are generated from webcams and translated into
data that can be parsed through image analytics while also drawing citizens into
distinct practices of watching and reporting. Chapter 3 examines how the move-
ment of organisms has become a key site of study facilitated through sensors.
Migration-tracking sensors provide new data about the movement of organisms
while also indicating the distinct environments and environmental relations in
and through which organisms are living.
The second section, Pollution Sensing, addresses the use and adaptation of
environmental sensing technologies to monitor pollution, specifically focusing on
the use of sensors as tools within creative practice and citizen-sensing projects.
This is an area of sensor development that continues to trigger new proposals for
citizen engagement in environmental issues. Yet how do these applications influ-
ence the becoming environmental of computation, as well as the concrescence
of distinct environmental practices and politics? Beginning this section with chap-
ter 4, I discuss fieldwork and observations gathered from my time spent at the
Kilpisjrvi Biological Station while participating in an art-science residency. This
field station is located within observation networks focused on studying the Arc-
tic and environmental changes that are primarily influenced by climate change.
I relate this site to a discussion of carbon and other environmental monitoring
projects underway to consider how climate change is sensed and expressed across
arts, sciences, and community monitoring practices. Chapter 5 shifts from carbon
sensing to garbage sensing, more specifically in the form of plastic debris in the
oceans in the form of garbage patches. In this chapter, I look at the different
ways that forms of marine debris that are relatively amorphous and invisible are
brought to sense (or not) across Google Earth platforms, iPhone apps, and drift-
ing ocean sensor floats. Moving from carbon sensing to ocean debris sensing,
chapter 6 considers the numerous projects and sensors engaged with sensing air
pollution. I develop a discussion of how air pollution is distributed across an array
of devices and environments and how the data that are generated through pollu-
tion monitoring technologies and practices operate as distinct creatures of sense.
The third section, Urban Sensing, looks at the ways in which citizen-sensing
applications have become central to the development of the latest wave of smart
city proposals that focus on urban sustainability. Smart cities proposals are devel-
oping apace, from IBM to HP and Cisco, and new projects are spun out that
address not just the development of new intelligent infrastructures but also the
compatible inhabitations of smart and connected citizens. How do these imagin-
ings and deployments of environmental sensing technologies across infrastruc-
tures and citizens influence urban environmental politics? And in what ways do
new versions of digital technopolitics take hold that potentially limit democratic
urban ways of life? Chapter 7 takes up these questions by focusing specifically on
 Introduction / 25

governance and power as they are distributed through the new milieus and envi-
ronments of smart cities. Using the notion of environmentality to describe
these spatial power dynamics, the chapter asks how visions for an efficient and
sustainable city might restrict urban practices and modes of citizenship. Chapter
8 considers the versions of participation that are enabled within DIY digital urban-
ism projects and platforms and explores the ways in which the idiot operates as
a noncompliant digital operator and figure that does not participate as intended.
Chapter 9 takes up the speculative aspects of smart cities and digital infrastructures
as they are built to ask how sensor networks enable distinct types of withness in
these new urban environments. I conclude Program Earth with a reconsideration
of how planetary computerization might point toward expanded ways of engag-
ing with sensor networks as generative of experimental worlds and speculative
practices.
Each of the chapters within these sections deals with distinct deployments
of and participations within sensing systems while engaging with these technolo-
gies as actual concrescences of computation and distributed arrangements of
environmental sensing, practice, and politics. Across the chapters, there are mul-
tiple grounded instances of sensor technologies used in environmental projects
that organize monitoring, facilitate participation, and manage urban processes.
In each of these examples, the political implications of how sensing systems in-
form environmental practice and participation, as well as become enrolled in dis-
tinct ways of life, are articulated and addressed. While I have emphasized the
becoming environmental of computation, the aspects of citizen sensing as they
are expressed within environmental sensing projects are no less important, as
they are intimately connected to the ways in which environments and environ-
mentalisms materialize. Moreover, citizen engagement is a recurring lure and
organizing device for enfolding people into sensing projects.
Ultimately, this book sets out to advance the conceptual understandings of
environmental sensingand the possibilities of sensethrough a theoretical and
empirical engagement with technologies and practices of sensing, citizenship,
and environmental change. Program Earth explores the assertion made by a diverse
range of researchers and practitioners that distinct practices of observation con-
nect up with and enable distinct political possibilities.86 It asks: How do different
sensing practices operationalize distinct affective and political capacities? And
what are the ways in which these computational sensors become environmental, as
they take hold and create new feelings for the real?
This page intentionally left blank
I

Wild Sensing
Figure 1.1. Wired
woods at James
Reserve. A diagram
showing the sensor
ecosystem developed
and tested through the
Center for Embedded
Networked Sensing
(CENS) research project.
Illustration Copyright
2005 by Frank Ippolito
 1

Sensing an Experimental Forest

Processing Environments and Distributing Relations

S u r r o u n d e d b y t h e San Bernardino National Forest and situated

within the San Jacinto Mountain Range in California, there is one particular patch
of woods that is distinct in its ecological processes. This forest is equipped with
embedded network sensing that digitally detects and processes environmental
phenomena, from microclimates to light patterns, moisture levels and CO2 respi-
ration in soils, as well as the phenology, or seasonal timings, of bluebirds and
auditory signatures of woodpeckers. These multiple modes of experimental for-
est observation are part of a test site for studying sensors in situ. A remote sens-
ing lab, the University of California James Reserve is an ecological study area
that has hosted field experiments since 1966. The use of this ecological study area
to test electronic sensors developed through the Center for Embedded Networked
Sensing (CENS) research project is at once a continuation of experimental eco-
logical practices in this area, as well as a shift in the technologies and practices for
studying environmental processes. The question that arises here is: When the
ecological experiment changes, how do experiences also change?
This notion of experimenting and experiencing as springing from a shared
modality is put forward by Stengers in her discussion of Whitehead, where she
uses a (French-inspired) neologism that does not draw a clear distinction be-
tween the terms experience and experiment as there is in English. This merging
of terms is also a critical way for describing the speculative approach of White-
head, which might be characterized by a crossing-over of experience and experi-
ment, where experimenter and experiment are part of a unified and concrete
occasion.1 This point of entry is important for this discussion, as it immediately
points toward a consideration of sensors not as instruments sensing something
out there but rather as devices for making present and interpretable distinct
types of ecological processes. These processes are articulated computationally,

29
30 / Sensing an Experimental Forest

Figure 1.2. Ecological study area, James Reserve. Sign indicating the edge of the study area. Photograph
by author.

and they draw together a wide range of experiencing entities that begin to in-
form new arrangements of environmental sensing. The becoming environmental
of computation extends to the experiencing entities that sense and express eco-
logical processes.
The use of wireless sensor networks to study environmental phenomena is
an increasingly prevalent practice. Sensing projects encompass studies of seismic
activity, the health of forests, maps of contaminant flow, and the tracking of
organisms from dragonflies and turtles to seals and elephants. These projects gen-
erate sensor data that are meant to provide greater insights into environmental
processes. At a time when ubiquitous computing is extending to multiple aspects
of everyday life, where the Internet of Things promises to have your refrigerator
communicating with supermarkets, and smart city designs propose to harvest
your location data to ensure your roast-chicken dinner is prepared on time, sens-
ing environments for ecological study is just one set of practices within a larger
project of programming environments through distributed modes of compu-
tation. Sensor networks arranged over static and mobile platforms and widely
distributed throughout environments are the common thread throughout these
projects, but the deployment of sensors within ecological study sites has been one
of the key and ongoing areas for early sensor research and development.
 Sensing an Experimental Forest / 31

As discussed in the introduction to this study, although a range of research has

been conducted on ubiquitous computing and the Internet of Things,2 less has
been written in the context of digital media theory or science and technology
studies about the ways in which understandings and practices of environmental
science have shifted through sensor systems and how these shifts have also had
ongoing effects on more participatory sensor projects. While sensors and sen-
sor systems were initially developed for use in military contexts, wireless and
embedded sensor systems have further developed through ecological study, which
has in turn provided an additional basis for deploying sensor systems within social
media and citizen-sensing contexts.3 This chapter focuses on the use of sensors for
study in environmental science in order to consider how these science-based sens-
ing practices might influence practices in expanded areas such as citizen sensing.
Situated within the context of these ubiquitous computing developments, this
chapter specifically focuses on the distinct forms of sensing that concresce in rela-
tion to the monitoring of environmental phenomena. One key advantage that
sensor systems are meant to provide is the ability to understand the complex
interactions and relations within ecosystems in greater detail. Ecological relations
are meant to appear in higher resolution because sensors monitor and make avail-
able aspects of environmental processes as they unfold over time rather than
as more discrete momentsand because more data are available for generating
models of complex interactions. This study asks how the ecologies that mate-
rialize through more continual sensor observation are not simply the result of
increased data output and processing, but might also be understood as generative
sensory relations articulated across humans, more-than-humans, environments,
and devices. In what ways do distributed sensor technologies contribute to new
sensory processes by shifting the relations, entities, occasions, and interpretive
registers of sensing? How do the interpretative practices that are individuated in
experimental environmental sensing test sites in-form attention to environmental
problems? And what are the implications of these experimental environmental
sensing arrangements as they migrate into policy and influence participatory
sensing processes?
In order to consider these questions, I first give an overview of the increasing
use of sensors for monitoring environments and studying environmental change.
The generation of more and higher-quality data is seen as critical to develop-
ing more advanced insights into how environments are transforming, and so the
sense data produced through these projects are often gathered for the purposes of
advising science and policy, in addition to testing prototype computational tech-
nologies in the field. Environmental monitoring can bring with it a sense of in-
creased responsibility; and the commonly used phrase, all eyes on earth, is a
way of articulating the watchful concern that sensors embody and operationalize
through the continual observation of environmental processes.
32 / Sensing an Experimental Forest

But sensors connect up more than just a network of human- or sensor-based

eyes. This chapter draws on more-than-human theory to move beyond human-
centric interpretations of computational sensing technology and engages with
Whiteheads approach to experience as something that concresces across human
and more-than-human subjects. As Whitehead suggests, perceiving subjects are
neither exclusively human nor pregiven, but combine as feeling entities through
actual occasions.4 In this way, sensors might also be understood not as detecting
substantialist external phenomena but as contributing to inventive processes for
making interpretive acts of sensation possibleand for articulating environmen-
tal change and matters of concern. This is a way of saying that interpretation
matters, and that experience to be interpreted concresces across multiple registers
and entities. In addition, interpretation is integral to processes whereby things
come to take hold as objects of relevance.5
Based on a consideration of the distinct articulations of sense across more-
than-human and environmental processes, this chapter moves to focus specifically
on the use of embedded networked sensors at the James Reserve ecological study
site. Drawing on fieldwork carried out at this site where sensors were tested in
situ, as well as a review of scientific papers and online records of sensor data, I
discuss new formations of distributed sense that concresce through these experi-
mental forms of environmental sensing. Part of the way in which sensors might
be understood as operative within distinct registers of experience is as distrib-
uted computational technologies. Sensors are distributed in at least two ways: in
terms of their spatial distribution, by monitoring environments in a widespread
and localized way; and in terms of the distributions of experience that generate
sense data and interpretations.6 If we take seriously Whiteheads suggestion that
sensing entities concresce through experiences (or prehensions) and that they
are inseparable from occasions of experience, then how do experimental environ-
mental sensor arrangements mobilize distinct sensing practices that are creative
of new environmental abstractions and entities?7
As Whitehead suggests, abstractions are not separate from concrete things,
but rather influence the process of concrescence and provide a lure for feel-
ing.8 The concrescences that come together here might be understood not just
as scientists-devices-flora-and-fauna but also as relations that individuate and are
individuated through data sets and algorithmic processes, across sedimented envi-
ronmental effects, and through responsive modes of environmental action. The
coming together of an experiment presents the possibility for distinct experiences
and subjects to concresce. Sensing an experimental forest is not about detecting
information out there but about tuning the subjects and conditions of experi-
ence to new registers of becoming. Tuning is a way to describe the co-creation
and individuation of agencies within experiments and the complex process of
 Sensing an Experimental Forest / 33

developing facts or matters of concern within such experiments.9 This chapter

sets out to provide an understanding of the dynamic, distributed, and multiple
modes of computational sensing environments that might also provide insights
for more cosmopolitical participation, where sensing is a process of multidirec-
tional tuning and experiencing.10 The becoming environmental of sensor-based
media is then distributed to include multiple subjects, organisms and technolo-
gies, as they process their environments.

INSTR UMENTING THE EARTH

The use of instrumentation within ecological study, from bird ringing to anemo-
meters, has a longer history than the more recent use of networked sensor sys-
tems.11 However, the miniaturization and faster processing speeds of sensors have
contributed to their increasing use as instruments within ecological study.12 Sensor
systemscomposed of relatively small-scale in situ sensors and actuators that are
able to collect and transmit data through networked connections, as well as undergo
remote reprogramminghave been described as nothing less than another revo-
lution comparable to the rise of the Internet.13 These imagined and actual trans-
formations involve extending computational capacities to environments through

Figure 1.3. Monitoring station with Bird Box Cam at James Reserve. This CENS monitoring station
included weather observation as part of its sensing kit and was a test-bed that contributed data to the
U.S. National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON). Photograph by author.
34 / Sensing an Experimental Forest

sensors, where objects and phenomena are transformed into sensor data and
made manageable through those same computational architectures.
In related literature, sensor networks have also been described as a revolution
in scientific instrumentation, similar to the telescope and microscope, where a
new order of insights might be realized. But instead of probing outer or inner
space, sensor networks operate as macroscopes, which enable a new way to
perceive complex interactions through the high density and resolution of tem-
poral and spatial monitoring data.14 While issues related to providing a reliable
power source, ensuring the robustness of hardware, and maintaining the validity
and manageability of large data sets remain, sensor systems present the possibil-
ity for understanding environmental processes and relations more thoroughly
by providing real-time data that are more detailed than existing modes of data
collection, including remotely sensed and manually gathered data that may exist
at a much larger scale or more discrete moments in time. The hope is that a back-
ground of new and undiscovered relations may be connected up and made evi-
dent through these sensing devices.
A wide range and number of projects now employ sensors for environmental
monitoring, from bird migration and nesting to the social life of badgers, to water
quality monitoring, phenological observations, the acoustic sampling of volcanic
eruptions, and the monitoring of microclimates in redwood forests.15 One of the
key projects within sensor-systems developmenta 2003 study of Leachs Storm
Petrels at Great Duck Island, a wildlife preserve in Maineestablished that habitat
and environmental monitoring is a driving application for wireless sensor net-
works.16 This sensor project employed static sensor nodes and patches, with bur-
row motes and weather motesor sensor nodesto study the underground
nesting patterns of migrating birds.
As with many similar and subsequent sensor deployments, this project pro-
duced more detailed data on previously unobserved ecological phenomena and
relationships while also providing a test-bed for experimenting with the sys-
tem architecture of sensor networks. The ecological relationships observedor
sensedare in many ways coupled with the capacities of sensor networks, which
similarly are adapted to and learn from the processes under study. The tuning
of sensor networks may take place not just between scientists and devices but also
across devices, code, and ecological processes. In this way, sensors become envi-
ronmental by tuning in and developing along with the phenomena and organisms
under study.
At the same time that sensor observations are intended to provide more de-
tailed accounts of environmental phenomena on the ground, they also contribute
to the building up of multiscalar and widely distributed approaches to environ-
mental sensing, including remote sensing by satellites and airborne observations.
These data are often generated across scales and derived from diverse modes of
 Sensing an Experimental Forest / 35

sensor input for wider and more detailed views on environmental processes and
to study the effects and possible impacts of environmental change.17 Multiple
observatories, together with long-term ecological research sites (LTERs), and
the U.S. National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), attempt to collect
and synthesize sensor data across the United States. While a site-specific sensor
project may study the detailed relationship between birds nesting behavior in
relation to microclimate and multiple other environmental factors, this same
study may benefit from climate data resources or may contribute to climate mon-
itoring programs. In other words, the sense data gathered may have the poten-
tial to elucidate environmental relations within a particular area of study, as well
as across expanded and yet-to-be-gathered data setsas long as the data to be
compared are of compatible formats.
Just as sensing systems are proliferating, numerous attempts are underway to
amalgamate and make sense of the many forms of dataa key cyberinfrastruc-
ture tasksince the multiple formats and provenances of data may mean that they
are rendered meaningless for ongoing use and study if not consistently handled.18
Sensor-gathered data sets, which are typically heterogeneous, are increasingly
brought together not only in larger data networks but also in mapping plat-
forms where fine-grain sensor data provide a real-time ground-truth to coarser
remote-sensing and field-gathered data. From Microsofts SenseWeb to the for-
mer DIY-sensing platform Cosm, such platforms intend to consolidate environ-
mental sensor inputs.19 The range of possible sensor inputs is illustrated by one
Microsoft diagram, Instrumenting the Earth, which outlines twenty different
modes of sensor input, from snow hydrology and avalanche probes to citizen-
supplied observations and weather stations.20 Innumerable potential points and
processes in the environment become the basis for sensor input, and it is from
these delineated sites of input that newly observed relations might be studied,
articulated, or managed.
While these sensing projects and networks have been under development
within universities and public institutions, technology companies working indi-
vidually or often in collaboration with universities are also developing multiple
sensor network systems for environmental observation. These projects range
from Nokias Sensor Planet to IBMs A Smarter Planet, HP Labs Central
Nervous System for the Earth (CeNSE), and Ciscos Planetary Skin (in collabo-
ration with NASA, the University of Minnesota, Imperial College, and others).21
Governments and their militaries are also investing in the development of sensor
networks, with white papers and research issuing from the EU, China, and the
United States DARPA, among others.22 Many of these sensing projects raise ethi-
cal issues related to surveillance, while still other projects are enabling new forms
of resource exploitation. The project of monitoring and managing environmen-
tal relationships continues to be a way in which the governmentalityand even
36 / Sensing an Experimental Forest

environmentalityof sensor systems unfolds, where sensor capacities may point

toward particular relations to manage or sustain in distinct ways.23
All together, these environmental sensing systems variously undertake a proj-
ect of instrumenting or programming the earth.24 Within a sensor-ecology imag-
inary, the planet might be understood as an entity to be sensed and transformed
into data. Improved sensing capabilities are critical to advancing understandings
of environmental change while also indicating ways of acting (whether through
automated systems or environmental policy) in response to that data. With small-
scale, distributed, and pervasive computation embedded in environments, new
relationships emerge not just to studying but also to managing environments,
since sensor systems computationally describe and capture environmental pro-
cesses while also providing the promise to design and control these complex
systems.25
In many ways, the notion here is that increased amounts of environmental
data allow for the improved management of environments. Data are descriptive
indicators capturing environmental processes. But from a Whitehead-influenced
perspective, it could be argued that sense data are less descriptive simply of pre-
existing conditions and more productive of new environments, entities, and occa-
sions of sense that come to stabilize as environmental conditions of concern. The

Figure 1.4. Nesting box with interior electronics at James Reserve. This prototype bird box with camera
captured and logged still images of bird activity every fifteen minutes, twenty-four hours per day.
Photograph by author.
 Sensing an Experimental Forest / 37

ways in which phenomena are tuned into as sense data are one part of this opera-
tion of the becoming environmental of computational sensors; but the ways
in which sensory monitoring gives rise to new formations of sense within and
through data, computational networks, humans, more-than-humans, and envi-
ronments also in-form distinct sensing practices. Since sensor networks offer dis-
tinct insights into the complex interactions and processes within environments,
then the ways in which these relationships are joined up, articulated, and trans-
formed into new observational capacities also matters.26

SENSING AN EXPERIMENTAL FOREST

Turning now to a more detailed discussion of one embedded sensor network
project, the CENS sensor installations at the James Reserve forest, I consider how
the rise of distributed sensing might be looked at more closely in the context
of this experimental project and test site. The CENS initiative is one of many sen-
sor developments as discussed previously, and it is a well-known and frequently
cited project for sensor research. Established in 2002 as a National Science Foun-
dation Science and Technology Center, the CENS project was a collaboration
between several California-based universities. The project, which finished in 2012,
focused on four key areas of research: Terrestrial Ecology Observing Systems
(TEOS), Contaminant Transport and Management, Aquatic Microbial Observing
Systems, and Seismology. A fifth area of research, Participatory Sensing, grew out
of the project research into ecology and focused on how sensor applications may
be used for citizen engagement in environmental and social issues.27 This discus-
sion focuses on the TEOS sensing deployments, which were primarily situated at
the James Reserve (while the other study areas were located in a diverse range of
sites). Participatory Sensing is a further project research area that I briefly address
in the conclusion to this chapter.
The James Reserve ecological study site is in many ways an environment for
developing experimental practices as well as for transporting laboratory tech-
niques into the wild. The fieldwork that I conducted at the James Reserve also
moved from the laboratory to the field, as I first visited the CENS laboratory at
UCLA where most of the sensor prototypes were developed, and then observed
the sensors at work in situ at James Reserve. I held informal interviews with
researchers involved in the CENS project, mapped the different locations and
functions of sensors in the field at James Reserve, and compared the online records
of sense data with the sites where sensors were installed. However, this is not
a project of following the scientists, which is by now a well-established area
within science and technology studies.28 Instead, through a discussion of field-
work conducted at the site, I attempt to understand processes and sites of sensing
as they intersect with ecological practice and cultures of computation. Rather
than focus exclusively on how ecologists use sensors to obtain scientific meaning
38 / Sensing an Experimental Forest

or generate data or facts, I concentrate on James Reserve as a particular ecologi-

cal research site that concresces through a distribution of sensing processes across
organisms, ecological processes, and sensing technologies in the form of compu-
tational hardware and software, online interfaces, conservation infrastructures,
resident scientists, environmental change, citizen scientists, publics, and visiting
researchers. In other words, I attend to the becoming environmental of sensor-
based media as a concrescence of these experiencing entities.
The nearly 12-hectare and 1,640-meter-high site is characterized by a complex
intersection of ecosystems, including montane mixed conifer and oak forest,
montane chaparral, wet and dry meadows, montane riparian forest, a perennial
stream, and an artificial lake.29 Since James Reserve is located in a relatively
remote wilderness setting, it is effectively off the grid, and is a study area that
generates its own solar power and has its own well for water. In this sensing lab
or experimental forest, infrastructures are realigned, not as obvious allocations of
roads, electricity, and water, but rather as new arrangements of energy, sensation,
and observation.
Sensing in the James Reserve is distributed not only across this experimen-
tal site (and at distinct locations for the study of ecological processes) but also
across larger sensor networks. Many of the CENS James Reserve sensors measure
phenomena over time, which is meant to enable researchers to study sequences
of data that are fine-grained and relatively continuous in comparison to more
discrete data sets, with data captures taking place in localized settings as frequently
as every fifteen minutes or more. Still other sensor test beds are in place that con-
nect up to larger networks, including national observatories such as NEON.
Observations are successively gathered and joined up in far-reaching networks,
so that sense data becomes an amalgamated and comparative networked infra-
structure of ecological observatories for studying environments and environmen-
tal change.
CENS sensor systems have been developed and deployed within a larger project
that seeks to collect data in order to respond more effectively to environmental
challenges. Higher-resolution data promise to create more effective models for
predicting and managing environmental events. This new mechanistic under-
standing of the environment involves a near-future commitment to developing
a critical infrastructure resource for society in the form of detailed environmen-
tal monitoring.30 The promise to respond to crises more effectively develops not
just through larger data sets but also through more extensive data gathering that
is better tuned to detecting anomalies and extreme events, since most ecological
data have largely consisted of documenting ecological conditions within a logic of
averages and generalities.
However, data expressive of average conditions do not capture the effects
that major if singular disruptive events have on environments and rapidly shifting
 Sensing an Experimental Forest / 39

ecological relations and processes.31 CENS and related projects such as NEON
are oriented toward the objectives of monitoring changing environmental pro-
cesses, where an increasing number of disturbance events are contributing to
the perceived need to develop different practices and technologies for sensing
environments. The expression and agitation of environments (which, as White-
head suggests, seep into all things) also turn up in and transform the sensing
practices and technologies that monitor them. Instruments for capturing sense
data are here specifically honed toward disturbance, since environmental change
becomes more of a matter of concern within ecological study. At the same time,
disturbance detection rather than observation of norms begins to influence what
counts as relevant sense data.

Machine Ecologies
The sensors at work in the James Reserve within the TEOS group of research
projects consisted of everything from soil sensors that detected moisture levels, a
Rhizotron installation of tubes that allowed robotic cameras to capture images of
root growth and CO2 sensors at three different soil depths to estimate soil flux, a
bird-audio system involving sonic booms triggered by camera activity to capture
woodpecker auditory data, weather stations for gauging microclimatic conditions,

Figure 1.5. Sensors measuring the flow of tree sap throughout different seasons as part of the CENS
sensor ecosystem at James Reserve. Photograph by author.
40 / Sensing an Experimental Forest

tree-sap flow sensor systems, nest boxes with cameras and audio installed within
bird boxes, pan-tilt-zoom tower cameras on thirty-foot-tall poles, and a Moss
Cam web camera. At the time of this fieldwork, there were over 550 connected
and untethered sensor nodes, as well as reconfigurable robotic mobile sensors
working above and below ground, within waterways and across tree canopies,
capturing data on plants, animals, birds, soil, microclimate, and more.32 Sensor
observations provided the ability to observe fungal growth patterns, soil CO2 pro-
duction, the times at which plants shut down their CO2 fixing, and all manner of
activity that typically takes place outside the scope of direct human observation.33
The initial proposal for this project made a bid to develop distributed sensor/
actuator networks [that] will enable continual spatially-dense observation (and
ultimately, manipulation) of biological, environmental, and artificial systems.34
Midway through the project, many of the initial proposals for comprehensively
distributing a large number of small sensors within an area of study shifted to a
practice of strategically deploying sensors in precise locations to study specific
ecological activities and to develop a hierarchy of sensing platforms that could
span from small-scale motes to larger sensors such as imaging robots on cables.35
The sensor practices and arrangements developed in the James Reserve context
were specific responses to site conditions and processes, so that phenomena to
be observed in-formed which sensors would be used and how. At the same time,
the difficulty of creating a pervasive sensor network led to a focus on specific sites
of study as a more feasible test of the technology. This points to a key aspect
of the sensor systems: they were almost always physically proximate to that
which they monitored. Sensors were distributed in the environment, and net-
works were developed and paired with those environments.36 Sensors in the field
at James Reserve were wrapped around tree trunks in a loop of foil and cables;
they were interspersed in the ground as arrays at regular intervals; and they were
clustered at bird boxes to cross-correlate microclimate in relation to nesting at
distinct locations.
The ways in which sensors were paired with environments was not a simple
mirroring, however. Sensors proximate to roots and soil, for instance, did not
stream all possible data all the time. Instead, sensor motes within a network talked
to each other to coordinate data detected, processed, and sent according to dis-
tinct algorithms. Part of this configuration had to do with energy efficiency,
where motes were triggered to record events only at select times and were turned
off during times of inactivity to save energy. Indeed, a key aspect of imagining
the possibilities of sensors as environmental systems involved thinking through
how it may be possible to realize pervasive sensing without pervasive infra-
structure,37 which primarily meant not requiring a central electrical grid for
power. The sensors at James Reserve were in part powered by a solar array that
was the primary source of energy to power this elaborate sensing lab, which was
 Sensing an Experimental Forest / 41

supplemented by batteries, including motorcycle batteries, for distinct devices to

transmit their sensory data via wireless and networked connections.
Part of the algorithmic processing of sensor data involved setting sensors
to pick up, filter, and amalgamate data within established ranges. The processing
that sensors undertook was ad hoc and in situ, rather than a continual capturing
and streaming of environmental activity. Each mote within a network was already
set to detect some things and not others, to make correlations among certain data
criteria, and to discard anomalies and redundancies according to predetermined
phenomenal ranges. Sensor motes detected events within a specific range, and
processed and communicated this data across short distances or hops to other
sensors within the network for collection at sensor nodes. Data were typically
fused and processed at each individual mote in order to make real-time streaming
more efficient and effective.
While sensors were physically proximate to what they sensed, that which was
sensed and communicated traveled through channels of algorithmic detection
and processing. While sensor applications are intended to record extreme events
and anomalies, the algorithms that capture data have a tendency to smooth and
fuse data at the source in order to conserve energy and generate manageable
quantities of data, which even with these filtering mechanisms can easily run
to several million records per year per sensor patch. These syntheses are intended
to turn data into high-level information, where the multitude of records and
raw data transform into something like observations or experience.38 This trans-
formation required data reduction in the form of in-network processing that
aggregated similar data and filtered redundant data.39 As CENS researchers Jer-
emy Elson and Deborah Estrin write,

For example, emerging designs allow users to task the network with a high-level
query such as notify me when a large region experiences a temperature over
100 degrees or report the location where the following bird call is heard.40

In this way, processes of filtering, aggregating, and selecting have already been
put in place to turn sense data into relevant information. At the same time, these
filters may not always capture intended phenomena. A researcher walking through
the James Reserve forest might create noise that is picked up on sonic booms,
which through algorithmic parsing activates cameras to record activity. In this
field of environmental sensing, researchers might fall within the data event-space
of motion detection, but inaudible birds traveling in a different column of air
might not be detected.
Processes of producing data are also processes of making sense: the experi-
ment is generative of modes of experience. These processes include how sensors
are developed in the lab, tested in the field by technologists and scientists, merged
42 / Sensing an Experimental Forest

with historic ecological study practices, and read across new data sets, while also
producing distinct insights into ecological relationships by connecting up multi-
ple experiencing subjects. The architectures and algorithmic processes for relating
sense data are a critical part of how sensor systems operate. They articulate how
sense data will come together into arrangements indicative of environmental and
planetary processes.
Inevitably, the focus on gathering massive amounts of sense data raises issues
related to data ontologies. Sensor networks provide the basis for monitoring and
acting upon environments, and yet the data and connections made across sensors
are selectively captured and joined up, and are also subject to failure and incom-
patibility of data.41 Different data standards, classification techniques, and dispersed
practices in-form the content and processing of dataspaces.42 Databases and data-
spaces are more than collections of objectively observable factsthey are embed-
ded within and performed through infrastructures of science, governance, and
public outreach. On the one hand, there are issues related to how an entity be-
comes data, as Wolff-Michael Roth and G. Michael Bowen have discussed in rela-
tion to the digitization of lizards.43 On the other hand, there are questions about
what constitutes data (a lizard may seem to be a clear artifact of digitization;
but when its habits and habitat become part of the sensed data, where does the

Figure 1.6. An array of sensors at James Reserve measuring moisture and respiration of CO2 throughout
the soil. Photograph by author.
 Sensing an Experimental Forest / 43

organism begin and the environment leave off ?). Data ontologies in-form which
data are collected, but they also in-form possibilities of sense by giving rise to new
actual entities and occasions for articulating and experiencing relevant sense data.

System as Sensor and Proxy Sensing

In order to create a more effective parsing of environmental phenomena, sensors
are not just used as individual devices that simply generate discrete sense data at
the James Reserve. Instead, multiple sensors and sense criteria within a sensor
network are often also brought together to form a composite picture of a distinct
environment under study. Chemical analysis of pollution may provide readings
on contaminant concentration levels, but additional sensors may also work out
the direction and speed of contaminant travel, as well as the size of an affected
area, by cross-correlating multiple sensor data. In this process of data fusion, the
system is the sensor.44 Sensors working together within a network establish a
computational pattern of correspondences, where the physical sighting, sensor
type, coding, and correlating of data coalesce into an environment of sensor data
that in-form observations. When the system is the sensor and the network
operates as a sort of distributed instrument,45 it might be possible to create mod-
els and forecasts of ecological processes and, through these sensor systems, act
upon environments.
Sensor systems may also act as proxies for the environments they sense. Sen-
sors as proxies are not standing in for a more-real version of environments, but
rather are sensory operations that mobilize environments in distinct ways. Sensor
networks performand so transformenvironmental systems. Data may be
correlated across sensor types, or sensors may trigger other sensors to capture
phenomena, or trigger actuators to collect samples for later study.46 Inferences
can be made about phenomena through sensors and actuators, and sensors can
be arranged through flexible, multiscalar platforms that investigate particular
sensing relationships.
As a CENS Distributed Sensing Systems white paper notes, Embedded
sensing can involve a mix of observations with inherently different characteristics.
For instance, it is common for systems to include multiple sensors, each with a
different form of sensory perception or modality.47 This is the case in James
Reserve, where seemingly traditional image and audio technologies provide a
new way to sense phenomena in the absence of direct biological sensors. While
the majority of sensors now available are capable of detecting physical and chem-
ical attributes, devices such as cameras become newly deployed as biological
sensors in the absence of direct biological sensing capabilities, where physical
and chemical sensors algorithmically set to filter for event detection can auto-
matically trigger cameras to record biological events.48 Imager and audio modes
of sensing are activated within a computational network that mobilizes these
44 / Sensing an Experimental Forest

forms of sensing as distinct and often proxy operations. The possibility to articu-
late relationships and interactions within environments to a higher fidelity is
something that is meant to be generated through sensor applications that join up
environments across sensor system hardware, software, databases, and cyberin-
frastructures, as well as distinct sites and the more-than-human processes.
Proxy modes of sensing do not just extend to sensors triggering other sensors
or actuators to perform sensing operations but also include proxies that become
apparent vis--vis more-than-human processes. A not-uncommon technique within
environmental study, where climate change in deep time may be studied through
ice cores as proxies for past climate events, proxies within sensor-based environ-
mental monitoring are mobilized to infer and detect traces of ecological pro-
cesses. In the James Reserve, for instance, phenology is a central area of study. In
order to capture seasonal relationships, organisms may be observed for the ways
in which they process environments.
The perceptive capacities of Violet-Green Swallows and Western Bluebirds, in
addition to Star Moss and other organisms, are placed under observation through
webcams and Cyclops networked image sensors, which capture images and data
related to these organisms often at least every fifteen minutes per day, if not more
frequently.49 The bird cams and Moss Cam, or web camera specifically monitoring
the growth of Star Moss, generate a store of image data that can be compared
to microlocal temperature and related data, as well as data captured throughout
the James Reserve site. The birds choice of a nesting location, or the failure to
raise chicks due to absence of food or low temperatures, can be captured in this
context where the birds activities are made available as a sort of proxy sensor of
phenological processes. Birds may provide key environmental sense data through
computational networks that make sensible these registers of more-than-human
experience. What is clear is that sensors do not just capture data, they shift the
processes of sense across these multiple registers, so that more-than-human per-
ceptive processes concresce in newly relevant arrangements.
Similarly, the Moss Cam generates images and daily records that contribute to
a picture of seasonal patterns and event effects. These effects might include lack
of moisture in the summer, which contributes to mosses burning through their
CO2 reservesin other words, higher temperatures can correlate to an increased
release of CO2 by mosses, as they consume stored energy and move toward states
of dehydration and dormancy. Here, what counts as sensing is not a simple mat-
ter of observing mosses through a web camera over time, but instead involves
observing how the moss is a sensor, or a biomonitor that is itself detecting and
responding to changes in the environment.50 The mosses morphological changes
to local conditions are an expression of an ecological relationship that is further
entangled in the complex shifts of climate change. In this respect, the mosses may
be expressing sensory responses to human-altered worlds, yet to understand more
 Sensing an Experimental Forest / 45

fully what those alterations involve, it is necessary to observe sensing organisms

in order to register the effects of increasing carbon and temperatures. The delay
and resonance within these environments is not as immediate as a typical sensory
example might assume. Yet in this study, the ways in which sensing organisms
take account of environments multiply, where the sensory input and means of
detection are distributed and computational. The becoming environmental of
computational media then further takes place through organisms and their pro-
cessing of environments.
In a sensor-based study of phenology, sense operations are distributed and
collaborative. In these forms of collaborative sense, sensors experience and pro-
vide proxy experiences across a sensing system that generates distinct occasions of
sense. But these collaborative qualities of sense concresce not through research-
ers primarily but through the dynamic responses of organisms to environments
and the sensors that collect data in relation to which algorithms query, filter, and
record these changes. The more dynamic sensory modalities that concresce in
this relationship are examples of inventive ecological experiences and subject-
superjects, as discussed earlier. The timings at which plants leaf out, for instance,
might even begin to disrupt and alter scientific models that expect seasonal timings
to unfold at times established through prior empirical study. In these encounters
and formations of sensory practice across organisms, ontologically prior catego-
ries of sense become more mutable and ontogenetic, where more-than-human
modalities of sense indicate the shifting encounters of sense in which we are en-
gaged. Sensor systems mobilize multilocated and multispecies processes of sens-
ing, which in part enable the development of distinct capacities to sense change,
where the scope of computational sensing and proxy sensing expands to include
more-than-technological perceptual processes.
In an account of ubiquitous computing as distributed cognition, Hayles sug-
gests that distributed computation could operate as machines for aiding, and so
enhancing, human perception.51 Here, however, computational devices are not
augmenting human perception as such, and humans are not even the central per-
ceptual processors toward which distributed sensation and computation might be
directed. More-than-human proxy sensing points to the ways in which sensor tech-
nologies, instead of providing supersensing or cognizing capabilities to supple-
ment human modalities, filter, connect up, and in-form environmental relations in
distinct ways, and so change what modes of sense humans may even experience.
New ecological arrangements of subjectsand superjectsconcresce through
these sensory processes.
Environmental monitoring through sensor networks is a practice of making
and not just capturingenvironments as process. Sensor networks are tuned
to distributions of relations. They tune into discrete sense criteria and amalgam-
ate these across sensor networks and through proxy modes of sensing to make
Figure 1.7. Detailed view of soil moisture sensor at James Reserve. Photograph by author.
 Sensing an Experimental Forest / 47

particular environmental relations more evident and sensible. Environmental

monitoring through sensory networks mobilizes and concretizes environments
in distinct ways by localizing computational processes of sensing within environ-
ments and across more-than-human experiences while also articulating those
relations through algorithmic processes for parsing data. As these processes inevi-
tably compose the possibility of sensing environments in particular ways, they
also in-form which participants and participatory modes of sensing register in
the perceptive processes of sensor technologies. Such sensing practices, more-
over, are replete with political effects. Within the context of sensor networks, the
sensory arrangements that are identified within data may become the basis for
identifying and protecting matters of concern. Yet they might also overlook those
non-sensuous background events that may still generate new sensing arrange-
ments but which are not interpretable within present modes of sense data.52

DISTRIBUTING SENSE
As discussed in the introduction to this study, the initial developments of ubiquitous
computing are often attributed to Mark Weisers 1991 suggestion for computation
to move from desktops to the environment, so that computational processes
would become a more integrated and invisible part of everyday life.53 Yet another
possible reference point could be Alan Turings 1948 ruminations on how to
build intelligent machinery with sensing capacities on par with humans. Turing
reviews the options for such a project, first considering how to atomize every
part of the human sensing ensemble and replace it with equivalent machinery.
Emulating human vision, speech, hearing, and mobility, such a contraption
would include television cameras, microphones, loudspeakers, wheels and han-
dling servo-mechanisms as well as some sort of electronic brain.54 This project
would inevitably be of immense size, Turing notes, even if the brain part
were stationary and controlled the body from a distance. But data would not
enter the thinking machine through its remaining static, and so in order that the
machine should have a chance of finding things out for itself it should be allowed
to roam the countryside. But in such a scenario the danger to the ordinary citi-
zen would be serious. Add to this the hazards of such a machine taking up all of
the usual activities of human interest, and this contraption would be altogether
unwieldy. Turings more practical recommendation is to behead the body, to work
with the brain as the critical site of processing, and later attend to the sensory
apparatus as a secondary concern.55
Even if Turings proposal does consolidate the thinking machine into a cen-
tral and seemingly Cartesian apparatus, his thought experiment on the sensing
body in pieces and distributed throughout the countryside remains a potent fig-
ure for ubiquitous computing. What is striking about Turings example is the way
in which the thinking machine, even when distributed, would emulate the human
48 / Sensing an Experimental Forest

body, which serves as a template for understanding how sensory data would be
captured and centrally computed. While computational sensing technology can
now be understood as more than a double of or prosthesis for human sensing,
Turings figure of the body in pieces raises questions about how particular distri-
butions of sense might reconfigure environments and processes of sensation.
Could such distributions of sense point toward modes of sensation where
computation reassembles not as a singular sensing subject but rather as a proces-
sual and multilocated experience comprised of numerous sensing entities? How
are sensing practices individuated, and how do they concresce, across potential
sensor networks? In this way, sensing also assembles not as a mental or cognitive
operation but as an environmental and relational articulation across multiple bod-
ies and sites of sensing.56 Within Turings example of the sensing body in pieces,
this could mean that we attend not to how the body might reassemble toward
human perception and functionality but rather to how the countryside and the
many inhabitants, processes, and processors of this distributed and distributive
milieu begin to rework how the thinking-sensing machine captures, configures,
and acts upon its inputs.

Perception in the World

Turings sensing apparatus points to the distributed processes that make sensing
possible, even if the sites of sensation do not return to a coherent human proces-
sor. Indeed, as Whitehead suggests, perception might be understood to be in the
world and distributed through more-than-human processesit is not the special
preserve of a human decoding subject. Instead, multiple participants express
and unfold a distinct experience of the world, independently but contemporane-
ously within an immanent series of events.57 At the same time, the excitations
of environments are fused to all modes of matter, where the environment
with its peculiarities seeps into the group-agitations which we term matter, and
the group-agitations extend their character to the environment.58 There are
numberless living things, Whitehead writes, that show every sign of taking
account of their environment.59 This taking account of environments is a way of
capturing what is relevant, andthrough being affectedof transforming envi-
ronments and relations.
Sense data might be seen as a concrescence of multiple ways of taking account
of environments, whether through researchers or devices or environmental events.
But these data are necessarily articulations of the ways in which environments are
gathered and expressed through varying subjectshere, with subjects under-
stood in the broadest possible way. Sensing systems generate and concresce dis-
tinct articulations of environmental relations within and through data and across
sensing subjects/superjects. Rather than take on a Kantian view of how the
world emerges from the subject, Whitehead, with his philosophy of organism,
 Sensing an Experimental Forest / 49

seeks to understand how the subject emerges from the world, thereby consti-
tuting a superject, or a subject that is always contingent upon actual occasions
and experience.60 As Shaviro notes in relation to Whitehead:

There is always a subject, though not necessarily a human one. Even a rockand
for that matter even an electronhas experiences, and must be considered a sub-
ject/superject to a certain extent. A falling rock feels, or perceives, the gravi-
tational field of the earth. The rock isnt conscious, of course; but it is affected by
the earth, and this being-affected is its experience.61

Sensor technologies are constitutive of sensethey too experience the world

and generate perceptive capacities.62 Sensors that map in real time a greater den-
sity of ecological relations might generate a processual approach to environments
by focusing on interactions and even multiple modes of perception. At the same
time, to identify a phenomenon as constituting sense data is to make a commit-
ment to distinct forms of process, so that environmental processes are selected
and concretized in those forms. The process of selecting sense data involves cap-
turing a moment in time, an instant, that is re-sutured with other data to form
a pattern of ecological processes. While approximating a more process-based
and even real-time monitoring of environments, sensors are also productive of
practices of selecting and interrelating discrete observations in order to arrive at
an understanding of ecological processes. The selection of temperature, vibra-
tion, light levels, humidity, and other measurements across primarily physical
(although to some extent chemical and biological) criteria in-forms the instants
that are sensed, the forms that are documented, and the processes that might
be reconfigured.
The basis for developing facts within the sensing experiment then directly
pertains to the forms and processes of experience that are generated and connected
up across sensing subjects.63 The concrescence of data also requires subjects that
can prehend and experience the data. Subjects may be attuned or resistant to re-
ceiving data based on prior or concrescent experiences. But the means of gathering
data might also contribute to the possibilities for processing and integrating data.
In this way, sense data as experienced by subjects may be generative of superjects
where the experiences and perceptions generated are in turn formative of the sub-
jects that experience. This runs counter to the notion that a founding subject is the
entity that experiences. If, as Whitehead suggests, subjects are always superjects,
then subjects are always necessarily distributed and concrescent in relation to actual
occasions.64 Subjects, whether stones or sensors or humans, become environmen-
tal in this way since they are involved in feeling and concrescing actual worlds.
Approaches to media and sensation often focus on the ways in which technolo-
gies train or otherwise attune the human senses within a mediatory or prosthetic
50 / Sensing an Experimental Forest

relation. But the interactions and processes of sense are arguably not fixed within
sensory organs or technologies through which mediations are typically under-
stood to occur. In this way, sensation is not primarily an inquiry into relations
between human subjects as they perceive more-than-human objects. Instead, the
sensory relations within which sensors are mobilized give rise to a more ontoge-
netic understanding of perception, where sense and expressions of perception
are articulated processually and across multiple sites and subjects of inventive
sensation.65 In this way, new perceptual engagements are distributed across sens-
ing capacities and engagements (perhaps similar to what Luciana Parisi has called
technoecologies of sensation), which give rise to distinct sensory processes,
informational-material arrangements, and ethico-aesthetic possibilities.66
Such a condition resonates with what Patricia Clough refers to as the impor-
tance of focusing on an empiricism of sensation rather than an empiricism
of the senses.67 Technologies, including sensor systems, can be understood as
generative ontologies that in-form the experience and conditions that make sen-
sation possible and changeable. Rather than studying the senses as given, it may
be more relevant to study experience and how distinct types of sensation become
possible, and to consider further what modes of participation and relation these
processes of sensation facilitate or limit. To bring this analysis back to sensor tech-
nologies, sense data are not simply items to be read and gathered as machinic
observations of environments that scientists process. Instead, sense data are indi-
cations of a process of becoming sensible, where environments, humans, and
more-than-humans are individuated as perceiving and perceivable entities.

Collaborative Sensing
The modes of sensing that concresce within the context of ecological sensor
applications might, as discussed earlier in this chapter, begin to be described as
collaborative sensing practices taking place across multiple subjects and through
distinct processes of experience. These modes of sensing could further be referred
to as types of intimate sensing, as Stefan Helmreich has suggested in relation
to fieldwork undertaken with oceanographers who employ a complex array of
sensing technologies in their research. Sensing, in this account, is comprised of a
research ecosystem, and involves much more than a device focused on an object
of study, since bodies enter into a circuit of sensation with instrumentation tech-
nologies. As Helmreich writes, These scientists see themselves as involved not
so much in remote sensing as in intimate sensing. Multiple forms of sensing
are articulated across different technologiesand so with researchers involved in
studying ocean ecologies: The mediations are multiple and so are the selves.68
Influenced by Charles Goodwins discussion of how forms of collaborative
seeing are produced within the space of a scientific vessel,69 Helmreich devel-
ops an analysis of the sensing processes that become concretized within these
 Sensing an Experimental Forest / 51

body-environment-technology relationships, where new registers of feeling might

sediment through repeated engagement with these devices. The multiple selves
that Helmreich discusses most frequently refer back to scientists and crew mem-
bers on ocean-sensing expeditions, but by extending this approach through a
Whitehead-oriented understanding of experience it is possible to include even
more expanded collaborative formations of sense. The experiences provided by
and through more-than-human processes, as well as the processes that unfold
within sense data, in-form a more environmental approach to what might consti-
tute collaborative modes of sensing.
Within the area of more-than-human theory, sensation is increasingly under-
stood as distributed in and through more-than-humans in the form of organisms
and technologies, together with their environments. At times influenced by Fou-
caults well-known death-of-man statement, media scholars as far-ranging as
Friedrich Kittler and Katherine Hayles have in different ways undertaken analyses
of media that dispense with an assumed human subject as the principal site of
meaning-making in order to recast the relations that concresce in and through
media technologies.70 As Hayles suggests, environmental modes of computation
RFID in her analysisraise questions about the effects of creating an animate
environment with agential and communicative powers. Such technologies allow
us to move toward a more processual, relational and accurate view of embodied
human action in complex environments.71 Not just sensing but also what counts
as the human shifts in these scenarios, since computational technologies typi-
cally now operate within parallel processes and signal toward a multiplication
rather than a centering of subjects.
The subjects that might be discussed as parallel, multiple, or collaborative
within environmental sensing extend not just to entities multiplied through more-
than-human technologies but also to the incorporation of more-than-human
flora and fauna. More-than-human theories of subjectsor ecological approaches
to subjectsare becoming increasingly well established not just in media theory
but also in philosophy and feminist studies, particularly as articulated in the work
of Braidotti, who develops these notions through the work of Deleuze and Guat-
tari (with an emphasis on the notions of ecology developed by Guattari). Braid-
otti suggests that we begin to work with an environmentally bound subject that
is also a collective entity because an embodied entity feeds upon, incorporates
and transform its (natural, social, human, or technological) environment con-
stantly.72 In this account, bodies and subjects are even understood as collective
information machines of sorts. For Braidotti, techno-bodies may be understood
as sensors, or integrated sites of information networks; vectors of multiple
information systems.73
Such an ecological approach to subjects resonates with Whiteheads discussion
of subjects/superjects, where bodies-as-sensors are expressive and productive of
52 / Sensing an Experimental Forest

environments. The sensing that takes places is a practice of processing and trans-
forming. If human bodies are sensors, then by extension so too are the multiple
more-than-humans that take in, express, and transform environments. As the
preceding discussion of the James Reserve suggests, it is relevant to bring these
multiple formations of experience to play across human and more-than-human
subjects into an examination of the specific distribution of environmental sensor
networks in this ecological study site and to consider how sensors are expressive
of environments, what new environments and subjects concresce as experiencing
entities, and how the sensing experiment might make these experiences possible.

INVENTING EXPERIENCE
From an experimental forest, this analysis of environmental sensing turns back
to Turings countrysidethat apparently static backdrop through which sensing
was to take place. While Turing imagines a distributed sensing entity processing
its bucolic surroundings, in this analysis of test sensors installed in a forest setting
it becomes clear that the surroundings to be sensed are in flux and yet formative
to establishing conditions and practices of sense. Through this reading, Turings
distributed computer becomes a superject, integrated with and formative of the
environments and experiences it would decode. It becomes environmental in that
it is an entity that generates the formation for further subject-superject experi-
ences. This approach, as discussed throughout this chapter, provides a way of
taking account of the abstractions and entities that lure feeling and settle into
forms of environmental engagement.
The environment or milieu as differently understood by writers from White-
head to von Uexkll, Canguilhem, and Foucault, has been discussed as everything
from the conditions of possibility to a zone of transformation and necessary
extension within and through which experience is possible.74 Within the work of
von Uexkll, the now well-cited example of the tick that is provoked to act in rela-
tion to certain environmental cues is referenced to signal the ways in which sensa-
tion is tied to environments and to suggest the species-specific coupling between
these.75 Sensing beyond the human subject can be figured through more-than-
human agencies that unfold within environments. But if we take the provocations
of Whitehead seriously, then the milieu is not just a site where sensing joins up.
Instead, it is also a transformative and immanent process where modes, capacities,
and distributions of sense concresce through the experiences of multiple subjects.
Any given milieu or subject/superject is expressive not of scripted coupling
as the work of von Uexkll might suggest, but of creativity, as demonstrated in
the work of Whitehead and Simondon.76 If inventiveness is a necessary part of
perceptive processes, then the environment-as-agitation necessitates a more onto-
genetic, collaborative, and extensive understanding of sensing. In this way, per-
ception might also move beyond the notion of hybridities or even mediations of
 Sensing an Experimental Forest / 53

sense and instead focus on the sensing conditions and entities that concresce, as
well as that which environmental perceptive processes make possible, and how
inventive processes might further generate new forms of collective potential.
The complex interactions that are the focus of study for environmental sen-
sor systems are transformed through the perceptive processes that these systems
generate. The ecological relations that are to be discovered and studied are bound
up with the detection of patterns within sense data. Sensor hardware and soft-
ware do not simply gather sense data in the world, but are part of the process
of perceptual possibility, both as more-than-human registers of perception and
through making distinct relations sensible as subjects of ecological concern.
The possibility to relate and to make aspects of relations evident is an impor-
tant aspect of sensor systems, with political and practical consequences. Sensation
might be understood as distributed and automated on one level, yet on another
level such automation in relation to environmental processes involves not only
running scripted functions but also addressing the open and indeterminate aspects
of sensors in relation to environmental processes. This is one way of saying
that, whatever the computational program, sensors never operate strictly within
a coded space, but by virtue of drawing together expanded perceptive processes
they inevitably make way for a generative technics of environments.
There are political implications to the implementing of sensor processes: rela-
tions are not simply discovered in the world, rather they are individuated through
these distinct computational sensing processes. These processes further orient
environmental practices and politics, where increased data and improved aware-
ness of ecological relationships are expected to translate into an improved ability
to manage environments and potentially prevent the spread of environmental
damage. These crucial relationships concresce not just through practices of data
collection and monitoring, as well as sharing data within larger networks, but also
through drawing inferences across data sets that illuminate key ecological rela-
tionships that are to become the basis of concern or protection. As Whitehead
suggests, that which counts as a form or datum is what endures within a process
of composition, which is expressive of historic character.77 What counts as
empirical requires acts of interpretation but also describes a concrescence that
continues to have the force of natural fact. Drawing on Locke, Whitehead notes,
The problem of perception and the problem of power are one and the same, at
least so far as perception is reduced to mere prehension of actual entities.78
While Whiteheads analysis works across philosophic and cosmological reg-
isters, and does not directly address sociopolitical analysis of environments, his
work does point toward potential translations to be made across experiencing
subjects to political possibilities. As Shaviro suggests, following on Whitehead,
experience is a site of potential: It is only after the subject has constructed or
synthesized itself out of its feelings, out of its encounters with the world, that it
54 / Sensing an Experimental Forest

can go on to understand that worldor to change it.79 In other words, as White-

head notes, How the past perishes is how the future becomes.80 That which is
sustained and that which concresces as a register of novelty are processes whereby
experience may give rise to new experiences, interpretative practices, and matters
of concern. In a different way, Foucault indicates through his discussions on the
milieu that sensory arrangements articulate distributions of power, and involve
making ongoing commitments to relations and ways of life.81 Sensory processes
that occur across subjects are expressive of materialpolitical relations and possi-
bilities for participation.
Environmental monitoring through sensor networks is a technoscientific
practice that pertains not just to the study of ecological relations but also to newer
modes of participatory sensing and citizen-science activity that rely on the use of
the sensing capacities on mobile phones and low-cost sensors to track and gather
data from environments. While citizen-sensing applications have developed to
move these scientific applications into the hands of the general public,82 even
more questions arise as to how or whether sense data makes an effective traversal
from data to action. The implications for sensory practices that are articulated
within an environmental monitoring context then have relevance for thinking
through the processual, relational, and heterogeneous aspects of sensing. Given
that the CENS research has moved out of the woods to citizen-sensing appli-
cations, while at the same time a whole host of participatory applications such as
forest monitoring platforms are materializing to protect forests for conservation,
how do forests, citizens, more-than-humans, and sensor technologies converge
to invent new forms of politics that are attentive to present matters of concern
and those that are yet to come? In the next chapter, I consider this question in rela-
tion to a seemingly more prosaic sensor and the sensing practices it operational-
izes: the webcam.
This page intentionally left blank
Figure 2.1. Moss Cam capturing images of a boulder covered with the moss Tortula princeps at James
Reserve. Photograph by author.
 2

From Moss Cam to Spillcam

Techno-Geographies of Experience

W e b c a m e r a s a r e n o w a common technology for remotely

viewing ecological processes, including everything from animal activity to free-
way traffic. Cameras fix upon phenomena that may be studied over time or in
absence of direct human intervention. Any number of organisms, from falcons to
badgers and turtles have been caught on camera while undertaking migratory
or nesting activity that may have been previously unrecognized. These image-
based modes of monitoring are also meant to provide important information for
protecting organisms.1 Similarly, web cameras may be used to report on and mon-
itor environmental calamities, as was the case with the British Petroleum (BP) oil
spill in the Gulf of Mexico.2 Concerned onlookers could focus on the ruptured
pipe connecting to the underground oil well and watch a steady plume of oil spill-
ing into the Gulf. Image capturer, reporting device, surveillance technology, and
visual sensor: the web camera increasingly operates as a generator of environ-
ments of attention and concern.
In this chapter, I first address the proliferation of camerasfrom web cam-
eras to camera traps, animal-borne cameras and eco-dronesfor environmental
study and engagement. Rather than discuss cameras in the context of the prolif-
eration of visuality and images, however, I focus on the ways in which cameras,
images, and image practices are remade into sensors, sensor data, and sensor
practices. As much as they produce images of environmental activity, cameras
also operate as sensing and measuring devices, converting physical stimuli into
electrical signals that transform into sensor data within extended sensor networks.
Cameras-as-sensors concresce as distinct technical objects and relations, and in
the process they articulate environments and environmental operations. The
becoming environmental of computation, in this case, includes the invention of a

57
58 / From Moss Cam to Spillcam

technogeographical milieu, as Simondon calls it,3 where the webcam is involved

in constructing distinct environments that are both technical and geographical.
Web cameras, camera traps, animal-borne cameras, and eco-drones now oper-
ate within sensor networks, and the images they produce are often processed as
another mode of (image-based) sensor data. These shifts in the practices of pro-
cessing image data as sensor data are productive of sensor environments that cre-
ate distinctly different engagements with imaging, not necessarily as an a priori
fixation of visuality, whether as an epistemological or disembodied register,4 but
instead as a processual data stream that irrupts in moments of eventfulness and
relevance across data sets comprised of multiple sensor inputs. Image sensor data,
in this case, is part of sensor systems.
In this chapter, after first briefly discussing a range of cameras-as-sensors that
are in use in environmental study and engagement, I go on to consider the distinct
modalities of sensation and environment that webcams articulate. Engaging with
long-standing science and technology studies and media theory discussions of
visuality, I focus on two renderings of sensation across cameras and sensors in the
work of Donna Haraway and Katherine Hayles. In her discussion of the Crit-
tercam, a camera affixed to organisms, Haraway discusses processes whereby
cameras are involved in the infolding of sense and how this might reorient the
ways in which we consider the sight of cameras. Hayles considers how the dis-
tributed sensation of RFID tags, as a version of a passive sensor, influences the
animation of environments and changes the agencies of sense.
I work through these two discussions of sense and technology to consider
how sense is embodied and distributed across more-than-human entities (as dis-
cussed in chapter 1) and examine how environments are critical to the generation
of sense. In this way, I consider how sensor environments shift a focus from bodies
of sense to environments of sense. As discussed in the introduction, this is another
way of engaging not only with the becoming of subjects of experience but also with
the becoming of superjects of experience. Importantly, the way in which I am encoun-
tering environments is not simply as a place or site, but as a processual condition
that is individuated along with sensing technologies and subjects. Webcams and
other cameras-as-sensors operate as technologies that generate new modes of
sensor data while also individuating new relations and possibilities for relations
within and through environments.
From this perspective, I then consider two rather different web cameras and
the ways in which they articulate specific techno-geographies of experience. The
first camera, Moss Cam, was briefly discussed in the last chapter as one of several
webcams located in the James Reserve ecological study area. On the one hand,
this webcam offers distinct ways of thinking about biomonitoring and phenology,
where sensors gain access toor experienceenvironmental data vis--vis a close
relationship to monitoring organisms that are expressing changes in environments.
 From Moss Cam to Spillcam / 59

In this sense, the sensor network crosses electrical, physical, chemical, and bio-
logical registers of experience. Yet, on the other hand, the Moss Cam operates
within a wider array of sensors and sensor data, and is one of several webcams
that have been a point of public engagement with ecological research. It is these
sensor relationships and sensor environments that I expand upon in the context of
the becoming environmental of computation, where webcams become part of
sensor systems.
In comparison to the Moss Cam, I consider Spillcam, a webcam that captured
a plume of oil leaking into the Gulf of Mexico from the the Deepwater Horizon
oil spill that occurred on April 20, 2010. BP made Spillcam available for public
viewing as the result of a direct request by U.S. senator Edward Markey through
the now-disbanded Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warm-
ing.5 Markey argued that the live video feed should be available for the American
public to monitor progress being made toward stopping the oil and gas leak and
to assist scientists and engineers in estimating the flow rate of the spill.6 BP made
the live video feed available on May 19, 2010, nearly one month after the blowout,
and it became an immediate source of public attention. While the Spillcam was
made available to attempt to make an image of environmental catastrophe into
an actionable and accountable object, the image data captured by Spillcam prolif-
erated into multiple other effects and relations.

Figure 2.2. Cornell Herons Pond Cam in Ithaca, New York; a webcam that is part of the Cornell Lab Bird
Cams project. Additional birds that may be observed via webcam include barn owls in Texas and Laysan
Albatross in Hawaii, among many others. Screen capture.
60 / From Moss Cam to Spillcam

From Moss Cam to Spillcam, here are two different versions of monitoring and
sensing set in motion. Based on a comparative discussion of these two web cam-
eras, I conclude this chapter with an expanded consideration of the ways in which
cameras-as-sensors generate techno-geographies of experience. I ask: What are
the distributions and individuations of sensing that concretize through Moss Cam
and Spillcam? How do these image-sensor-milieus create and express experiences
beyond the visual- and human-oriented toward other operations of sense? And
how do these cameras-as-sensors generate distinct environments and environmen-
tal practices? In other words, what are the ways in which these camera-sensors
become environmental, as they make specific techno-geographies of experience?

CAMERAS, CITIZENS AND THE SHIFTING PROCESSES OF IMAGES- AS- SENSORS

Web cameras now make available a vast array of creatures that would typically
elude detection. From pine martens and shrews, to bear and deer, salmon and
hawks, raccoons and wolves, any number of organisms can be tuned into, whether
through cameras at ecological study centers, national parks, zoos, or even indi-
vidual back yards, as well as Wildlife TV offered up on holiday retreats. Web cam-
eras focus both on the relatively near-at-hand, including squirrels and garden
birds, as well as the remote and difficult to access, including whales, polar bears,
snow leopards and even (purportedly) Big Foot. It is also possible to take a DIY
approach and install your own webcam, for instance, in the form of a bird cam
complete with a nest box that connects a camera feed to a television set. One
slightly more epic project even proposes to link up animal webcams in a sort of
Interspecies Internet. Similar to the Internet of Things, the Interspecies Inter-
net would allow one to tune in to a worldwide distribution of organisms and
interact with themwhere for instance, one could sing along with bonobos as
they play piano accompaniment from their remotely located home in the zoo.7
In addition to web cameras, there are multiple other imaging techniques for
sensing and capturing data about organisms and environments. Camera traps are
a common and typically more low-tech method for capturing images of rare ani-
mals in order to estimate animal populations.8 This method has most frequently
been used to estimate densities of large cats such as tigers, where camera traps
will be located in sites with obvious animal activity, such as paw prints or scratch
marks. A typical camera trap consists of a thermal or infrared motion sensor,
camera and flash, as well as data storage that allows data to be downloaded on a
periodic basis.
Animal-borne cameras are now in frequent use as well, where organisms
from household cats to marine animals are affixed with cameras, often along with
GPS trackers. With these methods, image journeys are created that are meant
to provide clues about animals habits and spatial journeys.9 Eco-drones are also
emerging as yet another camera-based mode of sensing, where wildlife can be
 From Moss Cam to Spillcam / 61

surveyed from an aerial perspective and illegal poaching monitored. These prac-
tices, along with all of the above mentioned image-based techniques for monitor-
ing organisms, are often presented as key ways in which to study creatures in
order to protect them, although most frequently the emphasis is on noninterven-
tion and noninteraction in order to study creatures in the wild. And this is the
point at which public engagement can also come into play, where people may
gain access to organisms without apparent interference or disruption.
From the standpoint of public engagement, the mass viewing of secretive
creatures often constitutes a residual or secondary use for web cameras, where
they are deployed within scientific study in much different ways and for different
purposes. Indeed, what is striking about so many webcam video feeds is that
nothing seems to be happening, and it is difficult to make sense of the images
in any usual way. Beyond the frequent error messages, broken links, and notices
that video feeds are offline, typical views captured consist of images empty of any
obvious activity, including nests that have been vacated or forest scenes that are
studies in a minimalist composition.
As I write this text, I am watching a webcam of barn owls on Wildlife TV.10
In the frame is a sleeping owl, still as a statue. Flies and midges scatter across
the camera lens, feathers and dung line the floor of the nest box, and a square
light at the back of the frame indicates that beyond this view there is another
world in waiting past the entrance to the box. Some time later, the barn owl
stirs, paces, spreads his wings once, then twice, and launches in a seemingly gran-
diose gesture merely to move to his stoop, another space of waiting. Many images
and video clips made available of sighted animals are selected as highlights,
where a notable activity does occur. These highlights are often silent, even black-
and-white night shots, and feature glimpses of animal motion, typically a moment
lasting from thirty seconds to a few minutes, capturing some scurrying and nos-
ing around, a flash of glowing eyes, and a swift exit into some other space.
Within the larger span of inactivity, human viewers of webcam images become
pattern detectors and image analyzers as they wait for signs of activity, which is
detected and reported in forums focused on organisms of interest. Indeed, new
scientific data has emerged from armchair citizen scientists watching web cam-
eras, who, for instance, have witnessed a Great Horned Owl attack the nest of a
sleeping Great Blue Heron at 3 a.m. and emailed a report of the activity to scien-
tists at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology who set up the cameras. Here, someone
keeping watch over a bird in the small hours of the night detected new data, since
in this case the heron made an intense screeching sound to ward off the owl, and
this particular heron vocalization had not previously been recorded.11 Between
eight and ten million people watch the webcams set up by the Cornell Lab,12 and
these citizen scientists watching webcams are filling in the dots, since all these
little data points get put together and then we see a larger picture.13
62 / From Moss Cam to Spillcam

Commenting on another instance of a citizen scientist making a new discovery,

this time of an elephant seal eating a hagfish witnessed vis--vis an underwater
webcam, Steven Mihaly, staff scientist at Ocean Networks Canada, notes, We
have reams and reams of this video data that we could try to mine using data min-
ing techniques, but the best data miners we know out there are people like you
the citizen scientists.14 Watching, identifying, counting: the work that algorithms,
machine learning, or lab techs might otherwise perform becomes the occupation
of vigilant webcam watchers, citizen sensors of sorts, who might be as attentive to
moments of significant data capture as they are to the attachments they form with
distant creatures. Here are images, not framed and fixed, but rather in process and
operationalized. Citizen sensing becomes a project of intensive if distant watch-
ing, and web cameras become sensors in an extended network that connect up
environmental phenomena with actions of detecting, analyzing, and reporting.

Scientific Observation and Practices of In/visibility

Nature is what happens when we are not there, or this seems to be the message
with many of these imaging technologies. From the remote to the out-of-hours to
the inaccessible or hidden, cameras cross into spaces and temporalities to sense
what would otherwise be unapproachable. It is by now well established that sci-
entific observation often takes place through visual modalities, which access
phenomena beyond the usual registers of human sight.15 Yet in this case, rather
than micro- or macrovision, what unfolds is a mode of vision that attempts to
absent humans. Gregg Mitman discusses how the camera and technologies such
as biotelemetry and Landsat imaging made possible the active monitoring and
protection of nature seemingly without human intervention. These sensing
devices not only allowed humans to remain relatively remote and distanteven
invisiblefrom their sites and objects of study, but the scale of the devices also
allowed the researcher to integrate instruments as part of the living system.16
However, human participation and intervention emerged in other ways through
the assumed absence of people from wilderness spaces and the perceived need to
manage these spaces toward this end.17
The objectivity of images, the invisibility of human intervention, the ways in
which automation or distributed sensing might provide a greater fidelity to eco-
logical processes: these are currents that have run through science and technol-
ogy studies and feminist technoscience engagements that examine how images
operate within and beyond scientific practice.18 Stengers suggests that an impor-
tant move in the study of science and technology is to take seriously the claims
made by these fields, since this may open up new or experimental ways of think-
ing about questions and problems posed and the facts that take hold in particu-
lar environments. In another way, Haraway undertakes this project by reworking
the modest witness of scientific observation to consider how to refigure the
 From Moss Cam to Spillcam / 63

subjects, objects, and communicative commerce of technoscience into different

kinds of knots.19 Rather than approach vision or scientific observation as pre-
senting a view from nowhere, Haraway seeks to demonstrate how the embod-
ied and situated encounters we have with visual technologies can provide an entry
point for generating other knowledge practices.20
With these situated viewing practices in mind, I turn now to consider one
particular visual technologythe Crittercamthat Haraway discusses in just this
way as an embodied and situated encounter, and compare this to Hayless dis-
cussion of distributed sensing, drawing these together into a consideration and
proposal for a particular environmental approach to sensing that reworks how
we might describe the operations of cameras-as-sensors. Beyond visualizing the
invisible or gaining access to activity that typically goes on in the absence of
humans, I suggest that cameras for ecological study are generating new modali-
ties of sense, participation, and environment that exceed the usual considerations
of in/visibility and non/intervention.

Crittercam and Infolding Sense

Haraway analyzes the technosensorial implications of webcams through a discus-
sion of Crittercam, a project developed between marine scientists and National
Geographic that involves affixing video cameras to various creatures, from whales
to sharks to clams (and eventually to land animals), to capture images and details
of these organisms habitats.21 She focuses on marine deployments of animal-
borne cameras, and moves through the different forms of sight that are articu-
lated through the coupling of animal, camera, and often-distant human viewer.
The National Geographic description of Crittercam indicates that this animal-
borne camera is a research tool designed to be worn by wild animals. It com-
bines video and audio recording with collection of environmental data such as
depth, temperature, and acceleration.22 Not simply creating images, the camera
is part of a project that produces multiple forms of sensor data, which comple-
ment the images gathered. Similarly, the project material notes:

These compact systems allow scientists to study animal behavior without in-
terference by a human observer. Combining solid data with gripping imagery,
Crittercam brings the animals point of view to the scientific community and a
conservation message to worldwide audiences.23

The Crittercam produces both scientific data and an appeal for conservation. Har-
away addresses these aspects of how the material hardware, the data, the animals,
scientists, and more are involved in a complex set of encounters that attempt to
provide more information about marine environments and which unfold into a
heterogeneous set of relations.
64 / From Moss Cam to Spillcam

Beyond cameras peering upon animals and their habitats, or humans acting in
a simply voyeuristic manner, Haraway suggests that technologies and bodies (of
humans and more-than-humans) become articulated as infoldings of the flesh.24
The possibilities of perception, in her (post-)phenomenological-inspired account,
occur through the meetings of bodieswhether human, more-than-human, or
technological. These infoldings are zones of interaction, contact points from
which worldly embodiment emerges.25 For Haraway, the emphasis is not on a
human sensing-subject who decodes images of animals but rather on the bodily
and material meetings (and all that facilitates these meetings) across technologies,
humans, and more-than-humans.
These sensory encounters also produce the possibilities for inhabitations,
where mutual embodiment is a process of making worlds. From this vantage
point, she considers how the Crittercam as a technology is both always in forma-
tion, as well as always compound.26 Sensation occurs at the ongoing meetings
of multiple bodiesto be multiple is to multiply, or to generate shared (compound)
experiences and worlds.
Crittercam is a relevant point of departure for this discussion of camera-as-
sensor, since with this device Haraway moves from an analysis about the viewing
of others into a technological relation that involves becoming with others. Mov-
ing from sensation as a process of perceiving objects to a shared if asymmetrical
practice, she articulates how these infoldings occur through the fleshand this
flesh, these bodies, and the possibilities of sensation are undertaken together in
lived experiences. Haraways account moves toward unsettling the human as a
fixed processor of sensory stimuli and instead considers the collective creation of
sensory worlds. Yet is it possible that the worlds that are constituted through these
infoldings are more than flesh, and that shifting sensory modalities are not only
infolded but also always becoming concrete as environments through these pro-
cesses? Haraways discussion signals toward but passes over the matter of worldly
embodiment. Yet what worlds not only come into being but also shift to in-form
new possibilities of individuals and infoldings through these camera and image
encounters? I suggest that the worldly aspects of embodiment that are so much a
part of this becoming together might also require a more detailed consideration
of the role of environmentsas processual techno-geographies of experiencein
expanding these sensory tales.27

RFID and Distributing Sense

Haraways analysis of the bodily shifts that occur at the meetings of Crittercams,
more-than-humans, and humans demonstrates how these technologies are not
just reporting devices but rather are generative of experiences and material rela-
tions. Indeed, technologies such as cameras and the wider range of sensors and
radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags now proliferating in environments do
much more than simply allow for new modes of distant observation and data
 From Moss Cam to Spillcam / 65

gathering. In addition to shared or remote modalities of sense, cameras and

sensors redistribute the locations, agencies, and processes of sensing operations.
Hayles suggests that an animate environment now surrounds us that is involved
in producing sensory information in and through which humans are but another
contributor to sensory processing.28 Sensor technologies not only gather informa-
tion but also perform distributed sensing processes for which direct human inter-
vention or participation may not even be necessary.
Hayles speculates that humans might even potentially become rather margin-
alized within sensor environments that form their own sensory exchanges. The
implications of such distributed sensing potentially may then involve experiences
other than infolding sense. As she writes,

Combined with embedded sensors, mobile technologies and relational databases,

RFID destabilizes traditional ideas about the relation of humans to the built
world, precipitating a crisis of interpretation that represents both a threat to
human autonomy and an opportunity for re-thinking the highly politicized ter-
rain of meaning-making in information-intensive environments.29

With these formations of ubiquitous and embedded computing, Hayles suggests

that sense is distributed within and automated throughout environments in ways
that challenge human sense-making. Sensory processing is not directed through
human sensing-subjects primarily but is instead located throughout automated
sensing processes. As it is decoupled from human subjects, sensing as a process of
making meaning, and of generating capacities to make sense and act on informa-
tion, can occur beyond the realm of human intervention. Indeed, many of the
cameras trained on environments are not connected up to human bodies or eyes,
but rather work through image analytics to detect patterns and send alerts when
significant change is detected. In this case, cameras-as-sensors could be seen to
operate in ways that Hayles identifies: as seemingly autonomous agents that are
recasting practices of sensing and interpretation.
While webcams and related sensor technologies might raise issues of surveil-
lance and monitoring,30 surveillance is not the only issue to which these technolo-
gies give rise. In other cases, early work on web cameras focused especially on
new qualities of telepresence, or the ability to know things from a distance.31
Distance presented a new way of understanding mediation: as sensation under-
stood through a more filtered and remote rather than immediate engagement.32
Mediation, however, is a term that typically suggests the relative fixity of subjects
and objects in an exchange of informationwith the filtering process seemingly
acting as the location of transformation.
Both surveillance and telepresence are arguably, as Hayles suggests, ways of
encountering technology that are primarily epistemological, or issues about
who knows what about whom.33 But while monitoring is an important part of
66 / From Moss Cam to Spillcam

the operations of sensor technologies, it may be overemphasized at the expense

of also taking into account a range of other sensory processes. Shifting sensor
environments present issues that are as much ontological as they are epistemo-
logical.34 Ontologies of senseand the environmental practices and politics to
which they give riseare then a necessary point of focus for understanding the
orientations of these technologies.
Moving from Hayless observations to those of Simondon, moreover, we
could say that an animate environment presents an ontogenesis of sense, where
such distributions require rethinking sense toward process and practice. Rather
than see humans as marginalized entities within animate and sensing environ-
ments, we might then consider how human sensing practices are in-formed and
individuated differently, how they concresceeven more than infoldwith tech-
nologies and within environments in different registers. In this way, sense ceases
to be an ontologically prior category or relation, where the five human senses are
but a rough guide for understanding how sensation becomes possible. Sensor
technologies can be understood as in-forming ontological processes that make
sensation possible, as well as generating entities and environments that take hold
through these sensory processes.

Webcams and Environments of Sense

Distributed sites of sensation, as discussed in chapter 1, include a rather heteroge-
neous range of participants that contribute to sensory processes, from humans to
more-than-humans, technologies, sites, and more. These environments of sensa-
tion suggest an alteration to the trajectories through which sensorial encounters
are configured, so that senseor experienceis not exclusively about immediacy
or coming into contact but instead also refers to sensory capacities that concresce
in relation to environments of sense.35 Experience occurs within a techno-geographic
milieu, since it unfolds within technical and geographical conditions that are fur-
ther generative of worlds, environments, and relations.
Environments do not necessarily refer to a fixed sense of place,36 in this respect,
but rather involve the making of distributions and articulations of experience.
Environments, furthermore, are not the static ground across which species-sensor
encounters are located, nor are they containers for these meetings. Rather, they
are a critical contributor to the distributions and possibilities of senseas in-
formed and in-forming milieus.37 More than the bodies of humans, animals, and
technologies infolding to form sensory capacities and meetings, by attending to
techno-geographies of experience it might be possible to consider how bodies are
not the only zones of sensory formation and processing.
Such an approach, where environment might be understood as a more dynamic
condition, further resonates with Simondons discussion of the techno-geographical
milieu. In this sense (not dissimilar to Whiteheads focus on subject-superjects
 From Moss Cam to Spillcam / 67

of experience), Simondon attends to the ways in which distinct environments

concretize along with the unfoldings of particular technical objects. Simondon
notes that a technical object is a unit of becoming, and this becoming extends
not just to the evolution of the object itself but also to the environment in and
through which it is sustained and interacts.38 However, this is not simply a project
of making environments but rather involves the production of processes that
ensure the continuation of those environmental conditions that sustain technical
objects. The production of a machine involves the production of an external
milieu along with the possibility for these entities and relationships to recur and
have a shared effect.39 This is what Simondon refers to as a techno-geographical
milieu.40
The technical milieu of the technical object works in relation to a geographi-
cal milieu where its operations are translated or transduced. In forming a transduc-
tive relation with the geographical and meteorological world in order to perform
its operations, the technical object is also acting on that world, just as the geo-
graphical world is in-forming the technical object. Neither a dialectical stance nor
a simple humanization of nature, Simondon describes this process as one whereby
the technical object concretizes the meeting of these worlds, which are not one
and the same, and may even be in conflict with one another.41
Simondon makes the point that as both an adaptive and concretizing pro-
cess, the technical object expresses while also creating particular environments
that may have had a latent or virtual presence and that spring into life at a certain
critical point in the operation of a technical object. This is the point at which
a concretizing invention42 generates a techno-geographic environment, which
supports the further functioning of the technical object. A viable technical object
is the very vehicle through which the possible integration of the technical and
geographical is able to occurit in-forms these shared milieus and it exchanges
energy across them so that they become interwoven and creative of new environ-
ments and conditions for technical functioning.
Techno-geographies then describe a particular process that resonates with the
becoming environmental of computation. Simondon focuses on traction engines
and audiometers and electric clocks in the context of his study of milieus and the
relative situation of technical objects as elements, individuals, or ensembles. In a
different way, I move this discussion of techno-geographies into a consideration
of computational sensors to include a focus on the camera-as-sensor that is not
just a technical element but also a sort of technical individual, which is expressive
of the milieus in which it operates. This discussion also seeks to build on the
variations of technologies and sense as discussed by Haraway and Hayles: how
infoldings and distributions of sense might create further inquiries into techno-
geographies of sense. Environments of sense play an important role in think-
ing through sensor technologies, including the web camera. I now discuss this
68 / From Moss Cam to Spillcam

techno-geographical orientation in the context of Moss Cam and Spillcam. The

Moss Cam and Spillcam might be understood as sensors that are within and
constructive of environments, producing visual and other multisensory records
of sites, but also making new formations of environments.

MOSS CAM: IMAGING AN ECOLOGICAL OBSERVATORY

Moss Camthe first web camera I discuss here in the context of techno-geographies
of sensingtracks the processes of Tortula princeps, or Star Moss, at the James
Reserve. Discussed briefly in the last chapter through the sorts of biosensing and
biomonitoring that can be understood to occur through mosses, this particular
web camerasensor is at work in a larger sensor network at the James Reserve.
The Moss Cam is a sensor in the form of a web camera, a device that is by no
means new or unusual, except in this deployment as part of a sensing lab it begins
to raise new questions about the creation and use of environmental images as a
form of sensory data within an expanded sensor system.
The James Reserve Moss Cam is one of many web cameras fixed on sites
of study, including a Meadow Cam, Creek Cam, and Bird Cam.43 This pervasive
form of remote viewing is commonly found at work in sites of ecological study.
Yet web cameras now operate as one of an assortment of sensors for ecological
monitoring, which include acoustic, CO2, light level, and temperature monitor-
ing devices.44 Although primarily gathered for ecological study, at the time of this
fieldwork the moss images were also viewed by interested publics via a website
and online repository of images.45
The Moss Cam has its gaze fixed on a granite boulder speckled with mounds
of Star Moss, which moves in and out of phases of lush green active photosynthe-
sis and patchy brown senescence. Star Moss is a species of moss that is particularly
desiccation tolerant and has the ability to dehydrate over the course of months or
years and yet regenerate and begin photosynthesis within five minutes of expo-
sure to water.46 The Moss Cam allows for a long-term continuous observation
of the patterns of dehydration and rehydration that characterize the Star Moss
lifecycle. The Moss Cam consists of both a video camera and infrared camera,
coupled with a weather station that provides data on temperature, moisture,
light, and CO2 levels. Sensor technologies track the chemical, physical, and bio-
logical interactions within these ecosystems from a detailed and on-the-ground
perspective. Sensation and the environmental formations that concretize here are
relational and dynamic processes.
While the web camera is constantly trained to the boulder, allowing any visi-
tor to the James Reserve website to observe the latest state of the moss, it is also
set to automatically capture images of the moss at least once per day, and as often
as every fifteen minutes, and stores a record of the moss up to 35,040 times per
year. In this continual tracking, questions arise regarding how best to manage
 From Moss Cam to Spillcam / 69

data, and whether automatic harvesting is the best use of sensors, or whether a
more particular or opportunistic use of sensors to gather data at expected times
might be devised. Yet in the continual tracking that is made possible, observations
potentially also become available not just to scientists but to anyone anywhere
who might access particular data sets online. The James Reserve includes a vir-
tual observatory, with archived data from underwater ecologies to auditory
signatures of woodpeckers.47 Such ecological and virtual observatories are the
format through which many sites of environmental interest throughout the
world are increasingly made available as remote visual experiences or data sets.
While a web camera, by virtue of being a camera, might be construed as a rep-
resentational device, in its operation as a sensor, within an extended sensor envi-
ronment, it operates more as an imager.48 As an imager, the web camera activates
alternative practices of sense that are connected up with networks of sensory
monitoring. This sensory data is crosschecked and compared across data sets and
even connected up with other data sets formed from remote sensing images. The
images generated in the Moss Cam ecological observatory operate less as pictorial,
scenic, or representational registers of environments, and more as continual data
grabs. No single Moss Cam image stands alone. Instead, it is plugged into sensory
performances and capacities that compare and relate the ecological processes of
moss to its own ongoing development and its responses to local conditions.
The Moss Cam documents the daily processes of a patch of moss through an
interconnected network of sensors that create a dynamic picture of environmen-
tal conditions. Images of moss growth and senescence form a detailed report of
this microenvironment at a moss-covered boulder in the James Reserve.49 The
images gathered from the Moss Cam are not typical depictions of organisms,
however, since the data are gathered in recurring sequence and understood in
relation to other ecological sensing data. In this way, distinct data relations and
ecologies concretize through webcam images. These are the techno-geographies
that are generated through the operations of cameras-as-sensors.
Characterized less by a comprehensive view and more through amalgamations
of sensor data and processes, where one image is a moment articulated within a
larger set of relationships, these images as sensor data become dynamic accounts
of changing relationships within specific sites, and they fuse together as particu-
lar renderings of environments. These images are not fixed representations of
environments, but rather are temporal markers of visual sensing data within
larger data setsthe environments that can be read through these images must
be assembled and compared within and in relation to other data sets and pro-
cessed through image analytic techniques: environments that concretize are not
captured in one image but are formed through shifting relationships across sens-
ing technologies, data, sites, ecological study, and practice, and the more-than-
humans that inhabit these sites.
70 / From Moss Cam to Spillcam

In order to understand the phenology, or seasonal timing of mosses, it is also

necessary to compare the time of year, temperature, moisture levels, and light
levels, among other data, in order to establish which changes may be occurring
and may be detectablethrough this sensory data. These sensory relations become
the basis for understanding environmental processes, where a sensory arrange-
ment of moss dehydration, CO2 levels, and light and temperature levels, as cap-
tured through sensors that gauge these phenomena, may be assembled in a distant
database through which new sensory practices and questions may arise. The con-
tinual capture of images, rather than a single or even sequence-based rendering,
in-forms the basis for understanding ecologiesthe relationships between organ-
isms and environments. But it also becomes a way of rendering environments
as both processual and multisensory arrangements, which are remotely and auto-
matically sensed in the field, and which publics in turn encounter through eco-
logical observatories and websites.
The field of sensory relations multiplies through these studies, as does the
need to compare sensed criteria: the time-sequenced imaging of moss is only
one aspect of its study, which also involves comparing a wide range of environ-
mental data from many different sensors. These multiple sensors provide a gen-
eral sense of environmental conditions, and images provide the basis for refining

Figure 2.3. Moss Cam with weather station at James Reserve. Image and infrared data are compared to
weather observation data to understand the moss lifecycle. Photograph by author.
 From Moss Cam to Spillcam / 71

observations and estimates in relation to moss growth. This sensor fusion pro-
vides a more nuanced way to ask ecological questions about the distribution of
moss, including why it follows particular distribution patterns, and why it prefers
a particular niche. The sensor arrangements and deployments are set up in order
to reach toward a better understanding of the ecological processes of moss. Such
ecological observatories redistribute sense not necessarily as a single or even
infolded zone of contact but rather as a processual relay of relationships, cross-
checked and compared, and made possible through the techno-geographies of
sensor environments.

Ground Truth
The Moss Cam images and data present the opportunity to ground truth other
data that is collected through remote sensing. Detailed, on-the-ground observa-
tions provide a way to corroborate more distantly gathered data, and so these
views from the ground are seen to offer a truth, or truing, of more abstract
observations. Remotely sensed images are typically cleaned up based on a num-
ber of assumptions and are not necessarily comparable to the fine-grained sensor
data captured on the ground, through microsensing technologies. The concrete
environments of sensing then become an important part of how ecologies are
understood.
More abstract models and projections might allow for speculation as to the
relationship between increased levels of CO2, increased temperatures, and moss
growth, but sensor devices such as the Moss Cam offer a way to study the detailed
patterns of growth and responsiveness of a distinct organism in situ. Since tradi-
tional methods of studying moss often involve working in a controlled chamber
in a laboratory, there is a risk that the study of moss, including the use of sensors,
would destructively modify the organisms under study. In order to measure moss
CO2 respiration, it is necessary to have the measurements take place in situ. The
environmentand the ecological interactions and processes that occur thereis
an important part of the sensory practices for studying moss. Sensing ecological
processes is an interaction that requires not necessarily a sensing subject and a
sensed object, but rather involves fields of response and resonance that might
need to be read through other subject-superjects of experience and practices of
detection.
The ground of ground truth is not, however, the final point of resolution
in these sensor environments. Instead, it is a reminder of the constant need to
draw connections across phenomena. Ground here is connection and concreti-
zation. The specificity of observations becomes a way to correct or correlate
more remotely sensed data. Ground truth sensor data is then a much different
perspective from which to understand environments, in comparison to those more
global or aerial views that might guide both ecological study and environmental
72 / From Moss Cam to Spillcam

imaginations.50 Sensory practices are bound into forms of environmental under-

standing, and so are situated, as Haraway has suggested.51 Situated sensing and
seeing refer not just to the embeddedness of researchers but also to the concres-
cence of entities and prehensions that form an expression of any given milieu.
Sensor technologies may be observing a designated ecological site, but sensation
also occurs between humans and more-than-humans, where the status of moss at
any given time may be an indicator of the changes it is sensing. In this way, the
empirical measurements of the environmental conditions of moss express a multi-
species sensing of environments, as discussed in chapter 1.
This change of focus is not to remove researchers or humans from the sen-
sory environments (who are also embedded in their own ways), but rather to
consider in greater detail the distributions of sense within the extended environ-
ments where the Moss Cam is located. Visualizing and imaging (among other
sensory modalities) are situated and distributed practices, located across a techno-
geographical sensorium of ecological research sites and sensor technologies, web-
site and publics, organisms and sensor data. Such multilocatedness shifts the focus
on sensory modalities from ecology-technology to a field of sensory relations that

Figure 2.4. Spillcam example footage. BP video from Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) monitoring the
plume of oil, gas, and mud escaping from the ruptured BP pipe. Screen capture.
 From Moss Cam to Spillcam / 73

might be seen as a specific techno-geography that is articulated through any given

webcam. In this way, environments and ecological processes concresce in relation
to technologies. Webcams tune into and take account of particular environmen-
tal processes, and the image data they generate are further synthesized with other
sensor data, forming subject-superjects of experience. The objects sensed are not
just immediate data or encounters but also a non-sensuous field of perception
that is part of the vague conditions in-forming the possibilities of sense.52

SPILLCAM: IMAGING AN ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER

As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, Spillcam emerged as a live image
of the Horizon Deepwater oil spill, which resulted from an offshore oil rig in
the Gulf of Mexico exploding due to a buildup of methane in the drilling riser.
The explosion led to the worst oil spill to date, with an estimated 4.9 million bar-
rels of oil leakedat one point over 88,000 square miles of the Gulf were closed
to fishing.53 Spillcam was the publicly accessible live video made available from
remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) that BP used in its attempt to stop the leak,
but which became a site of environmental monitoring and call for accountability
and transparency.
Markey, who requested the live video be made available, argued the feeds
were not the sole property of BP, but rather that the public had a right to the
information that they contain and to be able to see for themselves BPs progress
in containing this ongoing environmental disaster.54 As the offshore oil well
involved drilling in the deep ocean, the actual scale and volume of the leak was
relatively undetectable. Located five thousand feet underwater, the ruptured pipe
and blowout preventer could only be accessed through ROVs, which captured
footage of the spill.
Not only would the live video feed provide a tool of public accountability; it
could also, Markey suggested, be a scientific research tool, where our best scien-
tists and engineers could be provided with information that could be helpful in
developing much needed solutions to the ongoing oil spill, both in terms of sub-
sea operations and surface spill response.55 When the live video feed was made
available on May 19, 2010, it purportedly received upwards of one million views,
crashing the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warmings
website and temporarily putting the House of Representatives web system out
of order.56 Spillcam became a popular reference point in news media, and as it
received viewers in the millions, the number of sites hosting the live feed also
multiplied to three hundred or more, and Spillcam entered the English lexicon
as a top word for 2010.57
As the Spillcam captured and transmitted images of oil leaking from an under-
water pipeline in the Gulf, it simultaneously became a way to make BP account-
able to publics, while also providing a way to visually monitor the rate of the leak
74 / From Moss Cam to Spillcam

and the likely composition of the material flowing outwhether oil, gas, or mud.
At the time of its going online through the committees website, a message
announced, You are watching a live video feed of the BP Oil Spill from the ocean
floor, 5000 feet below the surface, as well as a disclaimer: Please note that these
live streams may freeze or be unavailable at times.58

Real Time
The single Spillcam feed multiplied into twelve Spillcams as numerous viewpoints
from ROVs were sought to observe and study the plume of oil gushing into the
Gulf and the rate and volume at which it was flowing.59 From Ocean Intervention
III, to Viking Poseidon, Boa Deep C, Skandi, Enterprise, and Q4000, the ROVs
that provided the video feeds streamed real-time footage of the plume of oil as it
drifted through the Gulf. Public fixation upon the video footage, as well as anger
and concern about the disaster, was writ large in multiple forum posts on web-
sites that featured the live video. The Huffington Post logged a total of 1,038 com-
ments, with proposals to show the live feed in Times Square 24/7 and make BP
show the feed on flat screen televisions in every window of every BP gas station
across the country. At the same time, there was concern that the video feed
provided a false sense of transparency and that the camera views were presented
so as to show the least damage, or that since BP was controlling the feed, anyone
watching it would be increasing site traffic through BPs websites.60
In contrast to the ground truth that the Moss Cam camera-as-sensor is meant
to provide, here in the water and spill-filled depths of the Gulf an attempt at
providing accountability through a real-time live video feed becomes a site of
questioning. The real-time flow of Spillcam images introduces uncertainty, inde-
terminacy, and even a restless but seemingly helpless fixation. One commentator
in the Washington Post suggested that watching Spillcam was like viewing a horror
film crossed with Andy Warhols Empire, where there is no sound and nothing
happens, except the inexorable, unending flow. You watch a little, and then a little
more, and then you cant stop watching as a steady plume of dark brown oil
belches upward from the floodlit, rocky ocean floor.61 Unlike cinema, however,
the Spillcam was not a representational narrative or documentary record, but
rather a real-time image that captured the ceaseless flow of oil into the Gulf.
Embedded within an urgent flow of events, the Spillcam became a techno-
geography of experience, expressive of real-time environmental emergency. Colors
of the spill were watched closely as indicators of the progress of the environmen-
tal disturbance: the darker the plume the more likely oil was seeping out, the
more muddy in hue, the more likely the oil was being stopped and drilling mud
and other sediment were the primary effluvia. Drawing on Helmreich, we could
say that the empiricity of the spill played out not just through evidence of oil
on the shoreline and models of oil-in-seawater movements,62 but also through
 From Moss Cam to Spillcam / 75

Spillcam images that tied into these techno-geographical systems of sensing and
experience that made the oil apprehensible. Real-time images captured through
Spillcam made this technical object into a particular type of camera-as-sensor
working alongside other sensor systems while also organizing attention toward
the environmental catastrophe that was unfolding. In the process, observing be-
comes an experimental action, a real-time generation of a sensory system.
In the confusion of blown-out rigs and leaking oil, toxic dispersant and devas-
tated marine life, loss of livelihood and loss of life, the live video feed provided a
shattering if steady stream of images of oil gushing into the deep sea and ROVs
at work attempting to plug the well. At the same time, scientists monitoring the
site were using any number of methods to assess the volume and rate of the
plume, often through sensing techniques that were not visual but rather were
acoustic, chemical, geolocated, temperature-based, and focused on producing a
molecular fingerprint of the oil and gas hydrocarbons in order to trace oil found
throughout the Gulf and link it to the BP spill.63 Attention was directed toward
studying the flow of currents with gliders communicating to satellites and with

Figure 2.5. Additional Spillcam footage, as captured by the Oceaneering Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV)
monitoring the BP Deepwater Horizon well and broken pipe. Screen capture.
76 / From Moss Cam to Spillcam

drifter cards retrieved by citizen scientists, as well as to assessing the impact of oil
on deep-water coral and benthic organisms.64
These various projects that focused on providing more clarity within a
complex environmental disaster operated alongside and in another register to the
Spillcam images. Although the leak was eventually stopped on June 15, 2010, and
the well was capped on September 19, 2010, the effects of the oil spill continue
to play out in the Gulf region, where human and more-than-human health are
affected in ways that are not yet fully established are still being revealed. The
ground-truth and real-time accounts that sensors, whether as images or other
forms of marine data, are able to provide is not a clear and easy project, since this
is an environment that is shifting and will continue to change as hydrocarbons
settle into organisms and ocean sediment, bodies, and instruments, which will con-
tinue to individuate in this transforming environment of sense and experience.

TECHNICAL MILIEUS AND AMPLIFYING ACTIONS

Spillcam presents a much different point of view than Moss Camthe latter, a
still, green, and seemingly uneventful moss-boulder slumbering within an eco-
logical study area; the former, a temporary if dynamic instrument of environ-
mental disaster and accountability. But each camera or compound of cameras
operates in a more sensor-operationalized milieu and less as an individual and
fixed representational image. Each camera-as-sensor articulates different envi-
ronmental processes. They are bound up with the becoming environmental of
computation through image-sense events that produce much different operations
and inhabitations of vision along with multiple other forms of sensor detection.
In The Five Senses, philosopher Michel Serres suggests that we attend to envi-
ronments and spatial practices as characterized more by visits rather than
views.65 With this provocation in mind, it is possible to approach the becoming
environmental of computation in a way that does not unify into a singular visual
frame, but rather engages with a multiplicity of sensing in and through techno-
geographies of experience. With web cameras used for ecological study and citi-
zen sensing, this multiplicity of environments and experiences concresces across
ecological study, technological sensing, data collection and processing, public
engagement, and environmental action.
Rather than discuss the complementary or alternative contributions that may
be made through the expanded array of human senses, from hearing and touch to
smell and taste, the distributed sensing of sensor technologies creates an entirely
different arrangement of sense. The camera as sensor, imager, and program oper-
ates within a sensing environment that is not delineated according to human
bodily senses but instead within units of measurability and comparison.66 Sensing
concresces through conditions of fusion, generality, ground-truth, real-time, and
transformations across organisms and environments. In this respect, sensing takes
 From Moss Cam to Spillcam / 77

place more as a program or operation rather than a process of mediation between

subjects and objects. Here, sensing occurs not as a hierarchy of the five senses but
as a distinct set of contingent relations that make possible practices ranging from
scientific empirical assessment to environmental action, and where processes that
may be detected give rise to communication to diverse publics about environ-
mental change.
But these expanded practices of sensing require more elaborationeven
within a visual framework. For instance, the Moss Cam, as part of an ecological
observatory, is not just a visual technology, it is also a machinery that establishes
a processual engagement with imaging.67 Objects become expressed as infor-
mation through processes and infrastructures that enable organisms and envi-
ronments to be transformed into digital entities. The practices and technologies
that facilitate the entry of a so-called natural object into a dataspace (such as
the lizard discussed in chapter 1) and the sensory or visual processes whereby
these transformations are made might even be referred to as a digitectomy,68
where in order to make certain creatures visible or relevantin this case, sensible
as digital objectsthey must find expression within distinct practices of scientific
seeing.69
While an approach that emphasizes the heterogeneous if multiple sites and
processes through which organisms are processed and transformed to become
observable articulates a compelling map of sense-based transformations, there is
still the notion that preprocessed organisms exist, organisms that might be avail-
able to literal seeing, but not visible within (constructed) scientific spaces. Argu-
ably, this analysis focuses on scientific processes that render their object visible,
whereby natural objects are made into legible items of scientific relevance. Might
this view also focus on the ways in which interpreting human subjects make
objects relevant for study through observation and instrumentation? If we return
to the discussion in chapter 1, however, we might consider how the experiment is
always involved with the experience of subject-superjects. Such an approach
moves beyond discussions of the real or the constructed to a consideration of the
registers of interpretation and experiential arrangements that are put into play
with and through sensing practiceswhich do not, furthermore, hinge on estab-
lishing the veracity of a substantialist object for a human mind to decode.
This study on the Moss Cam, Spillcam, and their extended sensor environ-
ments then decenters the human subject as the primary locus of sensation and
considers how sense data concresce through environments of sensibility and sub-
jects of experience. The points of sensation discussed here are not so much about
nature being transformed into data but rather about how the collecting and
processing of datathese programs of sensingin-form and contribute to the
ways in which sensing becomes superjectal, or to how subjects of experience
arrive at subject-superjects of experience. This approach also signals the ways in
78 / From Moss Cam to Spillcam

which sensory relations hold together as processes. Most importantly, this is a way
of considering how facts, organisms, ecological processes, and computationally
enabled image-sensors come to have a foothold within particular environments.
Organisms are not constructed into digital entities, but rather, organisms con-
cresce and are encountered through computational environments and environ-
mental attachments. In other words, these organisms would not exist without the
environments in and through which they are individuated and concresce.
In this sense, new environments come together through sensor technologies
through the altered perspectives, practices, and ontologies set in motion through
these sensory processes.70 To understand these different sensory concretizations
of environments, it is useful to consider alternative accounts of sensory opera-
tions that occur across bodies, environments, and technologies. Sensing as a techno-
geographical project offers up a different material arrangement that displaces
bodies as sites of processing and sensing. Bodies constitute distinct if different
sites of sensing within a more distributed set of sensor relations. Such sensing
operations revise ideas about embodiment or mediation, since not only is there
no originary experience to be mediated but also there are many sites through
which sensing and experience occurs.
There is a diverse range of sensory studies, briefly signaled at the beginning
of this chapter, which move through visual and other sensory modalities to con-
nect up with other possible relational practices. While embodiment has served as
a way to rethink visual technologies by challenging the notion of a detached
observer, there is still much work to be done in thinking through what new situ-
ated knowledges, as Haraway suggests, might gain a foothold at this juncture. In
this respect, Mara Puig de la Bellacasa suggests, in relation to Haraways situated
knowledges, that by affirming the embodied and situated character of material
and semiotic technologies of vision it is possible to also affirmatively transfig-
ure the meanings of objectivity and open possibilities for committed knowledge
practices.71 Haraway contrasts the view from nowhere with situated knowledge,
the view from a body, which challenges the free-floating and disinterested gaze
of science.72 For Bellacasa, this suggests a practice of touch, of knowledge-as-
touch that would circumvent the possibility of knowing from nowhere.
But this body, which importantly locates sensing and knowing in one type
of fleshy-site, may require even further situating. Not only is sensing superjectal
and techno-geographical, it is also individuated in distinct ways in relation to the
sites, bodies, and technologies that meet there. As the Moss Cam and Spillcam
cameras-as-sensors demonstrate, the meetings of technologies, organisms, and
sites are situated, individuated, and concresced in environments that are also on
the move in these sensory formations and techno-geographical milieus. And it
is these very sensory formations that further in-form our ability to respond to
environments from a committed inhabitation.
 From Moss Cam to Spillcam / 79

The committed position that opens up through situated knowledges raises a

final question about how superjects of experience organize human participation
in citizen sensing and even environmental politics. The armchair citizen scien-
tists discussed at the beginning of this chapter describe one type of environmen-
tal practice that concretizes at the techno-geographical juncture of webcams and
more-than-humans, as well as watchful human participants. Sensor-generated
ecological data is often gathered with the purpose of articulating more exactly
the scale and details of environmental change, but here monitoring extends to
include other types of citizen interventions. These watchful humans are seen as
vigilant live eyeballs, as well as caring participants who might even be able to
make citizen arrests if they see poaching occurringwhere, for instance, drones,
webcams, or traffic cameras could capture wildlife trafficking of elephants, rhinos,
or large cats.73
There is an ethos of ecological monitoring, as Helmreich has suggested,
where sensor technologies act as the eyes watching over environments under
study.74 To observe is to watch over, to attempt to mitigate harm, and to act
in time to prevent environmental calamity. The fine-grained, pervasive, and con-
stant quality of these observations in-forms our sensory practices in relation to
environments: always on, always aware, and constantly gathering information.
While Helmreich draws on McLuhans assertion that media technologies alter
our sense ratios and make possible distinct practices within these media environ-
ments, the question remains as to which sensory and environmental practices
settle in relation to sensor technologies.
It may be that these sensor environments of ecological monitoring comprise
an even greater store of information from which to act, where the politics of sens-
ing across these distributed and pervasive sites seem to influence even more
extensive possibilities for environmental action. Yet the risk is that monitoring
could become an end in itself, where sensory data amasses in excess, but these
often-distant sites of ecological study present detailed sensory datasets that do
not translate into environmental practice. One way to test this concern may be
to return to the sites of sensation and to consider the ways in which infoldings,
distributions, and environments of sense may recast the scope of our multiple
and diverging environmental engagements.
As I have suggested in this discussion of the Moss Cam and Spillcam, these
sensor environments move discussions of sensationand environmentsbeyond
mediated/immediate, nature/culture, or direct/indirect to cross over into infold-
ings, distributions, and techno-geographies of sense. These sensory operations
do not rely on a framework of mediation, where sensing subjects decode objects
of sense, but rather they point toward dynamic formations of sense that con-
cretize through distinct techno-geographical relations. As Combes has written in
relation to the milieu of technics:
80 / From Moss Cam to Spillcam

It is Simondons virtue to have seen that technics as network now constitutes a

milieu that conditions human action. Out of that milieu, we need simply to
invent new forms of fidelity to the transductive nature of beings, both living and
nonliving, with new transindividual modalities for amplifying action. For, in
our relation to preindividual nature, multiple strands of relationto others, to
machines, to ourselvesentwine in a loose knot or node, and that is where
thought and life come once again into play.75

Techno-geographies offer up not just an approach to working through the gen-

erative meetings of technical objects and environments but also to the forms of
relation that may become sites of invention and amplification. In his discussion of
techno-geographical milieus, Simondon is not insisting on a particular relation to
environments, but rather is searching for new relationships to technology.76 His
work indicates how, in our techno-geographical milieus, environments and tech-
nology might be co-constitutive. The webcam, seemingly an agent of description,
representation, and nonintervention, might actually in-form engagements, while
environments also in-form webcam processes. From armchair citizen science
to biomonitoring to petropolitics, the webcam-sensor operates in a modality of
technical culture and techno-geographical experience, which are further gen-
erative of practices that become self-sustaining. In this way, we could ask how
cameras-as-sensors concresce with environments, relations, and technical systems,
and what possibilities there are for connecting up with worlds of sense that these
devices would make present and actionable.
 3

Animals as Sensors
Mobile Organisms and the Problem of Milieus

Y o u r d a i ly w e at h e r f o r e c a s t may have been brought to

you, in part, by southern elephant seals. In the Southern Ocean, seals tagged with
conductivity-temperature-depth satellite relay data loggers (CTD-SRDLs) cap-
ture a detailed picture of ocean waters. Sensors travel along with seals to map
their dive profiles and to gather a previously inaccessible set of oceanographic
data from the ocean surface to depths down to nearly two thousand meters. Based
on seals foraging patterns carried out in response to the Southern Ocean envi-
ronment, sensor data documenting seal movements, along with temperature and
salinity, can lead to further inferences about sea-ice formation, the likely move-
ment of fronts within the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, and global circulation of
ocean currentsindicators not just of weather patterns but also of longer-term
shifts in climatic patterns.1
Relaying across the journeys of tagged elephant seals swimming through
circumpolar seas, sensors gather data on location, depth, and temperature that
circulate to Argos satellite systems (which consist of three satellites in three orbital
planes),2 then filter into the institutions of environmental science to form seal
dive profiles, there to complement remote-sensing and ship-gathered climatol-
ogy data sets, while informing the nightly weather report. Weather forecasts and
longer-term studies of environmental change come together through these mul-
tiple and distributed sensing technologies and (more-than-human) journeys.
Sensors are increasingly used in ecological study for the tracking of organ-
isms, often with the direct outfitting of animals with sensor backpacks and radio
collars, in order to understand movement and migration. Sensors typically used
in tracking include data transmitted through Argos or GPS satellite systems
(including environmental temperature and humidity), light levels, acceleration,
location, body temperature, heart rate, orientation, altitude, and pressure.3 The

81
82 / Animals as Sensors

latest wave of computationally enabled sensors for tracking follows from and
complements multiple methods that capture movement and migration, including
bird ringing or banding, bird observatories, radar and time-lapse film, and isotope
and DNA analysis.4
Any number of organisms have been outfitted with computationally based
tracking technologies, including honeybees with RFID tags,5 green darner dragon-
flies with miniature radio transmitters,6 and Arctic terns with miniature geoloca-
tors.7 Even animals that disappear or die are monitored, as with the well-known
case of Happy Feet, the hapless emperor penguin who turned up on a beach
in New Zealand. Fitted with an Argos satellite transmitter Sirtrack and sent on his
way back to Antarctica, Happy Feets tracker soon ceased transmitting, which led
to the conclusion that either the satellite transmitter has detached or an unknown
event has prevented Happy Feet from resurfacing.8
The movements of organisms, from badgers to elephant seals to storks, in-
fluence understandings not only of the journeys these animals take but also the
environments that they inhabit and rely upon. Tracking devices are often pre-
sented as key technologies for studying animals under threat and for informing
policy and management decisions so that these organisms may be better pro-
tected.9 Disruptions to habitat, causes of mortality, loss of feeding grounds: these
are environmental events that the tracked journeys of organisms may reveal. But
these technologies also generate concerns about the changes in activity and per-
formance that animals might experience as a result of wearing the devices and
through the stress caused by capture in order to fit the devices.10 Sensors used
for tracking raise questions about the extent to which animal movements and
relations to environments shift through the machine-organism milieus that are
traversed and inhabited. How are organisms, tracking devices, and milieus trans-
individuated, and what are the ways in which these technical objects become envi-
ronmental through tracing animals journeys?
Drawing on fieldwork and informal interviews conducted with environmen-
tal and computer scientists, as well as a review of scientific and technical literature
and symposia, this chapter examines how the movement and migration of organ-
isms have become key sites of study facilitated through environmental sensors. It
asks how understandings of environmental change have shifted through increased
levels of monitoring the movements of organisms. It also attends to the ways
in which sensors for environmental monitoring undertake distinct journeys and
types of attachments in order to travel along with organisms. In this concrescence
of machine, organism, and environment, I ask how the milieus of technical and
living entities in-form and transform through the tracking process. Rather than
see tracking technologies as mirroring devices that invisibly capture hitherto
unknown movements and journeys, I consider how these technical objects are in-
volved in individuating organisms and environments as entities in need of further
 Animals as Sensors / 83

study and protection and as concrescing computational relationships that would

activate the practices necessary to achieve these objectives.
In order to investigate these individuations of sensors, organisms, and milieus,
I follow three organisms on their tracked journeys. These animals include badgers
with RFID collars inhabiting the well-known ecological laboratory of Wytham
Woods in Oxford; southern elephant seals fitted with data loggers and satellite
transmitters, mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, as they dive through
the Southern Ocean; and white storks carrying satellite transmitters, both as they
are monitored and observed by scientists and citizens in the field and as they move
across the platform of an Animal Tracker app set up to engage publics in practices
of tracking animals.
As the southern elephant seal that appeared at the beginning of this chapter
reminds us, environmental sensor networks involve not just tracking and tracing
animal activities but also new forms of computational and collaborative sens-
ing, where (as discussed in chapter 1) sensing is undertaken with and through
more-than-human technologies and organisms. In other words, it is not just the
organisms that are sensed. Organisms are transformed into sensors that would also
communicate registers of animal-based environmental sensation and inhabitation.
Much like the moss discussed in the last chapter, these organisms become biosen-
sors of sorts, and through their journeys they provide data about environmental
conditions and changes.11 Through this relay of machine and organism, I then
expand upon the sorts of sensing and experience that are articulated in tracked
journeys. What are the nexuses, or actual worlds, of sense that occur through
these mapped events?12 And how do they both expand and challenge notions of
environmental participation across organisms and machines? By addressing the
traversals made across technical and living milieus, I finally consider how organ-
isms and technical objects are not only expressive of living and technical milieus
but also indicative of the particular problems they encounter in these milieus.

SENSING MOVEMENT AND MIGRATION

Animals are on the move, and have always been so, but their movements and
migrations are emerging as different and more detailed events vis--vis data gath-
ered through tracking studies. Why do organisms undertake these journeys? And
how do these journeys shift understandings of environments not as fixed terri-
tories but as fluctuating zones of inhabitation, sporadic meeting points, feeding,
and mating groundsessential stopovers on some far-flung journey? Studies
of animal movement and migration have been undertaken for some time, with
tracking and nomadism as much indicators of different practices for studying
(and even living with) animal movements as scientific approaches to tracking
and tracing organisms through computational sensors and data. The comings
and goings of insects, birds, mammals, and fish have indicated seasonal change,
84 / Animals as Sensors

habitat disruption, or even impending disaster. Movement, it seems, provides an

indication of animal behavior and routine.13
Indeed, the emerging field of movement ecology is seen to address some of
the unanswered questions in ecology, including reasons for fluctuations in ani-
mal populations, where animals are and when they are located in distinct areas, as
well as when, where, and why they die.14 If animals are on the move, so too is
ecology adopting more mobile methods in order to understand these questions.
As historian of science Etienne Benson discusses in his study of wildlife tracking,
Wired Wilderness, Denali National Park in Alaska is one such site that at one point
went from a practice of reluctant animal tracking to one of perpetual observa-
tion, where new kinds of radio collar were being deployed that would make it
possible to track wildlife 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.15 In some cases,
arguments are made not just for mapping and tracking animals in relation to dis-
tinct research questions but also for life tracking animals in order to understand
movement, behavior, ontogeny, dispersal, and mortality across lifetimes.16 In such
a scenario, animals would be tagged at birth and spend their entire lifecycle wear-
ing a tracking device that monitors and records their activities.
In a parallel way, tracking animals is a practice that provides more informa-
tion on the environmental selections and constraints that animals encounter.
Movement and migration data gathered from tracking devices can be related
to environmental conditions, for instance, as one environmental data platform,
MoveBank, makes readily available.17 In the context of an experimental ecology
that translocates tagged birds away from their migration routes and then observes
their eventual (correcting) movements, it is possible to draw inferences about the
way that birds pick up on the movements in winds, the possible cues made avail-
able through shifts in atmospheric conditions, and the flight paths taken, as well
as wing beats, heart rate, and energy expended along a chosen path. As ornitho-
logist and advocate of animal tracking Martin Wikelski has indicated in relation
to this example, We can use individual animals as sentinels for the atmosphere
if we understand how they use the atmosphere.18 Through flight path, heart
rate, and acceleration data (among other variables), the journeys of tagged ani-
mals can provide indirect data on the churnings of air. These data can be further
corroborated by comparing environmental data to flight conditions, creating a
record of the particular milieus that animals might be navigating through and
inhabiting.

Every Animal with a Cell Phone

The technologies used to track animals typically consist of devices that com-
municate through radio and satellite telemetry, including 3G and 4G mobile
phone signals, GPS, Argos satellite systems, RFID tags, and data loggers.19 While
most tracking devices are attached to the external bodies of organisms as collars,
 Animals as Sensors / 85

Figure 3.1. Animal Messaging Service. Speculative system for sending digital messages via migrating
animals implanted with RFID tags. Extreme Green Guerillas, illustration courtesy of Michiko Nitta.

backpacks, and epoxied antennae in the case of insects and smaller organisms,
some tracking devices are subcutaneously injected (not unlike the RFID tagging of
many household pets) and are especially focused on logging heartbeat and tem-
perature. Monitoring technologies are becoming increasingly miniaturized, and
the expectation is that a greater number of animals may be monitored through
more sensory variables over longer periods of time.20
Presenting research at the Symposium on Animal Movement and the Envi-
ronment 2014, Wikelski recounted a project focused on studying families of geese
in Siberia in order to understand their social interaction. Describing the process
of tagging the geese, he noted, So you catch them, you put tags on them and
this is really how the world should look like: every animal has a little cell phone,
they talk with us.21 Wikelski indicates, however, There are still some problems
because these things should be much smaller, and they should all be on neck-
laces. Despite these considerations, all in all, the tracking of geese was working
well,22 and was providing new data about their social interactions, as well as the
ways in which rising temperatures lead to migration activities. This is seen to be
a way, ultimately, to get closer to the decision-making process of these geese.23
Within the proliferating range and type of tracking devices in use, it is possi-
ble to combine sensor data with a wider range of data. In addition, Wikelski has
noted that there is a further need to have very miniaturized cameras on these
86 / Animals as Sensors

animals, similar to those used on the CritterCam project (and as discussed in

chapter 2) in order to ground truth other sensor data.24 As Greg Marshall of the
CritterCam project has noted, initially the idea to attach cameras and monitoring
devices to animals seemed improbable, and the consensus was that animals would
not tolerate carrying the devices. However, as he suggests, most animals seem
to care little about the unusual electronic remora appended to their backs. This
unexpected finding has increasingly emboldened researchers to consider use of
animal-borne imaging tools to study difficult-to-observe animal behavior and
ecology.25 As a result of this and the miniaturization of monitoring technologies,
there are now

more species, gathering richer information, resulting in an expanding body of

statistically supported assertions of novel behaviors and ecological relationships.
And today, with the ongoing revolution in solid-state imaging systems that inte-
grate video, audio, environmental, geospatial, and perhaps even physiological
data streams, we can expect a quantum leap in application of these instruments.26

Figure 3.2. Animal Messaging Service. Example of humpback whale implanted with tag. Extreme Green
Guerillas, illustration courtesy of Michiko Nitta.
 Animals as Sensors / 87

With such extensive plans for instrumentation, across sensor modalities, animals
move from being cell-phone equipped to becoming multidimensional sensing
nodes that communicate their own bodily conditions, interactions with neigh-
boring animals, movement, and environmental conditions. In this sense, Marshall
notes in relation to marine organisms, animals themselves can now serve as
remote ocean observation platforms carrying instruments to characterize habitat
over temporal and spatial scales relevant to their basic biology and life histories.27
Through this ongoing data collection, animals become sensor nodes and plat-
forms, from which some of the unanswered questions in ecology are meant to
be addressed, while also creating an expansive and even global animal-sensor net-
work that functions as the pulse of the living planet.

Pulse of the Planet

The notion that animal-sensor networks are providing the pulse of the living
planet comes from one of the most notable and sizeable initiatives to under-
take animal tracking on a global scale: the satellite-based project International
Cooperation for Animal Research Using Space, or ICARUS. A global small-animal
tracking system led by Wikelski, ICARUS seeks to set up a remote sensing plat-
form for scientists world-wide that track[s] small organisms globally, enabling
observations and experiments over large spatial scales.28 While the Argos satel-
lite system has primarily been used for tracking and sensing larger animals, as it
requires larger transmitters for communication,29 ICARUS is able to work with
smaller tags that communicate locations across shorter distances. The anticipa-
tion with this technology is that ICARUS will allow insights into the dispersal
and migration of smaller organisms, which will provide a seeing-eye dog for
humankindin other words, it will enable the use of the evolved senses of ani-
mals for remote sensing.30
While ICARUS is set to be launched as an antenna added to the International
Space Station (ISS) in 2015, it is also seeking to partner with Russian, Chinese, and
European Space Agency (ESA) satellite launches. The ISS antenna is proposed to
communicate with small tags weighing less than five grams (and which Wikelski
projects will further reduce in size) and which consist of a logger tag with GPS.31
There are many perceived possible uses of ICARUS that will enable researchers
to answer some grand challenges in environmental sciences, including under-
standing the spread of diseases carried by animals, protecting sites key to migra-
tion pathways, and establishing relationships between biological diversity and eco-
systems, as well as establishing a disaster network based on animal sensing.32
These multiple uses of ICARUS for research are based on animals serving
as continual generators and collectors of data, which can further be collected in
the MoveBank database and compared to corresponding environmental data. All
together, these animal-generated and sensor-based data are meant to provide an
88 / Animals as Sensors

ongoing picture of the pulse of the planet. The movement of organisms, the fluc-
tuations of animal populations, the responses to deforestation or other land-use
based events and changes, may all register as flickering patterns of information,
the cadence of a living planetary body: here is another iteration of program
earth, articulated through the digital monitoring of the movements of innumer-
able earthly organisms.

More Data = More Engagement

The impetus to collect more data as a way to achieve greater insights is one that
runs through environmental sciences and is a key way to address environmental
change. As discussed in chapter 1, the proliferation of more detailed and more real-
time sensor data is also meant to provide fundamentally new insights into ecologi-
cal processes. These data-based insights are further meant to bolster conservations
projects, so that more sound and effective decisions can be made. Monitoring, in
this sense, is a practice that is undertaken ultimately to protect organisms.33 The
great migrations are declining,34 the extinction of species is occurring at an un-
precedented rate, and organisms that are vital to food chains are collapsing.
One project, the Tagging of Pacific Predators, or TOPP, deployed 4,306 tags
across 23 species to study events such as the possible collapse of bluefin tuna.35 In
a video outlining the aims of the project, the point is made that these tagging
initiatives will not only unlock the mysteries of the deep but will also provide
new information that can be communicated to publics. As Warner Chabot notes,
The more that we can give the public the facts they will respond. If you inform
and inspire the public you will empower the public to respond and, frankly, act in
its goodwill and future.36 More detailed information is a resource that is meant
to motivate conservation efforts, inform policy, and stir publics into action.
The drive to collect more data on organisms as they move around and under-
take migrations has in this way influenced numerous citizen-sensing projects.
While animal spotting and bird ringing are long-standing practices within citizen
science, many more projects are emerging that make use of digital devices to
track, record, monitor, and observe moving and migrating organisms. Indeed, in
one example of GPS-based citizen science and environmental monitoring, I can
recall a campaign made by the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust (WWT) in 2002
for citizens to adopt a goose, which would be fitted with a GPS tracker to relay
data about a particular gooses journey to the citizen-adopter. As a sequel, per-
haps, to the transmitted heartbeats of the Russian dog Laika launched in Sputnik 2,
the WWT conservation project monitored light-bellied brent geese and their
migrations from Canada to Ireland. The public could adopt geese with such aus-
picious names as Major Ruttledge and Arnthor, and in exchange receive up-to-the
minute information on position, speed, and heading, delivered via email or to
mobile phone.37
 Animals as Sensors / 89

Many citizen-sensing engagements then focus on both gathering data as well

as interacting with the greater stores of data now available on animal movements.
Gathering information in some cases is the trigger for particular conservation-
based actions, including BirdReturns, a project led by the California Nature Con-
servancy that incorporates citizen-science data from the eBird project out of the
Cornell Lab of Ornithology, which maps the migratory patterns of birds as they
move through the Central Valley of California. Participants in the project can fur-
ther submit observations through a web platform or app, BirdLog North Amer-
ica,38 and all together this citizen-supplied information is mapped onto critical
wetland zones. The Nature Conservancy then rents the space from farmers via a
pop-up habitat scheme, where the farmers allow their land to remain flooded
during critical times when birds are migrating through the valley.39
The Migratory Connectivity Group notes that multiple citizen-science and
citizen-sensing projects actually tend to concentrate on migratory organisms,
including birds, invertebrates and fish.40 Projects in this area working through
distinctly digital methods and devices further include the Tag a Tiny Program,
which enrolls the help of recreational fishermen to catch, measure, tag, and
release juvenile Atlantic bluefin tuna in order to study their annual migration
paths and habitat use.41 Many more citizen-sensing projects focus on animals
as they move and migrate, from tagged sharks that send tweet alerts when they
approach popular beach areas in Australia, to records of migrating eels in the
River Thames, as well as projects such as Roadkill Garneau, which asks citizens
to record and locate roadkill sightings using EpiCollect, an online platform and
mobile app, so that critical sites where movement has gone wrong can be
recorded.42
There are even videos instructing lay audiences on how to build their own
DIY GPS tracking kit by hacking a GPS device to build a bespoke radio collar.43
And creative-practice projects have created distinct ways of engaging with animal
movement by, for instance, being able to engage in a text-message exchange with
fish in the Hudson River in New York City. Amphibious Architecture, a project
by Natalie Jeremijenko, David Benjamin, and Soo-In Yang, uses motion sensors,
LEDs, and a text-message system to trigger alerts to passersby who may tune
into the movements of fish. Sample text messages note, Underwater, it is now
loud. To find out more, text HeyHerring or AhoyAnchovie or GreatEast.
This proof-of-concept project enters into those communicative exchanges with
animals that tracking and sensing technologies are meant to enable, albeit with a
slightly different approach to the messages that might be shared.44 In a different
way, in her Extreme Green Guerilla project, Michiko Nitta has proposed that
we might harness the movements and migrations of animals as an alternative and
even green communication system, where our messages might be more effi-
ciently and ecologically carried by animals crossing oceans and continents.45
90 / Animals as Sensors

A common thread across these scientific and creative-practice projects is

that communicative exchange unfolds not through speech, but rather through
perceptive engagements built up through environmental inhabitations. The pre-
vailing sense with tracking projects seems to be that this is a mode of communi-
cation that may be readily accessible to us, where by observing organisms it may
be possible to deduce their environmental requirements. Watching, spotting, and
reporting journeys; tagging and contributing to scientific monitoring; and amass-
ing collections of migratory datawithin and through the interstices of move-
ment ecology projectsmultiple projects are contributing to building up more
detailed accounts of animals movement and migration.46 And in this watching
and encountering of organisms, humans, more-than-humans, and organisms are
moving through intersecting milieus, forming new nexuses of sense.

ANIMALS AS SENSORS: BADGERS, ELEPHANT SEALS, AND WHITE STORKS

Data sets that are more complete and comprehensive are meant to fill in the blank
spaces on our maps of animal movement so that we might build a global picture
of the creatures with which we share this world.47 With animals serving as sen-
sors and sensor networks, sensor data is meant to function not only as descriptive
data but also as material that allows us to infer events from what animals might be
sensing and responding to in environments. Animals-as-sensors become subject-
superjects in a particular way within tracking projects, where their journeys are
meant to communicate the experiences of their environmental encounters. The
becoming environmental of computation here occurs through the journeys and
tracking that unfold as sensors travel with organisms, as well as through the ways
in which organisms become computational both as carriers of sensors and through
the ways in which their sensory ecologies are meant to provide data and informa-
tion on environmental conditions. Organisms are thus made to be computational
twice over, as they sense and are sensed. I now turn to consider three specific
journeys or movements of animals that attend to the ways in which animals-as-
sensors concresce as indicators of specific engagements with milieus.

Badgers Socializing in Wytham Woods

WildSensing, an interdisciplinary collaboration between computer scientists and
ecologists based at the University of Cambridge and Oxford University that took
place between 2007 and 2010, involved a study of badger activity in Wytham
Woods near Oxforda highly instrumented test site known for its ongoing eco-
logical experiments from at least the days of Charles Elton, an ecologist well
known for his studies of population ecology and animal invasions in the early to
mid-twentieth century.48 Wytham Woods is a 390-hectare landscape that is one of
the most researched areas of woodland in the world, with numerous monitoring
projects underway at any given time.49 But many of these projects are often set up
Figure 3.3. Animal Messaging Service. Example of routes for sending messages via tagged animals as they undertake their migrations.
Extreme Green Guerillas, illustration courtesy of Michiko Nitta.
92 / Animals as Sensors

in relation to distinct research questions and concerns and do not join up data sets
collected from the site. At the same time, because ecological study and experi-
mentation have taken place over several decades at Wytham Woods, there are
extensive data sets and histories of animal observation. With badgers, for instance,
data collection extends over the past twenty years, although it may have a larger
granularity due to manual observation methods; and badgers have been trapped
and released in Wytham Woods for the past thirty years (which has been the usual
way of studying animal movement).
The WildSensing project was initiated to establish whether to and to what
extent badgers transmitted tuberculosis, for instance, to livestock. Data from these
observations were meant to aid in policy and management of badgers at agri-
cultural edges.50 To undertake this research, the project focused on the social net-
works of badgers, since as it turns out they have distinct modes of interaction
and cooperation. In total, eighty badgers were tagged and caught once every six
months over the duration of the project. Animals were tagged with RFID radio
collars, which would be released when badgers where thinning. As a result of using
RFID for detection, badgers could be sensed underground as well as above ground,
but only within the sensor area and not across the entire forest.51
In the first iteration of the WildSensing project, badgers were tagged with
RFID radio collars that communicated with fixed sensor detection and storage
nodes located within a zone of the forest. From these points, field researchers
could conduct mobile data collection (which could, theoretically, also be carried
out by mobile robots). Within one year, the project collected over twenty-five mil-
lion records, and so the gathering and transmission of data presented issues for
how to structure these networks.52 Due to the quantities of data collected and
transmitted, much of the project focused on ways of duty-cycling data more effi-
ciently in order to save power, which is an ongoing issue within sensor networks.
In the second iteration of the project, an increasing emphasis was placed on
working with off-the-shelf sensor equipment. Rather than having fixed sensor
nodes in the network, the project instead used the badgers as the mobile sensor
network across which data circulated to fixed collection nodes triggered by pres-
ence detectors with a fifty-meter radius. The data from these nodes were then
either stored on SD cards or transmitted via 3G mobile phone networks several
times per day to servers. On the one hand, this approach focused on how sensors
learn and adapt to animal behavior. Working with RFID sensors and machine
learning in the form of an adaptive algorithm, this approach focused on having
sensors operate in response to and at key moments of animal activity. On the
other hand, as sensors and animals were paired in this form of environmental
monitoring, sending new software over wireless networks to the animal collars
also became a way to reprogram sensors without having to catch the animals or
 Animals as Sensors / 93

adjust the sensor hardware or infrastructure so that the network could be adapted
to animal activities.53
Emerging within this approach is the use of sensors not just to describe and
capture environmental events but also to develop a dynamic evolution of sensors
in response to animal behavior such that computation and the distribution of sen-
sation are ontogenetic. While critiques of early tracking devices suggested that
they were mere descriptions of movement and activity,54 and hence at times
considered to be relatively static renderings of environmental processes, increas-
ingly sensor systems are regarded as generating more integrated, adaptive, and
actuated approaches to environmental monitoring.
As the WildSensing mobile network developed, it became a system for relat-
ing information from animal to animal via radio collars and then on to collection
nodes. Animals became sensors and operators in the network, at once collecting
data about their activities and location, while also becoming part of the extended
computational infrastructure. The network patterns were ad hoc, based on the
badger activity, and were not entirely preestablished configurations. The social
behavior of the badgers, as well as the microclimate and other environmental
conditions at Wytham Woods, contributed to the intersections of technical and
living milieus. The sensors and computational network necessary to capture phe-
nomena had to emerge along with ecological events and animal activity, where,
for instance, practices of relaying data across organisms and storing sensor data in
nodes, then capturing the data through mobile collection, developed as a more
effective configuration for sensing the badger activity.
Machine learning here extended not just to parsing environmental data but
also to learning animal behavior and reprogramming sensing and collection
methods accordingly. In this sense, sensors became organismal and environmen-
tal. While this was not a completely open process, as sensors are configured to
detect certain variables and not others, it was also not a process of complete auto-
mation, where sensors might be preprogrammed to detect phenomena according
to fixed configurations. If we were to follow Simondon in this regard, how might
this contingent approach to sensing shift both technical object and technical
milieu in relation to the individuations that occur through encounters with living
entities? Rather than approach sensors as prosthetic devices, moreover, might
we find it more accurate to consider the ways in which these sensor technologies
reorganize, in-form, and transform along with the organisms they would track?

Elephant Seals Diving in the Southern Ocean

If the badgers of Wytham Woods presented a quite local and land-based sensor
study, then the elephant seals of the Southern Ocean offer up a much different
milieu in the form of underwater spaces, relatively obstreperous temperaments
94 / Animals as Sensors

in comparison to badgers accustomed to recurrent catch-and-release, and sensor

systems that communicate via satellite rather than more proximate RFID nodes.
Led through the Natural Environment Research Council Sea Mammal Research
Unit at the University of St. Andrews, the elephant seal study set out to research
how these animals respond to environmental variability and how this variability
might in turn influence population fluctuations.55
As a study of telemetry and marine mammals, the project was situated within
a larger study of over one hundred mammals and marine species. The elephant
seals were tagged with CTD-SRDLs in the first iteration of the study. Data gath-
ered included depth, conduction, temperature, pressure, and acceleration, as well
as stereo sound captured at 500khz. The tagged seals not only revealed profiles of
their diving habits, where everything from buoyancy to fat reserves can be assessed
based on diving details, but they also captured data on the temperature of the
Southern Ocean at depths not typically monitored.56 Translations could then
made from elephant seal data to the Argos satellite system to St. Andrews to the
Met Office to the BBC weather forecast.57 Elephant seal data have also been inte-
grated into ocean observing systems, so that the complex conditions of oceans
become more thoroughly monitored through the underwater activities of tagged
marine animals.58
During a 2010 Mammal Society conference focused on techniques for sensing
and tracking animals, one of the presenters discussing this elephant seal project
considered the possibility for moving from Argos to a GPS/GSM mobile phone
system to relay data. Such a system effectively would involve stick[ing] a mobile
phone on seals as a point of connection, and could become a method for com-
municating with publics.59 Here, by bringing animal tracking and communication
into the realm of mobile phone networks a more immediate contact with the
animals would appear to unfoldsimilar to the geese with cell phones discussed
earlier in this chapter. Such a strategy of communicating with publics was in fact
implemented when Argos was first used to monitor animals, where emails and
updates of tracked animals were regularly sent to schoolchildren and publics.60 Yet
the imaginary of moving from a satellite connection to mobile phone exchanges
of data seems to bring the immediacy of animal communication even closer, par-
ticularly when animals are sensors of environments.
This is the common thread that arises in public presentations of animal track-
ing projects, where the ability to communicate with animals is frequently referred
to as one of the benefits of these sensor systems. Indeed, the ICARUS promo-
tional material notes, With the help of new technology, animals will be able to
communicate with us, revealing changes, dangers and connections that will help
us to have a better understanding of the fabric of life on earth.61 The ambition is
that animals will talk to us, and in so doing that they will communicate the dis-
tinct sensory inhabitations that they experience. Animals equipped with sensors
 Animals as Sensors / 95

become, in turn, active sensors able to perform heightened modes of communi-

cation. Through this talking, the hope is that we will finally be guided toward
making better decisions for preserving the planet.
Tagged elephant seals communicate not only the specific data points of temper-
ature and downward acceleration when they dive but also provide an indication of
the multiple milieus that they cross, from the technical milieus of sensor devices,
to the lived milieus of the seal, and the transformative or associated milieus across
and through which new becomings concretize. This is a becoming environmen-
tal of computation and a becoming computational of organisms. Perhaps it is
also the becoming organismal of machines. These points will be discussed in the
section below The Problem of Milieus, but I here turn to consider the final
animal-sensor journey in the form of white storks that are tracked with satellite
transmitters and which also feature on the Animal Tracker app, which is oriented
toward engaging citizens in monitoring animals.

White Storks Navigating Aerial Ecologies

The final sensor journey that I discuss in this chapter involves the tracking of
white stork migrations across two main flyways through Germany, Greece, Tur-
key, Tunisia, and South Africa. Based at the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology
in collaboration with researchers across multiple countries in the flyways, this
study of white storks attempts to gather more complete lifetime tracking data
across populations.62 The storks are fitted with solar-powered GPS transmitters
that capture location and body-acceleration data every five minutes. Updates on
the locations of the white storks are sent by SMS messages, but the majority of
data are downloaded from relatively nearby VHF radio connections, which need
to be no more than three hundred meters away from the storks. This means that
scientists need to followand even chasethe white storks from their breeding
areas and along their flyways in order to download data.63
Part of the interest in studying white storks is in relation to their importance
as sentinels for environmental events. For example, storks can be found in areas
where there are outbreaks of desert locusts, as they will congregate in these areas
for feeding. In this way, the storks have been described as advanced remote sen-
sors for providing insights into environmental events. Storks are studied for the
patterns and energy expenditure of their migrations, how they interact, and
where they stop to rest. Body-acceleration data that are gathered from the storks
journeys allow researchers to estimate energy expenditure and behavior, which
can further indicate environmental events.64 In addition, attention is given to where
and why animals are dying, as this could influence land-use decisions about which
habitats to conserve.
As many storks die in remote places in Africa, there is a need to retrieve
transmitters and the high-resolution data they contain. In this way, another sort of
Figure 3.4. Aldo. Animal Tracker app showing locations of tagged white stork in relation to movements of
eighty other tagged white storks as they undertake migrations. App developed through MoveBank and the
Max Planck Institute for Ornithology. Screen capture.
 Animals as Sensors / 97

citizen sensing emerges, although in this case participants are referred to as col-
laborators, who help to find and return the transmitters from the dead birds.
From Malawi to Sudan, people return the birds and transmitters, often accumu-
lating stories of how and where the storks may have died, including becoming
entangled in debris from rubbish dumps.65
It is these practices of attending to where storks are, and retrieving them when
they die, that Wikelski has suggested is the future of citizen science, when
people are specifically engaged with observing animal movement. Wikelski has
further suggested that animals may be better protected if people know where
they are, since they are less likely to be hunted if they are watched over. To this
end, the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology has developed a wildlife tracking
app, Animal Tracker, which is a tool for citizen engagement that provides rela-
tively real-time data about animal locations and allows us to observe animals . . .
virtually in our cell phones every day.66
Some of the first tagged and tracked animals to feature on the Animal Tracker
app are the eighty white storks that are under study.67 Users of the app can see the
migratory routes of the white storks and put them on a watch list so that noti-
fications are sent when they do somethingand news of the storks can also
be shared on social media while records of the data are kept in the MoveBank
archive.68 As I click through the Animal Tracker app, I find a white stork located
just outside of Nuremburg, Germany, in the small town of Forcheim. Named
Aldo, this white stork last registered activity the previous evening, and is tagged
with a DER AT881 (eobs 3946) sensor. I learn through searching outside the app
that the digital telemetry company e-obs makes high-end digital tags for the
study of animal behavior, with a focus on lightweight GPS tags.69 This is the
device that allows the white storks movements to be transmitted and eventually
displayed through the interface of the app.
Aldo was born in 2014 in Vorra, Oberfranken, Bavaria, and was one of three
chicks in the nest. His siblings are Amos and Resl. I am able to click on Aldos two-
week and one-year movement data, and I see from the two-week record of his
movements that he has hovered around the town of Hochstadt for a while, then
quickly moved over to Forcheim, dipping down to Erlangen, and then back up
to Forcheim, where he currently rests. If I look at the record of his one-year move-
ment data, I can see that he has not traveled far from the place of his birth. I
can also mark Aldo as a favorite stork so that I can receive updates. Several weeks
later, I see that Aldo and many other storks are on the move from Germany to the
south of France, on to Spain and Morocco. While Aldo is near the Spanish Pyre-
nees I can zoom out even further to see stork movement down the second flyway,
across Greece and Turkey in to Sudan and down to Tanzania.
If I happen to meet Aldo in the field, I can also add my own observations of
his activities. The add observation section of the app asks:
98 / Animals as Sensors

What is the animal doing? Is it alone, together with conspecifics, or with indi-
viduals of other species? Is it feeding? Can you identify its food? There may be a
multitude of other things that are interesting for you. Please do not hesitate to
report them. Your photos and observations will instantaneously be published in
the Animal information section in Animal Tracker and will contribute to the
data file of this individual. Your observation is a direct and very important contri-
bution to our science and helps us to understand the life of our animals much
better. Thank you very much for your contribution!70

I mark Aldo as a favorite stork, and begin to click through the map looking for
other birds: they are everywhere, in small towns and mountain valleys, some even
appear to be waiting at cafes, pinpointed on top of restaurant signs and in town
centers. I learn about Wanderer, the stork born in a birch tree, and Isolde, who
was born in southwest Germany but is now located in Parc Natural Rgional de
Camargue in the south of France.
Commenting on the possibilities of tagging and so sensing with and through
animals, Wikelski notes,

Whats also interesting is that we can use this kind of information as a sensor
network. . . . Animals are the most intelligent sensors that we have. If we have an
intelligent sensor network that is linked together around the globe then we can
gather amazing information about the environment.71

Indeed, in this project of tracking animals and thereby decoding the intelligence
of animal behavior, even further applications have been proposed for using ani-
mals as sensors. If white storks are sentinels for certain types of population fluc-
tuations of organisms they feed on, for instance, other animals could be under-
stood for the clues they provide about possible disasters that may be imminent.
Wikelski has thus tested the anecdote of whether animals are able to predict
disaster by tagging goats near Mount Etna and testing their movement patterns
in relation to volcanic eruptions As the goats are sensitive to the eruptions, they
demonstrate strange and erratic behavior that can be captured through tag-
ging. The data gathered from mapping the goats behavior in real time could
be used to trigger an alert for an imminent volcanic eruption up to 4 to 6 hours
before the event occurs.
A patent is pending on this Disaster Alert Mediation Using Nature, which is
an invention for a method forecasting an environmental event that involves col-
lecting behavioral or physiological data from a population of animals, comparing
it to a baseline data set, and establishing an alert for moments when a threshold is
crossed in the comparison between baseline and current data. The patent includes
 Animals as Sensors / 99

a software program that is able to execute the steps necessary to analyze data and
trigger an alert.72 Wikelski sees this alert system as really useable as a technical
device, and is seeking investment in order to create a global animal observation
system especially useful for areas where people dont have much money.73
From sentinel white storks to citizen-sensing apps to global animal obser-
vation systems, animals are increasingly made into sensor nodes and networks
that would inform us about critical environmental conditions and their responses.
Yet what are the implications of these burgeoning animal-sensor networks? And
what sorts of animal-human-milieu interactions might unfold through the more
pervasive project of tagging numerous organisms? I take up these questions for
the remainder of this chapter, specifically attending to the traversals made across
organisms, sensing, data, and milieus.

THE PROBLEM OF MILIEUS

The ways in which animals are becoming both sensor nodes and parts of extended
sensor networks raise questions about how these tagged and tracked individuals
traverse and inhabit milieus. In this discussion of milieus, both technical and
living, I am drawing on the work of Simondon and Canguilhem, who in varying
but shared ways were interested to account for the ways in which individuals
(per Simondon) and organisms (per Canguilhem) are formed and in-formed by
encountering problems in their milieus. As Canguilhem has suggested in his
analysis of milieus, how organisms encounter the problem of their milieu is how
they become. Yet these problems are different for different organisms.74 As Simon-
don similarly articulates, the problem of the milieu is a condition for inventive
responses, which is also a condition for individuation.75 As milieus are sites of in-
ventive encounters and responses to problems, moreover, it is not possible to limit
the relations and capabilities that individuals might draw on and express in address-
ing the problems of their milieus.76
This approach to organisms/individuals and milieus has several points of reso-
nance for thinking about the implications of tracking animals and using their
movement patterns as extended sensor networks. Humans in the form of scientists
and citizen scientists have largely formed the problem of milieus as one of gather-
ing more data in order to address environmental change. In this sense, understand-
ing how to respond to the problem of our shifting milieus has become a project of
ensuring there are no blank spots on our maps of environmental change. This
problem-logic is influenced by the notion that when data sets are the most com-
plete we will assumedly have the most advanced ability to manage environments.
In turn, the problem of our milieus has also become one of monitoring all man-
ner of environmental phenomena, including tracking organisms for the clues they
provide about the worlds that they inhabit and how their worlds may be changing.
100 / Animals as Sensors

There are a curious series of translations that take place across animal-sensed
milieus, tagged organisms, and generated data, since we could ask whether organ-
isms are having to inhabit our encounters with our problem-milieus by living
with tags and tracking devices, potentially for their entire lifetimes. Yet how do
these intersections of encounters with milieus transform animals as they encoun-
ter their milieus and the problems of their milieus: Does the situation of wearing
tags and tracking devices change the ways in which organisms encounter their
milieus, while also in-forming their problems? It has been recognized in scientific
literature on movement ecology that tagging can and does change the activities
of organisms.77 Questions have also arisen as to whether it is always instructive to
tag organisms that are under threat, as the process of capturing, tagging, releas-
ing, and monitoring may contribute to the stress of animals.78
But tagging and tracking are not just issues of intervention in order to gain
a more accurate picture of organismal activity. There are also points of consider-
ation about how monitoring devices and practices in-form the milieus and per-
ceptive exchanges of organisms with those milieus, since this is also the very thing
that would be mobilized, whether for conservation and policy or for disaster net-
works. Canguilhem has critically noted that a danger with some forms of science,
such as physics, is that they can be based upon a universal milieu that speaks nei-
ther to the perceptive experiences of organisms nor humans. If science is in the
world, however, as Canguilhem suggests, it must admit to a diversity of milieus.
Perception is the way in which organisms go about encountering and fashion-
ing their milieus. Sensing is then a key practice for working through problems
of milieus.79 As Canguilhem writes, In fact, as a proper milieu for comportment
and life, the milieu of mans sensory and technical values does not in itself have
more reality than the milieus proper to the woodlouse or the gray mouse.80 No
milieu or experience of a milieu is more real than any other, unless we adhere
to the universal milieu of science, which establishes a version of the real that
disqualifies all others.81 Following Whitehead, to account for the experience of
the woodlouse and the scientist, we would have to make room for the pluralistic
realism of environments and inhabitations.82 Yet this is not a description of an
absolute relativism, but rather of accounting for the a/effects that different in-
habitations within distinct milieus express.
Indeed, proposals to use animals as sensor networks on one level seems to take
on the approach of diversifying the sensing-milieu exchanges that occur across
individuals. The encounters of organisms with their milieus provide another em-
pirical basis for understanding environments and make room for the experiences
of other organisms. And yet, in attending to the diversity of exchanges within
milieus, a consistent if universal mode of capture is employed in the form of sens-
ing and tagging devices. Here, one might ask whether it is perception (rather
 Animals as Sensors / 101

than a milieu) that has been transformed into a universal reality, whereby sensing
devices, the variables they would measure, and the unfolding of sensing pro-
cesses are made generalizable across organisms as an exchange of information.
These generalized modes of information-based perception, furthermore, might
be described as distinctly cybernetic operations, where sensing of milieus pro-
duces information that is the basis for actuating and producing further effects in
milieus. Rather than the physics of a universal milieu, sensors might have given us
the cybernetics of generalizable perception and experience.
Working across Canguilhem and Simondon, one could then ask: How do
milieus and perception shift, both for organisms and devices, when sensing is
primarily undertaken and filtered through tracking and tagging technologies?
Working laterally with Simondons discussion of the associated milieu, we could
say that technical objects concretize technical milieus in a way that could be com-
pared to Canguilhems articulation of how organisms at once encounter and
concretize their milieus. The difference, following Simondon, between technical
and living milieus would be the way in which living milieus can be self-reproducing,
whereas technical milieus are self-reproducing only in distinct circumstances where
they operate as natural objects, and even then they imply the contribution and
intermediation of the living entities that made themin other words, humans.
In traversing these different milieus, we could say that it is the living milieus of
tracked organisms that begin to resemble the operations of the technical milieus
of technical objects, since animal sensing becomes equated with computational
sensors. By virtue of being equipped with sensors, animals perceptive encoun-
ters with their milieus are transformed into informational exchanges through
computational sensor networks. A response to an environmental event is a sensor-
actuator exchange of information. An adaptation to an environmental event is
a calculative decision, arrived at through an analysis of energy expenditure and
environmental cues. Organisms perceptual engagements with their milieus be-
come informational not simply in the way in which they are in-formed but also as
digital operations generative of computational data. Such an approach in part fits
with the more recent notion that all of nature is composed of information and
so is inherently computable.83 But it also coincides with the longer histories of
cybernetics where informational exchanges have been put to work to explain
everything from ecosystems to population collapse.
Sensing of environments is then generally understood with tagging and track-
ing studies to fit within an informational logic of sensing stimuli, transferring sig-
nals, and actuating responses. Yet in what ways might this informational approach
to perception preconstitute the possible modalities and relations of individuals
as they interact with their worlds? A flight path chosen becomes a matter of a
response to wind direction and speed and an organisms internal calculation about
102 / Animals as Sensors

energy to be expended to reach a particular destination. Rather than this being a

question of what is captured and what is nota usual way of attempting to make
room for all that is in excess of scientific endeavorone might suggest this is a
way of making particular worlds and milieus in which the problems of organisms
are articulated and acted upon. Environments and environmental change become
informational problems. These are the informational-environmental-organismal
processes, in other words, whereby we are working through the problem of our
milieus, which are increasingly sites of environmental concern, as well as pre-
supposing the perceptual-milieus of other organisms. We might then ask how
such an approach to working out the problems of our milieus might also in-form
our possible becomings in relation to how to protect organisms and their
milieus. The becoming environmental of computation and the becoming compu-
tational of environments are processes that concretize these extended political
and ecological effects.

Machine and Organism

While we could discuss the animal-sensor networks that come together in move-
ment ecology as hybridities or infoldings of sense, as discussed in chapter 2 (and
throughout this study), I am interested to maintain a focus on the environmental
operations of perception (rather than attend to different conjugations of subjects
and objects, nature and culture). At the same time, it is useful here to turn to a
particular discussion that Canguilhem raised in relation to machines and organ-
isms that provides insights into the ways in which perceptive capacities may be
understood, potentially through machinic, and later cybernetic, forces.
Organisms have circulated through computational and cybernetic imaginar-
ies for some time now, from dolphins studied for sonar sensing and later taken
up as a topic of interest by Gregory Bateson, to Nicholas Negropontes gerbil-
based interests as displayed in the Software exhibition, and many more besides.84
Automata studies have looped, continuously it seems, across organismal and tech-
nological modalities of sensing: linking, comparing, and fusing these to arrive at
a more perfect union.
In his chapter Machine and Organism, Canguilhem works through the
mechanical theory of the organism to consider how philosophers and scientists
alike often have taken the machine to be a given, not only as though it is the
concretization of scientific theory but also as though it provides an originary
template for explaining the functions of organisms. But he sets out to demon-
strate how biological organization is anterior to machines, so that life cannot
simply be described through reference or analogy to machines. Across Descartes
to Taylor there unfolds a certain mechanistic analysis of organisms that accounts
for some outputs and not others. From Canguilhems perspective, there is a need
to inscribe the mechanical within the organic.85 He writes:
 Animals as Sensors / 103

We must admit that, in the organism, a plurality of functions can adapt to

the singularity of an organ. An organism thus has greater latitude of action than
a machine. It has less purpose and more potentialities. The living organism acts
in accordance with empiricism, whereas the machine, which is the product of
calculation, verifies the norms of calculation, that is, the rational norms of iden-
tity, consistency, and predictability. Life, by contrast, is experience, that is to say,
improvisation, the utilization of occurrences; it is an attempt in all directions.86

I read this assertion less as insisting on an essential organic foundation against and
with which mechanical operations unfold and more as claiming that life is not
reducible to any one version of mechanical rationalization (such as automatism,
about which Simondon had much to say) because this approach would delimit
what is otherwise an opening into experience and potential. The function of
organisms cannot be definitively narrowed down to a singular process, since this
would be to further obviate the potential for inventive encounters with the prob-
lem of milieus.
Canguilhems grappling with machine and organism extends to Simondons
consideration of technical objects and speaks in particular to his critique of autom-
atism (and Wieners version of cybernetics) as reducing technical engagements
to limited functions without the potential for becoming or invention.87 Simon-
don was critical of both the conflating of animals and machines as basic units of
responsiveness within Wieners cybernetic theory (which seems a distinct con-
tinuation of the Cartesian legacy of automata),88 as well as the ways in whichas
automataorganisms could be capable only of adaptive behavior.89
With sensors and tracking devices for studying animal movement, what
emerges in part is just this cyberneticization of environments and organisms,
where sensing becomes a way to home in on responsiveness, where movement
and migration are assumed to be largely indicative of a series of adjustments
and programs of responses that organisms make in relation to environments, and
where sensing is an exchange of information. In this way, computation becomes
the unquestioned originary machine that would in-form how we understand
organismal and environmental processes. The behavior of organisms then be-
comes a series of information-based calculations and adaptations.90 For both Can-
guilhem and Simondon, however, living is an inventive perceptual response to
milieus. The problem of milieus gives rise to becomings, and not mere adapta-
tions. Technical objects and technical milieus, moreover, can be understood as
particularly human-oriented ways of working through problems of milieus in
ways that might be inventive, but which are inevitably expressions of value: of
which problems matter, and how they are to be addressed.91 The potentialities
of organisms (and machines) are thus individuated in these shared but differently
articulated problems, milieus, and relations.
104 / Animals as Sensors

SHARING PERCEPTUAL WORLDS, ENVIRONMENT AS PARTICIPATION

Where does this discussion bring us in considering the implications of compu-
tational sensing practices for tracking migrating and moving organisms? I have
not sought to articulate a position for or against these practices. Instead, I have
attempted to find a way to address how the activities of animals are parsed, what
this means for our understandings of their perceptual worlds and milieus, and
how we might return to consider that which our informational-based ambitions
and methods tune us into. If these data gathered through tracking techniques are
meant to influence citizen sensing, policy, and conservation, then how might we
also make room for attending to the very particular worlds and inhabitations that
are accounted for, and the milieus, inventions, and becomings that might remain
off the computational map, no matter how many more data points we add? The
point this raises in relation to monitoring the movements of organisms is that
tracking technologies are expressive of computational and cybernetic logics that
parse organismal behavior as a particular response to milieus. But this articula-
tion of relations is not definitive. Instead, it makes particular worlds within which
we understand the goings-on of animals. It is another versioning of a program-
mable and programmed earth.
Part of this project might then involve attending to the nexuses of sense that
are formed through distinct subject-superjects, as Whitehead puts it in his phi-
losophy of organism, since it is at these points where actual worlds form
that are specific to perceiving and experiencing subjects.92 This is also why, as I
articulated in the introduction to Program Earth, we might consider the multiple
earths that concresce through the project of programming the planet, since not
only is the planet wired up in numerous ways but also there are many organ-
isms that differently express their experiences and attendant worlds as part of
their inhabitations.
In this study that works across Simondon and Whitehead, among others, it
becomes ever more evident that what we take for a subject or individual is not
a pregiven matter. Instead, individual entities are articulated through these pro-
cesses of individuating and concrescing. Why is it important to return, continu-
ally, to this point? Because it is through addressing the entities, experiences, and
worlds that are engaged in processes of becoming that we might attend to the
ways in which feelings traverse worlds, organisms are affected, and individuals
feel themselves to be more-than-one. As Combes writes in relation to Simondon:

The perceptive problematic is that of the existence of a multiplicity of percep-

tual worlds wherein it is always a matter of inventing a form inaugurating a
compatibility between the milieu in which perception operates and the being
that perceives; and this problematic concerns the individual as such. Why insist
 Animals as Sensors / 105

here that we are speaking of the individual as such? This is because the affective
problematic is, inversely, the experience wherein a being will feel that it is not only
individual. To put it more precisely, affectivity, the relational layer constituting the
center of individuality, arises in us a liaison between the relation of the individual
to itself and its relation to the world.93

We might say that sensor technologiesacross uses that involve tracking and
much moreassume that the perceptive problematic is settled, and the task that
remains is to document the facts of movement in order to account for behavior.
In this respect, we might say that a certain cybernetic mechanization of organ-
isms and their milieus has settled into practice, whereby informationally based
modes of sensing eliminate both perceptive problematics and the possibility for
inventive experience. As Simondon reminds us, the perceptive problematic is also
a matter of participation, where perceptual encounters with milieus are articula-
tions of a feeling for more-than-one, and a feeling for worlds.
Simondon has then suggested that the ongoing resolution of problems
in a milieu is the basis by which an organism continues to individuate itself and
be individuated. Perception, in this case, is not a matter of an organism decoding
an external form for calculative gain but of articulating relations within their
milieus.94 All of the entities involved in individuating, perceiving, encountering,
resolving, relating, and worlding can shift in these processes, which concretize
through participation in milieus. As Simondon writes:

A relation does not spring up between two terms that are already separate indi-
viduals, rather, it is an aspect of the internal resonance of a system of individuation.
It forms a part of a wider system. The living being, which is simultaneously more
and less than a unity, possesses an internal problematic and is capable of being an
element in a problematic that has a wider scope than itself. As far as the individual
is concerned, participation here means being an element in a much larger process of
individuation by means of the inheritance of preindividual reality that the individual
containsthat is, due to the potentials that it has retained.95

From this perspective of encountering individuals through processes of individu-

ation, Simondon further notes, It now becomes feasible to think of both the
internal and external relationship as one of participation, without having to
adduce new substances by way of explanation.96 Participation is a way of work-
ing through the problems of individual entities, milieus, and relations. These are
conditions and entities that form through the very processes and experiences of
participation. Participation is in-formative and inventive, rather than a register of
programmed behavior or responsiveness.
106 / Animals as Sensors

For this reason, organisms might also disrupt the projects and studies in which
they find themselves, from destroying cameras to removing tags to disappearing
from the radar.97 As Stengers has noted, The construction of an experimental
device in no way ensures that the being we wish to mobilize will agree to show
up.98 Rather than seeing these as instances of bad data or outliers in a research
study, we might instead tune into these events as instances where participation in
actual and perceptual worlds occurs in different registers, often in relation to dif-
ferent problematics, where one milieu or perceptual problematic is no more real
than another. The worlds and milieus to which we attend are specific expressions
of problems and commitments. The fact that these are more-than-one makes for
what Stengers terms cosmopolitics, which admits the coexistence of different
and even contrasting practices and worlds.99
In order to move beyond the delimitations of machines and organisms, tech-
nical and living milieu, we might finally consider how, following Simondon, it
might be possible to adopt an approach to the technicity of sensors and tracking
devices in order to consider the sorts of relations that they put into play and how
these relations are not the only possible modalities for being and becoming.100 By
addressing the technicity of sensors, we might find it is possible to articulate dif-
ferent perceptual problematics as well as different potentialities of sense, while
considering how these potentialities are bound up with making milieus and actual
worlds.
Even more than studying the computational object of sensors, by account-
ing for the technicity of sensors we might consider the participatory relations of
sense, as well as the becoming environmental of sensor devices across particular
modalities and with specific organisms and milieus. While tracking devices pro-
vide one approach to encountering the perceptual world of organisms through
measuring variables as indicators of behavior, there also are ways in which we
might consider how, following Anna Tsing, our observations of non-humans
present continual challenges to our cultural agendas that require new inflections
and transpositions of our cultural sense.101
Organisms are tuned to particular problems in their milieus. They are affected
in differing ways according to their interests as well as what the milieu proposes
and they have effects on their milieus. This is another way of coming around
to the discussion of affect and being affected, a topic traversed by Spinoza and
Simondon, as well as Latour, Stengers, and even writers on environmental topics,
where the capacity to be affected might further in-form our conservation and
environmental practices. Affect has to do with participation, and it may further
spark an ethos in relation to environments. Encounters are critical to this pro-
cess, since as Didier Debaise has written, The relation between the ability to
be affected (passive potentiality) and to affect (active potentiality) is complex, as
the living can neither be explained by its environment nor by its components.
 Animals as Sensors / 107

Everything happens in the encounter.102 We might, from this perspective, approach

animal tracking as well as citizen sensing as practices that unfold as necessar-
ily inventive encounters. At the same time, at these nexuses of sense and in this
becoming actual of worlds, we might consider how our information-based envi-
ronmental problems affect and in-form the problems and milieus of other organ-
isms, both in their lived actuality and in the ways in which we generate problems
to be acted upon, of and for these organisms.
This page intentionally left blank
II

Pollution Sensing
Figure 4.1. Kilpisjrvi Biological Field Station and site of arts-and-sciences residency.
Photograph by author.
 4

Sensing Climate Change and

Expressing Environmental Citizenship
We are now in the mountains and they are in us.
John Muir, My First Summer in the Sierra

We are in the world and the world is in us.

Alfred North Whitehead, Modes of Thought

I n l at e S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 1 , I traveled as far north as I had previously

ever been to spend a week in an arts-and-sciences laboratory at a biological field
station in Lapland. The coordinates, 6903N, 2050E, might locate this site on
established maps. But during the time I spent here, I found this northern location
began to multiply and fluctuate as a concatenation of milieus, processes, and sub-
jects. While the participants on the residency program were here as a group of
artists, writers, and scientists engaged with developing experimental modes of
fieldwork, we were also located in varying proximity to exurbanites and life-
long natives, tourists and seasonal workers; fishers and farmers; Smi, Finns, Nor-
wegians, and Swedes. Also in this region were reindeer and dueling lemmings,
crowberry juice outlets and imagined cloudberry sightings, forests dense with
mushrooms, moss-covered granite boulders, drifts of mountain birch and Arctic
scrub, grazed-over lichens, and fjords with rivers emptying deliveries of trout, as
well as northern lights, chainsaw art, gift shops piled high with sauna kits, and
mythic mountain giants once engaged in a wedding brawl.
Fennoscandia, as this area is also known geologically and geographically,
might then be referred to as multiple milieussedimented, in process, or yet to
come. While I was participating in this residency, I spent my time in and around a
biological field station set up to monitor ecological processes in the Arctic envi-
ronment. Kilpisjrvi Biological Station is a site of long-standing environmental
monitoring, and it has become a place where computational environmental sens-
ing also now occurs. The monitoring that takes place at the station ranges from

111
112 / Sensing Climate Change and Expressing Environmental Citizenship

weather stations and webcams to fieldwork for studying Arctic lake ecology and
lab analysis of biological samples.
The working group in which I participated, Environmental Computing,
focused on the ways in which data are gathered and worked across different fields
of artistic and scientific inquiry.1 My particular interest was in the way in which
environmental monitoring articulates distinct practices and politics of environ-
mental citizenship and how traversals might be made across environmental data
and action. By engaging in this experimental fieldwork residency, I hoped to con-
sider how environmental data come into formation, what technologies and prac-
tices are mobilized to detect and gather data, and how technical and aesthetic
capacities for sensing concretize ontological commitments to make distinct envi-
ronmental processes evident or relevant.
Kilpisjrvi Biological Station is located in an area where the effects of climate
change are more acutely experienced, since warming in the Arctic is occurring at
a much faster rate than in many parts of the globe. Climate change becomes a
recurring factor that in-forms how and why environmental monitoring takes place
and the environmental data that might be generated. Sensing of temperature in
air, water, and soil; inventories of organisms and pollutants; and samples of pH in
lakes and streams are examples of monitoring practices that can accumulatively
demonstrate how environments are changing in relation to a warming planet.
But alongside scientific practices for documenting environmental change, there
are also the lived experiences of humans and nonhumans who differently express
the effects of climate change as a planetary event.
In this chapter, I take up practices of climate change monitoring in the Arctic
to ask: How do we tune into climate change through sensing and monitoring prac-
tices? What are the particular entities that are in-formed and sensed? How do the
differing monitoring practices of arts and sciences provide distinct engagements
with the experiences of measurement and data? And what role do more-than-
humans have in expressing and registering the ongoing and often indirect effects
of climate change, such that categories and practices of citizenship and citizen
sensing might even be reconstituted?
To consider these questions, I walk through fieldwork and observations gath-
ered from my time spent at the Kilpisjrvi Biological Station, and I compare
computational and environmental sensing practices across science and creative
practice that attend to environmental and climate change. Based on this mate-
rial, I consider how the scientific measurements of climate change often take
place through the gathering of data on individual variables such as temperature
or concentrations of CO2 (as a sort of pollution sensing) and how creative and
community-based monitoring projects might differently attend to expressions
of climate change as they occur through connections made across entities and
milieus.
 Sensing Climate Change and Expressing Environmental Citizenship / 113

While climate change is an environmental event that may create a particular

conception of the planet as a planet in crisis,2 the Arctic concretizes and material-
izes the ways in which the global effects of climate change register in much differ-
ent ways within complex systems. Here is another version of a program earth
not one world in crisis, but a multiplicity of effects expressed through climate
change as a comprehensive yet differently articulated environmental event. Follow-
ing Whitehead, this is another way of saying, in relation to the earth and climate
change, any description of the unity will require the many actualities; and any
description of the many will require the notion of the unity from which impor-
tance and purpose is derived.3 Climate change provides relevance for monitoring
environments as they add up to a global register of planetary transformation, yet
the many actualities are the ways in which this event is studied, which can mate-
rialize climate change as a differently distributed and connected-up event.
I further discuss how these new arrangements of environmental monitoring
and distributed sensing might shift the spaces and practices of environmental par-
ticipation, both within environmental citizenship actions and through creative-
practice projects that take up citizen sensing as a tactic for engaging with sites
of environmental concern. How do these modes of monitoring, within the con-
text of environmental change, influence practices of sensing and expressions of
citizenship? By attending to the effects of climate change on the multiple experi-
ences of organisms, moreover, how might citizen sensing rework the citizen in
citizen sensing to direct attention toward other extended expressions of environ-
mental citizenship? The becoming environmental of computation and the becom-
ing computational of environments in the context of climate change monitoring
then describe processes where different techniques for creating evidence of cli-
mate change can make the multiple entities and relations that are affected by this
planetary event more or less pronounced.

ECOLOGICAL OBSERVATORIES AND MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE

Kilpisjrvi is at once a specific site for field study, as well as an environment con-
nected to ongoing changes in the Arctic and beyond. From greater concentrations
of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) to increasing temperatures and shifts in
land use, the Arctic is a region undergoing considerable changes. As both field
station and laboratory, Kilpisjrvi operates as a kind of ecological observatory. It
is a site for monitoring environmental changes and recording those observations,
often over extended periods of time.
Observatories emerged along with nineteenth-century observatory sciences
for the study of astronomy, which began to focus on precision measurement,
numerical data processing, and the representation of scientific information on a
global or cosmic scale.4 Observatories, especially contemporary ecological obser-
vatories, then become distinct types of technical objects that function in and
114 / Sensing Climate Change and Expressing Environmental Citizenship

through their relationship to the milieus in which they are situated. While envi-
ronmental monitoring at observatories may not initially have been established
to study climate change, the decades-long stores of data that observatories now
hold have often provided useful records for understanding how environments
have changed over time. Environmental monitoring with sensors is then situated
within longer histories of measurement practices and the sites where measure-
ment would take place.
Kilpisjrvi Biological Station is a participating field station within multiple
ecological observing networks, from Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks
(SAON) to SCANNET: A Circumarctic Network of Terrestrial Field Bases, as well
as the International Network for Terrestrial Research and Monitoring in the
Arctic (INTERACT).5 Kilpisjrvi is also a station within the Arctic Monitoring and
Assessment Programme (AMAP), the international governmental body working
under the Arctic Council that gathers and reports scientific findings to influence
policy and environmental practice. Numerous monitoring initiatives connect up
in the Arctic. AMAP links to these initiatives to improve Arctic observation in rela-
tion to environmental change.6
Climate change monitoring is a key activity in the Arctic that demonstrates
how this region fluctuates and is subject to the migrations of other milieus as they
travel toward and accumulate in the North. Planetary warming is taking place
in much greater intensity in the Arctic regions due to the circulation of atmo-
spheric and ocean currents toward the northern regions.7 Indeed, the changes in
the Arctic are even expressed in terms resonant with information theory, where
the intensity of change in the Arctic can be read as a much clearer signal in the
noise of environmental data. As one report on the Arctic in the Anthropocene
notes, Because changes in the Arctic are happening fast and the signal emerges
clearly from the noise, in many ways the science of change is currently easier to
study in the Arctic than in most places.8
More pronounced environmental changes are detectable across organisms
and ecosystems, as well as cultural practices in the Arctic. At the same time that a
more legible signal of climate change may be detectable in the Arctic, there is
a relative scarcity of monitoring data from these regions over time, since they
are much more difficult to observe year-round. Although climate change moni-
toring occurs across a planetary realm, not all locations are monitored to the same
degree or extent. Historic records may not exist in all locations, or observing
systems may not be monitoring essential climate variables as systematically as
required by IPCC standards, which leads to perceived gaps in datasets that can
also skew models and forecasts. In this respect, questions arise as to how accurate
modeling of this region may be, and in some cases observed changes are even
more pronounced than climate models may have initially forecasted. Despite
these gaps, with the increasing drive to instrument the earth, planetary data on
 Sensing Climate Change and Expressing Environmental Citizenship / 115

Figure 4.2. Kilpisjrvi Biological Field Station laboratory and posters of monitoring studies conducted in
the region. Photograph by author.

the whole are increasing, as are abilities to process data gathered.9 Climate change
monitoring at once take places through contemporary observatories that pro-
duce ongoing records of environmental change, as well as through historic and
paleoclimate records that extend across deep time. Environmental monitoring
records are also assembled from research that may have been initiated for pur-
poses other than studying climate change.

Fifty Essential Variables

Science-based practices for monitoring climate change typically take place in mul-
tiple locations across air, oceans, and land, from the tropics to the poles. Measure-
ments of observed change are the key data that are fed into climate models and
that project future scenarios for climate conditions. In order to gather the data
that are the basis for observed change, direct and ongoing measurements as well
as historic and proxy measurements are gathered in relation to fifty essential cli-
mate variables. These variables include everything from air and sea surface tem-
peratures to carbon dioxide levels, ocean acidity, soil moisture, and albedo levels
(or the ability of surfaces to reflect solar radiation). Environmental monitoring
of these variables provides data that supports the International Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), and they form the basis for networks of observation that take
116 / Sensing Climate Change and Expressing Environmental Citizenship

place around the world, as well as historical observations that are mined to pro-
vide further climate change data.10
Measurements gathered in relation to more contemporary events are col-
lected through airborne instruments, satellites, ocean vessels, and buoys, as well
as terrestrial monitoring stations such as carbon flux towers that can be found
dotted around the globe. While fifty essential climate variables are routinely sensed
and measured for evidence of climate change, most discussions focus on the ris-
ing concentrations of CO2, which correlate to increasing global average tempera-
tures. The current concentration of CO2 currently hovers around 400 parts per
million (ppm), a level that was last reached in the mid-Pliocene, two to four mil-
lion years ago, when sea levels were up to twenty meters higher than present-day
levels.11 If the additional greenhouse gases currently monitored are added to this
measurement, then the current CO2 equivalent is even higher, at 478 ppm.12 The
Keeling Curve register of CO2 concentrations is regularly updated through mea-
surements that have been taken at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and the South Pole since
the late 1950s; and carbon-observing satellites capture detail about global concen-
trations of CO2.13 The systematic measurement of increasing parts per million
(ppm) of CO2 in the atmosphere has become an important part of an expanded
climate monitoring infrastructure, where observatories fold into observatories.14
And ice cores provide data on CO2 levels that stretch as far back as eight hundred
thousand years ago. As the latest IPCC Assessment Report 5 has noted, from these
studies it has become clear that the main contributors to increasing atmospheric
CO2 abundance are fossil fuel combustion and land use change.15
Climate change monitoring produces pronounced and startling encounters
that unfold across environmental datasets. Rates of greenhouse gas rises in the
atmosphere are referred to as unprecedented16 and connected to increases in
air temperature in the troposphere, marine air temperature, sea surface tempera-
ture, ocean heat content, temperature over land, water vapor, and sea levels, as
well as decreases in glacier volume, snow cover, and sea ice.17
While systematic observations of climate change continue to take place in
observatories such as Kilpisjrvi, at the same time many of the effects of climate
change are incurred not simply through shifts in datasets or increases in tempera-
ture and GHGs but also through indirect effects that occur through complex
changes in environments and organisms. Monitoring of CO2 might also include
observing and documenting the rapid rates of deforestation, which as carbon
sinks can contribute to the overall increase in planetary carbon budgets. Ocean
acidification occurs through increased CO2 absorbed in these sinks, which in turn
can lead to a reduction in biodiversity of organisms that require a more alkaline
ocean environment. While CO2 has not typically been subject to regulation as an
air pollutant, as it seemingly has no direct health effects (as many other pollutants
for which concentrations are regulated do), it becomes a polluting compound
 Sensing Climate Change and Expressing Environmental Citizenship / 117

Figure 4.3. Kilpisjrvi Biological Field Station monitoring literature, The Moth Monitoring Scheme.
Photograph by author.

through its indirect transformations of entities, environments, and ecological pro-

cesses. The pollution sensing that climate change monitoring involves, in this
case, follows different trajectories where CO2 becomes a transformative and pol-
luting entity in relation to complex systems.18

SENSE DATA, SENSING DATA

As discussed throughout Program Earth, environmental sensors have become a
common device within ecological study. The extensive monitoring and obser-
vation networks in place and proposed are a way to assess changes in the Arctic
environment due to climate change, long-range transport of pollutants, and other
environmental events. The collection of sense data through computational sen-
sor technologies can establish how environments are changing and how planetary
events register at different locations and through different organisms and ecolo-
gies throughout the Arctic.
While environmental sensors are instruments used by scientists studying phe-
nomena such as climate change, sensors have also migrated into citizen-sensing
projects, where grassroots science conducted through computational sensing kit
is seen as a way to encourage environmental engagement and improve possibili-
ties for addressing environmental change. This is done, in part, by making citizens
118 / Sensing Climate Change and Expressing Environmental Citizenship

into scientists, but then the practices and abstractions of what constitutes scien-
tific activity also change. There are numerous citizen-sensing projects for under-
taking carbon reporting and carbon accounting in multiple forms, where the
monitoring of climate change transforms into a political activity of sorts.19 At
the same time, multiple projects allow citizens to monitor and take account of
deforestation and even report instances of illegal logging, since deforestation is
a considerable contributor to climate change. Rather than discuss these types of
citizen-sensing projects in relation to climate change monitoring, however, I attend
to the ways in which climate-related sensing practices occur across sciences and
arts. The indirect effects of climate change are materialized across organisms and
their milieus, but these effects are differently registered within sensing and moni-
toring practices. How might a consideration of how climate change monitoring
is undertaken open up the ways in which we formulate this environmental event
as a project of gathering data in order to act on that data?
Just as scientists are increasingly deploying sensors in order to take ongoing
rather than discrete measurements of ecological processes, creative practitioners
are also developing new practices in relation to computational sensors in order to
gather and repurpose distinct sense data about environmental phenomena. These
monitoring initiatives include artists as well as indigenous peoples in different
types of monitoring projects that might, on the one hand, rework science- or
social sciencebased approaches to sensing environments and, on the other hand,
articulate environmental engagements through different relations and registers
of perception.20
Our working group on Environmental Computing was interested in these
particular uses of sensors across arts and sciences and how these practices gener-
ated distinct if not new ways of understanding environments. At the same time,
it was clear this was a crosscutting area of interest, since numerous participants
within other working groups of the residency also had their own mobile sensors
for undertaking field investigations, including geophones and hydrophones, YSI
water sensors, light sensors, and more. The station where we were based also
prominently held an array of meteorological sensors on its rooftop. A webcam
regularly produced images of the site, and these were also streamed online. In
addition to the many mobile devices used in the field, environmental sensors in
use at the Kilpisjrvi Biological Station were connected up to a sensor data plat-
form, where relatively continuous data streams provide indications of ecological
processes.21
As part of our experimental field laboratory, questions arose as to what the
particular objectives of environmental monitoring are. Monitoring, as a practice
of sensing, raises questions about who or what is undertaking sensing practices,
how this in-forms what counts as sense, and what types of milieus concretize
in the process. Does monitoring in some way already presuppose a certain set of
 Sensing Climate Change and Expressing Environmental Citizenship / 119

Figure 4.4. Mount Saana. Field and study site adjacent to Kilpisjrvi Biological Field Station. Photograph
by author.

practices that assume distinct ways of accessing and studying environmental phe-
nomena? Perhaps processes of sensing environments with computational sensor
technologies demonstrate how these devices do not so much detect data out
there, as discussed in chapter 1, but instead give rise to distinct ways of articulat-
ing environmental sensing across multiple organisms and processes. Given that
the aim of this residency was to create experimental fieldwork engagements,
we took a walk to the nearby Mount Saana in order to consider these different
approaches to monitoring environments and what new arrangements of sensing
and milieus came together.

Walking to Mount Saana

Mount Saana has been an ongoing site of Arctic mountain lake research, as
included in the Arctic section of the IPCC fourth assessment.22 Poster presenta-
tions and scientific reports available in the library of the Kilpisjrvi station cap-
tured research on studies of how warming temperatures in the Arctic and at Lake
Saanajrvi have led to increased levels of biota. As Lake Saanajrvis average tem-
perature has hovered around -2.7C, it has historically had an absence of biota
such as algae. But through the collecting and recording of sense data including
temperature, water samples, sediment samples, oxygen measurements, and anal-
ysis of diatoms as bioindicators, evidence of increasing levels of biota has emerged.
The warming of Arctic lakes, in other words, is in part expressed through the
increasing numbers of organisms populating these waters.
120 / Sensing Climate Change and Expressing Environmental Citizenship

One of the most pronounced changes in the Arctic is in relation to the loss of
snow and ice cover, or the decline of the cryosphere, where not only rising tem-
peratures but also disappearing snow and ice impacts the cold-weather organisms
that might inhabit these environments.23 Lake Saanajrvi has been a monitoring
site since 1996, and based on observed and projected changes the warming of
freshwater lakes in the Arctic is expected to lead to numerous shifts in these eco-
systems, from shifting temperature and water chemistry to increase in vegetation,
decrease in water levels due to higher transpiration levels, and shifts in organisms
that may reach a temperature threshold for survival in these conditions.24 This
one lake that we are traversing around is a site of ongoing monitoring and mea-
surement, generating data about the complex if often indirect effects experienced
across organisms and milieus. As a field location that is also a site of sample gath-
ering and analysis, the lake demonstrates the complex practices that are under-
taken to sense environmental change and how these are brought into scientific
research. At the same time, the lake raises questions about how experiences of
environmental change register and what modalities of data are generated to doc-
ument these changes.

Measurement as Experience
The scientific study of Lake Saanajrvi involves measuring set variables and sys-
tematically gathering data in order to establish conditions of environmental
change over time. These observed changes provide the quantitative data points

Figure 4.5. Map of Mount Saana within larger context of Finnish and Norwegian Lapland. Photograph
by author.
 Sensing Climate Change and Expressing Environmental Citizenship / 121

that are both evidence for historic and present shifts in environments as well as
reference points from which climate models may be produced to project toward
future scenarios. Measurement is at once inherited, present, and speculative, in
this sense, since it accumulates through ongoing records, sustains practices in the
present, and also projects toward future milieus in and through which measure-
ment according to established variables will continue to have relevance.
While I was based in Kilpisjrvi, I spent some rainy afternoons looking over
scientific papers, AMAP reports, and reference books in the field station library.
One of these texts, Measuring the Natural Environment, outlines the central role
of measurement to studying environments. Under the heading The Need for
Measurements, the opening line of the first chapter notes,

Whether it be for meteorological, hydrological, oceanographic or climatological

studies or for any other activity relating to the natural environment, measure-
ments are vital. Knowledge of what has happened in the past and of the present
situation can only be arrived at if measurements are made. Such knowledge is
also a prerequisite of any attempt to predict what might happen in the future and
subsequently to check whether the predictions are correct.25

Measurement, according to this text, allows observations of environments to

become relatively systematic and continuous. Instruments that monitor environ-
ments become assessed for the degrees of accuracy they allow in obtaining hard

Figure 4.6. Kilpisjrvi Biological Field Station library with literature on monitoring and measuring the
environment. Photograph by author.
122 / Sensing Climate Change and Expressing Environmental Citizenship

facts about environments. Sensors working through computational modalities

are part of the progression of developing more accurate instrumentation, which
also allows for greater automation of measurement without the need for human
intervention.
The variables according to which environments are measured and sensed, from
radiation and temperature to precipitation and wind speed, become the individ-
ual data points according to which systematicity and continuity are achieved. Yet
just as many questions have arisen, often within the context of science and tech-
nology studies, which ask: Why are these variables assessed and not others? What
commitments are made when some forms of data become the benchmark for
evidence gathering?26
At the same time, other questions arise in relation to how individual variables
as entities are drawn from the complex environments in which they are in play
in order to be measured. In his comparison of laboratories and field stations, Rob-
ert Kohler has suggested that the identification of single variables for measure-
ment is largely influenced by laboratory methods that do not always translate
well to field-based study. Alternative methods that ecologists working in the field
have adopted have included developing instruments such as an atmometer, which
rather than singling out variables for measurement attempts to study the complex
interaction of variables by emulating the experiences and processes of transpira-
tion within a plant, for instance.27
Measurement becomes a way both to individuate entities and to express and
concresce possible relations across variables, entities, and milieus. Technologies
for undertaking measurement are not simply techniques for gathering facts, as
it were, but are also ways of identifying particular registers of data as important
and relevant. The basis for understanding environmental change as change is
understood through modes of systematicity that focus on particular variables
over time, so that shifts within variables establish the evidence for degrees and
intensity of change. These registers of change then further influence how we
come to understand and operationalize environmental problems such as climate
change through shifting variables: 2C as a threshold for the increase in the mean
temperature of the earth, 400 ppm or 350 ppm as notional limits for CO2, and
policy measures oriented toward achieving these targets.
How then does the decades-long practice of gathering measurements of set
variables compare to the more itinerant sense-gathering of a walk to Mount
Saana? In what ways does a possibly more random or momentary recording of
field phenomena with sensors compare to these practices for detecting change? Do
sensory investigations need to be guided by more than technical probing, or a
documentary tracing of audio, video, tracing, and indexical capture of momentary
phenomena? Scientists typically collect data to research particular questions about
environmental changefor instance, asking how the long-term temperature of
 Sensing Climate Change and Expressing Environmental Citizenship / 123

an Arctic lake has shiftedwhile many artists experiments might focus more on
the phenomenal or sensory aspects of data gathering, such as capturing the sound
and light of that same lake within discrete moments, in order to visualize or son-
ify experiences in the field. What counts as data in scientific and creative practice
differs, as do the motivations for the collection and use of data. Calibration, pro-
tocols, and measurement techniques in response to the variables studied influence
the quality of data gathered. But these variables might be approached and evi-
denced much differently across creative and scientific practice.
Whitehead has suggested that measurement is a way of sensing and experienc-
ing. I take this to mean not simply that bodies are tuned to or mirroring the capac-
ities of measurement but that the practices of parsing experience as measurement
give rise to perceptive entities and occasions: they are ways of making measure-
ment possible as a distinct experience and mode of individuation.28 If, rather than
see the relationship of monitoring instruments to environments as a transparent
rendering into data (or, alternatively, as a mere construction) we instead regard it
as a process of selecting, experiencing, and concrescing worlds, then an expanded
repertoire of measurement practices might also emerge. Experience as it trans-
forms into measurement might occur through identifying single or complex vari-
ables, or it might also occur through measurements that capture the connectivity
of events, or the comparative registers through which one environmental occa-
sion might be a suitable proxy for another occasion or practice.
Science-based climate change monitoring often focuses on measuring single
variables that are correlated across data sets, so that part of the difficulty has been
to establish the connection between increased CO2 levels and temperature (not
to mention anthropogenic influence). Variables that are stabilized for one type of
measurement then require the difficult work of being knit togetherhistorically,
at present, and in the futurethrough supercomputers that can crunch the data
and establish recurring connections in relationships between variables that cor-
respond to larger patterns of environmental change.
Measurements that focus on experience, relation, and the complex interplay
of variables have been referred to in other contexts as a sort of citizen science, or
folk measurement.29 In this respect, we might consider how community moni-
toring and community data projects that are underway in the Arctic are not
simply expanding the number of participants who would be involved in citizen-
sensing projects. Instead, these projects incorporate parallel and distinct ways of
experiencing environments through different engagements with measurement.
Not necessarily tuned to a project of single variables, these monitoring projects
might instead engage with felt experiences of alterations in climate, new timings
of seasonal events, and organismal activity that fluctuate togetheror sugges-
tions for new observations that might be recorded in relation to emerging phe-
nomena such as melting permafrost.
124 / Sensing Climate Change and Expressing Environmental Citizenship

Many projects are now working in this space, from the Exchange for Local
Observations and Knowledge of the Arctic (ELOKA), which was launched dur-
ing the 20072009 International Polar Year (IPY), to the Atlas of Community-
Based Monitoring in a Changing Arctic, which documents traditional knowledge
and community monitoring activities. Also included is the Arctic Perspective
Initiative, an artists project that develops a DIY environmental sensor network
for studying flora and fauna through computational techniques, and which
focuses on installing sensors for community-oriented scientific research.30 Neither
a simple project of asking Arctic natives to do science within a usual scientific
register nor an easy claim to a more holistic ecological understanding, these
projects instead provide different angles for encountering environments through
experiences that can also be differently individuated and operationalized through
measurement.31
If we apprehend measurement as experience and individuation and as neces-
sarily giving rise to the entities and relations that together articulate distinct types
of collective potential, then measurement might proliferate in such a way so
as not to demand that only one version of measurement may stand in as fact.
Nor is this a simple project of relativizing all measurement through experience.
Instead, data that are generated as measurements of experience are expressions
of the subject-superjects that are undergoing situated and felt changes in relation
to a warming planet. Measurements are articulations of relevance: for science, of
which variables matter as key indicators of change in environments; for creative
practice, of which articulations of experience might reveal different ways of tak-
ing account of environments and environmental change; for community moni-
toring, of which connections and lived experiences might be crucial for sustaining
or enabling particular environmental relations.
Besides the different ways of monitoring environments across arts and science
practices, this perspective also shifts when we consider the ways in which the mul-
tiple other inhabitants of milieus, including more-than-humans, sense environ-
ments. In this way, during our environmental computing group we also found
ourselves engaged in discussions of indicator species, of lichens and mosses and
other organisms that can be studied as expressions of environmental processes,
whether for atmospheric pollutant levels, radioactivity, or different types of min-
eral depositions in soil.32 Organisms may be studied as proxies of environmental
processes, yet they are not parsing single variables as much as living with changes
in complex environments over time. Organisms inherit those changes, work
through the new collectives that form, and attempt to gain a foothold to ensure
their ongoing existence.33
Organisms that experience climate change are in one way measuring and
monitoring shifts in their environments. As registers and expressions of environ-
mental change, organisms further become environmental media of sorts. At the
 Sensing Climate Change and Expressing Environmental Citizenship / 125

same time that the planet is experiencing increasing levels of greenhouse gases
and temperatures, Arctic environments are also sites where organisms and their
ecological relations are shifting, as lived experiences of their environments. If
we consider the expanded registers of measurement and experience that occur
through community monitoring, then we might also attend to the ways in which
citizen sensing shifts if the experiences of more-than-human organisms were more
fully incorporated into accounts of climate change. Who or what is a citizen?
How is environmental citizenship articulated in relation to climate change? And
how does this matter for how we sense and monitor climate change?

TEXTING FISH AND TALKING WITH DOLPHINS

While environmental sensing technologies may have developed through applica-
tions at ecological observatories such as Kilpisjrvi, among many other milieus,
these devices have been taken up in creative-practice projects that explore how
sensors can be constitutive of new relationships while raising questions about
how sensing as measurement occurs across sciences, arts, citizen engagements,
and more-than-human organisms. These differing encounters with environmen-
tal monitoring demonstrate how measurement, particularly in relation to climate
change monitoring, can be a practice whereby new processes of sensing, expres-
sions of milieus, and practices and formations of citizenship emerge.
Creative-practice projects that deploy environmental sensors often focus on
ways of monitoring pollution. Such pollution-sensing projects often attend to

Figure 4.7. Reindeer near Mount Saana. Photograph by author.

126 / Sensing Climate Change and Expressing Environmental Citizenship

urban air pollution, as in projects such as Areas Immediate Reading (AIR) by

Preemptive Media or Feral Robotic Dogs by Nathalie Jeremijenko, which will be
discussed further in chapter 6.34 In another way, projects such as Amphibious
Architecture, as discussed in the last chapter, raise questions about how monitor-
ing and sensing take place through extended environmental relationships, where
the transmission of text messages becomes a sort of spectacle for connecting up
usually disparate human and more-than-human urban dwellers.35 How, through
the use of environmental sensor technologies, might we begin to understand
urban environmental health as shared across fish, humans, and river ecologies?
Who or what counts as a citizen if citizenship is articulated through cross-species
sensing practices? Can fish become citizens? Or does citizenship involve a different
set of practices through these inhabitations?
During my time in Kilpisjrvi, we organised an evening salon to consider this
set of questions in relation to environmental monitoring. Within our specific
discussion of environmental sensing and computation issues, our group consid-
ered the topic of how to understand the citizen in citizen sensing. We began our
conversation by asking who or what is a citizen, and how different notions of
citizen might influence the type of sensing that might take place. We also asked
how citizen sensing might shift when we trouble assumptions about who or what
is a citizen in these projects.
We discussed additional examples of citizen-sensing projects from Beatriz da
Costas Pigeon Blog, to Safecast, a project for detecting radiation after the Fuku-
shima nuclear fallout in 2011, to the dontflush.me project, which uses proximity
sensors to inform New Yorkers when to avoid flushing the toilet when the sewer
system may be at capacity and in danger of dispersing waste into the harbour.36
Other projects, such as Vatnajkull (the sound of ), allow listeners to phone up
a melting glacier in Iceland, while Pika Alarm puts mountain rodents to work as
sentinel species for climate change.37
In many citizen-sensing projects, environmental monitoring and data-gathering
practices activate or enroll a certain hypothetical citizen that is already built
into mobile devices and social media. By using social media, citizens are seen to
be empowered to undertake newly informed, connective, and collaborative proj-
ects. While we had initially hoped to develop speculative practices around what
other possible forms of citizen-sensing practices might look like if new forma-
tions of citizens were introduced, many discussants were concerned about the
use of the term citizen to describe more-than-humans. Dont citizens have free
will and rights? Arent animals simply the props for human experiments into sens-
ing? Are these sensing practices perhaps even exploitative? How could a tagged
reindeer possibly be counted as a citizen? In this way, one discussant asked, Is
this about trying to talk with dolphins? I know of an artist who tried to do that
and he went a bit mad, actually.
 Sensing Climate Change and Expressing Environmental Citizenship / 127

Other examples of citizen sensing emerged in our discussion at this point,

which began to test the idea of new arrangements of citizenship. One project
reference, the Million Trees NYC project in New York, was cited as an example of
a practice where crowdsourcing was used to identify where trees might be planted
in the city.38 Once planted, the trees could be monitored in order to ensure their
longevity. Such a practice of urban tree stewardship implies a relationship with
the trees, and environmental citizenship might be practiced through sensing
with or without computational devicestrees and their local environment.
While the extension of citizen practices to more-than-human entities might
press at the limits of common sense, in many ways expanding the scope of citizen-
ship through sensing may be one way to develop strategies for finding new poli-
tics of subjects, as Braidotti suggests, which are environmentally connected.39 In
another way, and working laterally from the subject-superject discussions devel-
oped by Whitehead, generating a new politics of subjects also entails generat-
ing a new politics of milieus. Milieus in this way might be understood not as
populated by humans sensing and acting on environments, but rather as entities
involved in generative sensing arrangements that might produce new milieus and
possibilities for engaging with milieus.
In other words, rather than see environmental citizenship as something that
inheres within a preformed and exclusively human subject position, I am instead
interested to consider how practices unfolding across human and more-than-
human registers might enable distinct articulations of environmental citizenship.
The notion of environmental citizenship in the making,40in other words, a
processual and relational approach to environmental citizenship (here working
with a Whitehead-inspired approach to citizenship)potentially opens up ways
of thinking through the sensing practices and entities that concresce through
monitoring and experiencing environments. This has relevance in relation to
climate change monitoring, since multiple entities might be involved in express-
ing or individuating experiences of climate change, which has further implica-
tions for how we encounter the measuring that citizen-sensing projects might
undertake.

Expressing Citizenship: Reworking Collective Experience

These different sensory engagements could be seen as ways to open up milieus
through different encounters or distributed ways of expressing environmental
processes. Milieus are expressed through effects and experiences of human and
nonhuman inhabitations. This approach suggests that fluctuations and expres-
sions of milieus run through and are differently carried by the multiple inhabi-
tants of milieus. In this sense, while rooted in place, fieldwork milieus also travel
and change across the subjects and communities they affect. There are multi-
ple modes of sensing that are activated in relation to climate change, so that we
128 / Sensing Climate Change and Expressing Environmental Citizenship

might ask: Who is undertaking the observation of what in this planetary and
ecological observatory? Or rather, how are experiences constitutive of worlds,
and how does this world-making in-form possibilities for citizenship, collective
engagement, and participation?
On one level, the Scottish-American environmental writer John Muir cap-
tures this sense of experience and world-making when he writes of his travels
in the High Sierra Mountains of California, We are now in the mountains and
they are in us. Included in the epigraph to this chapter, Muirs statement seems
to be a recognition of the ways in which milieus and subjects commingle. Yet on
another level, when Whitehead writes, We are in the world and the world is
in us, he is signaling toward one of his key concepts about the ways in which
subjects are always part of specific and concrete occasions that are constitutive of
worlds. The earth of program earth is then a distinctly experienced and formative
entity, proceeding from an objective datum to become a felt and experienced
entity for a subject.
Perception, moreover, is distributed in and through these worlds through mul-
tiple subjects and processes. As discussed in chapter 1, in Whiteheads approach,
all entities are in some way taking account of their environments. In this way,
subjects are always what he calls superjects, which are bound up with and con-
cresce through actual occasions.41 A subject-superject is not only a human figure
but also necessarily includes rocks, animals, and plants. At the same time, these
entities and relations are not fixed, nor are they singular or necessarily always
overlapping, but gain a foothold through the distinct types of interpretation or
expressive experience that each organism undertakes.

In- Forming Environments

Computational sensors, in addition to stones and animals, are also expressions
of environments. Whiteheads approach suggests that these multiple modes of
planet sensing might expand here not just to encompass milieus as in process
but also to gather together multiple modes of sensing that are in-formed through
the expressive activities of multiple subjects. The becoming environmental of
computation extends to the ways in which sensors are expressions of environ-
ments and to the ways in which organisms register as environmental media work-
ing through and expressing changes in climate. Sensor networks are not just
formed by bits of circuitry and code but also in-formed through exchanges of
energy, materializations, and relations that concresce across organisms and that
are brought into practices of measurement with climate-change monitoring.
While the project of collecting as much data as possible is then seen to be
critical to the study of environmental changewhere there are no blank spots
left on the map, as discussed in the last chapterwhat counts as information
may not be as self-evident as first assumed. Data in the form of essential variables
 Sensing Climate Change and Expressing Environmental Citizenship / 129

may be gathered in one way, and yet in-formation is proliferating in the ways in
which organisms are experiencing environments and recasting how we might think
about measurement and the conditions of citizen sensing that might register those
experiences. Yet more information does not automatically lead to a more effective
set of political actions for addressing climate change. This other way of encoun-
tering the informating of environmentalism, as Kim Fortun has discussed, often
attends to the ways in which environmental change is an epistemological project,
where forms of knowing might shift in relation to information technology toward
comparison, extrapolation and cumulative effect, thereby displacing the domi-
nance of linear constructs of causality in sense-making practices.42
Yet as I am suggesting here, by attending to the experience of measurement
and the incorporation of climate change into organisms as environmental media,
a different set of encounters concretize that might be described as the in-forming
of environments and environmentalism through sensor technologies. As dis-
cussed throughout Program Earth, Simondons notion of information as a process
of in-forming presents a way to move beyond a substantialist tradition of form
and matter to address how individuals, milieus, and relations take form through
exchanges of energy, resonance within systems, and changes in intensity.43 Simon-
don describes the processes whereby entities and milieus are in-formed as trans-
duction, which signals toward the ways in which an activity propagates from
point to point within a domain, while grounding this propagation in the struc-
turation of the domain.44
Such a trajectory might further be understood as a reworking of collective
potential from what Simondon has called the preindividual reserve that is a
nonessential nature prior to individuation and which is shared across objects
that are natural and technical. Any subject is at once individual and preindividual,
which makes it a more-than-individual being that is continually worked out
within collectives.45 In this way, part of this working-out that characterizes the
problem of the subject takes place through the heterogeneity between percep-
tual worlds and the affective world.46
The individual is always bound up with a preindividual reserve, and the human
is always more-than-human (where what we understand to be human is not a
site of exclusion or exception, moreover). Any individual entity is formed by and
working through a perceptual and affective connection to collective worlds and is
constituted through the activity of relation47 that does not precede individuals
or collectives but is the transductive reality that emerges along with them.48 If
we further bring Whitehead and James to bear on this understanding of relation,
we might say that relations can also consist of negative prehensions, or disjunc-
tures. Relations, whether conjunctive or disjunctive, are always as real as things.
This approach matters in relation to sensing climate change, since it in-forms how
the effects of climate change are experienced and how notions of what constitutes
130 / Sensing Climate Change and Expressing Environmental Citizenship

Figure 4.8. Mushrooms near Mount Saana. Photograph by author.

an expression of citizenship in citizen-sensing practices might in-form monitoring

practices.

COMPLICATING CITIZENS AND SENSING PRACTICES

Citizen is an ambiguous term and attractor that travels across environmental
discourses and practices. What does this term mobilize in concrete occasions, and
as discussed in chapter 1, how does it act as a lure for feeling?49 The fluctuating
milieus and sensing subjects that are in-formed and expressed through the dif-
ferently distributed experiences of climate change, and which are the topic of this
chapter, suggest that new arrangements of citizen sensingand environmental
practice and politicsmight concretize here.
As this discussion of sensing climate change across scientific, creative, and
citizen-sensing practices has suggested, citizens might no longer be conceived of
as exclusively human subjects endowed with rights, but rather through relation-
ships that at turns make us responsive to changes in our environments or other-
wise generate alternative ways of engaging with the multiple modes of sensing
that take place in milieus. In this way, Stengers writes, what Whitehead calls a
subject is the very process of the becoming together, of becoming one and being
enjoyed as one, of a many that are initially given as stemming from elsewhere.50
 Sensing Climate Change and Expressing Environmental Citizenship / 131

Subject-superjects are diversely distributed, continually in formation, and also

generative of and generated through practices such as citizen sensing and envi-
ronmental monitoring.
Citizens, in this case, might then be defined not only (or even) through those
more traditional inheritances of a subject bound to a nation-state but also as
subjects that are expressed through environmental practices that are constitutive of
citizenship. These practices within environmental citizen-sensing projects often
consist of monitoring, gathering, and reporting. The relationship between digital
technologies, practices of environmental sensing, and citizen engagement becomes
an important point of focus, since environmental monitoring activities involve
not just gathering data but also performing particular types of citizenship through
sensing technologies.
Environmental-computing monitoring projects raise questions about who
or what sense data are for, which interpretive practices are productive of citizen-
ship, and what new collectives sense data might mobilize. Such an approach to
the multiple if divergent and differently captured expressions of milieus may be a
way to open up speculative citizen-sensing scenarios to consider new arrange-
ments of citizenship, expanded entities and processes of sensing, and new ways
of articulating milieus within practices of environmental monitoring that attempt
to respond to the ongoing event of environmental change.
How might we account for the varying ecology of practices,51 as Stengers
terms it, which unfold through these differing ways of engaging with and experi-
encing climate change? The field-science approach to environmental problems is
to observe, monitor, and gather as much as evidence as possible to make a case
from empirical data for certain analytical theories about environments. In another
way, this scientific approach to ecology might then be used to mobilize a political
ecology of acting on this information. But what is the relationship between scien-
tific and political ecology within this trajectory? Might there in fact be a failure to
make clear connections between scientific ecology and political ecological projects
in such a framing? At the same time, environmental monitoring by citizen sensors
or scientists often assumes the automatic effectiveness of citizens gathering data
en masse in order to influence environmental politics. The sensing operation is
instantaneously made into a citizenly operation, without any clear indication of
how this progression, mobilization, or translation is to unfold.
Consider how climate change is configured through these practices of citizen
participation and sensing. Also consider how these formations of citizen sensing
operate as practices of individuation and attachment. Environmental citizenship
is expressed through digital technologies, and different forms and practices of
sense are ways of making operational distinct affective and political capacities.
In keeping with the discussion of folk measurement above, the possible limita-
tion with citizen sensing is that science, in the form of measurement, becomes
132 / Sensing Climate Change and Expressing Environmental Citizenship

the primary mode of experiencing environmental change, which does not auto-
matically translate from data into political change.
So we might ask, following Whitehead, what are the concrescences of sens-
ing, environment, citizens, and environmental matters of concern? If citizen sens-
ing and sensing climate change are not simply projects of gathering data in
order to influence policy makers and so contribute to climate change discourse
and practice, then what is it that concresces here? It may be that the motivations
for using sensors stem from the perception that effectiveness is bundled into these
technologies. Or it may be that a community of citizens engaged in sensing is
in itself a mobilizing force to which the sensors play a secondary role.
Beyond a mode of environmental citizenship that might consist of emulating
the scientific (in this sense, positivist) gathering of data, typically in order to make
visible the invisible aspects of climate change, an expanded ecology of practices
and ecologies of citizenship might attend to how different entities are experienc-
ing and prehending, or taking up, the effects of climate change, and how these
prehensions work across entities and milieus to give rise to shared but differently
articulated experiences. Participation in environments and environmental change
is not exclusively a volitional exercise of democratic agency, but rather participa-
tion concresces across multiple entities involved in working through the shared
occasion of climate change.
In Stengerss discussion of citizens and citizenship in the relation to an ecol-
ogy of practices, politics is a condition of inventionand struggleso that any
ecology of practices, any formation of relationships, cannot be assumed to be
neutral or given. This is a situation where all subjects are involved in collectively
inventing the world we all have in common.52 But collective invention cannot
proceed simply through an assumed starting point of what is a citizen, what is
human, what is a relation, or what is political. As Stengers writes, these and many
other categories must be complicated53 if political invention vis--vis an ecology
of practices is to occur.
In this zone, where complication might also be understood as a condition of
experimentation, we might ask how a different approach to citizens and subjects
could in-form new engagements with climate change. An inventive politics of
subjects that is attentive to the realness of relations (and their disjunctures) might
generate new understandings of citizenship as involving becoming and belonging
with extended more-than-human communities and milieus.54 And from this pro-
liferation of subjects a proliferation of program earths might also occur, as milieus
formed through diverse experiences for expressing climate change. Folding back
into scientific practice and citizen sensing, we could bring Haraways suggestion
for another science into consideration here, which, in accounting for multiple
subjects, also accounts for the sciences and politics of interpretation, translation,
stuttering, and the partly understood.55
 Sensing Climate Change and Expressing Environmental Citizenship / 133

From Radical Empiricism to Planetary Propositions

But this is not, finally, a proposal for an obfuscation of a knowledge project such
as climate change monitoring. Instead, by considering how to expand the subjects
involved in citizen sensing, as well as accounting for experiences as genera-
tive of different forms of measurement, it might be possible to develop a radical
empiricist approach to climate change monitoring. Such an approach would take
seriously Jamess suggestion that relations are as real as things. From such a per-
spective, different ways of taking account of climate change might be registered
that could in-form the invention of politics that occurs in relation to this differ-
ently materialized and materializing planetary event.56
As Kim TallBear has discussed, people (and organisms) can be decimated when
their relationships to environments become untenable, or when those milieus
disappear or change unalterably.57 This is not merely about the destruction of
people as bodies or human subjects but also about the destruction of people as
they are in-formed and individuated through and along with the milieus they
inhabit and the organisms with which they cohabit. Here, indigenous and femi-
nist technoscience meet radical empiricism, where relations are always as real
as things. And yet, a call to limit global warming to a 2C threshold might not
capture these relations, saddled as it is with the problem of translating a single
if consistently measured variable into a political modus operandi.
What would a radical (and speculative) empiricism of environmental monitor-
ing and data sensing involve?58 Would the experiences of multiple other sensing
subjects become part of how we engage with environmental change not simply
as an epistemic or informational project but as something that in-forms individu-
als and actual worlds? How might this approach further in-form and rework citizen
sensing as well as practices that are constitutive of citizenship? In-forming envi-
ronmental citizenship, in this sense, is as much a speculative as descriptive under-
taking, since the expanded subject-superjects of experience give rise to relations,
collectives, events, and accounts of environmental change that are in the making.
While climate change monitoring is based on data gathered from observed
changes it is also propositional, since it requires models and forecasts to anticipate
what the further effects of environmental change might bring. As Paul Edwards
has suggested, these are forms of provisional knowledge that are always being
reworked and rewritten, both as climate pasts and climate futures.59 As much as
provisional forms of knowledge, however, we might also say that climate change
monitoring is propositional in the ways in which it articulates the inherited and
experienced effects of climate change and proposes future scenarios for action.
These propositions have effects both in establishing particular realities and in
inviting us to encounter problems in ways that will continue to provide relevance
to those facts.60
134 / Sensing Climate Change and Expressing Environmental Citizenship

While some dominant approaches to measuring and documenting climate

change seem to easily translate from an observation of any single variable to a
control of any single variable, such as proposals for geo-engineering or ecosystem
services where environmental processes are one more data point to be engi-
neered, other propositions and approaches might materialize through attending
to possibilities for reworking the subjects and practices of climate-change moni-
toring. What a complicated and complicating approach to citizen sensing sug-
gests is that we not simply consider what monitoring data makes evident but also
experiment with the new subjects, experiences, relationships, and milieus that
monitoring practices might set in motion. With such an approach, we might also
develop ways to invent new collectives and politics relevant to the concerns of
climate change.
This page intentionally left blank
Figure 5.1. Microplastics. The majority of plastics in oceans, particularly in the garbage patches,
consist of small-scale plastics that are pellets from plastics manufacturing or have abraded to smaller
sizes from microplastics. Photograph courtesy of U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA).
5

Sensing Oceans and Geo-Speculating

with a Garbage Patch

L o c at e d a c r o s s t h e w o r l d s o c e a n s are several sizeable

concentrations of plastic debris that have variously earned the title of garbage
patches. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch in particular has become an object of
popular and scientific interest. It is an environmental anecdote to confirm our
worst fears about overconsumption; and it is an imagined indicator of what may
even outlive us, given the lengths of time that plastics require to degrade. The
garbage patch is in many ways an amorphous object, drifting through oceanic and
media spaces as an ominous form that focuses attention toward the ways in which
oceans have become planetary-sized landfills.
Discovery of the garbage patches is often attributed to Charles Moore, a
captain-turned-scientist who deployed and publicized the term to describe his
observations of a high concentration of suspended plastics in the clockwise cur-
rents of the North Pacific Gyre. In so doing, he brought the phenomenon of plas-
tics in the Pacific to greater public attention.1 However, oceanographer Curtis
Ebbesmeyer originally coined garbage patch as a term to describe the tendency
for flotsam to collect in sub-orbiting gyres.2 Although scientific observations of the
circulation patterns of gyres and the accumulation of debris had taken place pre-
viously,3 Ebbesmeyer and Moore both suggest that it was the naming of the ocean
debris as patches that eventually galvanized attention for this issue.4 Anecdotally,
the garbage patches have become one of the most potent figures for environmen-
tal concern, where the imagining of vast stretches of oceans choked by plastics
is at once a media device for expressing the worst of the destructive impacts of
humans on the planet and also an attractor for stimulating scientific study into
ocean plastics, since it is a topic about which citizens frequently make inquiries to
environmental agencies.

137
138 / Sensing Oceans and Geo- Speculating with a Garbage Patch

Popular imaginings of the Pacific Garbage Patch have included comparisons

of its size to the state of Texas, or suggestions that it is an island that might
be named an eighth continent, formed of anthropogenic debris. Upon hearing of
the concentration of plastic wastes in the Pacific, many people search for visual
evidence of this environmental contamination on Google Earth. Surely a human-
induced geological formation of this magnitude must be visible even from a satel-
lite or aerial view? However, because the plastic wastes are largely present as
microplastics in the form of photo-degraded and weathered particles, the debris
exists more as a suspended soup of microscopic particles that is mostly undetect-
able at the surface of the ocean.
While Google Earth may be a platform for visualizing and locating ocean
data,5 this visualization technique presents a much different approach to sens-
ing than seeing the patch as a photographic object. The inability to locate the
garbage patches on Google Earth, a tool for scanning the seas through a conjunc-
tion of remote sensing, aerial photography, and online interfaces, even gives rise
to popular controversy about how to locate the patch and whether the plastic
conglomerations are actually present in the oceans, and if so, how to address the
issue. The relative invisibility and inaccessibility of the patches render them as
looming imaginative figures of environmental decline and yet relatively amor-
phous and unlocatable and so seemingly resistant to environmental action. All of
which raises the question: To what extent do environmental problems need to be
visible in order to be actionable?
The difficulty of visually locating the patch as an identifiable object reveals
how the garbage patch is on one level a myth about how plastics accumulate in
the oceanic gyres. While plastic exists in considerable quantities in these areas
where currents converge into still expanses of oceans, the form that the plastic
takes is often in varying stages of decomposition, suspended within water col-
umns, sedimented on sea beds, and even filtered through various organisms that
ingest these particles. Several scientific entities such as the U.S. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have gone to lengths to dispel the
myth of the garbage patch by clarifying that the patch is not literally a surface
coating of plastics, but more of a zone with higher concentrations of suspended
plastics and especially microplastics.6
Yet the term patch persists in use, not least because it brings increased public
attention to an environmental issue somewhat removed from everyday experi-
ence. Scientific agencies such as NOAA explain that the patches do not assemble
as islands of plastics, but they continue to use the term as shorthand to describe
plastics concentrations; while the media use images of accumulated concen-
trations of plastics in urban harbors, for instance, to stand in for the more dis-
tant and difficult-to-visualize garbage patches; and artists focus on sites such as
the Midway Atoll to capture the effects of macroplastics that wash up on islands
 Sensing Oceans and Geo- Speculating with a Garbage Patch / 139

proximate to oceanic gyres, and which are often taken to be representative of the
general constitution of the garbage patches.7 The patch is a concept that accumu-
lates uses, images, and imaginaries, where the more complex and amorphous
garbage patches resist easy identification.
What sort of myth might the garbage patch embody? What sort of object
or occasion of pollution is this? And how might it be monitored? Rather than
seek to dispel the myth, how might the garbage patch constitute a sort of geo-
mythology, or a tale of uncertain earth events and forces? Geo-mythology is a
term coined to describe the ways in which distinct earth formations are often
explained by myths that capture how they came to be.8 From this perspective,
the ways in which environments and earth features form is not just a matter of
geologic process but is also a social, cultural, and narrative process that conveys
imagined or actual accounts of how earth formations come to be recognizable
objects. From volcanoes to floods, these formations and events are generative of
geo-mythological narratives. Google Earth has even been used as a tool to iden-
tify these formations and to provide legitimacy for these stories as attached to
actual earth objects.
Based on accounts of monitoring plastics in the oceans and locating debris
concentration zones, I adopt and adapt the term geo-mythology, which might
typically exist as a narrative form explaining earth events and formations of inde-
terminate origins, and move toward what I develop as a more geo-speculative
approach to consider how the uncertain and indeterminate aspects of the gar-
bage patches give rise to environmental monitoring practices for bringing these
newer and more fluid geological objects into view. This geo-speculative inquiry
is then less focused on explaining the origins of the garbage patch. Instead, the
geo-speculation developed here considers how much of the uncertainty around
the gyres involves exploring what kind of earth or ocean object the garbage patch
is, and even more, what potential events and effects may unfold through this shift-
ing formation.
Plastics have inevitably been present in the oceans for many decades, but at
some undefined moment the concentration of plastics in oceans accumulated to
a concentration that constituted an at-times indeterminate and speculative object
of study. I am interested to take up the ways in which the indeterminate and
changeable qualities of the garbage patch focus practices for exploring what this
concentration of plastics in the ocean consists of, including how to monitor these
plastics and how to reduce the problem of plastics by involving citizens in sensing
oceans and tracking marine debris. In this chapter, I consider two primary aspects
of the garbage patch that pertain to its materiality and ongoing circulation. In the
first instance, I look at how garbage patches are identified and studied and situate
these longer-standing practices within current monitoring practices where oceans
have become sensor spaces. Oceans are not only increasingly full of plastic debris,
140 / Sensing Oceans and Geo- Speculating with a Garbage Patch

they are also highly instrumented spaces where a vast range of monitoring activ-
ity is underway. I then consider how attempts to track or locate trash, whether
through Google Earth or citizen-sensing apps such as the Marine Debris Tracker
app, work in and around the fact that microplasticssmall-scale and invisible
plastic particlesare the common material components of the garbage patch. I
also look at techniques for mapping the circulation of ocean debris and focus
on the Global Drifter Program as one ocean observation project among many
that has deployed buoys equipped with sensors that communicate with satellites,
and which are used to study the drift of plastics and other debris in the oceans.
This chapter considers how environmental monitoring techniques that are
often developed for purposes other than sensing plastics are subsequently tuned
in to the drift of oceanic debris. How do the shifting and concretizing materialities
of the garbage patch in-form the technologies that come to be used to monitor
them? How are littered oceanic spaces entangled in the becoming environmental
of these computational monitoring technologies? With these questions in mind,
I explore how environmental monitoring techniques sense an object such as the
garbage patch that is relatively invisible and continually in process. Imperceptible
and removed from immediate experience, this pollution event and object raises
questions about what citizen-sensing approaches to environmental monitoring
are able to evidence, and act upon, when environmental pollution unfolds through
registers of non-sensuous perception.9
This chapter finally attempts to craft a geo-speculative account of garbage
patches in order to consider how the potential effects of this amorphous and
changeable object in-form practices for monitoring and remediating this environ-
mental phenomenon. Such an approach works with a generative understanding
of the garbage patch as a processual technoscientific object. The garbage patch is
not a singular object but is constituted through multiple objectsor societies of
objectsthat concresce within these ocean ecologies and which are of indetermi-
nate and ongoing duration, since plastics persist and transform in environments
for indefinite periods of time. Drawing on Whiteheads discussion of societies of
objects, I suggest that the forms of relation across the actual entities of the gar-
bage patches become self-sustaining within the particular environment they form
and inhabit.10 The sensors and sensing practices that would track and monitor
these processual objects then become environmental along with marine debris in
very particular ways, as drifting and circulating objects within enfolding gyres.

LOCATING A GARBAGE PATCH

In more current scientific literature, the Pacific Garbage Patch is often referred to
as the Eastern Garbage Patch. This patch area is located between Hawaii and
California within the North Pacific Subtropical High, a shifting zone of high pres-
sure and relatively calm water. The Eastern or Great Pacific Garbage Patch is not
 Sensing Oceans and Geo- Speculating with a Garbage Patch / 141

the only location where marine debris collects in the Pacific, however. A Western
Garbage Patch has since been identified near Japan; and the Subtropical Conver-
gence Zone at the transition zone between the Subpolar Gyre and the Subtropical
Gyre is also noted for its tendency to collect large amounts of marine debris.11
These debris collection zones are also connected to five identified oceanic
gyres, including two in the Pacific, two in the Atlantic, and one in the Indian
Ocean.12 As Howell et al. write, the Pacific subtropical gyre is the largest circula-
tion feature on our planet, and the earths largest continuous biome.13 Gyres
tend to spiral or converge inward, and the North Pacific Subtropical Gyrethe
larger system of which the Eastern Garbage Patch is but a small part, or a gyre
within a gyre14has been estimated to be roughly between seven to nine million
square miles.15 Of the many forms of marine debris floating through oceans
and seas, plastics are the primary form of waste moving through and collecting
in oceans. Sixty to eighty percent of all marine debris in oceans is composed of
plastics.16 Plastic fragments sifting through ocean waters most often travel from
land-based sources, typically migrating from urbanized areas, wastewater, land-
fills, and plastics manufacturing sites into oceans. A smaller proportion of plastics
derive from marine-based sources, including offshore shipping and fishing activi-
ties.17 Yet with all of these forms of primarily plastics-based marine debris, plastics
circulate from manufacturing, use, and disposal to become wayward and often
unidentifiable objects congealing in the shifting spaces of oceanic gyres. And
marine debris caught in gyres may circle around in cycles that last from six to
twenty years or more.
The accumulation of plastics in oceans and seas is increasingly remaking
oceanic materialities and environmental processes.18 However, plastic in gyres
assembles less as an identifiable mass of plastic and more as a suspended soup of
finer plastic fragments and microplastics. The 2001 Marine Pollution Bulletin arti-
cle in which Moore and his collaborators describe their findings of plastic to
plankton comparisons in the North Pacific Gyre indicates that up to 98 percent of
the plastic material gathered through trawls of the Pacific gyre were composed of
finer plastic particles. Of these finer particles, thin films and polypropylene/
monofilament line were present as identifiable plastic, while unidentified plas-
tic in the form of plastic fragments were the main types of plastic sampled.19
If Google Earth or a satellite view of the garbage patch proves to be an impos-
sible undertaking, it is because the plastics suspended in oceans are not a thick
choking layer of identifiable objects but more of a confetti-type array of suspended
plastic bits. Practices of sampling plastics in areas of high concentration of marine
debris involve working with fine-mesh trawls. These trawls are able to collect
microplastics across a range of visible and relatively invisible sizes. Establishing a
universal standard for microplastics as smaller than 5 mm has been an important
step in regularizing the study of microplastics in seas, since plastics break up into
142 / Sensing Oceans and Geo- Speculating with a Garbage Patch

such a wide range of forms and sizes.20 Microplastics were settled at a certain size
in order to study the effects of this distinctive and pervasive category of plastics.
Some plastic fragments and objects are large enough to pose ingestion hazards
to marine organismsthese are often termed macroplastics.21 Other plastic frag-
ments are so small as to be invisible and undetectable, or to be readily ingested
by many marine organisms without immediately obvious effect. Size is an impor-
tant indicator in assessing ocean plastics since, on the one hand, there is the risk
of entanglement and ingestion hazards and, on the other hand, there are more
unknown issues as to how smaller particles of microplastics may transform ocean
ecosystems. The garbage patch in this way generates additional objects that con-
cresce through the complex processes of plastics drifting through oceans.
The impacts of microplastics are in many ways still somewhat uncertain, and
may have a web of effects that may range from adsorption, chemical transfer of
persistent organic pollutants (POPs) (among other substances), endocrine disrup-
tion, alterations in plankton feeding habits, decreasing biodiversity, and shifts in
climate change.22 Numerous data gaps exist in relation to microplastics.23 Plas-
tics are known to adsorb and concentrate chemicals such as POPs from seawater
and transport these substances to other locations.24 But how do chemical sub-
stances migrate into and across organisms, and what effects do these substances
have on organisms over time? How might they cause endocrine disruption within
marine organisms and humans?25 What effect do microplastics have on plankton
and insect populations, and how might this also affect food webs, biodiversity, and
climate change by altering the composition and source-sink dynamics of oceans?26
Attempting to establish the matters of fact related to garbage patches in the
oceans is an experimental process that is less about how to demystify the garbage
patches and more about how the ongoing attempts to make sense of the garbage
patch and the effects of plastic are bound up with these complex constellations
of objects that also pose pressing matters of concern.27 Here, attempting to
establish verifiable circulations of plastics in oceans is not about dispelling fictions
but about experimental modes of narrating, testing, and sensing that bring the
garbage patch as an object of concern toward a space of workable interpretations
and engagement. Such an approach to experimenting is rather different than the
experimentation that might take place within environmental sciences, for instance,
which is typically understood as a process of testing interventions in order to
form new hypotheses.28 Such experimentation with matters of fact and concern
constitutes an intervention of a different sort, which questions how technoscien-
tific objects and environmental pollution are made evident and how they may
generate other objects as part of the processes of identifying, locating, and moni-
toring their presence.
Data gaps about garbage patches are also an important part of how matters
of fact in relation to plastics are experimented through matters of concern. These
 Sensing Oceans and Geo- Speculating with a Garbage Patch / 143

gaps serve to mobilize experiments on how plastics transform and rematerialize

in oceanic spaces. Gyres with higher concentrations of marine debris, and in par-
ticular the North Pacific convergence zone, are primary sites where questions
related to the effects of plastics unfold. Yet from this perspective, the garbage
patch is one of several objects that concresce in the oceans. Locating the garbage
patch as an object is not a simple delineation in space but a processual unfold-
ing of ongoing potential effects. The garbage patch is thus not one object, but,
following Whitehead, a society of objects that in their interaction give rise to new
and ongoing relations, formations, and actual occasions.29 Locating the Pacific
Garbage Patch is not a matter of demarcating a stable continent of plastics on a
satellite map. Instead, the garbage patch requires locating objects within objects
objects that are intra-acting30and giving rise to new potential effects and envi-
ronmental conditions. A geo-speculative approach to a garbage patch grapples
with the very ways in which the object-nessand the potential object-nessof a
garbage patch is never stable or given but in process and giving rise to new engage-
ments. So too do monitoring practices and technologies become entangled within
these processual societies of objects.
Plastics in oceans indicate how the materiality and interaction of these multi-
ple intersecting objects are continually generating new conditions, objects, and
societies of objects. Adsorption of chemicals may alter the habits of some marine
organisms; degradation of plastics may shift the composition of source-sink
dynamics; new microbes may emerge in the new plastic niches that form.31 The
garbage patch is a site where objects proliferate. As plastics fall apart, they gener-
ate new effects, occasions of becoming, and processes of materialization.32 Plas-
tics as they persist in environments are characterized less as a condition of inert
objects taking up space and more as a condition of material persistence and trans-
formation across environments and organisms. With these changeable conditions
and objects, sensing practices also are established in relation to shifting pollution
events to be monitored. In the next section, I discuss how some of these practices
have emerged in relation to marine debris and further discuss how oceans have
become instrumented spaces that have given rise to a vast range of sensing prac-
tices across computational and other monitoring modalities.

MONITORING A GARBAGE PATCH

Locating the garbage patch is on one level bound up with determining what types
of plastic objects collect within it and what effects they have. Yet on another level,
locating the garbage patch involves monitoring its shifting distribution and extent
in the ocean. As has been discussed so far, the garbage patch is not a fixed or
singular object, but a society of objects in process. The composition of the gar-
bage patch consists of plastics interacting across organisms and environments.
But it also moves and collects in distinct and changing ways due to ocean currents,
144 / Sensing Oceans and Geo- Speculating with a Garbage Patch

which are influenced by weather and climate change, as well as the turning of the
earth (in the form of the Coriolos effect) and the wind-influenced direction of
waves (in the form of Ekman transport). As an oceanic gyre, the garbage patch
moves as a sort of weather system, shifting during El Nio events, and changing
with storms and other disturbances.33
How does the garbage patch become detectable while it is also in process?
Techniques for studying marine debris typically coincide with techniques for
studying ocean circulation. In some cases, flotsam is directly observed and mod-
eled as a way of gauging likely movements of debris across ocean currents. A
well-known study by Ebbesmeyer focused on the movement of bath toys (rang-
ing from ducks, frogs, beavers, and turtles), which spilled from a container ship
that was washed overboard during a storm in 1992.34 Based on beachcomber
efforts, as well as by identifying the bath toys by serial number and mapping
and inputting coordinates into the Ocean Surface Current Simulator (OSCURS)
computer program, Ebbesmeyer developed a circulation model that gave the
locations of gyres (which corresponded with related gyre studies) and the likely
time that objects spent in gyres.
His flotsametrics technique drew on decades of studies that have attempted
to discern patterns in ocean circulation by mapping the pathways of flotsam.
Here, the drifting message in a bottle, or MIB, is a classic reference point for study-
ing and experimenting with objects as they travel in oceans. One MIB was recently
found in Scotland, which had a release date of 1914.35 But numerous other experi-
ments have been developed alongside these circulation studies, including a 1976
1980 experiment by NOAA that set loose tens of thousands of plastic cards in
response to significant oil spills along the East Coast from Florida to Massachu-
setts.36 Working on behalf of NOAA, Ebbesmeyer collected these plastic spill
cards over time, some of which drifted in oceans for over twenty-five years. Given
the length of these drifts, Ebbesmeyer estimates the plastic spill cards may have
circled between seven to nine times around the North Atlantic Subtropical Gyre
the Atlantic version of the Pacific Garbage Patch.37
Traceable Drifter Unit, or TDU, is the term that Ebbesmeyer uses to describe
flotsam that is released en masse (with releases exceeding one hundred thousand
drifters) in the ocean and that yields data relevant to ocean surface currents. These
TDUs have ranged from Guinness beer bottles to MIBs with biblical or govern-
mental messages, as well as material from known container spills. As Ebbesmeyer
writes of flotsam drift studies, By their endurance for as long as a century, flot-
sam provides a tool for tracing long planetary drifts. Drifters riding the global
conveyor belts, for example, require twenty years to circle the earth.38 The ways
in which flotsam travels, drifts, and collects in oceans may be studied over long
periods of time, and the different exit points for flotsam to head toward coasts,
or extended times in which it takes to reach coasts, may indicate just how long
 Sensing Oceans and Geo- Speculating with a Garbage Patch / 145

Figure 5.2. Thingful. A beta-phase Internet of Things platform for mapping and viewing sensors
worldwide, which includes multiple examples of sensors in marine environments such as the cargo vessel
shown here. Screen capture.

marine debris remains within oceans and in particular how many times debris
circulates around ocean gyres. The convergence zones are not just collections of
primarily plastic stuff but also metamorphosing oceanic repositories that include
items from the early boom years of plastics, sporadic spills from container ships,
and passing fashions in consumer goods. The packaging, films, fragments, and
assorted objects that cycle around gyres may remain there for many decades to
come, eventually forming new oceanic environments and influencing organisms
and food webs.

Oceans as Sensor Spaces

Beyond following the movement of objects and TDUs set loose in oceans, many
more monitoring practices have developed to observe ocean circulation and the
likely movement of marine debris, including airborne sensors, coastal webcams,
drifter buoys and tracers that communicate to satellites, remote sensing via satel-
lites, and even apps that citizens can use to document marine debris sightings.39
Oceans have become sensor spaces with an extensive array of sensing nodes and
drifting sensor points that can be found on buoys and hulls of boats, underwater
gliders, and Argo floats (or instrument platforms for observing oceanic tempera-
ture, salinity, and currents). While many sensors are in place to take tempera-
ture observations, as well as feed into climate change monitoring and modeling,
other sensors are used to survey noise underwater in order to prevent damage to
marine organisms ability to navigate these spaces. Marine traffic tracking sites
146 / Sensing Oceans and Geo- Speculating with a Garbage Patch

also document the movement of container ships and other large vessels; and
some new platforms and maps such as Thingful focus on capturing objects within
the Internet of Things and reveal just how densely populated oceans and seas are
with sensing devices.40
Ocean-observing platforms span across ships, buoys, Argo floats and subsur-
face drifters, remotely operated vehicles (ROVs), autonomous underwater vehi-
cles (AUVs), satellites for ocean research, aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAVs) or drones, HF radar, and drilling platforms.41 All of these are sites and
instruments where ocean monitoring takes place. The importance of monitoring
oceans has increased considerably, since oceans are the primary sink that absorbs
both CO2 and heat, and the dynamics of these sink-based processes are less well
understood in relation to climate change.42 On the one hand, there has been a lack
of monitoring in the oceans, which current practices are attempting to mitigate.
On the other hand, the current spread of instrumentation is leading some re-
searchers to propose remote access to the ocean from any number of sensor
networks. As Helmreich writes in one instance about the proposed establishment
of a distributed ocean observatory, this project would involve a network of
remote sensing buoys that can provide continual Web access to data from the sea
and would allow scientists to sit in their living rooms gathering oceanographic
data.43
The becoming environmental of computational sensors in oceanic spaces
involves the instrumentation of oceans with extensive sensing networks as well
as the reworking of the environments in which sensing takes place (from under-
water to living rooms). Yet computational sensors become environmental in yet
another way, where sensors themselves might be adapted to ocean environments
and processes, with drifting buoys, Argo floats, and sensors on vessels circulating
through oceans across surfaces, subsurfaces, and at depths now down to six thou-
sand meters.44 And as sensors fill these spaces and provide monitoring data, they
also generate other sensor tales, including observations about the likely drift of
marine debris through ocean currents. Oceans might then be seen as an environ-
mental medium with medial effects. I now turn to consider two projects that
express much different types of sensing practices in relation to marine debris to
consider how apps and oceans, drifting buoys and marine debris, unfold through
distinct monitoring practices that attempt to prehend oceanic plastics.

Citizens Tracking Marine Debris

Numerous citizen-science and citizen-sensing initiatives now exist that study ocean
environments. While beachcombers of all sorts have been involved in collecting
debris, identifying organisms through ocean sampling days, and even mailing in
plastic-pellet samples to scientists to aid in research projects,45 newer citizen-
sensing projects are adding to the numbers of data points collected from oceanic
 Sensing Oceans and Geo- Speculating with a Garbage Patch / 147

Figure 5.3. Argo Floats. Diagram of the deployment of Argo floats with sensors, as well as the
communication system for sensing the marine environment and sending data to satellites. Screen
capture.

spaces by providing sampling data on marine microbes, plankton densities, and

seabed temperatures.46 There are citizen-sensing initiatives focused on the use of
ocean robots, and citizen-science initiatives engaged with monitoring and identi-
fying marine debris.47 And to return to the introduction of this chapter, there are
Google Earth applications for monitoring the distribution and drift of Argo floats,
including projects where schools can adopt an Argo float to observe monitoring
data gathered in the Southern Oceans or in European seas.48
148 / Sensing Oceans and Geo- Speculating with a Garbage Patch

One more well-known project situated within these citizen-sensing initiatives

is the Marine Debris Tracker, which allows users to identify, document, and map
sightings of marine debris.49 Developed by Jenna Jambeck along with Kyle Johnsen
in the Southeast Atlantic Marine Debris Initiative within the College of Engineer-
ing at the University of Georgia in collaboration with the NOAA Marine Debris
Program, the app was featured as an App We Cant Live without in the 2014
Apple Worldwide Developer Conference video, alongside apps such as Tumblr and
Pinterest.50 The app was first released in 2011 and has since been downloaded 10,000
times. Despite these numerous downloads, there are 700 registered users, and
of these users 15 to 20 participants report debris on a near-daily basis. While the
number of participants for such a lauded app might seem rather low, the intensive
gathering efforts of these participants has nevertheless resulted in 32,899 data
pointsentries which total about 345,000 individual pieces of trash, including
15,500 cigarette butts found by users on St. Simons Island to plastic jugs floating
in the ocean off the coast of Costa Rica and plastic bags near the coast of Brunei.51
Proximity to a littoral zone is not a prerequisite for using the appin fact,
some marine debris sightings have been submitted from places as far-flung as
North Dakota, presumably with the logic that all things lead to the ocean. With
this in mind, I download the app to test the process of submitting entries. The
opening app screen notes, Leave only waves and footprints behind, and allows
me to either check the terms of use or go on to Track Debris. The terms of use
ask me to ensure that the information I supply is accurate and also warn that I
may be barred from using the app if it becomes apparent that the information I
supply is inaccurate. With the Track Debris section, I have the option to Log
Items, and from a pull-down menu can identify the item I have found, whether
aerosol cans, balloons and/or string, building materials, buoys and floats, ciga-
rettes and cigarette lighters, fishing lures and lines, flip-flops (which have their
own separate category, distinct from shoes), gloves, jars, jugs, and plastic or Styro-
foam fragments, as well as rope, silverware, six-pack rings, straws, tires, plastic
toys, batteries, and fireworks, among many others.
I trawl around through my local gutter, since in fact the Thames River is
nearby and this in turn flushes out to the sea. Here, I find numerous bits of ciga-
rette butts and food wrappers. I log the food wrappers, noting a quantity of two
and a description of hamburger wrapper. I need to turn my location services on
in order to allow the app to automatically log my location. Once logged, the item
shows up on a map, and becomes one more of the many data points of tracked
trash. While the app does not necessarily seek to create a global picture of debris
since data entry relies on volunteers, it does hope to provide detailed views of
specific locations where users regularly log debris items.52 If I look over the map
and data for where marine debris has been logged, I can see entries that span from
Iran to Omaha, Nebraska.
 Sensing Oceans and Geo- Speculating with a Garbage Patch / 149

Ocean environments are currently under stress, with increased acidity due to
rising CO2 levels, depletion of fishing stocks, and even the collapse of organisms
not well understood. Here, an app that focuses on marine debris orients attention
toward logging and mapping the extensive array of litter that flows seaward.
Observations made on land and at littoral zones are facilitated and shared through
an app that allows citizens to sense and track trash that will largely consist of
macroplasticsand have yet to disintegrate into microplastics. If we were to
plumb the depths of media theory, we might find this is a rather different engage-
ment with media content and technology than many, even computational, forms
to date, since the app functions as an almost understated naturalists notebook
that can be shared and pooled across participants. While the focus in this app is
on identifiable debris, it begins with an initial tracing of the journeys that debris
might make to oceans and seas. Once in the water, debris can take on yet another
journey of indeterminate material transformations, splintering into microplastics
and moving in and through organisms that ingest this debris. And yet these app-
based citizen-sensed sightings of plastics open into a geo-speculative set of
encounters: How will these debris and debris mappings generate new modes of
environmental engagement? What effect, if any, will they have on the orbiting
garbage patches?

Figure 5.4. Global Drifter Program. Map of drifters in operation as they sense the marine environment
near the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Global Drifter Program and Google Earth. Screen capture.
150 / Sensing Oceans and Geo- Speculating with a Garbage Patch

Global Drifter Program

Another ocean-sensing project working in a more scientific register across tech-
niques of drifter tracing and sensor communications, the Global Drifter Program,
has deployed tracking buoys that communicate with satellites to establish circu-
lation patterns in ocean currents. Along the way, the drifters have also become
devices for establishing the likely movements of marine debris, since where the
drifters collect is likely to indicate the same locations in which other flotsam col-
lects.53 The Global Drifter Program consists of a platform of more than 1250 drift-
ing buoys that have been deployed over several decades spanning from initial devel-
opment in 1979 to current annual mass deployments to monitor the oceans.54 The
buoys monitor the upper water column and provide information on ocean surface
and atmospheric conditions, as well as fluxes between air and sea. Run through
the Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory (AOML) in Miami,
Florida, the drifters are deployed at study sites and then circulate across oceans.
Detecting and sensing sea surface temperature, barometric pressure, wind veloc-
ity, ocean color, salinity, and subsurface temperatures, the buoys monitor ocean
conditions primarily to determine weather and climate patterns. As they circu-
late, the buoys send 140-character messages on location and ocean conditions
what physical oceanographer Erik van Sabille has referred to as Twitter from the
ocean.55 Part of the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) of
monitoring technologies, the Global Drifter buoys also link up with earth models
to provide forecasting data.
In addition to functioning as weather, climate, and circulation observation de-
vices, the drifters have provided detailed and longer-term data on the likely move-
ment of debris in oceans. A high proportion of drifters has gravitated toward the
five gyres, and in this sense the drifters have provided further data for establish-
ing where gyres are located and how long drifters or debris may converge in these
areas.56 Through studies that use Global Drifter data, the formation of a sixth
Arctic gyre has been identified, as well as observations about the ways in which
patches are leaky and circulate debris across regions, potentially over a times-
pan of centuries.57 The drifters are in many ways proxies for demonstrating how
debris travels over time in oceans, how debris converges in gyres, and the length
of time it may take debris to exit convergence zones (if at all) and wash up in
coastal regions. The drifters were not originally developed as monitoring devices
to study the accumulation of debris directly, since they focused on ocean circula-
tion patterns. But the drifters became an imported technique for studying how
debris circulates and settles in ocean spaces in relation to the study of ocean cir-
culation. The drifters also eventually become debris, as they have a limited (five-
year) battery life, and cease to function due to mechanical error, environmental
stress, and more.58
 Sensing Oceans and Geo- Speculating with a Garbage Patch / 151

The Global Drifter Program potentially not only corroborates or qualifies

prior and differing studies on ocean circulation but also provides a more real-time
observation platform for understanding how gyres may shiftand debris con-
centrations along with them. In many ways, the ongoing deployments, shifting
oceanic trajectories, and real-time communication of the drifters are practices
that emerge in relation to and through a fidelity to the shifting technoscientific
objects under study. The sensing and satellite-linked drifters enable sensing prac-
tices that are able to more continually monitor these shifting object conditions
and processes. Debris concentrationswhether differently termed and identified
as the garbage patch or gyre or convection zoneexist as objects within objects,
and these objects change the other objects with which they are intra-acting. New
object conditions are continually unfolding here, from changes in chemical and
biological conditions to alterations in habitats, shifting locations of the garbage
patch due to ocean and atmospheric circulation, and even changes in climate and
environments.59 Within these societies of objects, sensing buoys also concresce
along with the circulation patterns and debris under study, thereby materializing
a distinctly environmental and oceanic form of computational sensors.

SOCIETIES OF OBJECTS
With the oceanic sensor spaces and two monitoring projects discussed above,
plastic marine debris concresces as a society of objects with and through which
sensing practices and technologies emerge. The character of an organism,
Whitehead suggests, depends on that of its environment.60 The organisms and
medial forms drifting through ocean spaces are in-formed by this oceanic environ-
ment that is the datum and that provides conditions for concrescence. Yet at
the same time, The character of an environment is the sum of the characters of
the various societies of actual entities.61 This is not to say that environments
entirely consist of societies of entities, but rather that no society of objects exists
without its environment (or datum), and no environment is without its entities or
societies of objects.
Environments infuse the characters of societies and entities, but societies are
not all there is. At the same time, environments are conditions in which facts and
entities take hold, have relevance, and endure. Societies in-form milieus; but
milieus also in-form societies, forming conditions for their endurance as well as
creative advance. Societies might be seen to be different than the social, in this
sense, since neither are societies a simple assemblage nor are they a relation artic-
ulated in advance of the individuating and coming together of entities into collec-
tives. If the last chapter considered the ways in which monitoring climate change
might provoke reworkings of how we approach the citizen in citizen sensing,
this chapter suggests that monitoring plastic pollution in oceans might give rise
to reworkings of societies and collectives that are variously understood to be the
152 / Sensing Oceans and Geo- Speculating with a Garbage Patch

object of monitoring, as well as the environment in and through which facts and
concerns take hold as establishing the relevance of this datum.
As Whitehead, and later Stengers, have suggested, the ways in which organ-
isms take hold and take account of their environments are the key to understand-
ing how relevance is established. As far as the way in which the living organism
holds qua enduring is concerned, Stengers writes, it certainly exhibits a selec-
tive character, as is indicated by the relevance of such technical terms as detect,
react specifically to, activate, and so on. Yet it is a selection that endures.62
Endurance is not an individual condition but a process that unfolds through a
dynamics of infectionwhere infection is indicative of a value . . . on what is
prehended so that when a being endures, what has succeeded is a co-production
between this being and its environment.63 We might refer these notions of in-
fection, endurance, and value also to Whitehead and Jamess conception of soli-
darity, where the one and the many are involved in processes of detecting,
reacting to, and activating.64
For Whitehead, societies are not entirely composed of the living, since such
a nexus does not account for the complex prehensions of environments that occur
across organic and inorganic entities. As Whitehead writes, All societies require
interplay with their environment; and in the case of living societies this interplay
takes the form of robbery.65 Here is a condition where a living nexus makes
use of material bodies that together can form various types of structured socie-
ties that span from crystals, rocks, planets, and suns, and, if Whitehead were
writing now, might be a list to which plastics could be added. As an inorganic
foodstuff of sorts, a scaffolding, infrastructure, collection zone, and supporting
environment, plastics concresce as particularly contemporary societies of objects
along with the living entities that would inhabit and ingest these materials.
Why bother with this account of societies of objects? What work does it do? I
would suggest that plastics and garbage patches as societies of objects point us
not just toward the environments and entitiesas well as sensing practicesthat
form with and through these materials, but also to the speculative aspects of gar-
bage patches as a form of oceanic pollution that might be monitored. My point,
then, is to bring this discussion closer to the geo-speculative beginning of this
chapter, where I suggested that what matters is less the origin of the garbage
patch as a geo-mythological figure but more the geo-speculative unfoldings of the
multiple and indeterminate garbage patches as they generate new environmental
effects and societies of objects, and thereby become sites for establishing ongoing
matters of fact and matters of concern.

FROM GEO- MYTHOLOGIZING TO GEO- SPECULATING WITH A GARBAGE PATCH

Such a shifting society of objects, which is in process and so oriented toward fur-
ther potentialities,66 gives rise to distinct sensing practices for engaging with these
 Sensing Oceans and Geo- Speculating with a Garbage Patch / 153

generativeand often non-sensuousmaterial and technical milieus. The garbage

patch is an entity where plastics are in process and circulating across oceanic sys-
tems. As discussed here, the plastics that drift through oceans and debris patches
are indeterminate objects of study that are often approached obliquely through
their nearly imperceptible materialities and unknown potentialities. Given its
material constitution, the garbage patch is also not external to that which inhabits
it, but occupies the many different organisms that live amid it, where many organ-
isms filter plastics through their bodies. As an ocean-in-the-making,67 the geo-
speculative force of these object-events unfolds as a space of potential objects to
come and of indeterminate environmental events to make sense of. In this oceanic
zone, there is a distinct becoming environmental of computational media that
emerges through the wayward drift of plastic and organismal societies of objects.
Oceans and objects are sites for sensing practices in the making. Drifters and
sensors, together with studies of particle movement and ocean currents, are both
abstract approaches to understanding the garbage patch, as well as concrete things
in the world that mobilize matters of concern.68 This is a way of understanding
concern less as a cognitive habit of mind and more as an affective tone.69 In
other words, it engenders a condition or environment of relevance, endurance,
and infection. In this way, concern is closely aligned to propositions and specu-
lation, because concern constitutes a proposition about what matters. Shaviro
suggests that, in many ways, concern for the world, and for entities in the world
is also an aesthetic engagement, a provocation (or infection) that involves reso-
nant registers of experience.70 The garbage patch on one level could be seen as a
particular lure for feeling that as a proposition even suggests what counts as
matters of fact.71 Such abstraction, as a lure, is not separate from concrete events
but instead is an attractor for identifying that which matters and how to make
sense of that experience.72
In this geo-mythology transformed into a geo-speculation oriented toward
garbage patches and environmental monitoring technologies, these societies of
objects turn out to be always in the middle of things. Experimental practices and
compound objects converge in these oceanic gyres. Being alert to the garbage
patch and debris concentrations in the oceans might then require developing an
attention to the generative and potential materialities that may continue to unfold
through these objectsand not simply making sightings of fixed macroplastics
in singular or amassed form. In many ways, this geo-mythology finally shares a
sideways correspondence with that earlier plastic mythology rendered by Roland
Barthes. In his concise postwar account of plastics, he describes plastics as the
stuff of alchemy, through which the transmutation of matter takes place.73 His
description charts the transit of plastics from raw material to any number of
objects. This study of the garbage patches has, in a related but different way, dealt
with the transit of plastics from discarded object to environmental and oceanic
154 / Sensing Oceans and Geo- Speculating with a Garbage Patch

entity. As plastics break down in oceans, they concresce in oceanic gyres, filter
through marine organisms, alter environmental conditions, and turn up as objects
of concern for monitoring techniques and citizen-based engagements. The same
plastic changeabilityor plasticitythat Barthes expounded upon as giving rise
to an infinite array of consumer goods redirects toward a material changeability
that influences and transforms environments on a planetary scale. The transmu-
tation that takes place here is equally subject to speculation: What potential
events and objects will concresce through these plasticized oceans, marine organ-
isms, and technical objects?
The garbage patch emerges not as a single fixed object but as a processual and
speculative society of objects. On at least one level, it is present as the product of
technoscientific advances in materials, where plastics give rise to new environ-
mental and technoscientific problems as a result of the solutions they initially
presented. On another level, monitoring the plastic waste requires new technolo-
gies of observation, from remote sensing to distributed sensor buoys, to bring
plastic as marine debris to attention. Such technoscientific observation techniques
focused on marine debris in the gyres inevitably also mobilize responses for reme-
diating and managing the issue of plastics in the seas. In this sense, the garbage
patch in its intractable plasticity gives rise to technoscientific practices not just
to monitor but also to repair, control, or otherwise manage this object of study
and concern.74
How does the relationship between monitoring and intervening in the gar-
bage patch influence this society of objects and the practices employed to study
and respond to it? Intervening within and developing strategies for addressing
the garbage patches may, on one level, appear to require a beach-cleaning effort
or antilitter campaign. Yet on another level, designing practices for engaging
with the indeterminate and ongoing interactions and societies of objects may
be one way to encounter the garbage patch as a space in which to experiment
with the matter-of-factness and concernedness of plastic objects as they trans-
form in oceans. Within this space, new understandings of response-ability may
also proliferate75 in terms of how the relations between objects are articulated
abstractly and unfold concretely, how societies of objects attract and mobilize
distinct types of technoscientific and environmental practices, and how the mate-
rial occasions of oceans are not a remote object of study, but rather are an actual
occasion in which we are now participating and through which we will continue
to be affected.
A key question arises from this study of the garbage patch as a generative
technoscientific and computational object, which is what other forms of techno-
scientific engagement and sensing practices might be necessary not just to articu-
late a project of environmental awareness (which is what the project to identify
the patch as an explicit and visual aberration perhaps demonstrates) but also
 Sensing Oceans and Geo- Speculating with a Garbage Patch / 155

to generate an object that provokes new forms of environmental participation

and attention to the eventual effects of our material lives. What experimental
forms of politics and environmental practices might we develop that are able to
attend to these indeterminate and emergent matters of concern? A repurposed
geo-speculative account of the garbage patches might then attend to the indeter-
minate edges of technoscientific objects and sensing practices and to the modes
of engagement yet to be experimented and generated at these sites. Perhaps this
geo-speculative account gives rise to the need for a cosmopolitical approach to
technoscientific objects such as the garbage patches,76 which do not concretize as
much through their performative or instrumental capacities as they do through
the debris of once-useful applications such as plastic that have acquired other
capacities and material effects beyond what was anticipated. Here, new societies
of objects emerge from the remains of technoscientific pursuits and in turn give
rise to new monitoring practices for studying these residual and yet generative
objects with unknown and indeterminate effects.
Figure 6.1. London Air Quality Network (LAQN) station. There are over one hundred air quality stations in
the LAQN, most of which are managed and run by the Kings College Environment Research Group (ERG).
Photograph by Citizen Sense.
 6

Sensing Air and Creaturing Data

We find ourselves in a buzzing world, amid a democracy of fellow creatures;
whereas, under some disguise or other, orthodox philosophy can only introduce
us to solitary substances, each enjoying an illusory experience.
A l f r e d N o r t h W h i t e h e a d, Process and Reality

I f y o u s h o u l d f i n d y o u r s e l f standing outside the Hobgoblin

Pub on New Cross Road in the Borough of Lewisham, London, you might notice
a grayish-white box approximately two-and-a-half meters high scrawled with a
faded and cascading line of graffiti. Wedged in the space between buildings and
facing outward toward the road, the air vent and monitoring equipment at the
top may be one of the few details that betray the purpose of this structure, which
is to measure air quality at this fixed spot in London. One of the stations in the
London Air Quality Network (LAQN) that covers thirty-three boroughs, this
monitoring station contributes to the hourly indexes of air quality and news of
pollution episodes in London. Detecting sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate mat-
ter 10 and 2.5 (PM 10, PM 2.5), as well as nitrogen oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide
(NO2), the station generates data that indicate whether the UK is meeting EU air
quality objectives for both short- and long-term emissions of pollutants.1 The data
also contribute to environmental science research and are managed and made
available by the Environmental Research Group (ERG) at Kings College London,
where this network is managed and run.2
Passersby may experience, in a potentially fleeting way, the connection
between this station, the local air quality, and the data it generates, which typically
circulate in spaces of environmental science and policy. The air quality data that
are generated at this fixed site are black-boxed and located in spaces somewhat
remote from experiences of air quality on the street. Air quality data are not typi-
cally present at the point of encounter with this station, but instead are located
in more distant spaces of laboratories and servers, where data are gathered and
processed to influence the management of environments and air quality.
In order to make air pollution data gathered by this station and the approxi-
mately one hundred other stations in the LAQN more accessible, Kings ERG has

157
158 / Sensing Air and Creaturing Data

designed a London Air app to allow people to observe emissions levels at key
monitoring sites and to make inferences about their own personal exposure when
passing through these sites. While this strategy moves toward making the data
of fixed sites more accessible through an air quality app, the pollution that indi-
viduals experience in their everyday trajectories may be quite different than the
types of pollution that are captured through fixed monitoring sites generating
data that are averaged over set monitoring periods. The New Cross Road station,
for instance, typically records an annual exceedance of NO2 at this fixed point
a pollutant formed through combustion of fuel that is largely the result of high
levels of automobile use in the city.3 Yet all along New Cross Road individual
moments and locations of exposure may give rise to a far different set of pollution
episodes, with much different consequences for urban dwellers in these areas.
Inevitably, the question arises as to how individuals may map their own mobile
exposure to air pollution, which is likely to differ from the fixed sites of the official
monitoring stations. As discussed throughout this study, environmental monitor-
ing is proliferating from a project undertaken by environmental scientists and gov-
ernmental agencies to a practice in which DIY groups and citizen sensors are now
engaged. One attempt to sense air quality beyond fixed and official monitoring sites
has included community deployments of diffusion tubes, a low-cost analogue
method for gauging air pollution but which requires weeks-long deployments
of tubes that are then sent off to labs for analysis and data production. Here, the
process of gathering air pollution data may be democratized, but the generation
and analysis of meaningful data take place in remote laboratory settings.
More recent citizen-sensing projects that deploy lower-cost digital sensors and
smartphones have focused on monitoring air quality levels in ways that attempt to
make environmental data more immediate and connected to experienced condi-
tions. One of the primary ways in which such citizen-sensing projects have sprung
up is through direct engagement with monitoring environmental pollution. While
some citizen-sensing projects use the itinerant aspects of individual exposure to
environmental pollution as a way to experiment with mobile-monitoring practices
with which fixed sites of detection cannot compare, including Preemptive Medias
Areas Immediate Reading (or AIR), which consists of a mobile and individual air
monitoring device for gauging individual exposure to air pollutants;4 other proj-
ects, including Safecast, suggest in relation to environmental disturbances such
as the Fukushima nuclear fallout that official or government data may not always
be available or trusted, so that alternative data sources may be necessary in order
to gauge exposure to pollutants of immediate concern, such as radiation levels.5
Whether displaying pollution levels or developing platforms to make pollu-
tion information more readily available, many citizen-sensing pollution projects
attempt to make the details of environmental pollution more instantaneous and
actionable. An even more extensive range of pollution-sensing projects have turned
 Sensing Air and Creaturing Data / 159

up in this area, from Common Senses work with fitting air quality sensors to
street sweepers in the Bay Area, to any number of citizen-sensing kits and devices
that use low-cost electronics, including Speck (for PM 2.5 sensing) and AirCasting
(for NOx sensing).6 Citizen sensing is a strategy that often attempts to translate
practices of monitoring pollution from the spaces of expert scientific and gov-
ernment oversight into practices and technologies that are available to a wider
array of participants. As the EPA has noted in its work on surveying and assessing
the rise in citizen-sensing practices and low-cost monitoring equipment, air pollu-
tion monitoring is no longer confined just to official networks and the professional
practices of scientists and technicians, but is proliferating into new types of uses
that might, they anticipate, even begin to supplement regulatory approaches to
air pollution. New breakthroughs in sensor technology and inexpensive, porta-
ble methods, one EPA report notes, are now making it possible for anyone in
the general public to measure air pollution and are expanding the reasons for
measuring air pollution.7 With these citizen-sensing practices, data shift from
having to meet a regulatory standard to ensure policy compliance to indicating
change, and in the process instigate different citizen-led actions.
In citizen-sensing projects, more extensively and democratically gathered data
are typically presented as the reasons for measuring air pollution, since it is
through collecting data that everything from enhanced participation in environ-
mental issues to changes in policy are hoped to be achieved. The impetus to
monitor and gather data is bound up with established (and emerging) processes
of understanding environments as information-based problems. Within citizen-
sensing projects, data are intended to be collected in ways that complement,
reroute, or even circumvent and challenge the usual institutions and practices
that monitor environments and manage environmental data. Data are seen to
enable modes of action that are meant to offer effective ways to respond to those
problems. With more data, potentially more accurate data, and more extensively
distributed data, environmental problems such as air pollution are intended to be
more readily and effectively addressed. Data are intertwined with practices, re-
sponses to perceived problems, modes of materializing and evidencing problems,
and anticipations of political engagement. But how are air quality data consti-
tuted, through expert or citizen practices? How do differing practices of environ-
mental monitoring in-form the character and quality of data gathered, as well
as the possible trajectories and effects of those data? What are the instruments,
relations, and experiences of air quality data generated through these distinctive
engagements with environments and technology? And in what ways do environ-
ments become computational through the use of low-cost air pollution monitor-
ing technologies?
In this chapter, I consider how citizen-sensing practices that monitor air pollu-
tion experiment with the tactics and arrangements of environmental data. These
160 / Sensing Air and Creaturing Data

monitoring experiments, however, are not just a matter of enabling citizens to

use technology to collect data that might allow them to augment scientific stud-
ies or to act on their environments. Rather, as I suggest throughout Program
Earth, computational-sensing technologies are bound up with the generation of
new milieus, relations, entities, occasions, and interpretive registers of sensing.
The becoming environmental of computation describes this process. Sensor-
based engagements with environments do not simply detect external phenomena
to be reported; rather, they bring together and give rise to experiencing entities
and thereby actualize new arrangements of environmental sensing and data. The
production of air quality data through environmental monitoring generates dis-
tinct subject-superject entities and occasions for generating and making sense of
that dataas scientific facts, matters of concern, or even as inchoate patterns
produced through unstable technologies or sporadic monitoring practices.
As a central point of focus, this chapter then crucially asks in what ways envi-
ronmental sense data emerge not through universal categories or forms but as
concrete entitiesor creaturesthat concresce through processes of subjects par-
ticipating in environments and environmental events. The actual world is a pro-
cess, Whitehead writes, and this process is the becoming of actual entities. Thus
actual entities are creatures; they are also termed actual occasions.8 Actual enti-
ties are creatures, or lively meetings of entities that form routes of experience. In
this sense, the process of gathering air pollution data might be identified as more
than documenting static facts of air quality at any given time or place and instead
be approached as a practice that gives rise to entities and modes of participation
that transmit data in particular ways and along distinct vectors of environmental
participation.
Working with this Whitehead-inspired analysis of how concrete entities of
environmental data materialize through pollution sensing, I then consider how
environmental-sensing projects are processes of what I call creaturing data, where
the actual environmental entities that come together are creations that mate-
rialize through distinct ways of perceiving and participating in environments.
These creatures may have scientific legitimacy. Or they may form as alternative
modes of evidence presented in contestation of scientific fact. But in either or
both capacities, they are creaturely rather than universal arrangements of data.
The point of attending to the creaturing of data is to at once draw attention
to the concrete actual entities of dataeven the accidents of data, as Whitehead
would have itand to take into account the conditions that give rise to and
sustain these creatures of environmental data.9 Creatured data are not an abstract
store of information or something to be coherently visualized, but rather are
actual entities involved in the making of actual occasions and material processes.
Data may typically appear to be the primary objective of environmental sensing
projects, which focus on obtaining data to influence environmental policy and
 Sensing Air and Creaturing Data / 161

practices, but along the way the relations and material arrangements that data
gathering sets in place begin to creature new entities that concresce through mon-
itoring practices. By turning to the creaturing of data, I consider in the projects
that follow how data mobilize or underwrite environmental practices. At the same
time, data might fail to materialize as anticipated, and through this process acti-
vate participatory arrangements that might be quite different from those intended.
The failure of environmental sense data to translate into an easy spur to environ-
mental action can even be an important way in which the creaturely aspects of
data concresce. Data unfold not simply through instrumental or even epistemic
registers but also as attractors and attachments. It is through these attractors and
attachments that experiments with environmental citizenshipand not just sen-
sor technologiesalso develop.
The general ethos of many DIY- and citizen-sensing projects has been that
by enabling and democratizing the monitoring of local environments, it may also
be possible to achieve increased engagement with environmental concerns. These
projects test, experiment with, and mobilize alternative modes of environmental
citizenship. Yet in what ways do practices of environmental monitoring with
sensing devices give rise not just to experimental modes of participation and civic
engagement but also to different modalities for experiencing environmental pol-
lution through monitoring practices that generate air quality data? Within these
projects, how does the experience and experiment of air pollution and air quality
data become a site of political, as well as potentially affective, engagement? How
do the creatures of environmental data become points of attachment for influ-
encing and in-forming environmental concern and politics?
Through this discussion of citizen-sensing projects that develop experimental
and creative approaches to monitoring air quality and generating environmental
data, including Feral Robotic Dogs, the Pigeon Blog, and Air Quality Egg, I fur-
ther consider how these technological modes of sensing generate distinct prac-
tices of environmental citizenship in and through engagements with data. The
projects I discuss below involve the creaturing of data in a double sense, since
they also deploy more-than-human participants, including robotic dogs, homing
pigeons, and plastic eggs as concrete entities for drawing together citizen-sensing
practices. While these environmental sensing projects are, on one level, focused
on creating opportunities for citizen sensors (of sorts) to generate their own data,
on another level these projects also create additional data in and around the prac-
tices they set in motion. This is not just the data of environmental phenomena
observed and monitored but also the data of not obtaining what was expected,
of shadowing events in different ways than a run of quantitative data might evi-
dence, of generating residual and qualitative data from the eventfulness of envi-
ronmental monitoring, of creating different patterns of data rather than adhering
to accuracy as the sole criterion for data legitimacy, and of mobilizing alternative
162 / Sensing Air and Creaturing Data

Figure 6.2. London Air Quality Network app. This app gives a general sense of air quality, from low to
medium and high levels of pollution, across London boroughs. Photograph by Citizen Sense.

creatures of data, such as dogs, pigeons, and eggs (and their extended milieus),
within the distributed digital infrastructures of environmental monitoring.
How might we describe the processual and creaturely entities that concresce
through different practices of monitoring the air? What does the air (and the
environment) become through monitoring devices, and what are the ways in
which it concresces and becomes involved with experience, particularly if we con-
sider experience as constructive functioning?10 What are the relationships, polit-
ical engagements, and ways of mobilizing data that make for the most a/effective
environmental practices? And if monitoring and citizen sensing are emerging as
new modes of environmental participation, in what ways do these experiments
further enable practices for engaging with and addressing air pollution, and for
speculating with environmental politics? These are some of the questions that
arise when considering how a creaturely approach might shift the ways in which
data are seen to materialize and gain perceptive power.

CREATURING DATA I: MONITORING AND MATERIALIZING AIR

Where does my body end and the external world begin? . . . The breath as it
passes in and out of my lungs from my mouth and throat fluctuates in its
bodily relationship. Undoubtedly the body is very vaguely distinguishable
from external nature. It is in fact merely one among other natural objects.
 Sensing Air and Creaturing Data / 163

Breath is an example of the difficulty involved in delineating where the body ends
and the world begins, as captured Whitehead.11 It may be somewhat common-
place to note that breathing is a process in which we are all involved, necessarily,
to sustain our bodies. Whiteheads articulation of the ways in whichthrough
breathingbodies cannot be conceived of as discrete from environments and
other entities on which they rely further indicates the ways in which this process
concresces into environmental, political, social, and more-than-human occasions.
Breathing articulates distinct subject-superject relationships, since it involves more
than the simple fact of needing to breathe and extends to the sites, entities, and
conditions involved in exchanging air, which can be polluted and irritating to spe-
cific organisms, as well as given to remaking the bodily capacities of organisms as
they live and endure within particular ecologies of air.
The ways in which bodies, environments, and the multiple substances that per-
colate and stir through any given patch of air come together can be distinctly in-
fluenced by what is actually in the air. Beyond the usual list of atmospheric gases,
including nitrogen (78 percent), oxygen (21 percent), argon (1 percent), and vari-
ous trace minerals, pollutants may be present in quantities that register as parts
per million (ppm) or parts per billion (ppb) molecules of air. CO2, as discussed
in chapter 4, has been measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, to now be measurable at
400 ppm and rising.12 Pollutants, in other words, are often present in seemingly
miniscule quantities and yet are able to disrupt and remake environments, bodies,
and ecological processes on local and global scales. Beyond trace gases, however,
a whole range of coarse to ultrafine particles also chuck through the air, from
dust and skin flakes to diesel particles, to the airborne residue of grilled ham-
burgers and more. The air further exchanges materials with the soil and oceans
in a complex cycling that influences weather and climate. Airborne specks and
remainders simultaneously issue from and are exchanged to reshape the bodily
and atmospheric inhabitations underway in any given environment.
Gases and particles that are actually monitored in relation to managing air
quality then constitute a select portion of all the substances mixing within the
air. While there is a wide range of pollutants circulating through the air, the EPA
has designated common or criteria pollutants that are regularly monitored and
are notable for their effects on human and environmental health. These pollut-
ants include CO, nitrogen oxides (NOx), SO2, PM 10 and PM 2.5, lead (Pb), and
ozone (O3).13
Smokestacks and chimneys have served as the industrial icons of air pollu-
tion, and sulfur-saturated skies were the historic events that led to the formation
of clean air legislation in many Western countries, from the Clean Air Act in the
UK (1956) to the Clean Air Act in the United States (1963), as well as evolving air
quality objectives in the EU (2008).14 Inevitably, the cleaning up of Western
skies often raises questions about how coal-fired manufacturing may have been
164 / Sensing Air and Creaturing Data

displaced rather than remedied, as the exceedingly high levels of pollution in

China and other Asian manufacturing hubs demonstrate.15 Beyond coal use, pol-
lution now emanates from a range of sources and is not always present primarily
as SO2 that forms from the burning of coal. Instead, NOx and PM are the rela-
tively colorless and odorless pollutants of increasing concern and that are primar-
ily generated in urban areas from automobile traffic as well as the heating of
buildings. Unlike SO2, which is a far more visible and palpable pollutant both in
its immediate presence and eventual effects in the form of acid rain, defoliation,
and more, NOx and PM tend to be less immediately evident as key pollutants, but
they have considerable effects on human and environmental health.
Defining what counts as air pollution is far from a straightforward matter
when the evidence of harm potentially becomes more difficult to establish.16
Institutional and governmental monitoring networks typically identify pollutants
of concern in response to health research that provides evidence for levels of
harm caused by particular pollutants. As part of the Global Burden of Disease
2010 study, outdoor air pollution was identified as a leading cause of death, con-
tributing to heart, lung, and cardiopulmonary disease, which are now particularly
linked to PM 2.5 exposure, which are also less evident as pollutants.17 In many
ways, health research influences environmental policy, which sets targets in rela-
tion to which monitoring networks set criteria for monitoring, as well as provid-
ing air quality forecasts, management, and mitigation.
While the impacts of air pollution on human health are one of the key moti-
vators for establishing air quality standards, often the means of monitoring and
enforcing these standards can miss the localized pollution experienced by indi-
viduals. Environmental and individual health are bound up with articulations of
what does and does not count as a pollution episode and what may constitute an
excessive level of pollutant exposure. Emissions of a certain pollutant at a given
site in a city may be within an acceptable range, but individual exposure may vary
considerably. Air, noise, and water pollution are local if distributed environmental
disturbances that many urban dwellers experience on a regular basis, although
for some more than others since sites of pollution are often concentrated in
lower-income urban areas.18 Emissions and exposure mitigation have then been
identified as two different ways in which to monitor and manage air quality: one
addresses fixed sites and reductions of air pollutants; the other attends to how
individuals may manage their individual experience to lessen air pollution expo-
sure, such as monitoring and taking alternative routes through cities, although
not necessarily attending to overall reductions of air pollutants.
There is an extensive literature that discusses citizen engagement in moni-
toring air pollution, although often at the level of how citizens respond to or
aid scientific findings, or how they collect evidence themselves in order to contest
or augment official air quality readings.19 In this second approach, analyses of
 Sensing Air and Creaturing Data / 165

participatory- and environmental-justice-focused engagements with air pollution

have discussed the many and even noncomputational ways in which air samples
may be collected in order to influence environmental science and politics. Global
Community Monitor, for instance, is an environmental activism group engaged
in a DIY-bucket collection method to monitor air quality in places such as neigh-
borhoods adjacent to oil and gas refineries located in regions known as Cancer
Alley.20 While the bucket becomes a device for collecting air samples in a more
democratic and local way, the analysis of the air samples must still take place in
laboratories (similar to the diffusion-tube air analysis) that are not sites of citizen
engagement. Such projects present a low-tech way of conducting a version of
citizen science, which are largely focused on environmental activism and justice,
but they also raise questions about how air quality data might be experienced
in more real-time situations and how data might become admissible as evidence
for making environmental claims. This is where many citizen-sensing initiatives
attempt to make a contribution by providing more immediate and accessible
access to air quality data. But this approach is also not without its problems, as
will be discussed below.

Data Becoming Relevant

Articulations of personal, urban, and environmental health shift across these dif-
ferent strategies for addressing air pollution. Practices of monitoring pollution at
the citizen or individual level provide a way to counter or redress the possible gaps
in data, but there is more to these projects than this, since in mobilizing sensors to
bring environmental monitoring into a more democratic, if often individual, set
of engagements, new material-political actors, engagements, and experiments
concrescealong with new political (im)possibilities. With many of these proj-
ects, the question arises as to how data become relevant. Air pollution data might
become relevant through health research that establishes high levels of morbidity
due to particular air pollutants, or through scientific monitoring networks that
identify pollutants exceeding accountable limits, or through concerns for certain
environmental effects, from acid rain to eutrophication, which unfold with exces-
sive levels of pollutants.21
Relevance is a term that Whitehead uses to address the ways in which facts
have purchase, and the social environments that are set in place in order for
facts to mobilize distinct effects.22 Relevance is a critical part of the process of
creaturing, since creaturing involves the ways in which creativity is conditioned
or brought into specific events and entities. The ways in which creatures gain a
foothold, in other words, are expressions of relevance. Social environments are
integral to the immanent processes that condition and give rise to creatures
they do not exist without the formation of creatures, and they continue to co-
evolve as the situations in which creatures make sense and have effect.
166 / Sensing Air and Creaturing Data

Environments, as understood here and throughout this study, are then at once
an object of study as well as a mutually in-formed and coproduced relation
through which monitoring practices and gathered data take hold and gain rele-
vance. The relevance of air quality data is not determined through absolute cri-
teria, since these criteria shift depending upon modes of governance, location,
and more. If data are understood instead as perceptive entities, it then becomes
possible to attend to how data are differently mobilized and concresce within
and through practices. Data in one context might have the status of facts, and in
another context might galvanize a much different set of a/effects. As the EPA has
expressed in its analysis of new modes of environmental monitoring, types of
data and types of uses are interlinked.23 Data typically only become admissible
for legal claims when gathered through specified scientific procedures and with
quite precise (as well as expensive) instrumentation. There may also be situations
in which data are just good enough for establishing that a pollution event is
happening, for instance.24 Yet it remains a relatively open question as to what the
uses and effects of data gathered through citizen-sensing technologies might be,
since these creatures have arguably not yet settled into entities for which relevance
is expressible. In other words, how do citizen sensors undertake actions with and
through air pollution sensing practices and data? Could it be that the environ-
ments of relevance for this data are still in formation?
At this point, it might be easy enough to make a statement about the ways
in which environmental monitoring technologies construct the air and the
problem of air quality. While this inquiry works in a way parallel to construc-
tivism, it also attempts, following Stengers, to think of constructivism not as a
process of making fictions, but rather of making realities concresce and take
holdor gain a foothold, as Stengers has discussed elsewhere.25 As discussed
in chapter 1 of this study, sensors are part of generative processes for making
interpretative acts of sensation possible and for attending to environmental mat-
ters of concern. The environments, arrangements, and practices that are bound
up with how facts take hold and even potentially circulate with effect are then
a critical part of any study into how expanded and differently constituted air
pollution data and data-gathering practices might have relevance and be able
to effect change.
This approach to constructivism is different from a poststructuralist render-
ing, since ideas and language do not mediate things, but rather things concresce as
propositional effects.26 As Whitehead notes, every fact must propose the general
character of the universe required for that fact.27 Here is another aspect of tun-
ing, which is not just a process of making particular modalities of sensing possi-
ble across subjects, environments, and experiences, but also involves the tuning
of facts and the conditions in which those facts have relevance. If facts require
 Sensing Air and Creaturing Data / 167

particular social environments in order to have relevance,28 this does not make
them illusory. Rather, it draws attention to the conditions needed for facts to have
effect. In this way, facts are creatures, since, as Whitehead elaborates:

Each fact is more than its forms, and each form participates throughout the
world of facts. The definiteness of fact is due to its forms; but the individual fact
is a creature, and creativity is the ultimate behind all forms, inexplicable by forms,
and conditioned by its creatures.29

The creatures of factsand dataconstitute entities that bring worlds into being.
Sense data are productive of new environments, entities, and occasions that make
particular modalities of sensibility possible. A social environment then plays a
formative part in conditioning and supporting creatures of fact and creatures of
data.30 These are creatures of data because they are involved in creative processes
that bring sensing to possibility and that in-form the environments where these
modes of sensing have relevance.
It might be useful at this point to step back, briefly, to explain how creativity
unfolds within Whiteheads cosmology. Creativity is another word for the cre-
ative advance, or process, of entities, which explains how entities may be under-
stood both as being and becoming. Creativity is ultimate within Whiteheads
speculative philosophy, and this approach enables an engagement with entities that
moves beyond a fixed subject-object relation to attend to processual and imma-
nent conditions of the formation of entities. In this way, the entities that concresce
through a creative advance are creatures.31 Creatures are subject-superjects,
they are the conditions that creativity settles into, since creativity can only be
known through its conditions. It should also be noted that creativity is not inher-
ently good. Whitehead expressly develops a neutral metaphysics that seeks to
explain process, but he does not cast judgment on the ways in which a creative
advance settles into creatures.32
A process of creaturing data then attends to the ways in which data are not
fixed objects gathered through universal criteria but instead are entities through
which forms and practices emerge as creatures, and through creaturely processes.
As discussed throughout this study, perceiving subject-superjects combine as feel-
ing entities through actual occasions. These entities might otherwise be termed
creatures, since they are formations of conditioned creativity. Furthermore, the
datum, as Whitehead discusses it, is not simply an external array of objects
awaiting conceptual classification by a human subject. Instead, the datum is that
which subject-superjects feel. Through this experiencing (and so processing and
transforming) the datum, subject superjects are able to generate actual entities, or
creatures. As he explains:
168 / Sensing Air and Creaturing Data

The philosophies of substance presuppose a subject which then encounters a

datum, and then reacts to the datum. The philosophy of organism presupposes a
datum which is met with feelings, and progressively attains the unity of a subject.
But with this doctrine, superject would be a better term than subject.33

Whitehead uses Kants notion of experience as constructive functioning, but

reverses the order of experience. Experience is not always on its way to knowl-
edge in the form of objective content, but rather can be understood in the way
that the datum is felt and processed to become superjectal. In this approach,
Whitehead inverts the usual Kantian way of understanding experience (i.e., as a
subject decoding universal objects) to suggest that objects find satisfaction in
subject-superjects, which take account of the datum in particular ways.34
I suggest we understand Whiteheads Kantian inversion as a process of crea-
turing data, since it draws attention to the ways in which data are always felt and
experienced by and as creatures, which through feeling further give rise to dis-
tinct forms of data. A process of transforming the datum into felt experience is a
process of creaturing data because what issues through this process are subject-
superjects involved in processes of being and becoming creatures. Perhaps in the
most concisely stated version of this insight, Whitehead writes, An actual entity
is an act of experience.35 Feeling the datum is a process of transforming the
datum into experience, which concresces as an actual entity or creature. Creatur-
ing is then the description of this process of feeling the datum, where creatures are
the actual entities formed through creaturing the datum.
If we consider the data that digital sensors generate, then these devices might
be understood less as technologies for gathering data and more as technologies
for processing, transforming, and creaturing dataas a felt form of the datum.
While it may be easy enough to query the assertion that more data and more
democratically gathered data might lead to action and engagement, an approach
to creaturing data suggests that it might be relevant to attend to the ways in which
data are taken up, felt, experienced, taken into account, gain relevance, and attain
power as the process whereby particular perceptions or modes of prehension
involve or prevail over others.36
Practices of processing environmental data are the routes whereby data achieve
subjective satisfaction and become relevant to the persistence and further forma-
tion of that data. Furthermore, subjects that process and transform environmen-
tal data are human and more-than-human creatures. This is to say that subjects
include a vast array of entities, from pavements to trees to sensorsthat form
and are formed by creative processes of taking up and transforming data. Envi-
ronmental data are not simply gathered from environments, as though this pro-
cess only requires that human subjects discover objective universal data to be
communicated. Instead, subjects constitutively enable the becoming and being
(which is to say, settlement and endurance) of particular forms of data through
 Sensing Air and Creaturing Data / 169

the ways in which they experience the datum. The creatures that concresce draw
from and express worlds in which those data have relevance. The formation of
environments as monitor-able then comprises a key part of how data and facts
take hold, since environments are co-created along with the processes of subjects
parsing and creaturing data.

CREATURING DATA II: DOGS, PIGEONS, AND EGGS

Sensing technologies are then entangled with and mobilize new environmental
monitoring practices and new ways of gathering data. The modes of engagement
and spaces through which data are gathered, analyzed, and communicated are
central to the emergence of these environmental modes of practice. Citizen-
sensing projects are frequently described as data campaigns or as identifying an
issue about which more data may be needed in order to effect policy changes.
As numerous studies of science and technology have noted, however, data are
always embedded within political practices, structures, and institutions that in-form

Figure 6.3. Feral Robotic Dogs website. A project for autonomous dog-robots to sense pollution in
environments, developed by Natalie Jeremijenko et al. Screen capture.
170 / Sensing Air and Creaturing Data

everything from how data are delineated and collected to how they are joined up,
communicated, and acted upon.37
For the remainder of this chapter, I focus on these aspects of environmental
data as forming creatures of data. By looking specifically at three projects that
engage with computational modes of sensing environments, I consider the rela-
tions, practices, and political possibilities that concresce to form these distinct crea-
tures of environmental data. Feral Robotic Dogs, Pigeon Blog, and Air Quality
Egg are citizen-sensing projects that largely focus on doing science and environ-
mental monitoring differently through the actors, arrangements, tools and spaces
where monitoring is undertaken. At the same time, in pollution-monitoring proj-
ects, the gathering of sense data is often closely tied to a/effecting political action
and environmental change by addressing how data are generated, collected, and
acted uponas well as creatured through processes of subject-superjects feeling
the datum.

Dogs
One of the earliest creative-practice projects to engage with environmental sens-
ing, Feral Robotic Dogs was originally developed by Natalie Jeremijenko in 2002
through the Bureau of Inverse Technology (or BIT) and developed in additional
versions and deployments through 2006. The project adapted existing Sony Aibo
toy dogs by upgrading them with all-terrain bodies and environmental-sensing
brains and noses. Ready-made robotic toy dogs with preprogrammed tasks were
identified as having more interesting potential uses: these were creatures await-
ing further instructions. The first generation gamma dog was proposed to store
and transmit environmental data from any radioactive source that exceeds EPA
thresholds, where the deployment of these dogs in multiples would provide infor-
mational spectacle and conclusive on-data convergence in a given local area.38 In
their development, the semiautonomous gadgets were rerouted to sniffer dog
mode and fitted with environmental sensors capable of detecting environmental
pollutants including volatile organic compounds (VOCs), CO, and methane (CH4),
while providing general indications of air quality.
A number of deployments of the dogs were then developed for sites of likely
pollution, including a Former Gas Plant at East 173rd Street Works at the Bronx
River in New York, where dogs scouted for volatile organic solvents and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons; and at Baldwin Park, Orlando, Florida, where robots were
deployed to search for VOCs at sites of community interest, including a former
landfill site that was a proposed site for a middle school. This Florida deployment
sought to provide an opportunity for an evidence-driven discussion of the envi-
ronmental issues facing the community and the opportunity to coordinate diverse
opinions and interpretations of the phenomena at hand. As the project descrip-
tion notes:
 Sensing Air and Creaturing Data / 171

Because the dogs space-filling logic emulates a familiar behavior, i.e. sniffing
out, anyone can participate and try to make sense of this data in real time with-
out necessarily having the technical or scientific training usually required to inter-
pret data from other sources on the same phenomena. It has the potential to raise
the standards of evidence involved [and] promote diverse valid interpretations
involved in complex environmental and political processes.39

Environmental data were to become evident through the movements of dogs that
sniff out and map pollutants. This was seen as a way to render environmental
data more perceptible and more spectacular, while also changing the possibilities
for who can generate and access data and so have the means for contributing to
environmental and political debates. Inevitably, processes of monitoring pollut-
ants here and in the projects discussed below are bound up with available sensors
that are able to measure specific gases and which creature particular types of evi-
dence. Such versions of data-led environmental citizenship become further in-
formed by the prior investment in sensors developed with specialized technical
capacities, often for military, industrial, or scientific uses.
In discussing the Feral Robotic Dogs project, a group of artists and technolo-
gists who variously came to work on the project suggested that the meeting
of robotics and environmental sensing and mapping could propel activism to
new types of encounters, where creative explorations with data gathering and
environmental monitoring might create renewed engagements with local envi-
ronments.40 Here is a sensing project that speculates about the possibility for par-
ticipatory and citizen-based data collection in order to create more direct and
materialized connections between environmental information and the observers
of that information.41 Through the collection of environmental data, it is imag-
ined that a more immediate and accountable mode of environmental action
might also be possible.
Yet this direct connection between data and action could be queried on many
levels, since such a translation is not necessarily automatic and in many ways de-
pends on an assumed efficacy that scientific data are assumed to have in the world.
The ways in which climate change data, for instance, fail to have an immediate
effect on political action may give rise to speculation about whether data neces-
sarily constitute incontrovertible evidence with which to influence and change
environmental politics. The failure of data to lead to environmental action might,
on one level, stem from the assumed force of a scientifically evidenced and ratio-
nal argument, where decisions made in relation to environmental matters of con-
cern instead unfold through multiple and competing political interests. On another
level, however, the ways in which data in and of themselves are meant to beand
may also fail to becompelling may raise questions about the a/effective regis-
ters of data. Is a robotic dog a more a/effective data-creature than a spreadsheet,
Figure 6.4. Pigeon Blog website. A project for trained homing pigeons to carry sensor and GPS backpacks and sense air pollution in Southern California,
developed by Beatriz da Costa et al. Screen capture.
 Sensing Air and Creaturing Data / 173

bar chart, or policy document? The point here is not to set up a false dichotomy
between these data forms, but rather to ask about the ways in which the crea-
turing of data may be one way to experiment with the modes and practices of
environmental citizenship. In these creaturely arrangements of dogs, pigeons,
and eggs, new distributions of participation might even materialize. But the exact
ways in which these forms of participation in-form environmental politics remain
a point of speculation that continues to be explored and taken up in subsequent
citizen-sensing projects.

Pigeons
If the Feral Robotic Dogs project deployed air-sensing technologies through a
robotic toy to make new technical modalities of environmental monitoring more
widely available, the Pigeon Blog project raises the question of how air quality
sensing transforms even further when pigeons are the reporters and carriers of
sensing equipment. Pigeon Blog, developed by Beatriz da Costa with Cina Hazegh
and Kevin Ponto in 2006, was a project that used sensor backpacks fitted to hom-
ing pigeons to collect low-altitude air quality readings while the pigeons flew
through the frequently polluted skies of Southern California. The sensor back-
packs consisted of a combined GPS receiver that provided latitude, longitude, and
altitude readings, a dual automotive CO and NO sensor, a temperature sensor,
and a purpose-built mobile phone for transmitting text messages. The backpack
kit was developed as a miniature unit small enough to be carried by the pigeons
so that real-time air quality data could be transmitted and visualized as pollution
levels on the Pigeon Blog and within a Google Map visualization.42
Situated within Southern California and initially developed in Los Angeles, the
project addressed the ongoing problem of air pollution and environmental justice
by developing an open-source sensing kit that could be used for grassroots scien-
tific data gathering.43 The Pigeon Blog project was developed as a response
to the limited number of fixed air-monitoring stations that are focused on gener-
ating longer-term average data about air quality and which may not necessarily
be located in areas of the highest-pollution episodes. By providing the possibility
for more local measurements and data about local exposures, the Pigeon Blog
project sought to complement if not challenge existing data on air pollution to
look at the distribution of pollution on a finer-grained level. This approach was
shared with AIR, a 2006 Preemptive Media project (briefly mentioned at the in-
troduction to this chapter), on which da Costa collaborated along with Brooke
Singer and Jamie Schulte. Consisting of portable air monitors, AIR enabled urban
dwellers to complement coarser and fixed air quality data by collecting local data
through individual journeys.44 Equipped with GPS and coordinated with a data-
base of known pollution sources, the air monitors sensed CO, NOx, and ground-
level O3 at distinct locations and provided real-time visualizations of air pollution
174 / Sensing Air and Creaturing Data

levels in relation to an EPA air quality index. By making individual maps of urban
air pollution exposure, the hope was that urban dwellers could become more
aware and engaged in discussing environmental issues through everyday expo-
sure, individual risk, and neighborhood-level mapping.
In both Pigeon Blog and AIR, citizen sensing is presented as an activist project
of sorts. Yet Pigeon Blog in particular does not undertake a typical approach to
environmental politics and urban air quality. By enrolling pigeons into the project
of sensing air, the Pigeon Blog project questions how to develop a mode of inter-
species co-production in the pursuit of resistant action.45 The pigeons were sent
out as reporters to draw attention to the issue of air pollution while providing
inventive and more accessible ways of gathering data in order to provoke new pos-
sibilities for political action. Pigeons participated in this project in multiple ways,
since they are creatures with unique navigational abilities and often fly according
to major landscape features, such as highways, and are also a pervasive (if often
reviled) bird in urban areas. Pigeons often occupy polluted urban areas and may
provide a specific view of low-altitude air pollution in areas of high traffic. Pigeons
further act as biosensors, and make available distinct urban experiences through
proxy modes of sensing.
Pigeons are also key contributors to creaturing data and environmental par-
ticipation in ways that move beyond the usual spaces of environmental activism.

Figure 6.5. Air Quality Egg. View of the Air Quality Egg in its manufactured and saleable form after
multiple stages of prototyping. Photograph by Citizen Sense.
 Sensing Air and Creaturing Data / 175

Da Costa makes the point that projects such as Pigeon Blog may create new capaci-
ties for engaging with environmental information and for mobilizing participation
that are not exclusively focused on how bad things are.46 While the project set
out to provide alternative datasets that might be widely gathered to contribute to
more expert approaches to environmental monitoring, in many ways this objec-
tive was not achieved. Long-term or even complementary datasets were not gen-
erated from the project, and this anticipated outcome even became somewhat
incompatible with the projects attempt to experiment with new modes of envi-
ronmental practice and participation. Instead, Pigeon Blog experimented with the
urban, technological, and more-than-human entities that became part of the proj-
ect of sensing, experiencing, and reporting on air quality. While this project failed
to engage with air quality data in the ways initially anticipated it nevertheless
arrived at an expanded approach to environmental practice that was less conven-
tionally data driven and more attentive to the ecological modalities of citizenship
that might materialize with such a distributed approach to sensing environments.47

Eggs
As earlier experiments into environmental sensing, Feral Robotic Dogs and Pigeon
Blog tested the ways in which new and distributed modes of participation across
human and more-than-human modalities might shift the possibilities for political
engagement in air quality. These projects continue to influence citizen-sensing
projects currently underway, which have proliferated not least through the in-
creasing availability and affordability of sensor technologies. Air Quality Egg is
one project in this area that has sought to connect up maker communities in
developing digital devices to enable citizen sensing of air quality.48 Developed as a
community-led project, where the community is largely comprised of creative
technologists located in New York, London, and Amsterdam, the early prototype
version of the egg project consisted of a Nanode sensing platform that detected
CO and NO2, which the project creators identified as key air pollutants. Housed
in a rapid-prototyped egg-shaped shell, the air-sensing apparatus was initially
developed at workshops in New York City and Amsterdam, further tested at the
second Citizen Cyberscience Summit in London in 2012, and subsequently gained
considerable backing on Kickstarter, which allowed the device to be manufac-
tured for wider use.
As the eggs developed from prototypes to manufactured sensor kits, they could
then be ordered from electronic hobby suppliers. Citizen-owned eggs were in
turn mapped in an online platform and shown to be located in the United States,
Europe, Australia, and Japan, and variously gathering measurements that were
uploaded to a Xively data platform. While the Air Quality Egg project is osten-
sibly focused on air quality monitoring, it is more centrally located within techni-
cal communities that are driven to experiment with the technology of sensing
176 / Sensing Air and Creaturing Data

devices. These communities typically engage in what has been referred to as

participatory-sensing experiments by bringing the technical functionalities of
sensors to more immediate points of encounter through setup, testing, modifica-
tion, and online tutorials for upgrading devices.49 In the process, many questions
have arisen regarding how these technologies actually work and the extent to
which the data they generate are accurate. Comments on the community forum
related to the Air Quality Egg raised a heated debate as to how viable it is to
monitor air quality accurately with such a device, given the scale, lack of calibra-
tion, and coarse instrumentation of the metal oxide sensors it uses (which are
typically used for automotive functions). To what extent are egg-gathered data
useful and accurate? And what if the egg fails to function in the first place (as was
the case in several of the prototyping workshops)?
In a project video, however, commentators on the project suggest that the
accuracy of data is not a primary issue, since sense data might provoke environ-
mental concerns that could be followed up with more thoroughly scientific study.
Here, the focus is on a community of egg users and developers inclined toward
testing devices, which might raise further calls to action, even if the trajectories
from local, sporadic, and somewhat momentary datasets to the influencing of
environmental science, policy, and behavior are not entirely clear.
At one point in the project video, which captures the testing of the egg dur-
ing the London Cyberscience event in the spring of 2012, a participant remarks,
the chicken is not ready, to refer to the back-and-forth attempts to have the egg
setup, calibrated, and ready to gather measurements. In the context of creaturely
data, this project seems to be an entity in-formation where sensor-led technical
kit is the assumed impetus for galvanizing environmental issues and action. The
environments that concresce here are highly in-formed by computational modes
of sensing and acting. Data gathered through electronic sensing is seen to be
the force that propels perceived possibilities for activism, but the force of data
emerges less through the accuracy of data and more through the process of a
technical community making a device that can draw attention to data practices
as potentially political engagements. Data are creatured in the Air Quality Egg
through a device ready to hatch and give rise to new modalities of data-driven
activism. But the modes of participating in making devices and generating data
may be much different entities and occasions, arguably, than the modes of par-
ticipating in environmental activism, which may be a legitimating subtext for the
egg but not the primary focus in this tech-led and maker-community approach
to participation.50

EXPERIMENTING WITH ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZENSHIP

The three projects discussed here share a similar approach to environmental sens-
ing as a more democratic engagement with data gathering in order to influence
 Sensing Air and Creaturing Data / 177

environmental politics. Yet beyond these similarities, much different entities and
modalities of citizenship come together in these projects. The Feral Robotic Dogs
project tests deployments in landfills and the site of a proposed middle school,
making the point that from these sites new communities of interest might emerge
to influence environmental debate. Data are rendered as a more haptic and
materialized experience, something demonstrated through a fleet of sniffing
robotic dogs. The Pigeon Blog seeks to make urban air quality visible through a
more-than-human engagement, which at once redistributes environmental par-
ticipation while creating a more experimental approach to sensing urban envi-
ronments. And the Air Quality Egg focuses on developing an Internet of Things
approach to creating a worldwide sensor network, where new devices and the
data they generate lead to new possibilities for participation and the formation of
communities.
Yet in each of these projects, the translation from environmental-sensing
experiment to citizen-based engagement with environmental issues remains un-
clear. Such issues are not uncommon within more grassroots modes of citizen
sensing and environmental monitoring. As the London Air Quality Network
points out, monitoring air quality on a DIY-level may not be as easy as it first
appears. This is due to the complexity (and expense) of working with precisely
instrumented sensors and the questions of accuracy that pertain to sensing proj-
ects that use less refined sensing equipment or that are not set in up a systematic
way to study environments over time. Yet the dogs, pigeons, and eggs of these
projects are not gathering data at the level of scientific study but are making a case
for the development of complementary data sets to inform what is monitored
and how it is brought to attention in order to be acted upon.
At this level of action, additional questions arise as to how environmental
sense data may influence environmental politics and actions. In an earlier human
computer interaction research project, Common Sense, which tested the de-
ployment of sensors for measuring air quality on street sweepers, the project
participants arrived at the observation that environmental community organiza-
tion is actually the critical factor in order for data generated through sensor
deployments to be relevant, meaningful, and actionable.51 In fact, community
environmental organizations have in some cases been rather skeptical of the
extent to which more data from computational sensors will necessarily facilitate
more effective action. In this way, some researchers question the assumption that
more localized and data-led processes of environmental observation and moni-
toring do actually enable greater environmental participation.
While the uses and effects of citizen-sensing data, particularly as gathered
through digital technologies, are arguably still in formation, this situation raises
challenging questions about the types of creatures that might concresce through
citizen-sensing data. On the one hand, since the relevance of scientific datasets is
178 / Sensing Air and Creaturing Data

something that citizen-sensing practices would ideally like to harness, there may
be an overreliance on transferring scientific rationales to citizen-sensing datasets.
On the other hand, the assumed effectivity of scientific datasets for mobilizing
political action also remains unquestioned in this move, since more, or more
accurate, scientific data does not always (if ever) incontrovertibly lead to political
change, as the ongoing inertia around Londons air pollution and the exceedance
of EU guidelines clearly indicates.52
The EPAs report on new types of monitoring technologies and practices
might be read even as more of a provocation for the types of data practices that
are still in a generative or experimental phase and the ways in which the creatures
of data are still in formation along with their environments of relevance. Citizen-
sensing practices for monitoring pollution are experimental both in the technolo-
gies of environmental monitoring and data gathering and in the practices and
social environments within which these data might have relevance and become
creatures of data. In other words, citizen-sensing practices are in-formation as
experimental practices that test not just how environmental monitoring data
might be differently gathered but also how such data might be mobilized within
distinct environments of relevance, and to what (political) a/effect.
Environmental sense data gathered without a clear link to community proj-
ects may not have the anticipated effects of facilitating greater participation in
environmental matters of concern. Yet, to varying degrees, some of these proj-
ects do experiment with the methods, techniques, communities, modes of partici-
pation, sites of monitoring, and evidential modes of activism and politics that
might materialize as new entities and processes for engaging with environments
and environmental issues. These experiments with a/effectivity and practice bring
openingsas well as further controversiesto approaches to environmental pol-
itics and participation that might be investigated further. Monitoring dataas
typically conceivedmight not be the critical unit for mobilizing environmental
citizenship and action; and a gadget-led process for engaging with politics may
not be the most definitive answer to developing new modes of environmental
engagement. However, these citizen-sensing projects raise the question of what
other experiments might emerge that open up the possibility for new types of
environmental politics and new modes of collective participation.
Within this space, the modes and practices of datathe creaturely entities
in and through which data manifest and give rise to worldsare arguably an area
yet to be fully explored, since data are so frequently presented as the abstract and
dematerialized evidence of environmental facts. But the modalities, materialities,
and creatures of environmental data may be one way of experimenting with mon-
itoring practices as sites of environmental engagement, where affectivity and the
relevance of social environments become critical to considering the effectivity of
 Sensing Air and Creaturing Data / 179

data.53 The creatures that concresce here are not only those of environmental
sense data but also those of environmental citizenship. Distributed and more-than-
human modes of participation contribute to air pollution and its monitoring.
From computational sensors to moving air masses, manufacturing and transport,
vegetation and animal bodies, temperature gradients and topography, and eco-
nomic inequality and real estate, as well as policy and modeling, a number of
entities converge in the project of experiencing, participating in, and experiment-
ing with sensing air pollution.

PARTICIPATION AS INVOLVEMENT
The engagements that are made possible through the expanded arrangements
of environmental data could then be understood as modes of togetherness, or
involvement, as Whitehead terms it, of environmental problems and events. This
is a way of saying that environmental data are participatory, yet not simply as an
articulation of humans using and connecting across gadgets or even of objects
having agential force. Instead, data are participatory as technological concres-
cences that make distinct modes of engaging with environments take hold and
persist while shaping the actuality and the possibility of environmental politics
and imaginaries. The concrescences of environmental monitoring and environ-
mental data encompass more than a concatenation of actors, since the participa-
tion of these multiple entities is also a mode of prehension that describes the
ways in which actual entities involve each other.54
Involvement is a distinct and processual meeting of entities formed through
encountersas well as absences (hence, positive and negative prehensions). Involve-
ment constitutes more than an assemblage, arguably, since the character and effect
of relations are integral to the ways in which entities concresce to produce prac-
tices, facts, and subjects-superjects. Involvement is a process that further signals
the concrete making of worlds (and environments)the being and becoming of
those worlds, as they endure and change. How then might environmental data be
understood not simply as the end result of monitoring practices but as the ingres-
sion or mode of participation and even potential involvement, which mobilizes
and concresces monitoring practices in particular ways?55
Some atmospheric scientists have suggested that low-cost digital sensors may,
on the one hand, encourage more democratic engagement with environmental
issues. But, on the other hand, these sensors might not produce data that are as
accurate as higher-end instrumentation.56 While data are differently creatured
across scientific and citizen-sensing practices, they are also productive in another
way, since these realms and hoped-for uses are not mutually exclusive but begin to
in-form each other as arrangements of environmental politics and practices of
citizenship. While the accuracy of citizen-sensed data might not compare to the
180 / Sensing Air and Creaturing Data

data gathered through scientific techniques, it might alternatively constitute dif-

ferent processes for creaturing data and for experimenting with environmental
citizenship. Such an approach also raises the question of whether an exclusively
scientific approach to environments and environmental data is the only way in
which environmental politics might have legitimacy and effect. If we keep in
mind Whiteheads famous aphorism that science is necessary but not sufficient,
then how might environmental citizenship unfold into a wider set of practices
and approaches to creaturing data?57
This chapter has suggested that by attending to the particularities of how data
are processed and transformed into experienceby attending to the creatures of
datait might be possible to open up new considerations for how environmental
data become relevant, the environments that ensure this relevance, and what the
a/effect of these data might be. If we return to the EPA report on the emergence
of new monitoring practices and technologies, the point made about how new
types of data might yield new types of data practices remains a salient point for
this discussion. The report suggests that while legal and compliance-focused data
may still largely be produced through scientific processes, new personal and
qualitative uses of data might emerge through digital sensors and smartphones
that have as-of-yet not fully determined functions or effects. If current air moni-
toring is largely focused on legal compliance and atmospheric science uses, then
what environmental engagements might come together from different data prac-
tices and arrangements? What might citizen-sensing practices cause to take hold
in relation to air pollution and air quality? And how do these practices exceed the
instruments and devices of sensing to encompass a more creaturely distribution
of experience?
As discussed through the three projects that mobilize dogs, pigeons, and eggs
in a project of gathering environmental data along more citizenly engagements,
environmental monitoring always involves more than its instruments, at that
same time that data is never reducible to a universal category. The creatures of
data that emerge in these projects are entities that concresce as distinct occasions
of environmental engagement across experiencing subject-superjects. The data
gathered here are not simply in service of visualizing environmental phenomena,
whether through finer-grained or mobile modalities. Instead, these creatures are
the consequent reasons for attending to, processing, and transforming data in
these specific ways.58 While scientific datasets might be understood through par-
ticular consequent reasons that appeal to the objectivity of air pollution data,
mobilizing these same reasons a priori for undertaking citizen-sensing projects
may in fact restrict the possibilities that citizen-led monitoring might provide.
If data is de-creatured, as it were, how does this apparent universality of data
obscure the arrangements that lend effectivity to data? At the same time, a case
could be made here for reconsidering what counts as raw data. Rather than
 Sensing Air and Creaturing Data / 181

excising it entirely, raw data might also be considered to be a distinct effect and
creature of data. As Whitehead has remarked in relation to Kant, objective con-
ditions are simply a way of creaturing those dataas objective.59 Furthermore,
the objectiveness or givenness of data is not an absolute substance or universal
condition, but rather is an actual occasion or entity that has settled in this way
to become a fact, but which may also change. If we reconsider raw data in this
way, then data are less an absolute condition and more a way of creaturing data
as a particular resource, where rawness sets particular practices and effects in
motion. Within scientific practice rawness then is important as a condition of
data upon which additional operations are made.60 But this creaturely inflection
of data need not influence or speak for all other modalities for creaturing data
nor the many practices that might be set in motion as ongoing inheritances of
creaturely data.
In this context, what does it mean to sense or experience air pollution with
computational sensors? Monitoring air pollution with digital sensors is not just
a way of obtaining a result or fact about a particular environment but is also
about the ways in which data are creatured and mobilized, the social environ-
ments that concretize and allow those facts to have relevance, and the additional
attendant data practices that might come together to generate a/effects. Creatur-
ing data is an approach that asks how we might consider much more than the
facts gathered, since the extended social environments, practices, and specula-
tive relations required to bring facts into a space of relevance are crucial to the
creatures of data that materialize. Creaturing data is a way of attending to the
processing and transforming of environmental data. This is not simply a matter
of attending to the extended capacities of generating data but instead involves
considering the creatures of data, the entities and situations that form and take
hold, whether to solidify, experiment with, or change environmental practices
and politics. These creatures, as Whitehead (following James) has reminded us in
the epigraph to this chapter, settle into a democracy of fellow creatures, where
the shared experiences of air, pollution, and possibilities for engagement might
even bring us into inventive modes of solidarity.
This page intentionally left blank
III

Urban Sensing
Figure 7.1. Connected Sustainable Cities project video. A collaborative and speculative smart city project
developed across the MIT Mobile Experience Lab and Cisco. Screen capture.
 7

Citizen Sensing in the

Smart and Sustainable City
From Environments to Environmentality

C i t i e s t h at a r e i n f u s e d w i t h and transformed by compu-

tational processes seem to be the object of continual reinvention. While infor-
mational or cybernetically planned cities have been underway since at least the
1960s,1 proposals for networked or computable cities began to appear as regular
features in urban-development plans from the 1980s onward.2 From designing
for the plasticity of urban architecture to envisioning the city as a zone for tech-
nologically spurred economic growth, digital city developments have remade
urban spaces as networked, distributed, and flexible sites for capital accumulation
and urban experience.
More recent and commercially led proposals for smart cities have focused
on how networked urbanisms and participatory media might achieve greener
or more efficient cities that are simultaneously engines for economic growth.
Smart city proponents commonly make the case for the necessity of these devel-
opments by signaling toward trends in increasing urbanization. While cities are
centers of economic growth and innovation, they are also, smart city advocates
argue, sites of considerable resource use and greenhouse-gas emissions and are
therefore important zones for implementing sustainability initiatives. In these
proposals decaying or yet-to-be-built infrastructures are identified as sites of prime
smart city development. Smart cities are presented as a neatly packaged way to
meet these generalized challenges, thereby ensuring that future citieswhether
retrofitted or neware more sustainable and efficient than ever before.
Although cities infused by digital technologies and imaginaries are not a new
development, their implementation to achieve sustainability directives under the
guise of smart cities is a more recent tactic for promoting digital technologies. In
many smart city proposals, computational technologies are meant to synchronize
urban processes and infrastructures to improve resource efficiency, distribution of

185
186 / Citizen Sensing in the Smart and Sustainable City

services, and urban participation. Digital technologies, and specifically ubiquitous

computing, have become a recurring theme in articulating how sustainable urban-
isms might be achieved; yet the intersection of smart and sustainable urbanisms
is an area of study that has yet to be examined in detail, particularly in relation to
what modalities of urban environmental citizenship are emphasized or even elim-
inated in the smart city.
This chapter addresses another aspect of the becoming environmental of com-
putation through the becoming environmental of power that unfolds within smart
cities projects.3 To elaborate upon this particular focus on the becoming environ-
mental of computation and power, I take up the emergence of the smart city as a
sustainable city by looking at one particular case study, the Connected Sustainable
Cities (CSC) project developed by MIT and Cisco within the Connected Urban
Development (CUD) initiative. The CSC aspect of the project consists of design
proposals developed between 2007 and 2008 by William Mitchell and Federico
Casalegno in the MIT Mobile Experience Lab working in conjunction with Cisco
CUD. The Cisco CUD initiative was a partnership initiated in 2006 in response to
the Clinton Global Initiative for addressing climate change. Pairing with eight cit-
ies worldwide, from San Francisco to Madrid, Seoul, and Hamburg, CUD ran
until 2010 and has influenced Ciscos ongoing project Smart + Connected Com-
munities, which continues to produce smart city plans, from development under-
way in Songdo to proposals to develop a Sustainable 21st Century San Francisco.4
Situating this design proposal within a range of smart city projects that include
sustainability in their development plans, I examine how this speculative and early
smart city project proposes to achieve more sustainable and efficient urbanisms
through a number of ubiquitous computing scenarios to be adapted to existing
and hypothetical cities. The CSC project proposal bears strong resemblances to
many smart city developments still underway and, with its connection to Cisco,
one of the primary developers of network architecture for cities, is an influential
demonstration of smart city imaginings. Many of the tools developed through
the CUD project consist of planning documents, white papers, eco toolkits, multi-
media demonstrations, and speculative designs meant to guide smart city develop-
ment.5 As an important but perhaps overlooked part of the process of promoting
smart cities, these designs, narratives, and documents have played a key role in
rearticulating the smart city as a sustainable city. However, this chapter focuses on
these proposals not simply as discursive renderings of cities but as elements within
an urban computational dispositif, or apparatus,6 which performs materialpolitical
and environmental relations across speculative designs, technological imaginaries,
urban development plans, democratic engagements through participatory media,
and networked infrastructures, many of which are folded into present-day urban
development plans and practices, even when the smart city is an ever-elusive proj-
ect to be realized.
 Citizen Sensing in the Smart and Sustainable City / 187

Smart city plans and designs, as proposed and uncertainly realized, articulate
distinct materialities and spatialities as well as formations of power and gover-
nance. By considering Foucaults concept of environmentality in this context, I
examine the ways in which the CSC project performs distributions of governance
within and through proposals for smart environments and technologies. I empha-
size this aspect of Foucaults discussion of environmentality in order to open
up and develop further his unfinished questioning of how environmental tech-
nologies as spatial modes of governance might alter materialpolitical distribu-
tions of power and possible modes of subjectification.7 Revisiting and reworking
Foucaults notion of environmentality not as the production of environmental
subjects but as a spatialmaterial distribution and relationality of power through
environments, technologies, and ways of life, I consider how practices and opera-
tions of citizenship concretize that are a critical part of the imaginings of smart
and sustainable cities. This reading of environmentality in the smart city recasts
who or what counts as a citizen and attends to the ways in which citizenship
is articulated environmentally through the distribution and feedback of monitoring
and urban data practices, rather than as an individual subject to be governed.
The primary way in which sustainability is to be achieved within smart cities
is through more efficient processes and responsive urban citizens participating in
computational sensing and monitoring practices. Urban citizens become sensing
nodesor citizen sensorswithin smart city proposals. This is a way of under-
standing citizen sensing not as a practice synonymous with citizen science but as
a modality of citizenship that concretizes through interaction with computational
sensing technologies used for environmental monitoring and feedback. In this
context, I take up the proposals for smart cities as developed in the CSC project
to ask: What are the implications of computationally organized distributions of
environmental governance that are programmed for distinct functionalities and
are managed by corporate and state actors that engage with cities as datasets to
be manipulated? Which articulations of environmentality concretize within sus-
tainable smart city proposals and developments when governance is performed
through environments that are computationally programmed? And when sensing
citizens become operatives within urban computational systems, how might envi-
ronmental technologies delimit citizen-like practices to a series of actions focused
on monitoring and managing data? Might this mean that citizenship is less about
a fixed human subject and more about an operationalization of citizenship that
largely relies on digital technics to become animate?

REMAKING SMART CITIES

As might be gathered from the multiple literatures and projects directed toward
smart cities, there are numerous interpretations for what even counts as a smart
city.8 It could involve new media districts or automated infrastructures equipped
188 / Citizen Sensing in the Smart and Sustainable City

with networked digital sensors, it could refer to the correspondence between

online and offline worlds, or it might encompass augmented urban experiences
made possible through mobile devices. While earlier research on computational
urbanisms may have focused on the relationship between the digital and physical
city and the ways in which virtual digital technologies might respatialize or
represent physical cities,9 increasingly these approaches have transformed into the
ways in which cities are now being remade and marketed through both software
and the material infrastructures of digital technologies.10 Ubiquitous computing
remakes cities, rather than displacing or virtually representing them, by generat-
ing considerable amounts of data to manage urban processes, as well as by directly
embedding devices in urban infrastructures and spaces.
Smartness, while a generalized reference to computational urbanisms, in-
creasingly refers to urban sustainability strategies that hinge on the implementa-
tion of ubiquitous urban computing, or the fourth utility, as Cisco has termed
it.11 In an industry white paper, A Theory of Smart Cities, IBM authors involved
with the Smarter Planet initiative suggest that the term smart cities derives from
smart growth, a concept used in urban planning in the late 1990s to describe
strategies for curtailing sprawl and inefficient resource use, which later changed
to describe IT-enabled infrastructures and processes oriented toward such objec-
tives.12 This recurring theme within government and industry white papers on
smart cities addresses the ways in which networked sensor technologies are
meant to optimize urban processes and resources, including transport, buildings,
electricity, and industry, and make them more efficient. Sensor-operationalized
and automated environments perform a distinct version of sustainability, where
efficiency is the overall goal that influences the merging of economic growth
with green objectives. Indeed, smart cities are frequently identified as a hoped-for
source of considerable new revenue generation; and in a report funded by the
Rockefeller Foundation, the Institute for the Future suggests that smart cities are
likely to be a multi-trillion dollar global market.13
The current wave of smart and sustainable cities projects proposed and under-
way includes numerous proposals located throughout the world that bear similar
objectives, plans, and designs related to economic growth through smart and sus-
tainable computational urbanisms. From Abu Dhabi to Helsinki, and from Smart
Grids in India to PlanIT Valley in Portugal, many urban development projects are
guided by the implementation of networked sensor environments that are mar-
keted through the logics of efficiency and sustainability. Smart city projects are
often set up as publicprivate partnerships between multinational technology
companies including Cisco, IBM, and Hewlett Packard, along with city govern-
ments, universities, and design and engineering firms. Proposals may involve
retrofitting urban infrastructures in New York or London; developing new cities
on greenfields in Songdo, Korea, or Lake Nona, Florida; or intensifying network
 Citizen Sensing in the Smart and Sustainable City / 189

utilities in midsized cities like Dubuque, Iowa, as test sites for networked sensor
applications. The focus here is on the ways in which smartness influences articula-
tions of urban sustainability. But rather than fix a definition of the smart city, I
work between suggestions that the ways in which informationalized cities are
mobilized can be indicative of political and economic interests14 and that digitally
in-formed cities may be figures that continually change in their imagining, im-
plementation, and experiencing.15 Although smart cities could be rather generic
and universalizing in their approach to urbanism, many smart cities also emerge
through the materially and politically contingent spaces and practices of urban
design, policy, and development, while also forming commitments to specificif
speculativeurban ways of life.

REMAKING CITIZENS IN SMART CITIES

The computational technologies proposed and developed in smart city projects
are meant to in-form urban environments and processes, along with the inter-
actions and practices of urban citizens. Citizen-sensing and participatory plat-
forms are often promoted in smart city plans and proposals as enabling urban
dwellers to monitor environmental events in real time through mobile and sens-
ing technologies. Yet proposals focused on enabling citizens to monitor their
activities convert these citizens into unwitting gatherers and providers of data
that may be used not just to balance energy use, for instance, but also to provide
energy companies and governments with details about everyday living patterns.
Monitoring and managing data in order to feed back information into urban sys-
tems are practices that become constitutive of citizenship. Citizenship transforms
into citizen sensing, embodied through practices undertaken in response to (and
communication with) computational environments and technologies.
Citizen sensing as a form of engagement is a consistent, if differently empha-
sized, reference point both for development-led and for creative-practice engage-
ments with smart cities. DIY projects propose citizen involvement through the
use of participatory media and sensing technologies, and these citizen-sensing
projects stress the difference between grassroots and more large-scale smart city
developments. Yet an interesting confluence of imaginaries and practices occurs
at the point of tooling up citizens, even to the point of alter[ing] the subjectivity
of contemporary citizenship by enabling urban dwellers to use sensing tech-
nologies to interact with urban environments.16 What subjectivity is this, and
might computational environments be one place to turn to consider how (and
where) this subjectivity and citizenship is altered? In other words, when urban
processes and architectures shift through ubiquitous computing deployed for effi-
ciency and sustainability, how do urban material politics and possibilities for dem-
ocratic engagement also transform?17 My interest in these modalities of citizen
sensing within smart cities is not to denounce these proposals and projects as
190 / Citizen Sensing in the Smart and Sustainable City

tools of control, which might form a typical technological critique, but rather
to understand more precisely the ways in which computational materializations
distribute power through urban spaces and processes. As Foucault has suggested,
rather than attempt to imagine a space free of power it may be more productive
to consider how power is distributed as a way to critique modes of governance
by imagining how it might be possible not to be governed quite so muchor in
that way.18

ENVIRONMENTALITY
I take up questions about transformations in urban process, form, and inhabita-
tion in order to analyze in greater detail the ways in which the environmental
technologies of ubiquitous computing influence urban governance and citizen-
ship. Environmentality is a term I use to describe these urban transformations,
which I revisit and rework through a reading of Foucaults unfinished discussion
of this concept in one of his last lectures in The Birth of Biopolitics. Foucault signals
his interest in environmentality and environmental technologies as he moves from
a historical to a more contemporary and neoliberal consideration of biopolitics in
relation to the milieu and environment as sites of governance. Here, he suggests
the subject or population may be less relevant for understanding the exercise of
biopolitical techniques, since alterations of environmental conditions may become
a new way to implement regulation.19 Foucaults discussion of environmentality
emerges from an analysis of criminality, where in one example he considers how
approaches to regulating the supply of drugs may have had a greater impact on
conditions of addiction in comparison with strategies that have targeted individ-
ual addicted users or populations of addicted users. Working less with an explana-
tion and more with an open-ended suggestion of what he sees as a growing trend
toward environmental governance rather than subject-based or population-based
distributions of governance, he notes, Action is brought to bear on the rules of the
game rather than on the players, and finally in which there is an environmental
type of intervention instead of the internal subjugation of individuals.20 Moving
beyond this example, Foucault gestures toward a broader notion of environmen-
tality where influencing the rules of the game through the modulation and
regulation of environments may be a more current description of governmental-
ity, above and beyond direct attempts to influence or govern individual behavior
or the norms of populations. Behavior may be addressed or governed, but the
technique is environmental.
Foucault closes his lecture by indicating that in the following week he would
examine in greater detail these questions of environmental regulation. However,
he does not develop this strand of thought further, and instead, his six pages
outlining his approach to environmentality are included as a footnote in The
Birth of Biopolitics lectures.21 Consisting more of an unanswered question than a
 Citizen Sensing in the Smart and Sustainable City / 191

theoretical roadmap, Foucaults discussion of environmentality ranges from a

historical analysis of the governing of populations to a consideration of more
contemporary modes of governance that may have been unfolding or already
underway at the time of his lecture. While his specific concept of environmental-
ity remains a footnote to his discussion of neoliberal modes of governance, it is a
provocation for thinking through the effects of the increasing promotion and dis-
tribution of computational technologies in order to manage urban environments.
In what ways do smart city proposals for urban development articulate and enact
distinctly environmental modes of governance, and what are the spatial, material,
and citizenly contours of these modes of governance?
The use of the term environmentality that I am developing and transform-
ing based on the biopolitics lectures is rather different from the ways in which it
has often been taken up based on Foucaults earlier work, from the making of
environmentally aware subjects for the purposes of forest conservation in India,22
to the use of environmentality as a term to capture the green governmentality
of environmental organizations.23 Environmentality as a concept does offer up
ways of thinking about governance toward environmentalist objectives. But it
is important to bear in mind the translations that are made across environmental-
ity and environmentalism. Foucaults analysis of environmentality does not directly
pertain to environmentalism as such, but rather to an understanding of gover-
nance through the milieu.24 In fact, Foucaults interest in environmental modes
of governance touches on strategies of environmental technology and envi-
ronmental psychology,25 fields that could include designing survival systems or
shopping-mall experiences.26 Environmental modes of governance are also as
likely to emerge from the failure to meet environmentalist objectives. Events such
as Hurricane Katrina, as Massumi suggests in his analysis of environmentality,
generate distinct modes of crisis-oriented governance that emerge in relation to
the uncertainty of climate changea condition of war and weather that sets in
motion a spatial politics of ongoing disruption and response.27

BIOPOLITICS 2.0
Foucaults discussion of environmentality, however abbreviated, addresses the role
of environmental technologies in governance and in many ways relates to his
abiding attention to the milieu (no doubt an influence from Canguilhem) as a site
of biopolitical management. Biopolitics, or the governing of life, as he analyzed
it in its late eighteenth- and nineteenth-century formations, was concerned with
control over relations between the human race, or human beings insofar as they
are a species, insofar as they are living beings, and their environment, the milieu
in which they live.28 If we further take biopolitics to include those distributions
of power that influence not just life, but also how to live,29 then how are ways of
life governed through these particular environmental distributions? Indeed, the
192 / Citizen Sensing in the Smart and Sustainable City

phrase ways of life, which Foucault deploys to discuss biopolitical arrange-

ments and distributions of power, is taken up by Revel to suggest that biopolitics
is a concept that is not exclusively concerned with control, as perhaps has been
overemphasized through readings of Foucaults earlier work, but that focuses on
the spatialmaterial conditions and distributions of power that are characteristic
of and relatively binding within any given time and place.30 Ways of life, or life
lived, is a biopolitical concept and approach that also moves beyond understand-
ings of life as a given biological entity (this reading of biopolitics may have more to
do with Agambens work on biopolitics and bare life)31 and instead suggests that
ways of life are situated, emergent, and practiced through spatial and material
power relations. Such a concept does not describe a totalizing schema of power
but points to understandings of how power emerges and operates within ways of
life, as well as suggesting possibilities for generating alternative ways of life.
A different formation of biopolitics emerges in the context of environmental-
ity, since biopolitics unfolds in relation to a milieu that is less oriented toward
control over populations and instead performs through environmental modes of
governance. In order to capture and examine the ways of life that materialize
within the CSC smart city proposal, I use the term biopolitics 2.0 (with a hint of
irony) to refer to the participatory or 2.0 digital technologies at play within
smart cities and to examine specific ways of life that unfold within the smart city.
Biopolitics 2.0 is a device for analyzing biopolitics as a historically situated con-
cept, a point that Foucault stressed in his development of the term. The 2.0 of
biopolitics captures the situatedness of this term, which includes the proliferation
of user-generated content through participatory digital media that is a key part of
the imagining of how smart cities are to operate; it also includes the versioning of
digital technologies through the transition of computation from desktops to envi-
ronments,32 whether in the shape of mobile digital devices or sensors embedded
in urban infrastructure, objects, and networkssomething that is captured by the
term City 2.0, which circulates as a parallel term to the smart city.
The biopolitical milieu concretizes materialspatial arrangements in which
and through which distinct dispositifs, or apparatuses, operate. The apparatus
of computational urbanism can be analyzed through networks, techniques, and
relations of power that extend from infrastructure to governance and planning,
everyday practices, urban imaginaries, architectures, resources, and more. But
this heterogeneous ensemble can be described through the nature of the con-
nection that unfolds across these elements.33 In his discussions on biopolitics, the
apparatus, and the milieu, Foucault repeatedly suggests that the ways in which
relations are articulated are key to understanding how modes of governance, ways
of life, and political possibilities emerge or are sustained.
Computational monitoring and responsiveness characterize the nature of
the connection across environments and citizens in smart cities. Biopolitical 2.0
 Citizen Sensing in the Smart and Sustainable City / 193

relations are performed through the need to promote economic development

while addressing impending environmental calamity, conditions characterized by
an urgency that Foucault critically identifies as being crucial to the historical situa-
tion of the apparatus and, consequently, to the operation of biopolitics.34 Within
smart city proposals and projects, cities are presented as urgent environmental,
social, and economic problems that the digital reorganization of urban infrastruc-
tures is meant to address by increasing productivity while achieving efficiency. By
drawing together Foucaults understanding of how power might operate environ-
mentally and biopolitically, I shift the emphasis toward understanding urban spaces
and citizenship within relational or connective registers, with an emphasis on the
computational practices and processes that are meant to remake and influence
smart city ways of life. In reading and contextualizing these aspects of Foucault as
less focused on disciplined or controlled subjects or populations, I also bring envi-
ronmentality into a space where it is possible to consider how smart cities qualify
environmentality by recasting what counts as the rules of the game.
To say that smart cities might be understood through a biopolitics 2.0 analysis
is not so much to suggest that digital technologies are simply tools of control as
to examine how the spatial and material programs that are imagined and imple-
mented within smart city proposals generate distinct types of power arrangements
and modes of environmentality that entangle urban dwellers within specific per-
formances of citizenship. But within these programs for computational urbanism,
the processual and practiced ways of life that unfold or are proposed to unfold
inevitably materialize in multiple ways. The rules of the game that Foucault

Figure 7.2. Connected Sustainable Cities project scenario for sensors detecting pollution in Curitiba, from
the Connected Sustainable Cities pamphlet written by Mitchell and Casalegno. Screen capture.
194 / Citizen Sensing in the Smart and Sustainable City

described as central to environmentality might need to be revised as a less static

or deterministic rendering of how governance works. Smart city design propos-
als, on one level, establish propositions and programs for how computational
urbanisms are to operate; but on another level, programs never go according
to plan and are never singularly enacted. Environmentality might be advanced by
considering smart cities not as the running of code in a command-and-control
logic of governing space but as the multiple, iterative, and even faltering materi-
alizations of imagined and lived computational urbanisms.

CONNECTED SUSTAINABLE CITIES

Working at this juncture of environmental modes of governance, environmental
technologies, and sustainability as they are operationalized in smart cities, the
CSC project within the CUD puts forward a vision for a near future of ubiquitous
urban computing oriented toward increased sustainability. The project proposal
materials advocate the smart city as the key to addressing issues of climate change
and resource shortages, where sustainable urban environments may be achieved
through intelligent digital architectures. The CSC design proposals and policy
tools, as well as the core visioning documentConnected Sustainable Cities, by
Mitchell and Casalegnodevelop scenarios for everyday life enhanced, and even
altered, by smart information technologies, which will support new, intelligently
sustainable urban living patterns.35
Within the CSC design proposals, the technology that most operationalizes
smart environments and the programmed interactions between city and citizens
is ubiquitous computing in the form of continuous, fine-grained electronic sens-
ing through sensors and tags that are mounted on buildings and infrastruc-
tures, carried in moving vehicles, integrated with wireless mobile devices such as
telephones, and attached to products.36 Sensor devices are distributed through-
out and monitor the urban environment. The continual generation of data pro-
vides detailed, real-time pictures of urban practices and infrastructures that
can be managed, synched, and apportioned to support the optimal allocation
of scarce resources.37 Digital sensor technologies perform urban processes as
a project of efficiency, where environments are embedded with computational
technologies that provide urban management and regulation.
Like many smart city proposals, the CSC sites are made smart through several
common areas of intervention largely oriented toward increasing productivity
while enhancing efficiency. A video lays out the rationale for the project and the
core areas it addresses, including platforms developed to aid commuting, home
recycling, self-managing ones carbon footprint, facilitating flexibility in urban
spaces, and collaborative decision-making as model areas in which improved effi-
ciency by means of digital connectivity and improved visibility of environmental
data may save resources and lower greenhouse gas emissions. While many of the
 Citizen Sensing in the Smart and Sustainable City / 195

applications envisaged in the proposal are already in use within cities, from
electronic bicycle rental schemes to smart meters for managing energy use, the
project suggests a further coordinated dissemination of sensor technologies and
platforms for achieving more efficient urban processes.
In the CUD project video and CSC design document, urban design and plan-
ning proposals take place not at the scale of the master plan but at the scale of the
scenario. From Curitiba to Hamburg, the episodic urban patterns addressed in
these designs and policies include urban services, eco-monitoring toolkits, and
speculative platforms intended to achieve smart and seamless automated living.
Yet in many cases the urban interventions take place in a hypothetical city or in a
specified city that is rendered sufficiently general as to be receptive to computa-
tional interventions within a universalized language of the everyday. In a design
scenario sketched out for managing homes in Madrid, numerous capabilities
are proposed to make homes more efficient. Mobile phones are GPS-enabled
to communicate with sensor-equipped kitchen appliances, so that a family dinner
may be cooked by balancing location and timing. The home thermostat will sim-
ilarly sync with GPS and calendars on mobile phones, so that the home is heated
in time for the familys arrival. The organization of activities unfolds through
programmed and activated environments so as to realize the most productive and
efficient use of time and resources. In the Madrid scenario, monitoring residents
behaviors in detail through sensors and data is essential for achieving efficiency.
With this information, environments are meant to become self-adjusting and to
perform optimally.
The CSC efficiency initiatives promise to streamlin[e] the management of
cities, lessen environmental footprints, and enhanc[e] how people experience
urban life.38 By tracking locations and daily activities, smart technologies present
the possibility that dinners will self-cook and homes will self-heat. These enabl-
ing technologies perform new arrangements of environments and ways of life:
smart thermostats couple with calendars, locations, and even a human bodys
bio-signals, and skin temperature and heart rate may be monitored through
sensors to ensure optimum indoor temperatures. Similarly, communication with
kitchen appliances is proposed to occur through Toshibas Femininity line of
home network appliances. These technologies ensure the home will be warm,
safe, and provided with the latest recipes.39
The importance of the everyday as a site of intervention signals the ways in
which smart city proposals are generative of distinct ways of life, where a micro-
physics of power is performed through everyday scenarios.40 Governance and
the managing of urban milieus occur not through delineations of territory but
through enabling the connections and processes of everyday urban inhabitations
within computational modalities. The actions of citizens have less to do with indi-
viduals exercising rights and responsibilities and more to do with operationalizing
196 / Citizen Sensing in the Smart and Sustainable City

the cybernetic functions of the smart city. Participation involves computational

responsiveness and is coextensive with actions of monitoring and managing ones
relations to environments, rather than advancing democratic engagement through
dialogue and debate. The citizen is a data point, both a generator of data and a
responsive node in a system of feedback. The program of efficiency assumes that
human participants will respond within the acceptable range of actions, so that
smart cities will function optimally. Yet programs for efficiency that are multiply
distributed will inevitably be multiply enacted across human and more-than-human
registers, so that smart bicycles are left in creeks and sensing devices are hacked to
surreptitiously monitor domestic environments or intervene in them. This smart
city proposal raises questions as to how these orchestrated ways of life would be
actually lived, thereby rerouting programs of efficiency and productivity.

PROGRAMMING CITIES
As specifically rendered through smart technologies, the motivating logic of sus-
tainability becomes oriented toward saving time and resources. This in turn
informs proposals for how to embed smart technologies within everyday environ-
ments in order to ensure more efficient ways of life. Monitoring is a practice
enabled by sensors, and so it becomes a central activity in articulating the sustain-
ability and efficiency of smart cities. The sensing that takes place in the smart
city involves continually monitoring processes in order to manage them. The
urban sense data generated through smart city processes are meant to facilitate
the regulation of urban processes within a humanmachine continuum of sens-
ing and acting, such that the responsiveness of connected sustainable cities can
be achieved through well-informed and coordinated human action, automated
actuation of machines and systems, or some combination of the two.41 Humans
may participate in the sensor city through mobile devices and platforms, but
the coordination across manual and automated urban processes unfolds within
programmed environments, which organize the inputs and outputs of humans
and machines.
The programmed city is a speculative and actual project that has been
critical to the ongoing development of ubiquitous computing but which has also
demonstrated the complicated and uncertain ways in which programmable envi-
ronments are realized.42 Programming as described in the CSC document has
multiple resonances, signaling the architectural sense of programming space for
particular activities as well as the programming of urban development and pol-
icy and the computational programming of environments.43 Within smart city
proposals, programming of environments is a way in which the nature of the
connection within the computational dispositif is performed across a spatial
arrangement of digital devices, software, cities, development plans, citizens, prac-
tices, and more.
 Citizen Sensing in the Smart and Sustainable City / 197

The notion of programming, while specific to computation, is further coupled

with notions of what the environment is and how it may be made programmable.
As discussed in the introduction to Program Earth, some of the early imaginings
of sensor environments speculate on how everyday life may be transformed with
the migration of computation from the desktop to the environment.44 While
many of these visions are user focused, environmental sensors also transform
notions of how or where sensing takes place to encompass more distributed and
nonhuman modalities of sensing.45 The programming of environments is then
perhaps one of the key ways in which the milieu is now best described as the
environment, where the postwar rise of the term the environment typically
corresponds with more cybernetic approaches to systems and ecology,46 as well as
referring to the conditions in which computation can operate.
A growing body of research in the area of software studies now focuses on
the intersection of computation and space, making the point that computing
often in the form of software or codehas a considerable influence on the ways
in which spatial processes unfold or even cease to function when software fails.47
While software is increasingly in-forming spatial and material processes, I situate
the performativity of software within (rather than above or prior to) the material-
political-technical operations of the computational dispositif, since programma-
bility necessarily signals more than the unfurling of scripts that act on the world
in a discursive architecture of command-and-control. Software is also not so eas-
ily separated from the hardware it would activate.48 Instead, as I suggest here,
programmability points to the ways in which computational operations unfold across
materialpolitical situations, even at the level of speculative designs or imaginings
of political processes (where computational approaches to perceived urban prob-
lems may in-form how these issues are initially framed in order to be computable),
while indicating how actual programs may not run according to plan.
The computational articulations of governance and citizenship within the
CSC proposals are uncertain indicators for how urban practices might actually
unfold, even when processes are meant to be automated for efficiencybut it
is exactly the faltering and imperfect aspects of programmed environments that
might become sites for political encounters in smart cities. Some smart city initia-
tives are finding that the less modern political structures of city councils, for
instance, do not make for easily compatible smart city development contexts.
Urban governance may be divided into multiple wards or councils across and
through which the seamless flow of data and implementation of digital infrastruc-
tures may be complicated or halted. Realizing programs of action within soft-
ware development is complicated and contested, as Mackenzie notes.49 Code is
also not singularly written or deployed but may be a hodgepodge of just-effective-
enough script written by multiple actors and running in momentarily viable ways
on specific platforms. Beyond the realm of software development, I argue that the
198 / Citizen Sensing in the Smart and Sustainable City

smart city is another realm in which programming does not unfold as an easy
execution of code. A change to any element of the code, hardware, or interoper-
ability with other devices may shift the program and its effects. When code is
meant to reprogram urban environments, it also becomes entangled in complex
urban processes that interrupt the simple enactment of scripts.
The CSC proposals demonstrate the ways in which the programmed environ-
ments of the smart city give rise toand even requiredistinct urban materiali-
ties in order to be operable. The several modalities of sensing and programming
that emerge within the CSC documentation are expressive of programs to sense
and monitor in order to manage and regulate the material processes of the smart
city environment, from the circulation of people and goods to processes of par-
ticipation, all of which are seen to interconnect through the digital nervous
system of the smart city.50 In the CSC scenarios the metabolic circuit of inputs
and outputs that is made optimally efficient simplifies the processes necessary
to transform urban materialitiesthrough electronicizing, tagging, and monitor-
ingin order to make them programmable and efficient. Yet ubiquitous urban
computing would require a considerable outlay of materials and resources in
order for cities to operate in these modalities. Urban materialities are then doubly
elided through the dematerializing logic of digital technology, since automation,
improved timing, and coordination seem to minimizeand even eliminatethe
resource requirements and wastes of smart cities; electronic technologies also
seem to have no resource requirements, whether in their manufacture, operation,
or disposal. Resource requirements and material entanglements are apparently
minimized through the improved flow offered by smart technologies.
Digital technologiesand the digital apparatusare generative of processes
of materialization that do not so much elide materialities as transform them
through computational modalities.51 The uneven and material ways in which
computation unfolds within cities breaks with this kind of frictionless under-
standing of how computation might seamlessly perform a set of efficiency objec-
tives. Smart cities could be characterized largely by the gaps and accidents of
computational technologies, which are also part of the experience of how these
devices and systems perform and are implemented.52

PROGRAMMING PARTICIPATION
The infrastructures at play in the CSC vision partially consist of grids and ser-
vices remade into smart electrical grids, smart transport, and smart water. But they
also consist of participatory and mobile citizen-sensing platforms through which
urban dwellers are to monitor environments and engage with smart systems. Par-
ticipatory media and environmental devices facilitate this more sustainable city
by enabling forms of participation that are compatible with it. The smart infra-
structures and citizen-sensing platforms in the CSC project enable monitoring
 Citizen Sensing in the Smart and Sustainable City / 199

practices while structuring responses that regulate or recalibrate everyday prac-

tices. Sustainable transit options become more viable through the deployment of
urban citizenship engagement points that allow for personalized planning of
bus routes, carpooling, and bicycle rental.53 Energy contributions may be made at
the intersection of smart transit systems or architectural surfaces and mobile
monitoring devices. Urban spaces may be easily reconfigured or adapted to allow
working and networking in any location at any time and to facilitate the intensi-
fication of urban land use. The way in which these practices are activated occurs
across the programs embedded within urban environments and mobile devices.
Digitally enhanced infrastructure and citizens are articulated as corresponding
nodes, where technologies and strategies for environmental efficiency become
coextensive with citizen participationand changed human behavior.54
While additional design scenarios address traffic in Seoul and work-anywhere-
anytime proposals for Hamburg, as well as coordinate public transit in San Fran-
cisco and use mobile platforms to organize daily health monitoring, one scenario
based in an unnamed North American urban location focuses on taking personal
responsibility through the narrative of a love contest between two male friends
vying for the attentions of an eco-female.55 This scenario demonstrates how the
biggest variable in sustainabilitythat is, human behaviormay be monitored
and advanced effectively through ICT applications. The male competitors in this
scenario engage in logging their daily travel plans online to produce carbon foot-
prints for comparison, installing a home monitoring system to measure electricity
use, and monitoring water use to create a water budget. As the scenario outlines:

Monitor, monitor, monitor . . . thats a lot of what both men do. They realize that
the key to winning Joans heart is to show her theyre making the right decisions,
and that means they need a lot of clear information that is meaningfuland
actionable.56

Monitoring behavior and generating data are seen to be the basis for making
sound decisions to advance everyday sustainable practices. Programs of respon-
siveness are critical to the ways in which sustainable practices are designed to
emerge in this smart city proposal. In order for these schemes to function, urban
citizens need to play their part, whether by partaking in transport systems or by
generating energy through their continual movement within urban environments.
Urban environmental citizens are responsible for making informed, responsible
choices.57 Yet these proposals explicitly outline the repertoire of actions and reflec-
tions that the smart city will enable, in which the sensing citizen becomes an ex-
pression of productive infrastructures. Mitchell and Casalegno stress the benefits
of informed participation in urban processes facilitated by participatory media and
ubiquitous computingtechnologies that, they argue, make a heightened sense of
200 / Citizen Sensing in the Smart and Sustainable City

responsibility possible.58 Urban citizenship is remade through these environmental

technologies, which mobilize urban citizens as operatives within the processing
of urban environmental data; citizen activities become extensions and expres-
sions of informationalized and efficient materialpolitical practices. Citizens who
sense and track their own consumption patterns and local environmental pro-
cesses have a set of citizen-like actions at their disposal, enabled by environmental
technologies that allow them to be participants within the smart city.
The balancing of smart systems with citizen engagement is typically seen as a
necessary area to address when considering the issues of surveillance and control
that smart cities may generate. As the previously cited Rockefeller-funded report
suggests, global technology companies such as IBM and Cisco may have a rather
different set of objectives than citizen hacktivists, and yet both of these compa-
nies have vested interests in contributing to emerging smart city proposals.59 Dig-
ital technologies are seemingly liberating tools, allowing citizens to engage in
ever more democratic actions; and yet, the monitoring and capture of sensor data
within nearly every aspect of urban life vis--vis devices deployed by global tech-
nology companies suggest new levels of control. But could it be that this apparent
dichotomy between sensing citizen and smart city is less clear-cut? In many ways,
participatory media are already tools of variously restricted political engage-
ment,60 while smart urban infrastructures never quite manifest (if at all) in the
totalizing visions presented.
The sensing citizen is an expression of the ideal mode of citizen participation
in smart city visions, rather than a resisting agent to them. Sensing citizens are
the necessary participants in smart citieswhere smart cities are the foregone
conclusion. Dumb citizens in smart cities would be a totalitarian overshoot, since
they would be entities subject to monitoring without participating in the flow of
information (a situation that will be addressed in chapter 8). The smart city raises
additional questions about the politics of urban exclusion, about who is able to be
a participating citizen in a city that is powered through access to digital devices.
Yet the participatory agency that is embedded within smart city developments
does not settle on an individual human subject, and citizenship is instead articu-
lated through environmental operations. Within the CSC proposals there exists
the possibility thatgiven a possible failure or limitation of human responsive-
ness (a lack of interest in participating in the smart city)the system may operate
on its own. In these scenarios, due to a lack of human attention and cognitive
capacity as well as a desire not to burden people with having to think constantly
about controlling the systems that surround them, it may be relevant to deploy
automated actuation, the project authors suggest. This would mean that urban
systems become self-managing such that buildings and cities will evolve towards
the condition of rooted-in-place robots.61 Citizens would be figures responding
within the program of environmentality. However, the smart city program is able
 Citizen Sensing in the Smart and Sustainable City / 201

to operate independently by sensing environments as well as actuating them

and intervening in them to the point where environmental technologies may
override citizens if they do not perform according to preset functionsor the
rules of the game.
Processes of regulating urban environments within smart city proposals do
not require internal subjugation as such, since governance is distributed within
environments that default to automatic modes of regulation. Here is a version
of biopolitics 2.0, where monitoring behavior is less about governing individuals
or populations and more about establishing environmental conditions in which
responsive (and correct) modes of behavior can emerge. Environmentality does
not require the creation of normative subjects, as Foucault suggests, since the
environmental citizen is not governed as a distinct figure; rather, environmental-
ity is an extension of the actions and forcesautomaticity and responsiveness
embedded and performed within environments. Such a situation could be charac-
terized as what Deleuze calls the making of dividuals, a term he uses to describe
the fluid entity that emerges within a computer age.62 For Deleuze, automation
is coextensive with a deindividualizing set of processes characterized by patterns
of responsiveness that rely less on individual engagement and more on the cor-
rect cybernetic connection.
Working transversally with this concept, however, I would suggest that smart
city proposals signal less toward the elimination of individuals absolutely, since
the citizen is an important operator within these spaces. Rather, the citizen
works through processes that might generate ambividuals: ambient and malle-
able urban operators that are expressions of computer environments. While the
ambividual is not an expression of a cognitive subject, it does articulate the distri-
bution of nodes of action within the smart city. Ambividuals are not singularly
demarcated or erased but variously contingent and responsive to fluctuating
events, which are managed through informational practices. This resonates with
Foucaults suggestion that one characteristic of environmental technologies is
the development of a framework around the individual which is loose enough
for him to be able to play.63 But I would suggest that who or what counts as an
ambividual is not restricted to a human actor in the smart city, since the articula-
tion of actions and responses occurs across human-to-machine and machine-to-
machine fields of action.

CITIZEN SENSING AND SENSING CITIZENS

A final point of consideration that emerges within smart city and citizen-sensing
frameworks is the extent to which environmental monitoring leads to actionable
data. Smart city infrastructures are projected to operate as a self-regulating envi-
ronment, but the monitoring technologies that are meant to enable efficiencies
within these systems are less obviously able to generate efficiencies or action
202 / Citizen Sensing in the Smart and Sustainable City

within citizen practices. In a CSC scenario demonstrating the types of urban

environmental citizenship made possible within the green and digital city, propos-
als are made for residents of Curitiba to experience enhanced and synchronized
mass transit options while monitoring and reporting on air pollution at these
nodes. Citizen reporting and community engagement are amplified by virtue
of ICT connectivity. Through these monitoring and reporting capabilities, posi-
tive changes follow as a result of increased information and connectivity: gather
the air pollution data, report to the relevant political body, and environmental
justice will be realized. These activities and concerns are presented as universally
applicable, in that anyone may have cause to monitor and collect pollution data
and diligently forward this on to relevant governmental parties. The ambividual
actions coded into these processes do not presuppose a particular subject, since
a fully automated sensor may equally perform such a function. Rather, these pro-
grams of responsiveness allow for a fully interchangeable procession of human-
to-machine or machine-to-machine data operations.
A similar trajectory is typically envisaged for self-regulating citizen activities:
information on energy consumption will be made visible, a correcting action will
be taken, and balance to the cybernetic-informational system will be restored.
In these scenarios environmental technologies monitor environments and citi-
zens, while citizens monitor environments and themselves. Citizens armed with
environmental data are central democratic operators within these environments.
But the governing contained within cybernetics may not neatly translate into
the governing of environments.64 It may be that the very responsiveness that
enables citizens to gather data does not extend to enabling them to meaningfully
act upon the data gathered, since this would require changing the urban system
in which they have become effective operators. Similarly, dominant, if problem-
atic, narratives within sustainability of continued growth through improved effi-
ciency and ongoing monitoring typically do not mobilize an overall resource or
waste reduction (what is well known within energy discourse as the rebound
effect). Strategies of monitoring and efficiency might co-opt urbanites into modes
of environmentality and biopolitics that leave modes of neoliberal power unexam-
ined, since the aim of realizing sustainability objectives through citizen engage-
ment is a worthy pursuit.
Foucaults broader interest within the biopolitics lectures is in how neoliberal
analyses are brought to bear on governance and subjects, such that economic log-
ics of efficiency in-form what may have previously been understood through
social or noneconomic modalities.65 Environmentality describes the distribution
of governance within environments as well as a qualification of governmentality
through a market logic that would implement efficiency and productivity as the
best guiding principles for urban ways of life. Individuals become governable to
the extent that they operate as homo economicus,66 where governance unfolds as an
 Citizen Sensing in the Smart and Sustainable City / 203

environmental distribution of possible responses made according to the criteria of

efficiency and maximum utility.
The transformation of citizens to data-gathering nodes potentially focuses the
complexity of civic action toward a relatively reductive if legible set of actions.
Participation in this smart and sustainable city is instrumentalized in terms of
remedying environment issues through efficiency and devices that will harvest
and connect up information to arrive at this outcome. Yet the informational- and
efficiency-based approach to monitoring environments raises more questions
about what constitutes effective environmental action than it answers. In order
for such instrumentalization to occur, urban processes and participation directed
toward sustainability, in many ways, must be programmed to be amenable to a
version of (computational) politics that is able to operate on these issues. The
modes of sensing as monitoring and responsiveness presented within many sensor-
focused and smart-focused cities projects raise the question of whether a citizen
might be more than an entity that emerges within the parameters of acceptable
responsiveness.

FROM NETWORKS TO RELAYS, FROM PROGRAMS TO WAYS OF LIFE

The smart sustainable city vision discussed here is presented as a technical solu-
tion to political and environmental issuesan approach that is characteristic of
many smart city projects. While the CSC and CUD project proposals are devel-
oped as conceptual-level design and planning documents, many of the questions
raised here about how smart cities and citizen-monitoring projects organize polit-
ical participation and the imagining of urban environmental citizenship are rele-
vant for considering the proliferation of projects now taking place in these areas,
both at the level of community engagement and through urban policy and devel-
opment partnerships.67
As I have argued, sustainable smart city proposals give rise to new modes of
environmentality as well as biopolitical configurations of governance through
distinctly digital dispositifs. Given Foucaults focus on the historical specificity of
these concepts and the events to which they refer, it is timely to revisit and re-
vise these concepts in the context of newly emerging smart city proposals. The
environmentality, biopolitics 2.0, and digital political technologies that unfold
through many smart city proposals are expressive of distributions of governance
and operations of citizenship within programmed environments and technolo-
gies. A biopolitics 2.0 emerges within smart cities that involves the programming
of environments and citizens for responsiveness and efficiency. Such program-
ming is generative of political techniques for governing everyday ways of life,
where urban processes, citizen engagements, and governance unfold through the
spatial and temporal networks of sensors, algorithms, databases, and mobile plat-
forms that constitute the environments of smart cities.
204 / Citizen Sensing in the Smart and Sustainable City

The environmentality that emerges through proposals for urban sustainability

within the CSC project and many similar smart city projects involves monitoring,
economizing, and producing a vision of digitalized economic growth. Such smart
cities present ways of life that are orchestrated toward sustainability objectives
characterized by productivity and efficiency. The data that develop through these
practices are generative of practices of monitoring environments and activities,
while activating environmental modes of governance that are found within the
jurisdiction of public authorities as well as technology companies that own, man-
age, and use urban data. From Google Transit to Cisco TelePresence, HP Halo,
and Toshiba Femininity, a range of environmental sensor and participatory tech-
nologies function in the CSC and other smart city scenarios that are tools of neo-
liberal governance, and are operated across state and nonstate actors.
I have emphasized how Foucaults interest in environmentality can be ad-
vanced in the context of smart cities to consider how distributions of power
within and through environments and environmental technologies are performa-
tive of the operations of citizenshiprather than of the individual subjectness of
citizenship. The environmentalist aspects of the smart and sustainable city are not
contingent on the production of an environmentalist or reflexively ecological sub-
jectivity, and the performance of smart urban citizenship occurs not by expanding
the possibilities of democratically engaged citizens but rather by delimiting the
practices constitutive of citizenship. The rules of the game of the smart city do
not articulate reversals, openings, or critiques of urban environmental ways of
life. Rather, practices are made efficient, streamlined, and oriented toward enhanc-
ing existing economic processes. And yet, within this approach to environmental-
ity through smart cities, what we might take as the rules or program of the smart
city game might be understood less as a deterministic coding of cities and more
as something that might unevenly materialize in practices and events. While design
proposals put forward a persuasively singular case for the smart city program,
inevitably multiple smart cities emerge through the circulation and implementa-
tion of this program.
Pushing Foucaults notion of environmentality even further, I suggest that his
concept of the rules of the game might be recast in the context of smart cities
less as rules and more as programshere of responsivenessthat delimit and
enable in particular ways but that also unfold, materialize, or fail in unexpected
ways. If urban programs are not singular and are continually in process, then
environmentality might also be updated to address the ways in which programs
do not go according to plan, and work-arounds might also develop. Such an
approach is not so much a simple recuperation of human resistance as a sugges-
tion that programs are not fixed, and that in their unfolding and operating they
inevitably give rise to new practices of urban environmental citizenship and ways
of life that emerge across human and more-than-human urban entanglements.
 Citizen Sensing in the Smart and Sustainable City / 205

This approach to ways of life is important in formulating not a simple denun-

ciation of the smart city but rather a proposal for how to attend to the distinct
environmental inhabitations and modalities of citizenshipand possibilities for
urban collectivesthat concretize in smart city proposals and developments. Sub-
jectification, which Deleuze discusses as an important concept in Foucaults work,
is ultimately concerned not with the production of fixed subjects but rather with
the possibility of identifying, critiquing, and even creating ways of life.68 Smart
city projects require an attention toand critique ofthe ways of life that are
generated and sustained in these proposals and developments. Critique, as articu-
lated in a conversation between Deleuze and Foucault, can be an important way
in which to experiment with political engagements and form relays between
theoretical action and practical action.69 From this perspective the ways of life
proposed in the CSC scenarios might serve as provocation for thinking through
how to experiment with urban imaginaries and practices in order not to be gov-
erned like that. If we read biopolitics 2.0 as a concept attentive to the ways of life
that are generated and sustained within smart cities, and if this computational
apparatus operates environmentally, then what new relays for theory and practice
might emerge within our increasingly computational urbanisms?
Figure 8.1. TechniCity MOOC, student contribution of video analytics for detecting urban events for crowd
and public-space management. Screen capture
 8

Engaging the Idiot in

Participatory Digital Urbanism

A l o n g s i d e p r o p o s a l s f o r smart and sustainable cities, a num-

ber of DIY and participatory urbanism projects use digital technologies to gen-
erate new modes of urban engagement. As discussed in the last chapter, urban
infrastructures are increasingly embedded with computational sensor technolo-
gies that are intended to automate urban processes and facilitate urban efficien-
cies. From tracking transport journeys and updating bus arrival times to traffic
cameras and cycle-hire schemesas well as monitoring air and water quality, river
and sea levels, energy use, and wasteurban infrastructures, services, and func-
tions are being remade or newly introduced through the sensor-actuator exchanges
of digital urbanism. However, these developments are not just about the auto-
mation of urban life at the infrastructural level: they also include collecting new
forms of input from citizens engaged in participatory sensing. Such smart city
developments in-form modes of urban engagement through interaction with
sensor technologies, smart phones, digital devices, apps, and platforms that are
meant to coactivate urban functions.
This chapter considers in more detail the participatory urbanism and sensing
projects that are underway or have been prototyped, as well as the broader context
of the literature, training, courses, and gatherings that are essential to learning
how to become a contributing citizen in this participatory urbanism framework.
From web- and app-based social media initiatives such as SeeClickFix (United
States) and FixMyStreet (UK) that enable urban dwellers to crowdsource and
report on urban infrastructure in need of repair to civic apps that are meant to
facilitate access to government services, a range of citizen-sensing initiatives now
encourage urban engagement through digital devices, platforms, and infrastruc-
tures.1 Often referred to as practices of DIY, participatory, or open-source urban-
ism, these modes of participation contribute to the development of what is meant

207
208 / Engaging the Idiot in Participatory Digital Urbanism

to facilitate digitally improved functionalities and experiences within contempo-

rary and anticipated cities.
As discussed in the last chapter, participatory urbanism projects are a neces-
sary response to and development within smart cities proposals. Digital imaginar-
ies for increased participation are often continuous with the sorts of exchanges
that smart cities would enable, since interaction requires the use of smart phones,
data collection, monitoring platforms, and assorted devices and tools that are
meant to facilitate participation. Sensor-based and digitally enabled modes of DIY
and participatory urbanism have been proposed as grassroots strategies for articu-
lating new types of commons and democratic urban participation, as well as strat-
egies integral to smart city development proposals. By focusing specifically on
the use of citizen-sensing applications for environmental monitoring and urban
sustainability, I analyze the distinct modes of participation and urbanism that are
expressed in these projects. Two questions that I address in this chapter include:
How do citizens become sensors in participatory digital-urbanism projects? And
how are cities cast as computable problems so that sensing citizens can act upon
them? The first question considers the specific capacities of citizens and publics
that are operationalized through digital practices dependent upon urban envi-
ronmental sensors. In other words, what types of urban participation do projects
such as updatable maps for street repairs, air quality sensors, or platforms for tree
planting activate or enable? The second question continues discussions from the
last chapter and is attuned to the ways in which urban problems are broken into
computable tasks.2 So this question further asks: When addressing the problem
of the city, which modalities of urban politics are potentially made more prob-
lematic? And what other practices might be created through an approach that
specifically seeks to trouble the dynamics of DIY digital urbanisms?
While the smart city is often broadly identified as a combination of networks
and sensors, this hardware-software view of the smart city leaves unexamined
the types of participation that might unfold within these new or revised urban
settings. An implicit assumption within many digital-urbanism proposals and
projects is that urban participants will engage with programs of participation as
plannedthat they will become an extension of computational logics and ex-
changes and will readily perform as citizen sensors and citizen actuators. I examine
the ways in which participation is articulated within digital- and participatory-
urbanism projects. But I further focus on the ways in which participation does not
always unfold as expected, and may even be a site of disruptionintentional or
otherwise. The ways in which programs of participation do not go according to
plan was signaled in the previous chapter on smart cities as a possible site where
politics emerge and are invented, where the rules of the game, as Foucault puts
it, might generate encounters not just with governance as it is planned, but with
 Engaging the Idiot in Participatory Digital Urbanism / 209

governance as it is interrupted or rerouted. It is these possible interruptions and

reroutings that I take up here.
To advance a discussion of the ways in which participation proliferates beyond
the rules of the game and, in so doing, provokes political encounters and inhab-
itations, I take up Stengerss discussion of cosmopolitics and participation, where
she asks how it might be possible to attend to the role of the idiot, or those who
would typically be seen to have nothing to contribute to the common account
of how to approach political problems.3 In her proposal, the idiot challenges a
notion of participation and politics that easily settles into consensus. This is not
the idiot as a simplistic form of insultas in a dumb or stupid citizen, the simple
counterpart to the smartness of the smart city. Instead, the idiot or the idiotic is
someone or something that causes us to think about and encounter the complex-
ities of participation and social life as something other than prescribed or settled.
Stengers draws on Deleuzes conceptual persona of the idiot to consider how
the idiot slows the others down specifically by resisting the consensual way in
which the situation is presented and in which emergencies mobilize thought or
action.4 Resistance here is not a matter of searching after what is true or false,
but rather is a way of attempting to reroute what counts as important. But this is
not a strategy for trading one agenda for another, since the cosmos- within the
cosmopolitical is an interstice, following Whiteheada space of unknowing
constituted by these multiple, divergent worlds and to the articulations of which
they could eventually be capable.5 Such spaces and engagements characterized
by unknowing and divergence mean that which counts as political can never be
assumed or finalized. As Stengers outlines, the idiot captures not the common
good or cosmopolitanism of Kant, but rather signals toward cosmopolitical reg-
isters of hesitation and uncertainty, as well as the generative political encounters
that can arise from such uncertainty.6
A growing body of literature deploys the idiot as a figure and process of en-
gagement.7 Adopting Stengerss elaboration on the idiot, Mike Michael discusses
the patterns of overspill and typologies of misbehavior that might typically be
disregarded by social scientists attempting to facilitate and study public engage-
ment. Absence, incapacity, refusal, disruption, distraction, and irony are examples
of ways in which participation does not unfold according to researchers plans,
but instead irrupts through various idiotic registers that transform the agenda and
outcomes of participation.8 While other discussions of the idiot variously focus on
processes of individuation and the making of subjects in relation to new media,9
my use of the idiot in this discussion of participation in the smart city engages most
centrally with Stengerss version of the idiot as a figure that cannot be articulated
through a fixed subject position, not even if it is one of inversion. Instead, the idiot
as understood here is a troubling and transformative agent within participatory
210 / Engaging the Idiot in Participatory Digital Urbanism

processes who cannot or will not abide by the terms of participation that are
meant to facilitate and enhance democratic engagement.
Using Stengerss figure of the idiot, which has further resonances with
forms of non- or sub-citizenship as understood through the Greek definition of
the idiot as a noncitizen or private individual, I suggest that disruptive, confused,
and thwarted actions fall outside of the usual delineations of what counts as par-
ticipatory digital urbanism. The becoming environmental of computation in rela-
tion to participatory urbanism then involves the ways in which these programs
do not go according to plan. In addition, seemingly illegitimate contributions
challenge us to consider how cities hold together and unfold as sites of political
engagement, how participants often contribute as disruptive agents, and how
sensor-based digital technologies, platforms, and networks organize participation
(as well as inclusion and exclusion) in the city, whether smart or otherwise.
After first reviewing the rise of civic apps and platforms, I turn to discuss a
range of both practical and theoretical approaches to digital participatory urban-
ism and draw out a discussion of how participation unfolds and to what a/effect.
I then discuss in more detail two specific examples of participatory urbanism. I
first address the ways in which digital and participatory citizens are often in need
of training in order to be able to operate within digital cities and through digital
exchanges as smart citizens. A number of smart city training opportunities exist
in courses and events. Through an account of my experience as a student on a
Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) on smart cities, I discuss the ways in which
students were instructed to learn about and participate in the smart city, including
a task to crowdsource examples of urban sensors for a course forum. I focus spe-
cifically on the ways in which departures from this participatory platform occurred
and how these departures potentially sparked specific types of idiotic encounters
in attempting to understand how sensors influence cities and citizenship.
From this example, I then discuss a second example of FixMyStreet, a UK-
based platform that allows citizens to identify and report problems with street
spaces. In my discussion of this platform, I am interested to consider both what
a street becomes when it is the focus of efforts to fix it, such as reporting pot-
holes and illegally dumped rubbish, and also what modes and task flows of citi-
zenship and participation are enabled or fall outside the boundaries of legitimate
participation. FixMyStreet relies on particular types of citizen-led reporting, most
often undertaken through that composite sensor-apparatus of the smartphone.
But it also captures multiple instances of grievances logged that cannot be easily
dealt with through this platform. Such reports might be considered idiotic, since
they slow down the assumed ways in which citizens are meant to participate in
maintaining streets and instead raise open-ended questions and complaints that re-
veal how many types of street-based concerns and politics are not easily amenable
to fixing.
 Engaging the Idiot in Participatory Digital Urbanism / 211

From these two examples and the modes of participation that they activate, I
ask how the figure of the idiot may provoke different approaches to thinking about
and creating participation in the digitally equipped and sensor-based city. Many
current projects and proposals for smart cities and digital participation assume
versions of politics and citizenship that are relatively untroubled and solution-
oriented. Citizens need only train up and gain capacities in order to contribute
to digitally enabled urban processes. With access to the latest sensor-based plat-
forms and infrastructures, new levels of citizen-to-citizen, citizen-to-government,
and citizen-to-city interaction are assumed to unfold. But the idiot troubles these
communicative and political arrangements. It instead indicates how computa-
tional approaches to cities, citizenship, and politics may give rise to a faltering and
hesitating set of practices that do not advance an unproblematic approach to par-
ticipation, but rather throw it into question.

PARTICIPATORY URBAN ACTIONS

An extensive list of applications and platforms could be made of projects that are
variously situated in the area of participatory, open-source, and DIY digital urban-
isms. From Code for America to the New Urban Mechanics with their Adopt-a-
Hydrant scheme, as well as FixMyStreet, CitySourced, Maker Cities, and Urban
Prototyping, a number of projects fuse participation with sensors, apps, infra-
structure, devices, software, events, and even manifestoes to articulate and put in
motion a 2.0 version of urban citizenship. In the course of reviewing this develop-
ing area of practices, I have trawled through websites and used apps that would
make me more civic and participatory, and I have visited meetup events, as well
as signed up for online training sessions in the form of MOOCs and webinars,
taken participation surveys, and attended tech demonstrations, hackathons, and
fairs. Participatory applications and initiatives have in many ways settled into
these formats, where an emphasis is placed on co-creating technologies and ser-
vices in settings where there is a relatively high enthusiasm for the possibilities of
new technologies but often a relatively underexamined approach to what counts
as participation and what types of urban politics are activated through these digi-
tal engagements.
While I focus here on digital and sensor-based modes of participatory urban-
ism, it also bears mentioning that there is a long-standing tradition of participatory
urbanism projects that span art, architecture, design, and feminist politics. There
has been a recent resurgence of these projects that is somewhat parallel if distinct
from digital participatory urbanisms. These projects include the Canadian Centre
for Architectures exhibition and catalogue, Actions: What You Can Do with the City,
the Spontaneous Interventions United States pavilion at the 2012 Venice Biennale, and
work by creative practitioners such as Latelier darchitecture autogre (aaa) and
Public Works that focus on creating urban contexts for citizen- and community-led
212 / Engaging the Idiot in Participatory Digital Urbanism

transformation and use of spaces.10 In another way, many participatory urbanism

projects that are not sensor-based often adopt computational metaphors and plat-
forms to describe and organize practices, from Wikicity to Tactical Urbanism,11
where digital networks and commons are established as tools for achieving greater
urban participation. It is then worth noting that there is a much wider stream of
participatory urbanism projects underway that runs alongside and at times mutu-
ally influences or diverges from sensor-driven approaches to cities.
Similar to this wider context of participatory urbanism projects, many digital
participatory urban initiatives have developed through a stated concern with civic
responsibility and through an interest in remaking government from below.
Code for America (of which there are regional chapters, as well as a similar but
nonaffiliated European version, Code for Europe) is a project established in 2010
that made fellowships available for coders to develop civic-minded software freely
available through the software repository GitHub, as well as platforms to encour-
age greater participation in urban life. The rationale for these projects is that if the
urban-computational system is put together in the best way, then government
may run more efficiently and better address the needs and concerns of citizens.12
Projects that have developed through the Code for America initiative include an
Adopt-a-Hydrant platform that was developed in collaboration with the New
Urban Mechanics and prototyped in Boston in 2012. With this platform, mem-
bers of the public could locate a nearby hydrant, identify the hydrant on a map,
and adopt and take responsibility for clearing away snow when the hydrant
became buried in winter snow storms. This platform was adapted to several other
applications, including Adopt-a-Siren for maintaining tsunami sirens in Hawaii
and Adopt-a-Storm Drain for clearing drains. From hydrants to potholes, parking
spaces, and animal services, within these projects there is an attention to the mun-
dane and even bureaucratic role of governance. Code for America seeks to take
up and transform the bureaucratic aspects of governance through code, apps,
and platforms, hackathons, GitHub repositories, and open data. Infrastructure is
adopted in order to maintain it. Data are harvested in order to compare under-
standings of air pollution and exposure. Coding is undertaken in order to achieve
new efficiencies. And citizens participate through computational registers that
reroute the practices and responsibilities of local governmentwhere citizens
shift from agents with voices to agents with hands.13 Coding, and the hands
that would undertake this practice, are seen as a way to fix citizenship, since as
Pahlka notes, Were not going to fix government until we fix citizenship.14
Civic Apps are a similar area of development, which has at various times
been held up as the next vital improvement in urban life and public services pro-
vision. As noted in its 2013 forecast, the UK-based innovation think tank the
National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (Nesta) predicted civic
apps would develop rapidly and so shift the ways in which urban participation
 Engaging the Idiot in Participatory Digital Urbanism / 213

unfolds. Code for America Commons was identified as one of these examples,
which operates like a community-driven app store to share technology for public
good.15 The solving of urban problems was not the only area Nesta identified as
notable for development, since SeeClickFix, for instance, operates by rewarding
users with civic points, a system that has turned to operate for profit within
thousands of communities. Through ad and software sales, a civic platform had
morphed into a profitable venture, as well as a private service that could be sold
back to municipalities in order to manage customer-response services.16 Many
civic apps are in fact consumer-focused or oriented toward the quantified self and
allow urban dwellers to locate the best coffee spots and bars, as well as have better
access to cabs or public transit, while monitoring their exposure to air pollution
or keeping track of miles walked.17 These are simple tools that are meant to aid
in navigating public life and which make it easy to take part in.18
Civic apps are then productive of new economies and political economies
of participation and are not simply articulations of digital and democratic engage-
ment. As Ulises Mejias notes, however, participation in these networks offers up
information, but at the same time the user of these platforms becomes the prod-
uct being sold, where participation is not coercive in a straightforward manner
but is organized to undergird particular economic exchanges and to reinforce
particular modes of sociality.19 Participation through these platforms is then most
typically aligned with digital economies where user-citizens provide the data-
material that often generates profits for tech companies but less frequently con-
tributes to substantive resources for urban communities or citizens. Users and
participants of sensor-based digital platforms provide sensor data that influence,
if not benefit, particular types of technological and urban economies. Partici-
pation in networks requires the free labor of participants, but the networks are
owned, controlled, and operated by companies that collect data in ways that are
not typically transparent or contributory to advancing more democratic urban
engagement or more equitable economies.20
Sensors and sensor data then have effects in the ways in which participation
is organized and the uses to which it is put. Participation needs to be organized
in order to be activated with and through sensor exchanges that contribute to
the amassing of sensor data. A task flow is activated within sensor-based cities
that break down participation into executable tasks, thereby making participation
a computable problem. Such computational logic may in-form problems of par-
ticipation with or without sensors, since the task-flow approach to cities may
migrate from an application having to do with sensor-regulated traffic flow to a
more general method for managing pedestrians.
Participation further unfolds through both active and passive registers. Par-
ticipatory sensing is a term that has variously been used to describe the ways in
which people can record environmental phenomena through sensors built into
214 / Engaging the Idiot in Participatory Digital Urbanism

mobile phones.21 The sensors in mobile phones, including image, location, sound,
direction, and acceleration, have been identified as allowing for participatory and
citizen-led modes of sensing that can be used to record images, motion, and
other signals, automatically associating them with location and time.22 Described
as a new collective capacity that is developing and that allows for analyzing
invisible aspects of life, sensors in smartphones are different and yet at times
complementary to infrastructural sensors in cities used to organize transport,
energy, and more. In fact, sensors in smartphones are often the primary site of
interaction and activation for citizen-led participatory sensing. Here, participa-
tion in many ways is both facilitated and yet delimited by the capacities of smart-
phones. Examples of modes of participatory engagement with smartphones then
extend to tagged images of community assets, images of safety hazards, apps for
travel monitoring, and maps of running routes. As one group of researchers work-
ing in this area suggest, Participatory Sensings innovation lies in how people can
use todays technologies to observe, document, and act on issues that matter to
them. Participatory Sensings potential power comes from the already widespread
adoption of the technologies by people across so many demographics.23
While a clear trajectory is laid out from identifying what to sense, gathering
this sensor data, and then moving forward to action, the dynamics of participa-
tion within this progression remain somewhat unclear. How will participants first
decide where to focus their attentions, and how will they further know how best
to document their concerns? And within what context will they be able to make
claims or advance actions on the basis of sensor data they have assembled? The
more overtly participatory aspects of sensing, in many ways, might remain some-
what gestural, since this is less an exercise of democratic urban citizenship and
more a case of citizens participating by becoming sensors in order generate urban
data. In this respect, participatory sensing and passive data collection may have
more in common than at first suspected. Passive data collection generally entails
citizens having to do very little, other than turn on their smartphones or other
sensor devices, such as wearables, to collect location data or other environmental
details. Participation occurs here in a passive register because it does not require
input from the human user and it takes place by users simply being equipped with
smartphones, where sensing takes place in background registers without further
citizen-based translations into urban engagement.
Within the area of passive data collection, civic apps are also identified by
Nesta as enabling new modes of participation, where citizens might contribute to
larger data stores through enabling their vehicles to send data about speed bumps,
for instance, or by contributing location data or personal health data via smart-
phones or wearables.24 In these participatory applications, sensor engagements
and sensor data are not only located in the urban environment and implanted
within infrastructure but also integral to the technologies that people carry such
 Engaging the Idiot in Participatory Digital Urbanism / 215

that humans become sensors and actuators, passively facilitating the detection
and reporting of urban problems such as potholes. Sensors may be located across
infrastructures, smartphones, and vehicles, but what is most striking about par-
ticipatory and passive modes of sensing is the way in which citizens perform as
sensors, such that humans and sensors may even undertake interchangeable func-
tions. Participation is in-formed through these exchangesnot as a technologi-
cally determined activity, however, as much as a concretization of urban dwellers,
cities, infrastructure, everyday life, sensor devices, databases, big data economies,
and emerging practices of civic-ness.
The new entities that concretize through sensor-participation raise the ques-
tion of whether urban citizens and participation are as much in the prototype stage
as sensors. Both the practices that human-users are meant to develop and adapt to,
as well as the possibilities for more autonomous sensing devices, can be said to be
in development in this urban-computational loop of participation, sensing, data,
analytics, and action. What are these new capacities of citizenship and urban pol-
itics that are meant to be activated vis--vis participatory digital urbanism? As Mark
Andrejevic has pointed out, the rise of ubiquitous computing has actually contrib-
uted to a heightened form of passive interaction: the gathering of detailed infor-
mation in an increasingly unobtrusive manner.25 Within ubiquitous-computing
scenarios, participation unfolds most readily where humans interfere the least with
inputs and outputs and where citizens become sensing nodes or perform in ways
that are readily computable. Such an approach could be described as making
humans easier to use, as Trebor Scholz has noted in relation to digital labor.26 But
this ease of use does not necessarily clearly indicate new capacities of citizenship.
In these examples, computation and participation coincide in order to enable
new modes of citizen engagement, and yet in the process there is a remaking of
the processes of participation, cities, and citizenship toward computability. Urban
life is articulated through a series of computational problems that can be solved
or enhanced through participatory platforms and programs. Citizens achieve
participation through using these platforms to perform urban functions (effec-
tively becoming actuators of coded sensor actions), and at a presumably higher
level by writing programs in the first place, which code urban life for particular
forms of participation. Yet within this range of actions and technologies, partici-
pation remains relatively unquestioned as a practice. The ways in which coding,
for instance, may facilitate particular types of urban participation are assumed to
be positive and unproblematic contributions to urban life. Civic apps are tools for
achieving public life or the common good. As Stengers suggests in relation to
the idiot, The idea is precisely to slow down the construction of this common
world, to create a space for hesitation regarding what it means to say good.27
Although cities are regularly cast as sites in need of urgent attention, Stengerss
cosmopolitical proposal mobilizes the idiot as an entity that does not deny the
216 / Engaging the Idiot in Participatory Digital Urbanism

emergency but at the same time cannot accept the usual ways in which the
emergencyhere the problem of rapidly growing cities in the face of resource
shortage and climate changehas been framed and operationalized.
With the idiot in mind, it then becomes possible to ask in what ways do
problem-solving code, reconfigured service economies, and participatory sensing
for data collection reshape how participation unfolds? Public life and participation
become articulated as data-collection sites and practices, as crowdsourced actions
for solving definable problems, and as new business opportunities that emerge
from these same ventures. Civic apps attempt to remake and reinvigorate civic-
ness by framing urban problems so that they are actionable, and actions are easily
performed through smartphones or digital platforms. The program of partici-
pation here is not just a means to achieve efficiency but is a way to individually
and collectively frame and solve urban problems, whether through simply defined
actions or passive contributions of data that would facilitate the management of
urban functions. This is the well-known Leibnizian dream of making all problems
solvable by rendering them in terms of computation, such that should any dilem-
mas arise, a clear program may be in place so that one only needs to say: Let us
calculate!28 But in making urban participation actionable, and by articulating the
conditions through which collectives might form and have effect, digital modali-
ties of participation also delineate distinct forms of engagement that break down
into tasks, modes of training, and voluntarization of local government services
(when in many cases, these services may be under stress due to budget cuts).
The approach to making urban problems computable might be further situ-
ated within the growing area of urban science.29 Transportation problems, con-
tributions to civic process, and land use are examples of issues that might be best
dealt with through gathering, analyzing, and managing data sets otherwise char-
acterized as big data. Beyond infrastructures equipped with sensors that con-
tribute to the store of big data, participatory sensing and data collection are also
meant to contribute to large datasets that are intended to make cities more effi-
cient and easier to manage. Participation occurs through individual contributions
that scale up to aggregate functions, where the action and possibility of participa-
tory sensing is most pronounced when gathered into databases that are mined
and managed by distant actors, whether tech companies or city governments.
Participation in this sense requires a certain deferral, where ones contribution of
sense data becomes a resource for other urban actors. While participatory sensing
is meant to put tools into the hands of citizens, in reality most citizens will not
have the time or resources to mine data in order to influence urban processes or
to effect urban political change.
The contribution that participatory sensing and data collection make to big
data might in one way be described through a topological logic of digital infra-
structures that Matthew Fuller and Andrew Goffey discuss as a faith in small
 Engaging the Idiot in Participatory Digital Urbanism / 217

numbers. As they write, The effects of small numbers are pressed upon us as
exemplars of the instability of global systems and of the power of the individual
to effect real social change.30 Small numbersand by extension here, the small
numbers of participatory sensing that add up to big dataare the operators
whereby urban citizens are meant to be able to make change, whether through
individual contributions or the collective amassing of data. Possibility occurs
through computability, and so sensors at infrastructural and participatory levels
are the devices that facilitate the computability and possibility of urban processes.
Sensor data that feeds into big data promises to achieve distinct types of function-
ality and connection through enumeration and processing. Participation through
sensor-based devices is then contributing to modes of urban life and urban
engagement that are characterized by computability as the register of urban poli-
tics and social life.

Read/Write/Execute
While the participatory and civic aspects of these apps, platforms, and modes of
digital DIY urban engagement differ, they in various ways could be described as
projects that take up an approach to developing read/write urban practices.
Read/write, as another computational term that has been mapped onto partici-
patory digital urbanism, identifies cities as hitherto primarily read-only spaces,
which may become write-able, or participated in, through computational prac-
tices. Participating with digital or sensor-based devices allows urban inhabitants
to modify cities, as they might modify computer code. Participation may even
become a script to rewrite, where urban inhabitants may contribute to the for-
mation of new modes of experience.31
Following the read/write trajectory, many approaches to facilitating urban
participation that proceed by making the city open to modification focus on citi-
zens abilities to add stories to places, to create alternative urban experiences, or
to open up other ways of perceiving and engaging with the city that might at the
same time be more democratically oriented. And yet, a recurring question arises
with many of these projects as to how participation might be narrowed when it
is necessarily routed through a program of engagement that requires input and
output, sensing and actuating. If not to solve urban problems, then participatory
practices are still bound to computational modalities that would appear to open
up digital participation to a wider set of inputs but which continue to restrict the
potential of inputs to set registers of computational recognition. Whatever falls
outside recognition will simply not compute.
The read/write mandate is not just about citizens writingit can include a
consideration of how cities influence this process by writing back. Saskia Sassen
has written in her discussion of open-source urbanism that more consideration
might be given to moments when cities talk back to smart technologies. In other
218 / Engaging the Idiot in Participatory Digital Urbanism

words, she suggests we attend to the ways in which technologies might be urban-
ized through cities reworking these devices and systems. In this way, urban life
might be less prone to the simplifications that occur when attempting to fit cities
into the parameters of smart technologies.32 How does a city variously interrupt,
resist, or reroute these attempts to solve urban problems or facilitate digital par-
ticipation? Sassen suggests cities do this through their incompleteness, whereas
many of the proposals for intelligent cities make urban spaces into closed sys-
tems.33 Practices that urbanize technology would then make space for this
incompleteness and would resist closure in favor of multidirectional openings in
urban life.
One question that arises from this proposal to let the city talk back, how-
ever, is in what ways this talking is registered. Sassen identifies sites where smart
and sensor-based technology may be undergoing forms of urbanization, and
these are generally places of considerable privilege, from the Network Architec-
ture Lab at Columbia, the SENSEable City Lab at MIT, and much of the work
gathered at the Design and the Elastic Mind exhibit at MoMA.34 A second question
that emerges from Sassens proposal is the extent to which the urbanization of
technology still requires a communicative and computational logic. Although the
city might talk back, if it is to urbanize technology it must do so within par-
ticular modalities. Despite multiple critiques of primarily communication-based
approaches to publics, cities, and citizenship,35 many of the ways in which partici-
pation unfolds continue to involve the exchange of messages that have, as an
implicit trajectory, some sort of debate-and-consensus-based dialogue as the con-
dition for urban life.
And yet, despite the persistence of a certain communicative logic, Sassen im-
plicitly raises the question of who is reading and writing, and she extends this
dynamic into the city. If the city is talking back, and is able to interrupt the closed
logic of intelligent technologies, might this exchange also infuse the city with idiotic
capacities? In this project of participating within cities of sensors, where the city
might talk back, distributions of participation are also by no means located exclu-
sively within human agency. To what extent do the multiple nonhumans inhabit-
ing cities contribute to these idiotic capacities, whether traffic lights or bus stops
or road signs? The failure of sensor systems might be one way in which the idiotic
capacities of digital participation concretizes. If participation through sensor-
equipped technologies is a path to citizenship or to exercising citizenship, then do
sensors and sensor-enabled infrastructures also become enrolled in the project of
citizenshipof enabling, disabling, or otherwise rendering this program incoher-
ent? The becoming environmental of computation then becomes as much a pro-
cess of rupture and disconnect as an all-encompassing program of computability.
Writing is a practice that quickly morphs into hacking, moreover, since these
are modes of intervention that seek to remake the civic process. Read/write
 Engaging the Idiot in Participatory Digital Urbanism / 219

becomes read/write/execute, in an ideal approach to participatory digital urban-

ism. Hacking, and an approach to urban sites as executable, is further articulated
as a civic duty, since it is not enough simply to gather open government data
and produce crime maps, for instance.36 Instead, computationally enabled modes
of participating in cities must remake or hack the very ways in which we partici-
pate in urban life.
Yet what aptitudes are required in order to be a citizen who knows how to
write or even to execute in digital modalities or, in other words, to partici-
pate through computational means? In some cases, new modes of training have
emerged in order for citizens to learn techniques that might be useful for partici-
pating in the digital and sensor-based city. These courses include offerings on
MOOCS, hackathons, urban prototyping sessions, meetups, and more. Urban
Prototyping is one such initiative, initially based in San Francisco and which sub-
sequently traveled to other locations including Singapore and London. Funded
through the Gray Area Foundation for the Arts (GAFFTA), the initial 2012 Urban
Prototyping festival in San Francisco focused on transforming public space
through citizen experiments.37 Drawing on a sort of tactical urbanism approach,
projects spanned from the digital to the analogue, including glowing crosswalks,
air pollution monitors, digital sidewalk cinemas, and public urinals. The objective
of the first festival was to make cities better, faster, where prototyping could
move to replication and adoption by multiple cities in any number of locations.38
The Urban Prototyping event I attended in April 2013 in London at Imperial
College consisted of part seminar series and part hackathon, with an emphasis
throughout on identifying and addressing impending urban problems that could
be made solvable through digital modalities. The possibility to change the world
through digital technologies was a feature of the seminar and hackathon events,
where usually inaccessible data would be available for hacking, mash-ups, game
development, and more, which might lead to developing technologies and plat-
forms for citizens to overcome the serious challenges that our society faces.39
Within this Urban Prototyping event, questions proliferated about how digital
technology might be reforming the relations between citizens and government.
One discussion led to the question: Who will control the city: Team Architecture
or Team Computing? Another discussion came to imagine a time when govern-
ment would cease to play a central role in public life: How would citizens become
more resilient in the absence of government? Deskilling and reskilling were terms
often deployed: we might have to unlearn some ways of thinking about cities and
citizenship in order to develop new practices. Other questions that arose included:
In what ways does citizen engagement tend toward the optimization of systems,
often at the expense of privacy? Is digital citizenship worth it, in this case? Is it
possible to develop a peer progressive model of urban engagement? How might
it be possible to make crowdsourcing more representative, so that it is not simply
220 / Engaging the Idiot in Participatory Digital Urbanism

a collection of contributions made by those who have a vested interest? And

perhaps most perplexing of all: How might it be possible to motivate people to
participate in these new modes of digital citizenship, since this proved to be a dif-
ficult challenge, even when participation projects were gameified to be apparently
more readily engaging. Prototyping projects developed during the hackathon
were attempts to experiment with these issues of urban citizenship and engage-
ment via digital modalities.40 But these multiple questions about participatory
digital urbanism loom large, sparking considerations about how prototyping can,
if ever, move toward new modes of urban citizenship and engagement.
Open-source urban prototyping, as Alberto Corsn Jimnez has argued, might
be a technique for digital experimentation that keeps urban possibilities open,
particularly in relation to urban infrastructure.41 Yet in order to experiment within
digital modalities, skills need to be gained; and experimentation requires consid-
erable levels of education (deskilling and reskilling). Prototyping draws atten-
tion to the situations in and through which experimentation unfolds. What would
be another way of considering how technologies concresce with urban situations,
and are not just free-floating tools that would solve free-floating problems? If
technologies are put to the test in these contexts, then participation becomes
articulated through actual registers of engagement rather than as hypothetical
platforms and gestures toward the common good. Idiots and idiotic encounters
might even proliferate in these encounters and activate new approaches to the
project of participation in the digital and sensor-based city.

LEARNING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SENSOR- BASED CITY

As discussed in the previous chapter on proposals for smart cities and in the intro-
duction to this chapter, smart cities effectively require smart citizens rather than
dumb ones in order to make this version of digital intelligence operable. Smart
citizens need to play their part in the smart city. But in what ways do smart cities
effectively program what counts as smart citizenship? And what divergences
might occur within this delineation of a smart and participatory citizen? A smart
city is usually defined as some version of a highly communicative urbanism com-
prised of networks and sensors. Here, smartness is a feature of enhanced com-
municability, where new modes of communicative participation constitute new
capacities for citizenship and citizen participation. Sensors and networks are the
fundamental building blocks in this version of the smart city. But are there criti-
cal traits of citizens, or modalities of citizen participation that are necessary to
smart cities? If we follow one historical thread of what counts as a citizen, this
requires that one have a voice or be able to communicate within public and urban
forums. By extension, to be a citizen in the smart city would require that one has
the ability to have a voice and participate within the communicative registers and
exchanges enabled through digital technologies.
 Engaging the Idiot in Participatory Digital Urbanism / 221

To explore this area further, I turn to two examples of participatory urbanism

that intersect with sensor-based cities. The first example involves the discussion
of my experience participating in a TechniCity MOOC on smart cities. The sec-
ond example attends to a participatory urbanism platform, FixMyStreet, that
collects reports for fixing urban streets. As I discuss below, these examples raise
issues about the characteristics and practices of participatory urbanism as it inter-
sects with participatory sensing and of how computationally and sensor-enabled
and cities are meant to facilitate, encourage, and advance urban participation.
While both of these examples are largely focused on online participation, as the
wider array of participatory urbanism examples indicates, online and offline
worlds are entangled so as to redirect attention toward modalities of participation
rather than attempt to delineate the apparently virtual or physical locations in
which participation might unfold.

TechniCity
In February 2013 (and again in February 2014), I enrolled as a student in a MOOC,
TechniCity, which had the stated aim of exploring the ways in which
technologiesspecifically computational networks, mobile devices, and sensors
are changing cities. The point of the course was to examine from a critical view-
point the sweeping transformation taking place in how cities are designed,
modeled, and engaged with. In this eight-week course, the weekly lectures con-
sisted of presentations by thought leaders, including discussions on sensors
and smart grids as well as data and participation from academics, creative practi-
tioners, tech gurus, and Silicon Valley technologists. Suggested readings included
academic papers on apps for urban planning, industry white papers on smart
cities, and discussions of citizen sensors.42 A number of platforms and course
forums intersected with the lectures and readings to encourage student partici-
pation and contributions to the course. From a virtual salon to MindMixer,
SiftIt, Spotify, LinkedIn, Twitter, and Facebook, as well as Google hangouts, the
course was multiply networked and made use of social media as part of its edu-
cational remit.
I include this MOOC example since there are numerous ways in which smart
cities and sensing applications are delivered through and as educational and train-
ing encounters. It seems citizens have a lot to learn in order to become smart and
participatory, and so need to be educated and skilled up in order to participate in
the smart city. What are these forms of instruction, what do they teach, and how
do they purport to make us smarter (or at least smart enough) and more partici-
patory citizens? In what ways might oneby not participatingfind oneself to be
idiotic or on the fray in relation to this mode of becoming smart? How does this
practice of training up for the smart city resonate with Deleuzes suggestion that,
in a computer-oriented society, continuous training takes the place of schooling?43
222 / Engaging the Idiot in Participatory Digital Urbanism

Are we almost always in need of further training in the smart city, where compu-
tation sets the terms of instruction?
As an admittedly haphazard student in this course, I watched lectures on sen-
sors for managing traffic, and I reviewed lesson plan materials on how to scrape
Google Street View. I did not contribute to forums as actively as the course sug-
gested I should, but I did review others input and wonder at the range and spread
of contributions. I specifically learned from the lecture delivered during week two
of the course about the ladder of participation, a figure taken from a classic
1969 urban participation text written by Sherry Arnstein.44 This ladder-based fig-
ure of citizen participation moves from the lowly depths of manipulation and
therapy to the more enlightened stages of citizen power, which includes partner-
ship, delegated power, and citizen control. While Arnsteins paper puts forward
this model as a way to suggest different stages and modes of citizen engagement,
she is as interested in making the ladder a relatively expanded and nondefined
space, where she suggests the rungs on the ladder might be just a few of many
more, and that there may be 150 or more stages or spaces of citizen involvement,
for instance. In the TechniCity course, the ladder is presented in a rather linear
progression, however, from control to enablement, where the more engaged
realms are inevitably facilitated by digital technology. In fact, it could be argued
that, in the course and in this specific lesson, digital technologies were presented
as facilitating these higher reaches of citizen engagement.
And yet, I wondered while pacing through this lesson, what happens if you
are less adept at using digital technologies, or what if these devices do not realize
their promissory aims and instead tend to lead to the usual inertia that often
accompanies urban political problems? What aptitudes and resources might be
required in order to be a citizen who might be located at the upper rungs of this
ladder of participation? What happens if you fall off the ladder, or if you are not
able to climb the ladder in the first place?
Momentarily stepping off the ladder of citizen participation, we might also
consider what space there is for the idiot in this typology of engagement. If citi-
zen engagement always requires that people are present in a forum and express-
ing themselves, then to what extent do idiotic presences challenge the progression
from control to empowerment that digital technologies would facilitate? This
space might be characterized as cosmopolitical, following Stengers, where polit-
ical voices are less able to master the situation they discuss because the politi-
cal arena is peopled with shadows. As Stengers further writes, This is a feeling
that political good will can so easily obliterate when no answer is given to the
demand: Express yourself, express your objections, your proposals, your contri-
bution to the common world that were building.45
A core tenet of social media is the project of expressing yourself. Sensor-based
urbanisms would unfold not just through the expressive practices of individuals
 Engaging the Idiot in Participatory Digital Urbanism / 223

continually pinging and posting messages but also through the voluntary or
default sharing of patterns of urban inhabitation. But these various ways of ex-
pressing oneself, ostensibly in service of an optimized urban experience, might as
easily become sites of nonengagement, idiotic disruptions, or points of interfer-
ence. The idiot in this way does not offer up a program of participation, expres-
sive or otherwise, but instead has far more to do with a passing fright that scares
self-assurance, however justified.46 Not only is Stengerss provocation to consider
the figure of the idiot not a ladder of empowerment, such a proposal also sug-
gests that we might attend to the ways in which participation is always a diverging
rather than an easily or necessarily unifying set of engagements.
Rather than assume that the participatory program will necessarily be fol-
lowed exactly as instructed, I suggest it is productive to consider examples of
how these programs splinter into idiotic contributions. Alongside other students
working with the lesson plans and materials, I examine one forum that asked
students to document the types and locations of sensors that influence everyday
life, which were crowdsourced for discussion by course participants. The forum

Figure 8.2. TechniCity MOOC, student contribution of sensor. A feather circuit board offered as an
urban sensor example, which most contributing students had never previously seen. Screen capture.
224 / Engaging the Idiot in Participatory Digital Urbanism

consisted of examples of sensors in the city, uploaded by course participants

and available for commenting and voting by other course participants, who could
indicate, Ive seen these sensors, with categories to tick including never, rarely,
occasionally, often, and what is it? Sensor examples ranged from smart
bus stops to lampposts and parking spots to environmental sensors to detect
urban heat islands and seismic activity, but many examples were curious for the
questions they raised about what is a sensor in the city, and what might its capaci-
ties be, particularly in relation to enhancing participation. I discuss three of these
contributions to the sensor forum as examples of idiotic contributions to the
TechniCity MOOC.

Society of Machines
The first sensor-forum example is drawn from an ID card uploaded by a MOOC
participant to demonstrate sensor-activated access, and consists of a magnetic
card that would pair with an electronic card reader. A staff card for a school
psychologist named Jane Doe, this card was tagged as having been seen often,
occasionally, and rarely by other course participants. The card and contri-
bution signal toward sensors as actuators, as granting or restricting access to
locations depending upon the status of the card bearer. While not necessarily an
idiotic contribution in itself, this example uploaded by a MOOC participant bears
comparison to an earlier vision of a computer-modulated city in an example dis-
cussed by Deleuze. In his Postscript text, he suggests that particular machines
coincide with particular societies.47 He then relays an anecdote from Guattari in
order to demonstrate his point. He writes:

Flix Guattari has imagined a town where anyone can leave their flat, their street,
their neighborhood, using their (dividual) electronic card that opens this or that
barrier; but the card may also be rejected on a particular day, or between certain
times of day; it doesnt depend on the barrier but on the computer that is making
sure everyone is in a permissible place, and effecting a universal modulation.48

The electronic card, as it intersects with computational urbanisms, is not a simple

example of sensors embedded in urban contexts but rather raises questions about
how programmed machines might enable or disable access to urban pathways.
Idiocy might manifest in the form of programs that inadvertently restrict when
they should allow access or in the form of those who would find themselves
unable to traverse the city at any point, in an idiotic deferral to sensorized envi-
ronments. As Christian Ulrik Anderson and Sren Pold write in relation to the
issue of access and cities, The digital urban and scripted space is at once a func-
tional, aesthetic and political space. It manifests itself not as a grand spectacle but
most often as a space where one can log-in (or be left out).49 Access modulates
 Engaging the Idiot in Participatory Digital Urbanism / 225

participation in the digital city differently, and the possibilities for engagements
across political, functional, and aesthetic registers in many ways depend upon the
distributed conditions of access.
From these computerized encounters, questions arise as to how participa-
tion is scripted, prevented, or rerouted in the sensor-based smart city. The pro-
gram of participation is here more than a set of rules that are abided by, since
programs rarely go according to plan, and may even be characterized by their
accidents. Guattari, together with his electronic card, is participating in the sensor-
based city, but if he does not have access he can become idiotic through the same
technologies that would ordinarily make him a smart and participating citizen.
Deleuze thus suggests that Guattari is an ancillary part of the card-to-urban-
access interaction, where he becomes a dividual.
Political engagements here occur across human and nonhuman registers. A
human might have notional access, but at the same time defers the possibility of
access to sensor environmentsin this case, cards and infrastructurethat em-
body the material conditions and politics of access. Of course, it would be pos-
sible to invoke the well-known examples of the actor-network theory of Bruno
Latour, with his discussion of seat belts and speed bumps, or Madeline Akrich and
her discussion of objects and scripts, which could be another way to talk about
programs set in motion by objects that are not simply the result of human inten-
tionality through use.50 In this approach, contra Deleuze, the agency of the card
expresses a distribution of action that cannot be located primarily in a human
subject. The card may even force actions and responses in ways that give rise to
different practices on the part of the card bearer. What Deleuze describes through
Guattari is an example of an interrupted or broken program of participation,
where the object-script that would facilitate participation can become a locus of
control, differently articulated politics, or a machine society that unfolds in dis-
tinctly computational ways.
An idiotic encounter then emerges at the point of attempting to gain access
and having that access restricted, of querying this restriction, and of being made
to inhabit urban sites in ways that are orchestrated by smart technologies contra
the intentions of userstechnologies that might even be, in some ways, smarter
than their users. Idiot-ness might here be described as a distributed condition
that encompasses would-be urban citizens, access protocols, cards, and sensors,
as well as urban spaces and infrastructures. Following Lucy Suchman, we might
say that users (and their possibility to become idiotic) are distributed across
machines, people, conditions of access, programs of engagement, and more.51 At
the same time, as Andrejevic suggests, within environments that increasingly
depend on ubiquitous computing for conditions of access, unwired humans will
come across as singularly unintelligent, non-conversant and incomprehensible.52
A world of ambient intelligence makes a human without sensing capabilities
226 / Engaging the Idiot in Participatory Digital Urbanism

potentially idiotic. Far from being a naked citizen contributing to urban life
through an inclination toward the common good, the digital citizen requires an
extensive arrangement of resources in order to participate and be sensible in the
sensor-based city.

The Private Life of the Public Idiot

The second sensor occasion charts how an idiot has at various times been defined
as someone unable to participate in public lifewhere someone cannot be a citi-
zen if he or she is not able to contribute to public forums. But in current circum-
stances that might be characterized by the excessive production of (previously
private) data, we could also distinguish the idiocy that emerges when private lives
are made baldly public, with intimate details made available everywhere all the
time, so that this distinction collapses such that the public-ness of citizenship is
no longer a defining trait. Another example of a student contribution added to
the sensors-in-the-city forum of this MOOC then includes a billboard that reads:

Michael-
GPS Tracker$250, Nikon Camera with zoom lens$1600, Catching my LYING
HUSBAND and buying this billboard with our investment accountPriceless.
Tell Jessica youre moving in!
-Jennifer53

From Google Glasses to GPS tracking and expos billboards, the idiot appears at
this newly blurred set of intersections between public participation and private
lives where an open city and ensuing excess of data are made available through
sensors tracking and reporting the banalities and infractions of everyday life. Is
spilling the details of ones private life into public forums a mode of participa-
tory urbanism? At what point do data even qualify as private, when privacy is
an increasingly obsolete concept? Do practices involving the constant monitoring
and sharing of personal data for wider distribution constitute idiotic or good citi-
zenship? Or do they challenge the priorities and spaces of citizen participation
beyond public and private to sites of contestation, the enrollment of sympathetic
supporters, or the airing of grievances, as well as making contributions to the
greater good through the sharing of intimate data?
With passive data collection, the terms of participation and citizenship in
sensor-based cities are such that the default setting is to overstep or disregard the
usual distinctions of private and public life. Private life, the usual space of the idiot,
comes flooding into public life, the space of the assumed common good. Here is
an idiotic encounter through political renegotiations that occur where egregious
information about citizens is deliberately or inadvertently made available. These
 Engaging the Idiot in Participatory Digital Urbanism / 227

renegotiations may also be absent, since in order to participate citizens may have
no choice but to provide information if they are to participate as able communi-
cative digital citizens, because to unplug or not provide data would be to become
an idiot.
While many advocates for sensor-based urban participation suggest that these
practices open up new forms of civic agency, sensor-based engagements restruc-
ture participation and the processes by which an urban citizen is understood to
be making a contribution. Participation need not even be active, in the sense
of exercising volition, but can occur through passive data collection, tracking
(self-initiated or conducted by others), wearing devices, and having technologies
report on ones behalf. Participatory contributions are not expressions of intent,
or even interruption, but rather involve being an available sensor-based and data-
producing urban entity. GPS data might be picked up to articulate points about
infidelity or illegality, but within the processes of data analytics most of these
moments of pattern detection will instead be parsed by algorithms rather than
disgruntled partners. But the previously idiotic space of private activities floods
into public forums, while reconstituting the ways in which public-ness and public
life is designated. The contributioneven if passiveof private data becomes a
new way of engaging in, articulating, and sustaining the digital city.

Failure to Compute: 3 + 2 Does Not Equal 5

A third sensor occasion considers the idiot as a person or entity that does not
compute. Idiot-ness may emerge through failing to follow instructions or inter-
preting instructions in a way so tangential to the project aims that moments of
befuddlement, dismay, or confusion proliferate. This final list of sensor examples
added by students includes images of bacon cooking in a frying pan with a splat-
ter shield, a pistol-shaped hairdryer, and a feather circuit board. One might ask:
Where is the city or sensors in this crowdsourced example of urban sensors? Per-
haps lodged in the strange interstices of a bacon-splatter tray there is some sensor-
actuator response ready to contain popping grease from defiling domicile walls,
but the bustling city seems a distant land from this fry-up scene. Possibly these
MOOC student-citizens have misunderstood their assignment and are providing
deliberately misleading or incorrect data as a way to interrupt the steady flow of
contributions to this forum. Or spam bots may have intervened and garbled the
contributions of otherwise diligent citizens-in-training.
Whatever the occasion, in the mixing of citizens and sensors of all sorts
one could politely say that potentially other-than-smart contributions are made.
Maybe lodged in the pistol hairdryer example provided by one MOOC participant
a sensor awaits activation for a morning beauty routine. This may gesture toward
an urban encounter in waiting, but its relevance to the forum remains a mystery.
And a microchip ostensibly assembled from soybeans and chicken feathers seems
228 / Engaging the Idiot in Participatory Digital Urbanism

to offer an organic approach to sensors. Whether speculative, fictional, or the

material of one course members strange electronics experiments, this whole-
some sensor option begs the question of what materials will variously construct
smart and sensor-filled cities. Is it idiotic to propose that sensors should be bio-
degradable and organic?
My point in this analysis of participatory engagements with thinking through
digital urban participation vis--vis the idiot is to attend to these concrete exam-
ples that I encountered during my attempt to train up to the challenges of the
smart city while learning from other participant contributions. In the process, I
questioned what sorts of intelligence were brought together, promoted, or alter-
natively derailed in attempts to make citizens smart and cities apparently more
participatory. The participatory citizen unfolds as a potentially idiotic figure in
these sensor examples, which ask us to rethink the settlements at which smart
and sensor-based participation would seek to arrive. The idiot is not simply a ruse,
but rather a figure that troubles the instructions and assumptions of smartness, of
smart cities, citizens, or actions that would course through with efficient connec-
tivity, a cascade of clear decision-making, and problem-solving actions.
As Deleuze has suggested, one version of the idiot may be someone who
insists that 3 + 2 does not equal 5. This is an old version of the idiot, one who
would doubt every truth of nature. In contrast, the new idiot has no wish for
indubitable truths; he will never be resigned to the fact that 3 + 2= 5 and wills the
absurd.54 Whether old or new idiot, basic computations do not yield expected
results. The figure of the idiot (as a hazy presence) here suggests it may be pos-
sible to consider how participation unfolds neither as a simple formula for achiev-
ing the common good nor as the dutiful actions of rational actors, but rather
through distributed and often disruptive modalities of engagement that reorient
accounts of smart, idiotic, or instrumental forms of participation toward other
engagements with collective experience, plural realisms, and unexpected poten-
tial for creative advance in urban situations.
In the updated 2014 version of the TechniCity course, the final lecture, The
Future of the TechniCity, ends with the cautionary explanation and statement:

This is our last week together! We end the course thinking about the future of
technology in our cities. Well explore wearable technology, mobile money, and
more. But most importantly we have a cautionary note that technology isnt the
be all end all solution for all of the worlds problems.55

As Mackenzie established in his Simondonian-influenced study, Transductions,

technicity as an abstraction is in fact a way of articulating relations so that
technological analyses do not focus on technologies as apparently given and do
not impute deterministic agency to devices.56 Instead, technicity draws attention
Figure 8.3. Council Worker Mowing Rubbish! submission to FixMyStreet platform to document urban problem to be solved in the category of street cleaning.
Screen capture.
230 / Engaging the Idiot in Participatory Digital Urbanism

to the shifting and transductive relations that emerge through extended techno-
logical engagements and arrangements. Here is a different version of technicity,
one which demonstrates that even while the instructors of this TechniCity course
caution against seeing smart city technologies as simple solutions, solutionism
may in fact be the primary type of relation that sensor-based technologies tend
to articulate. But this is also exactly where idiots (whether human or nonhuman)
proliferate within these solution-oriented approaches to digitally equipped citi-
zenship. This is also where politics might be best be identified, understood, and
practicedas a reworking of digital participatory urbanism. By attending to these
idiotic encounters and presences, as Stengers writes, such a cosmopolitical ap-
proach might protect us from an entrepreneurial version of politics, giving
voice only to the clearly-defined interests that have the means to mutually counter-
balance one another.57 Instead of a politics that attempts to sidestep hesitation
and divergence in pursuit of an unquestioned common vision of the city, a cos-
mopolitical proposal would see these idiotic encounters as an ongoing condition
of engagement.

Citizens Fixing Streets

If anything, digital programs for participation raise as many questions as they
offer answers about how engagement in a sensor-based city might unfold. While
held up as a solution to the problem of the city, participatory and sensor-based
technologies inevitably create their own obstacles, diversions, and problems that
do not necessarily allow for an easy passage to a more participatory urbanism.
The second participatory urbanism project that I discuss is particularly illuminat-
ing for these issues, which it makes evident in relation to how urban problems are
identified, categorized, reported, and acted upon. FixMyStreet is an online plat-
form that citizens can use to report problems with urban spaces and infrastruc-
ture. The problems are in some cases reported to local councils, which might then
decide to fix the identified problems.
FixMyStreet is a UK-based service developed through mySociety, a nonprofit
group established in 2004 that uses digital tools to make governments more
accountable.58 FixMyStreet was launched in 2007 as what might be classified as a
civic app. In line with the distinction made by Nesta in the above discussion on
civic apps, FixMyStreet occupies a niche in the participatory digital city ecosys-
tem that is also populated by SeeClickFix (an American-based version of the plat-
form), as well as Citizens Connect and FillThatHole (a UK-based platform for
cyclists to document potholes), platforms that are specifically oriented toward
enabling citizens to report problems with urban streets and infrastructure.59
In my investigation into the FixMyStreet app and platform, I focused on the
borough of Lewisham within southeastern London, an area with a diverse popu-
lation of varying socioeconomic circumstances. Far from the wealthy western
 Engaging the Idiot in Participatory Digital Urbanism / 231

side of town, Lewisham residents may engage with street fixing in ways that may
be particularly attentive to the at-times precarious state of infrastructure here.
But because this platform and app work through universal categories of concern
for street conditions, from abandoned vehicles to dumped rubbish to graffiti and
road defects, the differences in urban reporting may show up most clearly at the
point of written and visual problems logged.
The FixMyStreet platform and app are relatively easy to use, and only require
that one first choose a borough, identify the location of the particular report on
a Google map, assign the problem a category, add any additional textual or visual
detail, and include ones individual details with email. The report will then be
made live, and is then typically communicated to the local council, which may or
may not decide to fix the problem reported. Problems reported over the past
two years in Lewisham range from rubbish dumped on streets to dog fouling,
missing utility covers, rubbish- and rat-filled derelict phone booths, dead or nui-
sance animals, potholes and more potholes, and missing or incorrect signage, as
well as a general concern with the condition of infrastructure and an impending
sense that if particular problems are not fixed then future consequences could be
disastrous.
When problems are fixed, a green icon will appear with the text, fixed.
When problems are left to linger, a grey box will appear with the text, unknown.
Problems most likely to be fixed include clearing dumped rubbish and fly tipping,
covering missing utility holes, and dealing with any infrastructural issues that
might lead to litigious action. Problems that are often left to linger include pot-
holes, phone booths, dead animals, and anything that constitutes criminal activ-
ity as opposed to an urban-space issue. In August 2009, one person logged that
a Christmas tree had been abandoned. In April 2013, the problem was reported
as fixed. A commentator then wrote, 4 years later? Are you sure it didnt just rot
down?60 The timing and accountability of fixing can be thrown into question
when problems linger in an unknown state and when fixes surface that seem to
be attributed more to neglect than to the active remedying of problems. By ques-
tioning the process by which problems are fixed, this Christmas-tree commenta-
tor introduces an idiotic mode of participation, slowing down and asking how
these problems go away, if ever.
Problems that remain unknown, unfixed, and unaddressed are many, a situ-
ation that raises questions as to how effective this platform is for empowering
citizens to communicate with councils or to have their grievances heard and
addressed. One report notes with alarm, Council worker mowing rubbish!61
Here, rather than pick up litter on a grassy right-of-way, a council worker took the
more expedient route of mowing through plastic bags and bottle tops in order
to shred them to a finer and potentially less noticeable bit of debris. The per-
son logging this report takes this as an indication of general neglect for street
232 / Engaging the Idiot in Participatory Digital Urbanism

cleaning, and no doubt also as a sign of a lack of care for the neighborhood. But
in many ways such an observation verges on the idiotic, as it does not define
the task in such a way that it may be easily fixed. Rants, complaints, and general
observations of neglect: these are not computable problems but rather could be
characterized as participatory noise that runs through this platform.
As the FixMyStreet site indicates, problems are typically reported to the local
council or relevant local body, such as a transport agency. The overview notes
that the sites purpose is for the reporting of physical problems, and other plat-
forms may be more appropriate for problems not within this category. However,
even problems that might be clearly identified as physical do not always feed
through to solutions. For instance, one site user complains about a recurring prob-
lem with rubbish overflowing at one particular intersection, which eventually leads
to rats in the rubbish. While there seemed to be a slight improvement after
reporting the rubbish situation, the problem continued, so that the user writes,
Please dont suggest Do it yourself : Ive offered, still waiting for a reply from
Lewisham Council.62 There is a sort of ambivalence here around DIYthe user
is taking the time to report a street problem while also indicating a willingness to

Figure 8.4. Council Worker Mowing Rubbish! submission to FixMyStreet platform, with example of
photograph uploaded by anonymous reporter of street cleaning problem. Screen capture.
 Engaging the Idiot in Participatory Digital Urbanism / 233

engage with the problem if communication with the council can be established,
and yet the user also expresses a frustration with DIY and a sensed lack of account-
ability on behalf of the council. DIY here is not a simple pathway of citizen
empowerment, but a space of hesitation. It is unclear who should or will take
responsibility for the rat and rubbish problem, and so the FixMyStreet platform
registers this as an idiotic exchange of sorts, where the problem is not solved, the
common good is not readily advanced, accountability and empowerment are
not clearly articulated, and urban engagement remains a faltering undertaking.
Within the FixMyStreet platform, the street becomes an object of citizens
sensing and identifying problems, reporting these problems for repair, and being
variously impressed or disappointed at the resolutions achieved or inaction that
results. While citizens perform sensing functions, the sense data they collect and
report does not necessarily lead to actuating solutions. The street further becomes
the site of a particular type of problem making. Physical problems that readily
fit within preidentified categories and local council chains of action stand the
best chance of being addressed, while problems that fall outside this scope may
be rendered as idioticas not being addressable within the logic or terms of the
platform. Even when physical problems with streets and infrastructure are coded
into tasks, solution-based actions are not readily realized. Who is responsible for
the city? This is a question that remains unanswered in many of the FixMyStreet
platform exchanges.

RETHINKING THE SENSORING OF PARTICIPATION

FixMyStreet, as with many other platforms and participatory- and passive-sensing
projects, relies on a certain task flow in order to make problems identifiable and
operable. Participation in the digital city then becomes a matter both of instru-
menting the citizen and of breaking down urban problems into computable
tasks. These tasks, as identified in one IBM paper on citizen sensors, typically in-
volve selecting an urban event to report, collecting sense data, and reporting and
analyzing data collected, most often through a smartphone interface.63 Sense data
collected usually includes that which smartphones can sense, including images,
location, altitude, acceleration, temperature, and direction. There are multiple
sensors in a smartphone, and this microecology of participating user with sensing
devices in relation to a city full of problems waiting to be solved becomes the
basis for the task flow of participation in the digital city.
Citizens then perform sensing tasks that are continuous with a sensor-filled
city and its sensor devices. In this way, a proliferation of sensors does not neces-
sarily need to be the determining driver of sensor interactions as such, since citi-
zens are also sensing within computational logics through an established chain of
tasks. Citizens become interchangeable with sensors, they even become sensors.
Citizens monitor themselves and environments, environments self-monitor, and
234 / Engaging the Idiot in Participatory Digital Urbanism

in this loop of gathering data for participation and democratic urban action, urban
sensing networks do more than simply record and model existing patterns of
urban lifethey also enable and form ongoing possibilities for urban engagement.
The analysis of sensor data, whether gathered through participatory or passive
means, leads to the performance of new actions and modulations, thereby in-
forming the behavior of citizens and further possibilities for participation.
While much attention is deservedly directed toward analyzing sensors for their
capacities of surveillance, this particular analysis has not focused on surveillance-
based concerns in relation to participatory sensing and urbanism. However, as
is especially clear in the context of participatory urbanism, surveillance emerges
not only as a project of real-time observation but also as a store of multiple
banal details and data about everyday life that can be mined for patterns and even
turned into anticipatory and predictive engagements. Surveillance in this respect
is about capacities yet to come as much as current documentation in the produc-
tion of new datasets, whether crowdsourced data on potholes, passively sensed
data from individual journeys, or participatory sensing in the form of eager
urbanites annotating, coding, and hacking urban space. Sensor- and computation-
based approaches to urban life are then as much descriptive gatherings of current
events as they are productive expressions of new practices, ways of life, and modes
of politics.
Within these task flows undertaken by instrumented citizens, participation is
far from an easy and straightforward project of generating and analyzing urban
data for optimal urban functioning. Instead, participation becomes characterized
as much by multiple idiotic encountersacross human and nonhuman sites of
engagementas it does by purported new modes of democratic engagement. A
considerable amount of literature on digital participation focuses on the ways in
which people connect, social movements form, and (even revolutionary) actions
unfold.64 There is also a significant body of literature that closely examines the
networks within and through which participation takes place and which draws
attention to the inevitable power relations that in-form what sorts of participation
might even be possible in the first place.65 Social and digital media are generally
advanced as tools that address the problem of participation, even fomenting revo-
lutions. Alongside the extensive set of participatory digital urbanism projects,
there are a number of literatures that also draw outcritically, theoretically, and
practicallythe ways in which digital participation is unfolding and might con-
tinue to develop. Clearly, there is a multiplicity of terms and practices circulating
that carry the descriptor of participation. My point here has not been to under-
take a comprehensive review of these practices since this work been done else-
where in various ways.66
Moving laterally from these studies interested in the capacities of social media
to spark actions, I instead attend here to the ways in which participation does not
 Engaging the Idiot in Participatory Digital Urbanism / 235

go according to plan. In this sense, I align this analysis with research that might
question or critique the democratic engagements that digital media might facili-
tate.67 Other studies, such as the collection on DIY Citizenship edited by Matt Ratto
and Megan Boler, collect together more empirical encounters with DIY citizen-
ship, digital and otherwise, to consider how more active and making-based forms
of engagement might transform citizenship.68 Kurt Iveson suggests that, rather
than ask whether digital urban platforms enable particular types of engagement
and citizenship, we should instead ask: What is the vision of the good citizen
and the good city that they seek to enact?69 Similarly focusing on politics as
that which occurs at sites and moments of disruption, Iveson notes that partici-
patory platforms do not de facto lead to politics or political engagements, and
may in fact have depoliticizing effects. His point of inquiry is then to ask whose
version of the good city we are enacting through participatory technologies of
engagement. But a more Stengerian focus on politics and disruption might, vis--
vis the idiot, ask not about what vision of the good city or good citizen is being
enacted, but instead query any project that would assume its own goodness. The
idiot always asks, But what about . . . ? thereby disrupting an unproblematic
marching toward a common good. As the idiot reminds us, there is always more
at stake.

Civic Media and Tactical Media: Re- versioning Participation

In critiques of the smart city a number of writers and tech gurus make a point of
calling for greater attention to the role that grassroots or bottom-up citizen
engagements can play in giving rise to a more human, just, and equitable set of
digital city developments.70 And there are many projects underway that would
attempt to respond to this challenge, which may variously be seen as projects of
disruption, democratization, and enablement. Numerous projects have sprung up
that attempt to experiment with alternative approaches to digitally oriented and
sensor-based urban participation and at times also to disrupt the smart city rhetoric
that is often primarily issuing from technology companies. Projects in this area
span from Spontaneous Intervention projects shown at the U.S. Pavilion during
the 2012 Venice Biennale, including the San Francisco Garden Registry, a platform
for identifying used and underused garden space in the San Francisco region;
PetaJarkata, a crowdsourced and Twitter-based project for enabling residents of
Jakarta to report and respond to recurring flood events in Jakarta; and the City Bug
Report, a project by Henrik Korsgaard and Martin Brynskov that allows citizens
to report on bugs in the smart city and that makes space for the messy social
and political encounters that inevitably unfold in cities.71 Many of these projects
continue to work within a citizen-sensor-urban-problem dynamic but at the same
time open up other spaces for participation that encounter the disruptions and
possible openings that might make for other urban political engagements.
236 / Engaging the Idiot in Participatory Digital Urbanism

While the point here is not to identify good and bad examples of partici-
patory digital urbanism, these strategies could be described as re-versioning par-
ticipationof working within a prevailing set of approaches to participation and
experimenting within alternative possible outcomes.72 Many of these projects un-
fold through a sort of tactical urbanism meets tactical media.73 They are experi-
ments with urban technology, participation, and citizenship. While some offer up
different ways of thinking about urban inhabitations and practices, others are
driven by a technology-for-technologys sake ethosof making the city comput-
able in order to test the capacities of sensor devices. All of these projects raise the
question of what role these tactical projects might play in seriously recasting the
increasing digitalization of urban spaces and processes.
Writing on tactical media, a form of digital disruption that is in some ways the
uneasy forerunner to more integrative forms of participatory media, Rita Raley
suggests that tactical media should not be evaluated exclusively for its assumed
effectivity. She suggests, The right question to ask is not whether tactical media
works or not, whether it succeeds or fails in spectacular fashion to effect structural
transformation; rather, we should be asking to what extent it strengthens social
relations and to what extent its activities are virtuosic.74 In this passage, Raley
responds to an argument made by Geert Lovink and Ned Rossiter, who critique
tactical media for its fleetingness and ability to be co-opted back within the very
systems and arrangements it would interrupt and reroute. Recognizing the valid-
ity of their point, Raley nonetheless suggests that focusing on effectiveness may
be the wrong criterion with which to evaluate tactical media. Virtuosity, as an
alternative criterion, enables events to have their own momentum and purpose,
thereby sidestepping a teleological agenda that says tactical media are only as
good as their impacts.75
If we were to extend this approach to an analysis of participatory urbanism
and sensing, we could then suggest that participation may not necessarily be char-
acterized by preplanned outcomes, but rather it may rework processes of engage-
ment toward making, changing, and mobilizing situations differently. Yet there
remains an abiding question as to whether even virtuosic participatory media fold
back into digital media that circumscribe politics as computable problems. With
all of these projects, it may then be useful to keep in mind the idiot, the one who
does not compute, and who, by not abiding by the terms of participation, forces
us to reencounter the problem and the politics of urban engagement.

A COSMOPOLITICAL ECOLOGY OF PARTICIPATION

If we were to return at the end of this chapter to a consideration of all the multiple
sensors that are embedded in urban spaces and that facilitate access to urban infra-
structures, or that are transported by urban citizens in the form of smartphones,
we might make a list of technologies that spans from automated traffic lights to
 Engaging the Idiot in Participatory Digital Urbanism / 237

smart bus stops to bicycle-sharing schemes, increasingly smart energy grids and
screen-filled urban environments, not to mention innumerable CCTV cameras
trained on urban spaces. Urban spaces are increasingly sensorized, and urban
engagements are also in-formed by these sensor-based modalities. As I have sug-
gested in this chapter, sensors are not just about the proliferating hardware and
associated software that would automate urban infrastructural functions but also
about the changing character of urban engagements. These engagements shift
within the technomaterial context of sensorized cities and also through the com-
putational logics that are put into play where citizens become sensors and per-
form sensor-like functions in relation to computable urban problems.
Participatory actions within sensor-based cities most often consist of monitor-
ing environments and reporting data for networked analysis. Actiona response
to the urban problems identifiedis often assumed to flow from this monitoring
data. The intelligence that would actuate and solve urban problems is made to
be continuous across citizens and digital urban infrastructures, an intelligence
that is narrated as being bound up with democratic engagement and sustainable
action. If citizensand urban algorithmic networkshave more data about urban
life, then urban experiences are meant to be optimized and made more participa-
tory and intelligent.
But these modes of intelligence and participation, as I have suggested here,
are as likely to be generative of idiotic encounters as participatory ones, and the
actors in these digital exchangeswhether human or nonhuman are as likely
to produce idiotic non sequiturs as they are rational advances to enhanced urban-
ization. The distributions of multiple sensors used to manage urban processes
as well as encourage participation are sites productive of idiotic engagements.
These idiotic sensor occasions include encounters that take place in interactions
with the sensor city, in sites of data production and circulation, in the contribu-
tions made and interpretations given to participatory platforms. Opportunities
for idiotic participation also proliferate across distributed human and nonhuman
arrangements and engagements.
With the idiot brought into a more considered part of the dynamics of par-
ticipatory digital urbanism, perhaps cities could begin to be understood less as
technical problems in need of fixes. Drawing on Stengers not just for her discus-
sion of the idiot but also for her Whitehead-inspired discussion of how to make
the field of problem making more inventive,76 I suggest the computable problem
of contemporary cities here gives reason to reconsider how this problem has been
cast. By reconsidering the field of the problem of the computable and sensor-
based city, it might finally be possible to reinvent participatory practices that
unfold within digital urbanism encounters.
Proposals for sensor-based and digital urban participation are often narrated
through a vision of the good city and the smart citizen. But as the idiotic encounters
238 / Engaging the Idiot in Participatory Digital Urbanism

I have discussed demonstrate, these projects also raise questions about who par-
ticipates, how urban problems are identified, and what participation is meant to
accomplish. Citizens become sensors and urban problems become computable in
many of the projects I have discussed here. Yet it may be necessary to consider
how the idiot disrupts consensual visions of goodness and instead troubles par-
ticipation in ways that reroute the rules of the game. As Stengers writes, One has
to be wary of individual good will. Adding a cosmopolitical dimension to the
problems that we consider from a political angle does not lead to answers every-
one should finally accept. It raises the question of the way in which the cry of
fright or the murmur of the idiot can be heard collectively, in the assemblage
created around a political issue.77 Stengers suggests that the idiot especially forces
us to attend to the concrete conditions of problems. If urban environments are
under stress in one way or another, these problems would then need to be
attended to in their specificity and not as conditions conducive to solutions propa-
gated by universal information architectures. Such a specific (cosmo-)political
ecology of problems is then an important part of attending to urban conditions.
These specific conditions ensure that we cannot proceed through blind confi-
dence or good intentions but rather must [build] an active memory of the
way solutions that we might have considered promising turn out to be failures,
deformations or perversions.78 This chapter has described such a catalog of fail-
ures and deformations through a few encounters with the idiot at sites of partici-
patory digital urbanism. This list could be extended. But it is also an opening and
invitation to consider how participation and the problem of the city might be
reinvented by attending to the diverse inhabitations that break with the program
of digital urbanism.
This page intentionally left blank
Figure 9.1. Libelium Smart World. Libeliums infographic comprising Smart Cities, Internet of Things, and other sensing applications. http://
www.libelium.com/top_50_iot_sensor_applications_ranking. Copyright Libelium Comunicaciones Distribuidas S.L. 2013.
 9

Digital Infrastructures of Withness

Constructing a Speculative City

P a r t i c i pat i o n i n t h e d i g i t a l c i t y, as discussed in the last

chapter, is far from a clear and simple project of using digital technologies or
platforms for achieving common good. The contributions and pathways of partici-
pation unfold along multiple often-circuitous routes, while modes of participation
are also entangled with more-than-human entities that may disrupt or prevent
engagements. In the emerging smart cityas it is now being implemented
digital sensors are not simply scattered nodes of computational hardware but are
also bundled into urban infrastructures in ways that remake these systems and the
practices that they animate. The digital infrastructures that variously constitute
the smart city, from smart grids to connected devices and smartphones, are also
sites where participation is organized and potentially altered and rerouted.
As discussed in chapter 7, many proposals for smart city projects still exist at
the speculative or near-future stage. Yet some initiatives have translated into alter-
ations to the built environment, including new services as well as retrofitted urban
infrastructures and processes. This chapter looks at sensor technologies and smart
city initiatives as they have been implemented and discusses how these distributed
modes of environmental sensing influence urban experiences. I specifically dis-
cuss sensor projects and smart cities technologies developed in London, a city
that is frequently referred to as one of the smartest worldwide, and which has a
number of current and ongoing initiatives to implement smart technologies.
I am interested to understand digital infrastructure in these emerging smart
city initiatives, not as something that can be defined at the outset, but as some-
thing that comes into being through concretizing technological arrangements as
well as distinct ways of inhabiting these infrastructures. While it would be possi-
ble to make a straightforward list of the typical ways in which this fourth utility
is unfolding, I suspend these assumptions about what exactly constitutes smart

241
242 / Digital Infrastructures of Withness

and digital infrastructure in order to examine more closely how digital infra-
structure actually manifests through technologies and practices. Simondon makes
the point that an abstract technology is not necessarily a cognitive model that is
implemented, but rather is a set of dynamic changes that occur in any given tech-
nocultural system to make possible the concretization of particular technologies.
In considering the smart city as one such abstract technology, I suggest it is vital
to attend to the specific environments in and through which specific smart cities
are able to take hold.1
Furthermore, Simondon suggests that as technologies become concrete they
do not become more fixed, but rather become more indeterminate.2 Abstraction, as
it turns out, may constitute a more static rendering of technology than its con-
crete instantiations, where multiple ways of materializing, practicing, inhabiting,
and intersecting with technology can occur. Processes of constructing a specula-
tive smart city constitute ways of working out and transindividuating the entities
that populate smart cities and the ways in which they relate and connect up. This
chapter turns to consider the transformations that occur as smart cities migrate
from an abstract and even speculative set of technologies to more concrete mate-
rializations. In relation to implemented sensor technologies, I ask: What are the
processes that these infrastructures instigate and sustain? How do they at once
individuate and join up cities and citizens? What are the capacities of these infra-
structures and what modes of inhabitation do they facilitate?
Part of my objective in asking these questions is to consider the processes
whereby digital infrastructures become environmental in the city. This focus
takes up the emphasis placed throughout this study on the environmental aspects
of computation, but here particularly attends to existing urban infrastructures. By
becoming environmental, I also address much more than a process of spatial-
izing digital technologies, since as I have discussed throughout this study, envi-
ronments are not merely established backdrops against which the activities of
human and more-than-human entities unfold, but rather are involved in distinct
processes of becoming and concrescing along with entities. Environments are
then interconnected with entities inhabiting those environments. Environments
are also the conditions in which particular entities may take holdthey ensure
the success or the lapsing of particular entities and establish further conditions
for invention. It is important to continue to extend the environmental aspects of
computation in these ways, since it enables a more dynamic and processual under-
standing of how environments and digital media concresce to form actual entities
and actual occasions.
Environments and environmental computation also constitute situations in
which withness might be articulated and in-form processes of participation.
Withness, following Whitehead, is a concept that signals modes of being and
becoming together, of concrescing, such that the possibilities for both urban
 Digital Infrastructures of Withness / 243

ontological engagements as well as urban speculative futures are undertaken.3

Withness raises the question of how we possess the world and become together,
not exclusively as a matter of intelligence or rational cogitating actors, but as
embodied if differently directed creatures in shared worlds. In this chapter, I
attend to the ways in which digital urban infrastructures are productive of occa-
sions of withness. Borrowing this term from Whitehead, I suggest here that with-
ness is a way of moving an analysis of participation to the things, entities, and
occasions that are brought together within digital infrastructures and articulat-
ing how these modalities of withness influence the types of politics that might
in turn unfold. Digital infrastructures in smart city developments induce particu-
lar types of participation, which are further productive of modes of withness that
generate individuations, embodiments, and inhabitations within the very particu-
lar environmentalcomputational worlds of smart cities.
As discussed in the last chapter, much attention has been directed toward
the ways in which digital technologies might activate distinct types of action and
engagement, where by virtue of having information and being connected to a
seemingly expansive if hazy community of fellow users, urban citizens can be
better attuned to political projects. But I would suggest that there is much detail
that is elided in this characterization of participation, since it assumes a rush to
effective action that may never transpire. By attending to the withness of partici-
pation, I instead want to identify whom or what particular participatory practices
gather together, what these relations or nonrelations might be productive of,
and what political contestations are bundled into these groupings. If much par-
ticipatory literature has attended to the empowerment of individual or collective
digital users, this analysis instead considers how a user is only one figure within
a wider infrastructural network of participatory and transindividuating politics
and action.
While most digital participation focuses on the empowerment of individual
users who together make up a collective, or who exercise a self-ness that rein-
forces notions of doing-it-yourself, here I want to move away both from the idea
of empowered individuals and from action itself, since the assumption of making
citizens and cities productive through optimized actions is so much a part of smart
city and digital participation projects that to suspend action in particular is a way
not only to ask the Stengerian question in relation to the idiot, What are we busy
doing,4 but also to attend to ways in which urban life might be characterized
other than as the ceaseless unfolding of productive (and often economically
aligned) individual activity.
Moving from abstract to concrete instantiations of the smart city, I further
consider how to move from programs of participation (as discussed in the pre-
vious two chapters) to articulations of withness. Participatory, DIY, and smart
urbanism projects are articulations that circumscribe withness in particular ways:
244 / Digital Infrastructures of Withness

they are commitments, with consequences, to ways of being and becoming

together. Control systems communicating with transport networks, CCTV per-
forming video analytics for pattern detection, smartphone apps providing access
to urban maps and services: in each of these examples, what in the smart city
rhetoric would be described through narratives of optimization, facilitation, and
efficiency are occasions of withness that express, constitute, and contribute to the
ongoing formation of distinct urban individuations and inhabitations.
How are we with the (smart) city, its infrastructure, its other inhabitants, and
the many computational devices that would steer us, when emphasis is placed
on coordinating flows of movement so that stoppage, disruption, breakage, and
jamming are minimized? What is the withness of a ceaselessly flowing city, of a
city that never stops, that in its automated efficiency continues to process goods,
information, and waste in the small hours of the night? Clearly, to discuss digital
infrastructures of withness then also requires attending to infrastructure as pro-
cess. While in some cases emphasis may be drawn toward the physical aspects of
infrastructure, with roads, bridges, sewers, electricity, and telecommunications
interconnected as basic organizational structures, at the same time a growing body
of research now attends to infrastructure as process, which may become more
pronounced in moments of failure and breakdown.5 Digital infrastructures draw
our attention to the ways in which the occasions of cities would not be possible
without infrastructural processes. Distinct urban processes are facilitated, enabled,
and connected up through these digital infrastructures.
I employ the notion of withness to characterize particular human and more-
than-human engagements and concrescences that occur with and through digital
infrastructures. I further attend to these infrastructures both as they are emerging
as new urban technologies and as they orient urban life toward speculative con-
structions and additional urban potentialities. In my use of the term specula-
tion, as discussed throughout this study, I am particularly concerned to draw out
the ways in which the future is already present in current instantiations of smart
cities. The future is being made with each sensorized traffic intersection that is
implemented, with every smartphone-interacting signage that is developed, and
with every prototype and policy document that legislates toward making smart
urban environments possible.
Speculation in relation to the smart city is an ongoing practice that, comple-
menting the discussion undertaken in chapter 7 of this study, is both an imaginary
and a materialpolitical practice. Speculation is not a project of making fictions
but rather is a practice of constructing particular trajectories of urban practice
and inhabitation. Construction occurs here in at least two senses: of being built,
and of forming the conditions in which new speculative urbanisms (and modes of
withness) may unfold. The process of constructing a speculative smart city then
points toward experimentation and invention. In the conclusion to this chapter,
 Digital Infrastructures of Withness / 245

I consider how digital infrastructures, smart cities, and participatory urbanisms

might be advanced through considering modes of withness that are experimental
and that, in a Simondonian sense, might become more inventive as indeterminate
technical arrangements.

AN INVENTORY OF SENSORS IN THE SMART CITY

Even a notional inventory of sensors in London might reveal that this is a city
popping with proverbial intelligence, where the number of sensors in place and
in operation suggests that the apparently speculative smart city is already in con-
struction. On any given day traversing the city, one might encounter sensors not
just in the smartphones that many people carry (devices that are packed with
humidity sensors, temperature sensors, a digital compass, an accelerometer, a
gyroscope, GPS, a touch sensor, a microphone, an ambient light sensor, an optical
proximity sensor, and an image sensor) but also in every bit of urban infrastruc-
ture. Here are multiple amalgamations of sensors and networks, which collec-
tively are meant to add up to more intelligent urbanisms.
An inventory of smart technologies might also incorporate where sensors
are located, what functions they enable, how they transform urban processes,
what modes of engagement they require or facilitate, who is able to access them
and the data they generate, and what happens if they fail or go awry. And indeed,
even notionally following such an approach in London, one finds that sensors
can be located within preexisting utility infrastructures, including electricity grids
and increasing numbers of smart meters; in water mains for leakage and crack
detection, as well as flow rates and meters; in waste transfer stations and collec-
tion bins; in sewers for tunnel monitoring (and, prospectively, for chemical- and
biosensing for drugs, bombs, and diseases); and in an increasing array of smart
home technologies that moderate the boundaries between home consumption
and utility provision. 6
Multiple sensors and smart networks are already in use in transit systems in
London, from pedestrian crossings for managing the density and flow of foot traf-
fic to bus sensors for alerts on current arrival times (which include GPS location
sensors; GPRS transceivers; physical bus measurements via odometer, gyrometer,
and turn rate sensors; and mobile IP connections for transmitting data from eight
thousand buses to the CentreComm command center).7 There are sensors on the
cycle-hire docking stations and on buses to avoid collisions with cyclists. Sensors
are in regular use at traffic lights and as cameras for live-traffic feeds.8 Sensors are
further dotted throughout the London Underground on escalators, in tunnels and
on lifts, on HVAC control systems, and joined up with loudspeakers and CCTV. In
this extended Underground system and sensor network, data on temperature,
vibration, humidity, faults, system alerts, and equipment degradation are fed live
to a secure cloud for further integration in order to monitor and automate tasks.9
246 / Digital Infrastructures of Withness

Sensors are located on building sites, to monitor vibration and strain from pil-
ing, and at tunnel construction sites.10 There are sensors on parking bays to signal
availability in order to discourage drivers from circling to find a parking spot.11
Innumerable CCTV cameras operate as sensors (as discussed in chapter 2), and
video analytics are used for crowd management to detect suspicious activity and
identify hazards or accidents.12 Sensors are also in use for multiple forms of mon-
itoring related to health and the environment, including the LAQN air-monitoring
network discussed in chapter 6, as well as sensors at Environment Agency sites for
monitoring river levels, water quality,13 and air pollution in relation to industrial
activity.14 Sensors monitor for vibrations and displacement at the Thames Barrier15
and the wind speed and direction on the London Eye.16 Multiple sensors are at work
to facilitate weather monitoring, including stations from the Met Office as well as
smaller weather stations, amateur stations feeding into Weather Underground,
and mobile phones set up as weather stations feeding into crowdsourced maps.17
Sensors can be found overlapping with existing infrastructures, in some cases
forming new networks; sensors are in place to monitor specific temporary uses
and events such as construction; sensors are monitoring air and vibration and
water levels; and sensors are carried around in smartphones, as wearables, and
other portable devices, whether as DIY citizen-sensing tools or monitors for detect-
ing specific phenomena. Sensors are also not the only source for data generated to
manage urban systemsalternative data sources include both static and dynamic
data collected from social media streams, participatory-sensing systems, and pre-
dictive and strategic modeling capabilities.18
Additional London-based smart city initiatives include Living PlanIT, a proj-
ect developed out of Formula One racing technology and put to new use at the
London City Airport. This project consists of using data, smartphones, apps, and
retail schemes to maximize shopping opportunities for High Net Worth individu-
als, as well as a schematic plan for an urban operating system for London,
together with energy, water, waste, mobility, security, building controls, analytics,
and apps.19 In a somewhat different arena, the Intel Collaborative Research Insti-
tute (ICRI) for the Sustainable Connected Cities project is a collaborative venture
across Intel, University College London (UCL), and Imperial that includes proj-
ects such as living labs for testing air quality in London.20 A video documenting
the Intel initiative argues that cities such as London are reaching capacity, start-
ing to break down, and so need to be more efficient. There are even more
projects than this underway that demonstrate the extent to which London is an
active site for experimenting with, prototyping, implementing, and trialing sensor-
based smart cities projects.
These sensor architectures and developments are, of course, situated within a
larger context of multiple smart cities pilot projects and plans underway in London,
from the Smart London Plan developed by the Greater London Authority to the
 Digital Infrastructures of Withness / 247

Sensing London initiatives advanced by the Future Cities Catapult, funded through
the Technology Strategy Board.21 The Smart London Plan, for instance, outlines
the rapidly growing population of London, which is expected to expand by one
million by 2021, as well as numerous other urban constraints that smart infra-
structure is meant to help manage, primarily in the form of mobile internet
applications, the internet-of-things, cloud computing and insights from big data.22
With this extensive yet by no means complete inventory of sensors as well
as other data streams increasingly informing the urban processes of London, it
is still not entirely clear at what point this proliferation of technologies might
cross a threshold to constitute digital infrastructure or fully formed smart city
developments. As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, a list of sensor
technologies does not necessarily point automatically to infrastructural develop-
ment and may instead raise the question of to what extent sensors must concret-
ize in order to constitute smart infrastructure. Some of these developments are
bundled onto existing infrastructure to remake it either as more efficient or more
readily maintained. Other developments enable emergent forms of connectivity
that form largely invisible networks within everyday operations. But at what point
would this array of sensors tip over into smart infrastructure and smart city-ness?
Do infrastructures within cities further need to become their own self-regulating
organisms in order to qualify as smart?
London is of course not alone in the proliferation of smart cities projects
underway, and (as discussed in chapter 7) farther afield there are notable develop-
ments in Santander, which has been dubbed the smartest city in Europe;23 in
Songdo, Korea, which developed an entire smart urban development from scratch
on a green field site;24 in Rio de Janeiro, where the famous control room has
by now circulated as a pervasive image of smart cities in operation;25 in Dublin,
where Intel has created multiple sensor gateways and a CityWatch platform;26
and in multiple smaller cities such as Dubuque, Iowa, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
where IBM has undertaken an approach that consists of meeting with urban plan-
ners and community members to identify and document urban issues that might
become sites for smart city intervention and technological development.27
While Intel, along with many other advocates of smart cities technologies,
have variously suggested that cities are at breaking points and these technologies
will facilitate efficiency and added capacity, the cities in which sensor technolo-
gies and networks are being implemented represent a wide range of urban cir-
cumstances, from the admittedly often-overloaded infrastructures of London to
the seaside midsize urbanism of Santander to the relatively low-density urban-
isms of midwestern locations such as Dubuque and Milwaukee. These cities are
not all alike, but their need for sensor and smart technology has been largely nar-
rated through the pervasive urban problematic of cities at a breaking point due to
demographic change, climate change, and rapid urbanization. Perhaps it might
248 / Digital Infrastructures of Withness

Figure 9.2. Siemens Crystal, a smart and sustainable building in the Royal Docks area of east London.
Photograph by author.

be necessary to look more closely at what a concentration of sensors entails within

a specific urban site in London.

Meeting Desigo at the Crystal

Seeking to gain a more detailed understanding of how these sensor and smart
technologies unfold in built environments, I identified one site in London to learn
how the specific urban dynamics in this location have coincided with the devel-
opment and operation of new digital infrastructures. On the north side of the
River Thames, in a shiny-spaceship hulk of a building situated in Londons Green
Enterprise Zone in the Royal Docks, the Siemens Crystal rises as an icon of both
sustainable and futuristic urbanism.28 The development consists of the Crystal
building, which opened in autumn 2012 as a model of sustainable and smart archi-
tecture, as well as an exhibition on smart urbanism that documents smart cities as
they are unfolding and might continue to develop in the future.
Like most of London, the Royal Docks is an area of intensive development
and ongoing real estate speculation. The Emirates cable cars that pass overhead
at this site were developed for the 2012 London Olympics, and new housing and
 Digital Infrastructures of Withness / 249

office developments circle the riverside grounds of the Crystal. Further develop-
ment plans are proposed for a new Silvertown Tunnel to connect the north and
south banks of the Thames, along with an expanded London City Airport nearby
and a 1.7 billion Chinese development in this enterprise zone to establish a base
for Asian businesses.29 Smartness inevitably becomes bundled into these ongoing
plans and proposals for urban development and expansion.
I am visiting the Crystal on this particular day to take a technical tour of the
smart and sustainable building that is meant to also be a showpiece and the
centerpiece of the exhibition on smart and sustainable cities. One could say that
before I even arrived at the Crystal my journey crossed through several levels of
smart technology, from planning my journey online with the London TfL search
tool providing real-time travel conditions, to receiving live arrival times for the
Docklands Light Railway (DLR) at the station, to the Oyster card RFID reader
used to access transport, the CCTV cameras under whose watchful gaze I fell,
and the automated driverless running of the light rail trains that transported me
to the Crystal. As I later learn from the technical tour, before I had even entered
the Crystal building, I had also already entered the first of four levels of smart
security by approaching the SiteIQ bubble that surrounded the site, a field of
cameras and motion sensors working through algorithms and Video Motion
Detection (VMD) to parse whether I might be a suspicious entity, present at the
wrong time of day, or incorrectly placed or shaped. If I had set off any of the pat-
tern criteria, cameras would be informed to track me and alert security guards to
attend to my movements.30
Having passed through this layer of security, I enter through the automated
doors to sign in for my technical tour. In addition to my visitor pass, I am given
a smart card for the exhibition so that I may touch in to gain additional informa-
tion about each display, while leaving a data footprint at every display I visit. The
Crystal, I learn from the tour guide, is a building that is mean to respond to
nature, in its crystalline shape. The structure is supplied with a number of sus-
tainable technologies, from a rooftop that harvests rainwater to be funneled to an
underground thirty-thousand-liter rainwater tank to supply water for the build-
ing; to an extensive array of solar panels on the rooftop that provides a variable
amount of energy, depending upon time of year; to the seventeen kilometers of
pipes underground used for the ground-source heat pump and the automated
ventilation system that responds to internal and external conditions to cool and
heat the building. Sustainability and smartness are once again paired in this digital-
urban infrastructure.
All of these technologies are watched over and coordinated by a building
management system developed by Siemens named Desigo, which monitors eleven
thousand points around the building. A sort of uber-cybernetic control system,
Desigo controls the ventilation, lighting, heat, and much more by responding to
250 / Digital Infrastructures of Withness

sensor data provided by the Building Automation Solutions (BAS) sensors located
throughout the building. As part of the technical tour, I visit a conference room
to learn about Desigo. The Desigo system is projected from a laptop, since it is
accessible from any device connected into the network (and much of the opera-
tional oversight of Desigo actually takes place not in London, but in Frankfurt,
where Siemens is headquartered). Scrolling through the Desigo system, the tour
guide selects a conference room on the second floor to zoom into. We are able to
see the trench heating and chilled beams that are the basis for the heating and
cooling of the building, as well as the forty-one sensors that monitor this particu-
lar bit of infrastructure to ensure stable temperatures.
From the Desigo panel, it is possible to set points to change the temperature
across the microclimates of the building, to turn lights on and off, to see if win-
dows are closed or open and to operate them from the building management
system, to investigate motion sensors that may have been triggered, to observe
activity levels in office areas, and to keep track of a log of failures. Desigo also logs
in real time the amount of electricity generated from the photovoltaic rooftop
installation, which on this particular day is producing between 3 to 6 percent of
the buildings electricity. A weather station site indicates the local external weather
conditions. The system senses external and internal factors such as CO2, light

Figure 9.3. Siemens Crystal display of monitored and automated building processes. Photograph by author.
 Digital Infrastructures of Withness / 251

levels, rain intensity and direction, and wind speed and direction, as well as tem-
perature and humidity. Algorithms track sense data to respond to conditions and
adjust ventilation in order to maintain comfortable indoor temperatures.
This central automated system is a sort of system of systems, a tool for mon-
itoring and managing the building that largely takes place free from human inter-
vention. While this control system does not need watching over, it can be used
remotelyfrom an app, laptop, or PCto make adjustments. The building man-
agement system largely takes care of itself, as it senses, adjusts, manages, and
maintains a reasonably homeostatic environment. Emerging with this building are
orders of smartness, the intelligence of an individual sensor multiplied through a
distributed sensor network; and the intelligence of a sensor network multiplied
through an automated building system that is self-regulating. Smartness becomes
a matter of intelligent automation, of a cybernetic organism that is able to moni-
tor, manage, and adapt to circumstances in real time. This self-regulatory capacity
is not just a management tool and ethos for the building, but also for the city,
which as the Siemens exhibition would inform me, could benefit from the self-
regulating abilities of sensor networks, where the city itself might become a
cybernetic organism.

Figure 9.4. Play the City Game exhibit, Siemens Crystal. A game for managing the city according to four
key indicators for sustainability, which can be altered via a dashboard. Photograph by author.
252 / Digital Infrastructures of Withness

Play the City Game

After I have completed the technical tour of the building, I turn to spend some
time in the Crystal exhibition, which is advertised in the promotional literature as
the worlds largest exhibition devoted to urban sustainability.31 This is a highly
technologized and managed version of sustainability, where technological solu-
tions are presented as the key way to help the city balance considerations for
the environment, economy, and quality of life.32 The exhibition begins in the
Forces of Change theater, where the megatrends of demographic change, cli-
mate change, and urbanization are explored as key factors that determine our
future and are putting pressure on cities, forcing them to adapt in new ways.
Here is the recurrent narrative of cities at the breaking point, expressed not just
by Siemens, but also by Intel, Cisco, IBM, and a host of other technology com-
panies. Cities are systems, similar to natural ecosystems, the exhibition informs
its viewers, and so automated feedback loops are a necessary way to ensure the
regulation and management of urban systems.33
Following on from this first part of the exhibition to the ground floor, the
subsequent part of the exhibition focuses on creating cities, where importance
is placed on understanding the overall system in order to manage and address
buildings, transport systems, distribution of energy, and waterthe vital compo-
nents in making a city work.34 A central city icon is located in the center of the
exhibition space to signal the importance of this overall view for achieving a
well-designed city. This abstracted urban scene appears in the form of a black
tower coursing with an array of colored lights, where the city resembles com-
puter circuitry neatly connected up and pulsing with activity. Here, the city has
been remade in electronic form in order to merge with current technological
developments.
Planners, the exhibition text and book indicate, are also key to steering a
city in the right direction.35 In this part of the exhibition it is then possible to play
the game of the future city, and to put oneself in the shoes of a city manager.36
This hypothetical city scenario has 3.5 million citizens and $30 billion to adminis-
ter. In the managing game, the player-planner has forty years and four critical
areas to manage: power and water, security, transport, and finance. By adjusting
these levers on a dashboard, a status menu indicates how well one is doing with
this city management exercise and in addressing urban problems overall. Notably,
every urban resource, infrastructure, and problem that is to be addressed must
be quantified in order to be made computable. As the booklet accompanying the
exhibition notes (citing ex-mayor Bloomberg), If you cant measure it you cant
manage it.37 Urban life must be enumerated in order to be managed within this
cybernetic system. But once measured, the city is meant to emerge as an easily
pliable and modifiable system.
 Digital Infrastructures of Withness / 253

Beyond this game of running your own city, there are displays on smart
buildingssince buildings consume 40 percent of the worlds energyand the
Crystal is an example of how buildings might become more sustainable. There are
additional displays on security and crowd control, electricity and the necessity of
reconfiguring energy infrastructure to a smart grid, on water and reducing water
consumption, on aging and the development of scanning lab tests and genetic
profiling to attempt to reduce strains on health care, on measures to improve air
quality and reduce climate changeinducing emissions, and on urban transport.
At the end of the exhibition is a Future Life gallery, where New York, London,
and Copenhagen are presented circa 2050 as cities where many advanced tech-
nologies have been implemented in order to achieve greater sustainability. Future
urban scenarios include vertical cities-within-cities that have sprung up to accom-
modate burgeoning populations, smart grids that respond to fluctuations in re-
newable energy supply by alerting residents to use energy during a surplus
or conserve at peak times, and sensors that make for an aware citya seeing,
hearing, thinking, feeling, living organism that is able to respond intelligently to
real-time information as it flows into the city cockpit. All aspects of urban life
have been made sustainable, from parks to energy, transport, waterways, and
even citizen participation, where the city responds to the needs of the people.
The city also never sleeps, as it efficiently and automatically activates, restocks,
recharges, and recycles during the night.
The smart city as built and imagined seems to toggle in this in-between zone,
instantiated in some ways but always leaning toward a more complete automation,
a more fully self-regulating (and so sustainable) organism that monitors, responds,
and adapts in real time in order to achieve the most efficient and optimized bal-
ance of resources, time, and money. Sensors becoming networks becoming smart
cities all appear to be on a trajectory toward an urban organism that acquires an
uncanny intelligence and ability to manage the city as planner, architect, and engi-
neer all rolled into one. But when might this phase-change occur, when sensors
and networks take on a life of their own and begin to organize their own auto-
mated processes within the city? Smart cities projects seem to suggest that we are
all waiting for the moment when the city becomes the ultimate automated organ-
ism, where, as Norbert Wiener would suggest, all the sense organs that might
constitute individual and assorted automatons participate in and feedback into
a larger cybernetic system.38 Digital infrastructures are part of this accumulation
of automaticity, where new structures, organizations, and processes of digital
connectivity come together to articulate particular modes of withness for subjects
(human and nonhuman) and to advance particular ways of possessingand
makingworlds.
Leaving the Crystal and its current and future vision of the automated
and smart city, I take the Emirates cable car across the river to North Greenwich.
254 / Digital Infrastructures of Withness

Passing over the waste transfer stations and scrap yards, the bits of real estate
in between an industrial past and a still-to-be-fully-instantiated future, I sense a
deconcentration of smartness as I surface from the Underground en route to
New Cross in South London. Here, far from the sustainable smartness of the
Crystal, the connectedness, flow, and seamlessness of the city unravels a bit,
where streets are clogged with traffic, housing stock is crumbling, and air pollu-
tion is a recurring problem. Among the dilapidated and disused phone booths,
convenience shops, and ancient laundromats, I sense that the pacing of this area
is less geared toward moving bodies according to some well-tuned and optimized
circuitry, since the economies here are of a different and less-privileged sort. How
would an automated urban organism deal with this indelible aspect of urban
lifethat of difference and inequality?

DIGITAL INFRASTR UCTURES OF WITHNESS

As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, infrastructure is commonly
described through resources and what it moves or structures, from energy to
water, waste, transport, and communications. When digital infrastructure is
described as the fourth utility, however, it is clear the implementation of urban
digital technologies is more than just another piping and cabling job. In this next
section, I would like to return to the idea of how an abstract technology or tech-
nologies become concrete, and how this process increases indeterminacy. Part
of this indeterminacy may actually be understood through the transformations
that take place as digital infrastructures take hold and in the numerous entities
and relations that proliferate as transindividuations of smart city technologies.
These ways of articulating and connecting up entities are constitutive of modali-
ties of withness: of relating, being, and becoming together in the smart city. I now
turn to discuss the concretization of digital infrastructures through three modali-
ties of withnessmeasurement, automatism, and contingencyin order to con-
sider the distinct traversals that digital infrastructures make as they becomes more
present in the city. This is a way of saying that we could consider the infrastruc-
tural aspects of smart cities not simply as sensors and networks but perhaps also
as processes of measurement, automatism, and contingency, which are opera-
tions that generate distinct modes of withness. Further to this point, digital infra-
structure does not become a matter of hardware and software, physical structure
and code, monument and process, but rather of transductive articulations of
urban environments, technologies, and inhabitants.

Infrastructure as Measurement
From the TfL network to the Desigo building management system, the sensors
proliferating throughout London are assembling into a series of infrastructures
engaged in measurement. The rate of vibration, light levels, temperatures inside
 Digital Infrastructures of Withness / 255

and outside, air quality levels, and more: the city becomes a set of enumerated
data and variables to monitor and manage in real time, as well as to anticipate
through predictive modeling. What will traffic density levels likely consist of in
two weeks? How will increased temperatures affect air quality? How will energy
levels shift with changing temperatures?
While the focus with machine-to-machine communication has largely empha-
sized the machines or things that are talking to each other, in many ways there are
a series of emerging networks and infrastructures that are forming in and through
the drive to measure the city in order to manage it. Infrastructure has arguably
never been without its modes of calculation, but with digital infrastructures mea-
surement becomes even more infrastructuralit is a condition and resource that
enables social processes and organization. Infrastructure in this sense is transver-
sal, characterized not just by a particular resource to be moved and apportioned,
whether water or energy, but also by the overlapping, intersecting, and (ideally)
interoperable streams of data that allow correlations to be made across previously
separate infrastructural milieus.
Or at least, this is the promise. To date, with smart cities as well as the Internet
of Things, some commentators note that it is not always clear what is being mea-
sured, what should even be taken into account, and how data might be made
interoperable.39 While digital capacities of enumeration folded into infrastructure
are meant to be a way of managing urban overload as well as the decay of urban
systems,40 the sensor networks and accompanying data are not yet at the point of
delivering on this expectation.41 Rob van Kranenburg has suggested that Ambient
Intelligence and the Internet of Things present the problem of deciding which
connectivities we really want as human beings on this planet.42 Measurement is
a primary way in which machine-to-machine and ambient connectivity are unfold-
ing in the smart city and via digital infrastructures. But what does this mode of
connectivity involve, exactly? And how does measurement constitute experience
(as discussed in chapter 4)?
The measurements that sensors and networks undertake could be described
as a process of taking into account, following Whitehead (and Stengers), where
environments are processed through a subject-superject relation. On one level
it might be possible to suggest that each individual device is taking account by
measuring environmental variables, which eventually add up to big data. If we
take seriously Whiteheads invitation to extend subjectness to all entities and not
just to humans, then in the smart city we would consider how a location sensor
takes account of a moving vehicle, how a light sensor takes account of the sun
coming into the windows, how a vibration sensor takes account of the movement
of subterranean tunnels, how a sensor network takes account of the multiple
streams of data, how an algorithm takes account of distinct patterns in the data,
how a program takes account of the conditions of responsiveness in order to
256 / Digital Infrastructures of Withness

implement, actuate, and thereby continue to change and influence the urban
environment that is monitored and managed.
But measurement might also signal the ways in which a collective urban-
environmental potential has been parsed to be made into dataitemized, quanti-
fied, networked, and operationalizedso that individuals and relations are formed
through a collective made measurable. This point draws on Simondons discus-
sion of how relations are not formed through the adding up of individuals to
form collectives. Rather, collectives are transindividuated into distinct entities,
and it is this mode of parsing collective potential that in-forms individuals and
relations. So rather than decide which connectivities are preferred between
already enumerated individuals, we might instead attend to the ways in which
collectives are turned into measurable entities and individuals, which are further
put into relation through infrastructures of measurement.

Infrastructure as Automatism
Infrastructures of measurement are not simply expressions of counting or tak-
ing into account, moreover, but are also about engaging in processes whereby
that which is enumerated is also capable of becoming automated. One of the
primary commitments of smart city developments is to automate urban pro-
cesses so that responses to conditions of overload, situations requiring rerout-
ing, or moments of alarm can be reacted to automatically, through sensors that
detect and actuators that respond. Automatism in this way is a key aspect of how
Wiener developed his ideas of cybernetics, where servo-mechanisms might
perform automatic functions in relation to identified triggers. Within these feed-
back loops, Wiener also integrated humans as sensor-actuators as part of a cyber-
netic system. The reactions of pilots in warfare, for instance, became one of his
areas of focus, where automatism could be extended to a bodymachine loop of
triggers and actions.43
The logic of automatism then points to the ways in which regulation might be
achieved, so that urban-infrastructural-human arrangements might unfold more
seamlessly, and disruptions might be minimized. In this way, urban systems are
managed as cybernetic entities. The smart city implements numerous instances
of sensors and humans actuating both other machinic functions, as well as fur-
ther human actions. Wieners cybernetic pilot functions through an integrated
relationship with a dashboard, where responses emerge in relation to immediate
triggers. Cybernetic dashboards are also proliferating in smart cities, where not
just the famous control room of Rio but also the more platform-based dashboards
that consolidate multiple urban sensor streams become sites for inputting and
outputting, for gathering sensor streams in order to respond or actuate in relation
to sensor variables. Smart buildings such as the Siemens Crystal has its Desigo con-
trol system and dashboard, and London even has several dashboards, including
 Digital Infrastructures of Withness / 257

the City Dashboard project, where data from weather stations, tube status, Lon-
don cycle hire, DEFRA air pollution stations, river levels, Yahoo stock data, traffic
cameras, Twitter trends, BBC News, Open Street Map, the electricity grid demand,
and even a mood index indicating happiness levels, are amalgamated into both a
dashboard and map view.44 The data made available here are collected from sen-
sor and web feeds, which provide an apparent overview of the city while at the
same time indicating a whole range of automated urban processes underway or
that might be further managed.
The dashboard-as-platform also demonstrates how the city is becoming a
platform. While Internet platforms for social interaction are one aspect of smart
city initiatives, platforms also unfold and are distributed across urban space. The
city as platform has been a topic of discussion in recent seminars and events spon-
sored by Microsoft, IBM, and others. Platforms, in these scenarios, are not just
Internet-spaces but are also embedded, situational, context-focused applications
that map new digital functionalities onto urban infrastructures, processes, and
exchanges. Platforms are both localized and distributed in the city and across the
Internet. As another layer of infrastructure that enhances the efficiency and tim-
ing of cities, digital connectivity and platforms present the possibility of a well-
regulated city that becomes sustainable through the enhanced synchronicity and
expediency of urban systems. New platforms and connectivities arise to facilitate
citizen involvement and monitoring of these processes. Platforms further func-
tion as monitoring devices, to be used together with everyday urban practices.
Automatism cuts across these different types and distributions of infrastruc-
ture, and a city dashboard or platform signals the many automated urban func-
tions underway. Capturing the potential and processual aspects of infrastructure,
the architect Keller Easterling has suggested, Designing infrastructure is design-
ing action.45 This statement could easily be read in a deterministic way, where
the structures of infrastructure are seen to offer automatic scripts or codes for
action. But the statement could also be read less causally and more simultane-
ously, where infrastructures and actions coincide as entangled and co-emergent
processes. A study of infrastructure could very well attend to the actions that
are productive of infrastructures, as well as infrastructures that are productive
of actions. This raises the question of how actions unfold within and through
automated urban infrastructures. Various smart city developments put forward
scenarios where the movements, timings, and circulations of bodies and systems
will sync up more easily, where crowd control or shopping may be streamlined
through apps and code and CCTV, where the city will operate as a real-time
organism, where the withness of bodies in cities will be advanced through the
seamlessness that automatism enables.
Simondon suggests, however, that automatism is actually quite a low-level
and limited way of engaging with and thinking about technology. As someone
258 / Digital Infrastructures of Withness

relatively critical of cybernetics and the master-slave relationship it tends to prop-

agate in relation to technology, Simondon suggests that technology is far more
inventive when it is open and indeterminate. Limiting technology to utensil
status is a way to ensure that the technical is also separated from cultural con-
cerns, which might otherwise ensure a wider set of engagements with technol-
ogy.46 As Simondon writes, In order to make a machine automatic, it is necessary
to sacrifice many of its functional possibilities and many of its possible uses.
Instead, he writes:

the real perfecting of machines, which we can say raises the level of technicality,
has nothing to do with an increase in automatism but, on the contrary, relates to
the fact that the functioning of the machine conceals a certain margin of indeter-
mination. It is such a margin that allows for the machines sensitivity to outside
information. It is this sensitivity to information on the part of machines, much
more than any increase in automatism that makes possible a technical ensemble.
A purely automatic machine completely closed in on itself in a predetermined
operation could only give summary results. The machine with superior techni-
cality is an open machine, and the ensemble of open machines assumes man
as permanent organizer and as a living interpreter of the inter-relationships of
machines.47

Simondon imagines a more engaging set of operations for machines that requires
openness, and in particular an openness to human involvement. One could argue
that with machine-learning, the participation of humans with machines need not
be described in this waythat machines could be open to the unfolding processes
of other machines. Or one could argue that Simondon brings us back to a roman-
tic version of humanism, where humans in the loop present the ways in which
machinic closure may be overcome. But as Simondons writing indicates through
his discussion of the preindividual reserve, what counts as human is also not
fixed or settled, since machinic engagements also give rise to distinct transindi-
viduations of the entities involved.
In a rather different vein, Wiener develops a trajectory of different versions
of automata, from clocks to opening doors, and from photocells to computers,
which as servo-mechanisms have operated as sense organs that, when coupled to
the outside world, translate information into a series of actions.48 For Wiener,
automation occurs across the sensor-actuator exchange. Yet as Simondons ap-
proach to technology suggests, this relationship of automatism would necessarily
have to be explodedand perhaps even von Neumanns computer architecture
diagram would need to be redrawnin order to gather the responsible and inven-
tive input of (transindividuating) humans into these circuits.49 Technicityand
by extension, computationis not always a closed loop of action and reaction,
 Digital Infrastructures of Withness / 259

and may just as often open into new orders of indeterminacy, especially as it
becomes environmental.
A smart city is meant to join up structures, processes, mechanisms, and gad-
gets, so that they function more efficiently as some well-timed machine. Infra-
structures emerge as a set of relations, but these are not necessarily primarily
human relations. Humans are typically flattened into this relationality, not as
exceptional actors or beings, but as one more parcel to move along, one more
node of information, one more sensor-actuator operation taking place in the city.
In this galaxy of machines talking to machines, contra the city game and steering
planner of the Crystal exhibition, it is not a human that would cybernetically
govern the smart city, but rather an automated system of control where a human
operator is one source of input, since many of the protocols and terms of relation
are written through the ways in which machines talk (and must talk to) to other
machines in order to be interoperable.
Measurement and automatism as modes of connectivity signal the ways in
which infrastructures are then necessarily discussed as relations. Writing on infra-
structure and the relations it sets in play, urban sociologist AbdouMaliq Simone
suggests that the characterization of infrastructure as in-between is provoca-
tive for considering how cities come together and hold together.50 We might also
read Simone through another Simondonian register, to consider how this in-
betweeness might be understood less as the glue between individuals and more
as a parsing of collective potential. In-betweeness is about the relationality that
occurs through infrastructure. As Simondon has suggested, not only does rela-
tionality not precede the act of relating but the terms or individuals related are
similarly not fixed in advance but come about through transindividuating pro-
cesses that give rise to singular and collective human and nonhuman individuals,
as well as the conditions of relationality. With this inverted sense of how relation
might be seen to materialize, what other sorts of relations might concresce
through the digital infrastructure of sensorized and smart cities?

Infrastructure as Contingency
Simondon suggests that as technology moves from abstraction to concretization
it becomes more indeterminate and that this process is not linear. As technology
concretizes, relations are differently manifested and materialized in ways that
might be described as contingent: contingent upon the environments, entities,
and technologies that transindividuate together. For instance, contra those stud-
ies that would see code as a discursive program to be implemented in urban sites,
a Simondonian approach to concretization would instead ask how code transindi-
viduates along with the entities, environments, and relations in and through which
code is meant to take hold. Concretization is not the rational implementation
of a plan of technology but rather an actual occasion of withness, a particular
260 / Digital Infrastructures of Withness

possession of the world that is less scripted and more generativepotentially

even of new types of indeterminacy.
Contingency then is a key way in which the concretization of digital infra-
structure can be understood. Infrastructural arrangements might be differently
constituted depending upon how sensors concresce into organizing structures.
Along with infrastructure, a corpuscular society of sensing entities also concresces.
Infrastructure is a condition that enables inhabitations, modes of withness, and
worlds to be sustained as modes of being and becoming. But encountering infra-
structure as concretization and concrescence is not, arguably, synonymous with
infrastructure as assemblage, as previously discussed throughout Program Earth.
Whereas assemblages might emphasize the adding up of entities, a list of every-
thing that comes together to make infrastructure materialize and operate, a con-
cretization and concrescence of infrastructure places the emphasis differently on
the processes and individuations that parse and connect up entities and environ-
ments in particular ways, such that the capacities of entities might not even be
known in advance of their connecting and relating. Such an approach inevitably
emphasizes the contingency and indeterminacy that characterizes such technolo-
gies as digital or sensor-based infrastructure.
Perhaps illustrating this point with the most sustained clarity and richness
of example is the work of Simone, who focuses on (other-than-smart) cities in the
Global South, including Jakarta and Mogadishu. Simone suggests another way of
encountering infrastructure as it emerges and is articulated in more contingent
and itinerant waysnot as fixed structures, but as provisional, always in process
and participatory relations. Simone extends infrastructure to include peoples
activities in the city since, as he writes, African cities are characterized by inces-
santly flexible, mobile, and provisional intersections of residents that operate
without clearly delineated notions of how the city is to be inhabited and used.51
By extending infrastructure and its provisionality to people, and people living in
particular African cities, Simone draws attention to the distinct if changeable and
contingent infrastructures that come together in particular places.
The changeability of infrastructure is something that Mackenzie also cap-
tures in his discussion of wireless technology by attending to how wirelessness
changes with each instantiation of wireless technology.52 At the same time, the
devices that comprise infrastructure keep changing.53 Rather than infrastructure
necessarily constituting a seamless set of connections, Mackenzie suggests that a
whole set of lived and felt transitions take place across infrastructure that are differ-
ent from the assumed fixed experiences of infrastructure. Instead, wireless infra-
structure can be piecemeal, in process, and in need of constant upkeep and repair.
While there may a constant hope for infrastructures that are self-administering, the
reality is that maintenance is a continual condition through which infrastructure
 Digital Infrastructures of Withness / 261

is encountered and experienced.54 Or, as Graham writes, infrastructure is less sta-

ble and more made up of leaky, partial and heterogeneous entities.55
However, in the context of smart cities, it is not uncommon for technical
arrangements to be presented as managing diverse urban circumstances toward
seamless sets of relations that would be relatively complete and universal across
urban contexts. Smart cities developments assume the same modes of withness,
where citizens, cities, and technologies, despite their diversity, regularly intersect
through a continuous program of sensor-activated cities. Yet urban life is no
doubt not the ceaseless undertaking of universal sensor-actuator tasks to be com-
pleted, with Tetris-like packages to be dropped in Tetris-like spaces. In the compu-
tational architecture of command-and-control automatism writ large over urban
environments, there are as many accidents, disruptions, and breakages as there
are seamless connections made. People continue to wander and not simply move
from home to office to store and back again. Not all urban citizens are hyper-
productive economic subjects. Not all urban spaces operate as one more bit of
computer circuitry.
If we were to return to Simondons notion of how the concretization of tech-
nology may give rise to indetermination, we could then say that the smart city in
some ways commits the error of making the abstraction of infrastructure real
without accident or indetermination. The universal visions of smart cities typi-
cally assume infrastructures are always the same in their striving for optimization.
Even imaginaries for participatory digital urbanism, as discussed in chapter 8, do
not typically allow for indeterminacy. These schemes might admit some contin-
gencies in the form of local circumstance, but they move toward the same end
point of managing and regulating cities in order to achieve efficiencies and solu-
tions. Yet as Simone reminds us in his writings on the practices of infrastructure,
these are characterized by situated contingencies, where people may even tinker
with and alter the city and its infrastructure.56 Contingencies in the smart city
may emerge across human and more-than-human registers, moreover, since as
the city plays itself it no doubt is not simply adapting for optimization but is
also generating particular materializations of sensor-spaces, transforming envi-
ronments through programs of more-than-automatism, and giving rise to prolif-
erating bugs and blockages that are sites for ongoing repair.

CONSTR UCTING A SPECULATIVE CITY

The processes whereby digital technologies become environmental are, on one
level, a matter of how technologies are distributed in and among surroundings.
But, on another level, and following Simondon, this process does not involve a
static arrangement of machines but rather it in-forms the very environments in
and through which technologies are distributed such that new environments are
262 / Digital Infrastructures of Withness

made. Weisers early discussion of ubiquitous computing proposes not just that
an array of tabs and badges and laptops would proliferate but also that these
technologies would disappear and weave themselves into the fabric of every-
day life until they are indistinguishable from it.57 The ways in which ubiquitous
computing would become environmental here consist of integrating with sur-
roundings such that technologies do not require active attention. Rather than
seeking to make computing a willful cognitive engagement, Weiser found the
success of these computing devices to be exactly their imperceptible integration
into experience, where they became infrastructural.58
We could say that these infrastructural sensor technologies effectively become
the environment with which we would interact, along with the subjects, objects,
and the milieus they constitute. As discussed in the introduction to this study,
Weiser sought to push computing beyond its presence as a self-contained box
where it merely constituted its own self-enclosed worldand in the process to
find ways for it to enhance the world already in existence.59 But as Weisers own
text intimates, ubiquitous computing would not simply consist of a set of enhance-
ments, but rather would transindividuate worlds and environments in new ways,
thereby creating other versions of the real. As one example of ubiquitous com-
puting elaborated by Weiser indicates:

In our experimental embodied virtuality, doors open only to the right badge
wearer, rooms greet people by name, telephone calls can be automatically for-
warded to wherever the recipient may be, receptionists actually know where
people are, computer terminals retrieve the preferences of whoever is sitting at
them, and appointment diaries write themselves.60

Here is a concatenation of actions that would arrive at more seamless actions in

the workplace. It reads as a list of new modalities of ubiquitous computing and
bears an uncanny resemblance to the Internet of Things scenarios developed in
smart cities proposals and applications. Yet as Weiser later indicates, Neither an
explication of the principles of ubiquitous computing nor a list of the technolo-
gies involved really gives a sense of what it would be like to live in a world full of
invisible widgets.61 New worlds come into beingdigital technologies become
environmental, and in turn, new environments emerge as milieus distinctly con-
ditioned and transformed through these devices.
Processes whereby technology become environmental and give rise to dis-
tinct milieus are then less mediatory and more in-forming and ontogenetic. As
mentioned in the beginning of this chapter, making a list of sensor-based digital
infrastructure does not necessarily address the distinct ways in which these tech-
nologies concretize in and with new environments and environmental conditions.
As Weisers above example of the well-running office indicates, the constitution
 Digital Infrastructures of Withness / 263

of environments also involves the constitution of the field of subject-action-event.

Digital technologies play a role in making these relations coalesce and concresce
in particular ways. Here, digital infrastructures produce medial relationships that
are world-making and world-sustaining, rather than mediating across preestab-
lished entities. In these transindividuating infrastructural relations, the conditions
and potential for collectives to form and interact arise.62
I have been drawing together Simondons discussion of concretization along-
side Whiteheads notion of concrescence in order to return to a consideration
of the particular techno-geographical63 milieus that come together along with
smart cities technologies. These concretizations and concrescences are also a way
of discussing withness, of thinking about how entities become together. In his
study of wireless technology, Mackenzie mobilizes a discussion of conjunctive
relations to consider with as one type of the many ways in which relations
unfold. Drawing on James and Nancy, Mackenzie notes that extending the scope
of conjunctive relations is a way to think beyond or against merely conceiving of
technology through utility or means.64 It is interesting to note that, for James,
withness is a lower-level relation, where the lowest grade of universe would
be a world of mere withness, of which the parts were only strung together by the
conjunction and.65 Yet for Whitehead, withness becomes a way to discuss the
ways in which worlds are possessed.66 If we were to take up Simondon on this
point, we would also be obliged to note that relations are not able to precede the
moments and entities of relating. Withness even constitutes the subjects that
would be resident-actors in these worlds.
In this sense, I mobilize withness as a particular way of bracketing off assump-
tions about what it means for participation to unfold in the smart city. I see with-
ness more as an articulation of processes of participation that involve becoming
together, across an extended array of entities, and setting in motion the connec-
tions and inheritances that take hold to become something like urban infrastruc-
ture, whether solidified as communication conduits or distributed as seemingly
immaterial exchanges of practices. In order for infrastructure to exist and persist,
it must draw entities into active participation with it. The city is a complex cor-
puscular society of inheritances that in-form bodies of sense. Withness captures
the lived embodiments of participatory experience, while also going further to
indicate the ways in which worlds are made and sustained through particular
ways of possessing the world. In other words, withness describes ways of mak-
ing worlds.67 Digital infrastructure is a multiple and more-than-human event,
which may be further described as a process whereby multiple actual entities
become tuned in to shared registers of withness, along with shared practices for
making worlds. In fact, this is how Whitehead describes a community, where
multiple entities are effectively resonating within and experiencing a shared regis-
ter of world-making.68
264 / Digital Infrastructures of Withness

But this is by no means a way in which to render neutral the worlds that are
formed. Whitehead for his part recognized the power and force, in the form of
persuasion that enabled certain worlds to take hold and not others.69 Stengers
takes up this discussion of power and persuasion within Whitehead to draw paral-
lels to Foucaults discussion of power. Here, it is useful to revisit the analyses
made in chapter 7 to bring together both a Foucauldian and Whiteheadian analy-
sis of speculation and power vis--vis analyses of infection and persuasion drawn
out by Stengers in Thinking with Whitehead.70 As Foucault has noted, the point
in discussing power is less to make an effort to outpace or escape its reach but
rather to understand its distributions in order to attend to particular formations
it enablesor disallows.71 Stengers takes up Foucaults discussion of power in
relation to Whitehead to consider how not just persuasion but also infection
and the gaining of a foothold indicate how power is distributed in and through
environments and how environments and entities (including facts) are able to
persist.
Participation as a concept and practice frequently involves discussions if not
disagreements about forms of agency: about people becoming more empowered
by 2.0 social media or being duped into contributing free labor to exploitative
digital economies, about the more-than-human actors and devices that are also
participating along with people in digital media exchanges, and about the ways in
which agencies of these devices shape the contours of participation. Rather than
focus on agency as a key modality of participation, however, I have redirected this
consideration of participatory urbanism toward different registers of withness, in
the form of persuasion and infection. I have drawn on and adapted these terms
from Whitehead and Stengers, who attend to the ways in which entities con-
cresce, a process that arguably has less to do with agency per se and more to do
with ways in which entities become together and are drawn into processes of
mutualif differing and differently manifestedinfluence. Influencepersuasion
and infectionare decidedly different from agency because they do not involve
a subject/object acting on anotherwillfully or otherwisebut rather have more
to do with transferences (and Simondonian transductions) that occur across not
always clearly delineated cause-and-effect or subject-and-object sites or encoun-
ters. This means that rather than search between determinist or constructivist
approaches to technology, we might attend to how new entities, relations, and
modalities of withness contingent on infection and persuasion generate new
technological practices, inhabitations, and ways of life.
Smart cities developments such as those underway and implemented in Lon-
don raise the question of how modalities of withness are realized, and how dif-
ferent registers of withness concretize along with distinct approaches to smart
technology. Our urban future is differently distributed depending upon how
close to the machine we are.72 Those that can speak to it, in its language, stand
 Digital Infrastructures of Withness / 265

a better chance of counting and being taken into account as a relevant node in its
networks. Those who do not may find they cannot get a foothold in the world the
smart city has made and possessed. Possessing a world is not dissimilar to indi-
viduating environments and entities. Rather than adding up relations or making
lists of technologies, possessions and transindividuations signal processes of tak-
ing into account, distributing power, exercising persuasion, in-forming experience,
participating, taking hold, and so securing, even if momentarily, an inhabitation,
an environment, a mode of becoming.
Withness has been the speculative inhabitation that I have worked with in this
chapter, while examining how modes of becoming together are articulated within
smart city developments. The lived practices and politics of smart cities, as they
are and as they might be, and when addressed through withness, recast questions
about what constitutes the environment of the smart city and rework the prac-
tices and entities of participation that unfold there.
Withness also points to the ways in which speculative cities are being con-
structed continually. As Stengers suggests, speculation as a philosophical proposi-
tion requires a leap of imagination73 that is not as much a matter of projecting
abstract ideas of future possibilities as it is a question of how to precipitate and
make possible distinct ways of life. In this sense, speculation becomes entangled
with persuasion and power, generating a politics of speculation that manifests in
particular ways in smart cities projects. It may be that speculation is in fact made
possible through distinct modalities of withnessthis is not something under-
taken aloneand so we might be particularly attentive to the modes of withness
that are propagated and sustained in smart cities and sensor-based urbanisms.
This might involve querying the programs of withness and participation that dig-
ital infrastructures help to sustain.
This chapter ends by suggesting that withness may be generative of experi-
ments. Withness asks how are we thinking with, being with, and becoming with
the smart city. It strikes me that many smart city and participatory urbanism proj-
ects are missing exactly this more experimental approach to speculation. Rather
than open technology to a multiple array of inhabitations, encounters, and modes
of withness, these projects most often reduce technology to a utensil, as Simon-
don has termed it, or as a project of utility and optimization, rather than of equal-
ity, actual quality of life, or even wonder. The conclusion takes up some of these
provocations for how to experiment with and speculate toward more inventive
environmental inhabitationscomputational and otherwise.
Figure C.1. Forces of Change exhibit, Siemens Crystal. A video documenting key planetary stressors to be
monitored and managed. Photograph by author.
 CONCLUSION

Planetary Computerization, Revisited

I n t r a v e r s i n g t h e a r e a s o f w i l d s e n s i n g , pollution sens-
ing, and urban sensing, I have sought to build up an account of the environments,
entities, and relations that concresce within and through computational sensors.
The environmental-sensing projects covered here are situated within a wider
array of sensing activities that span from monitoring tides to airflow, as well as
observing vegetation and soil conditions. Moving across experimental forests
and webcams, migrating animals and climate change, garbage patches and urban
air pollution, smart cities, idiotic participation, and automated digital infrastruc-
tures, I have discussed how these versions of programmable earths are not singu-
lar entities but rather involve the in-forming and multiple activations of distinct
techno-geographical environments.
The becoming environmental of computation has been the central concept that I
have developed to draw out the multiple ways in which earths and environments
are programmed and the new entities and experiences that materialize through
these processes. But this concept has not been put forward as a way to spatially
locate sensor-based media nor to argue for the revolutionary environmental
engagements that computational sensors seem to offer. Instead, I have attended
to the ways in which sensors become environmental through exchanges and indi-
viduations of energy, materialities, subjects of experience, relations, and milieus.
Environments are an active part of how actual entities come to concresce, how
organisms gain a foothold and endure, and how values are articulated through
the unfolding of technical objects. Returning to the ideas put forward in the intro-
duction to this study, we find that programmable earths generate and material-
ize very particular computable entities, relations, and environments. This is not a
simple project of turning the earth into an object or artifact of study, however,
but rather a multiply realized set of practices for identifying environments and

267
268 / Conclusion

processes that can be parsed as sensor data, gathered together into analyzable data
sets, and operationalized into new formations of environmental engagement and
experience.
This could, of course, have been a cautionary tale of how the earth is becom-
ing a highly instrumented control space, where every activity and environment
is under observation. While the capacities of environmental sensors to enable
an even further degree of surveillance are no doubt formidable, I have sought
to develop a slightly different line of inquiry by attending to the ways in which
these computational sensor technologies become environmental to create new
subjects of experience. The subjects that would be monitored and would under-
take monitoring are not static entities but instead are connected up with genera-
tive processes for experiencing environments and other entities in distinct ways.
This phenomenon further indicates that how environments are felt and acted
upon, whether for political or interventionary purposes, is closely tied to the tech-
nologies and subjects that prehend or feel environments and have concern for
environments.
These environmentalcomputational operations play out differently across
the situations that I have discussed throughout Program Earth. Wild sensing draws
attention to the ways in which we might remotely monitor environmental pro-
cesses seemingly in absence of human intervention and toward a greater under-
standing of the real-time ecological relations that unfold. Yet this section also
emphasizes that sensing practices entangle milieus, problems, modes of sensing,
and matters of concern with particular formations of environmental study, citi-
zen sensing, and engagement. Pollution sensing draws out the often proxy modes
of sensing that organisms and societies of objects express and the entities and
relations that proliferate within changing milieus and environments. It considers
the new creatures and practices of sensing that concresce through the monitor-
ing and collection of pollution data. And urban sensing attends to speculative
and implemented smart city scenarios and technologies to consider how sensing
operations attempt to make urban spaces and urban citizens into more manage-
able, efficient, and responsive entities, as well as the ways in which these pro-
grams do not always go according to plan.
Sensing, as each of these sections and chapters indicates, is a practice and
technological relation that does not simply detect external stimuli to be processed
and turned into manageable content. The program earths and programmed par-
ticipation that concresce here are less linear and substantialist than this. Instead,
these programmed environments draw attention to the tunings and attunings
that occur through computational and environmental operations. Ways of feel-
ing and accounting for environments and environmental relations are activated
or otherwise delimited through computational sensors, and it is these ways of
feeling and the practices and subjects that they sustain that I have sought to
 Conclusion / 269

make more evident. Environments are not then simply a map of a territory but
are a field of resonance and relation that can be drawn into and materialized in
the experiences of subjects, whether those subjects are citizen-sensors, soil sen-
sors, moss cams, migrating storks, marine debris in sensor-mapped ocean cur-
rents, air pollutionsensing devices, smart buildings, digital infrastructure, or any
of the many other actual computational concretizations of environmental-sensing
subject-superjects.
Planetary computerization is unfolding apace. As Guattari has suggested
(and as was also discussed in the introduction), such computerization might even
provide an opportunity for polyphonic engagements across machines, subjects,
temporalities, and materialities. Yet while such planetary and computational con-
crescences are underway, it remains an open question as to whether such comput-
erization might activate the expansive new subjectivities, creative enchantments,
and imaginaries that Guattari had hoped for.1 As Guattari writes in characteristi-
cally profuse form,

The question that returns here in a haunting fashion is to know why the immense
processual potentialities carried by all these computational, telematic, robotic,
bureaucratic, biotechnological revolutions so far still only result in a reinforce-
ment of previous systems of alienation, an oppressive mass-mediatization, infan-
tilizing consensual politics. What will enable them finally to lead to a postmedia
era, setting them free from segregationalist capitalist values and giving a full lease
of life to the beginnings of a revolution in intelligence, sensibility and creation?2

Guattari invested a certain speculative energy into the capacities of new technolo-
gies. Yet if the current developments related to environmental sensors and the
wider landscape of the Internet of Things are anything to go by, then the rein-
forcement of previous systems seems to be the more likely scenario than a trans-
formation in intelligence, sensibility, or creation. Energy meters and security
cameras are pervasive, if less than enchanting, technologies in the ever-connected,
always-on, searchable and brand-able big-data predictive worlds in the making. In
some ways, this is a logical continuation of the seemingly helpful ubiquitous
computing world that Weiser imagined:

When almost every object either contains a computer or can have a tab attached
to it, attaining information will be trivial: Who made that dress? Are there any
more in the store? What was the name of the designer of that suit I liked last
week? The computing environment knows the suit you looked at for a long
time last week because it knows both of your locations, and it can retroactively
find the designers name even though that information did not interest you at
the time.3
270 / Conclusion

In a contemporary context, where these once-imaginary computing scenarios

have now become standard procedures, such engagements sound potentially less
enchanting and more in service of tracking a customer-citizen whose attention is
perpetually tuned to consumption.
In this respect, it is also useful to return to Simondons critique of automation
(and by extension, first-order cybernetics) as discussed in the last chapter, where
he suggests that automation is quite a limited and uninteresting way to mobilize
technology. Instead, Simondon suggests that if we attend to the values articulated
and transduced through technology, we might be able to identify opportunities
for active experimentation within these cultural and machinic registers as expres-
sions of relationalityand even, potentially, equality and invention. Open technol-
ogy was a focus of Simondons in this regard, not in the usual sense of openness
that circulates today in relation to free hardware and software, but rather an
openness that consisted of experimentation with the entities, relations, and col-
lectives that might be individuated through technological engagements.
Such an approach also points toward considerations of how not to fix tech-
nology into conditions of inequality but instead to open it into encounters that
are more-than-technical encounters with technocultural creativity and response-
ability. This would require going beyond engagements with technology as a uten-
sil or instrument, as mentioned in the previous chapter.4 It would also require
going beyond engagements with environments as computational problems to
be solved. Instead of remaining firmly embedded within the utensil-problem
space, where environmental sensors facilitate increasingly regimented and auto-
mated ways of life, another approach might be to consider how environmental
computational practices open into experimentation, expanded experiences, and
speculative adventures.

PROGRAMMING EARTHS, EXPERIMENTING WORLDS

The problem of automation is closely tied to the processes and imaginaries
of programming. Programming, as this work has suggested, is not simply an
automatic code or script foisted on the world through a set of discursive enact-
ments. The usual sense of the programmatic often refers exactly to those scripted
and less-than-inventive engagements. And so there proliferate antiprograms and
counterprograms, seemingly as a way to break out of programs of control. In
relation to a discussion of programmatic statements, Massumi has suggested
that breaking with such statements is a way to generate encounters with politics.5
Programmatic statements might at first appear to be expressions of politicsof a
correct position to be taken in relation to a certain problematic. But these can
actually reinforce deadening certainties that prevent a more engaged and engag-
ing encounter with matters of concern. The point of politics is to go beyond
programmatic statements in order to open our inhabitations to more speculative
 Conclusion / 271

encounters. It is through a break with programmabilityboth as an automatic

code and as a correct positionvis--vis experimentation that political inventive-
ness might unfold.
Programmability, as I have suggested throughout this study, is also a some-
what fraught process, verging on the enactment of scripts for certain outcomes
but giving rise to indeterminate environments, entities, and relations. Program-
mability in the context of program earths is continually unfolding the complex
if at times troubling attempts to make environments into spaces of observation,
distributed experience, and even automated management. Programming might
then be addressed as a technical process that is involved in individuating entities,
relations, and milieus. These processes are not a mere list of entities, but rather
describe the collective articulation of potential, as well as all that is more-than-
human in human engagements with technologies.
Participation then becomes an important topic of consideration when attend-
ing to the operations of environmental sensors. The citizen-sensing practices that
I have discussed throughout this study have demonstrated not just how citizen-
ship, participation, and practices of engaging with environmental problems are
bound up with and individuated through environmental sensors, but also how
the citizen in citizen sensing is an entity that shifts and expands to include
other practices constitutive of citizenship, and which might include more eco-
logical ways of accounting for how citizenly engagements unfold. In this way, I
have not sought to reinscribe the somewhat pervasive notion that citizen-sensing
technologies are liberatory tools for achieving more democratic engagement, or
that a heightened ability to work with computational sensors might convey an
increased amount of political capability to those few skilled citizens.
Instead, what I am more inclined to consider is that, in the current circum-
stances, increasingly one is either in the network or out.6 While Internet dark
rooms, off-grid spaces, and antique (read: nonsmart) appliances might be one
strategy within an only dis/connect approach to the modes of planetary com-
puterization that are now unfolding, such strategies do not realize another space
within networks so much as opt out of these computational relations altogether.
In relation to milieus, both Simondon and Foucault articulate, in a transformed
way, Canguilhems notion that to be simply in opposition is to be already defeated.
Living entities must extend themselves and make something of their milieus.7 In
this way, Foucault attended to power not by making simple exhortations to resist
its influence but rather by noting that power is a force that runs through ways of
life, and that it was necessary to reroute power where possible to invent more cre-
ative and engaging ways of life. Simondons point was that a more thoroughgoing
engagement with technical objects might materialize through attempts to experi-
ment with other relations with technology, rather than to opt out of these engage-
ments altogether. Technology is not simply to be dismissed as other-than-human,
272 / Conclusion

Simondon has also argued, but rather is part of the collective potential that makes
us human in particular ways as it individuates entities and our possibilities of
relating. This in turn also has consequences for the extensions and exchanges
made with environments and more-than-human organisms.
In drawing out this discussion of how sensor technologies transindividuate
environments and entities, individuals, and collectives, I have attempted to build
a context in which the power of speculation might also become more apparent.
This power unfolds through the ways in which propositions are made: What
are the computational environments we would inhabit, how do they lure us into
becoming together, and what are the processes and practices that give rise to
these concrescences? This power also takes hold through the ability to undertake
persuasive practices, to infect and in-form the conditions and entities that might
activate speculative engagements. The power of speculation might also be articu-
lated across the moments and sites of concretization, where abstract technology
takes root, becomes more indeterminate, and so potentially is generative of multi-
ple speculations.
In this respect, speculation is as much about propositioning, instigating, and
triggeringbeyond the usual automated sensor-actuator triggers of cybernetics
toward indeterminacy and openness. As Whitehead has suggested, a speculative
project is most interesting when it is involved in bringing adventures into exis-
tence. Rather than demystifying, mapping out, and nailing down everything in
a grand gesture of rationalism,8 adventure seeks to create conditions for both
hope and change.9 A speculative adventure is then an approach invested in experi-
menting worlds. Less a matter of polemics, adventure and speculation are about
making particular things matterof generating environments and entities that
are able to take hold in particular ways because they have exercised power through
persuasion (and experience).10
Speculative approaches to research and practice are emerging across multiple
fields as a way to develop not simply descriptive engagements with topics but also
propositions that invent new possibilities for research and practice. One mode
of experimentality developed throughout Program Earth has involved encounter-
ing environmental sensing as a series of propositions for considering how the
becoming environmental of computation offers up opportunities for creative and
practical as much as analytical engagements.
Citizen-sensing projects often attempt to find ways to broaden the scope of
observational practices beyond the sciences exclusively and to make ecological
observation more accessible and engaging to a diverse range of participants. Such
citizen-sensing projects intend to democratize the collection and use of environ-
mental sensor data in order to increase citizen engagement in environmental
issues. The process of gathering and making these observations more participa-
tory is often a way to overcome the relative crisis of environmental engagement
 Conclusion / 273

in political and cultural spheres: by making environmental change more evident

and distributed across sensing subjects, environmental action may also be facili-
tated. But these practices also tune in subjects, environments, technologies, and
multiple other entities into shared registers of sense making.
Program Earth has considered how or whether environmental-sensing and
citizen-sensing practices enable expanded engagement not just with the mes-
sage of environmental change but also with understanding environmental con-
cerns at a more intimate level. Through discussing the rise and proliferation
of environmental sensing practices within scientific, creative, citizen, and urban
applications, I have analyzed the distinct practices of environmental politics that
concresce in relation to these technologies, where citizens make use of technosci-
entific devices at times to reroute the usual spaces of environmental engagement
and expertise.
An obvious observation to make would be that citizenship is performed
through these sensing technologies. But how does this mode of citizenly practice
square with the stabilizations of citizenship to which these practices might refer
and/or resonate (or dis-sonate) within democratic contexts? A citizen is not newly
emergent with every use of sensors, but these technologies are involved in re-
articulating and recasting the materiality, spaces, practices, collectivities, infra-
structures, imaginings, abstractions, processesin other wordsconcrescences
of citizenship. From a perspective informed by Whitehead and Simondon, we
could say that citizenship is historically immanent and processual, as well as a site
of dynamically articulated collective potential. We could also say that a citizen is
not an exclusively human-based subject of experience but inevitably is also part of
an extended ecology of attachments.
Citizen sensing, as it is typically conceived, is often positioned as somewhat
continuous with citizen science, an activity that might be augmenting science but
through more digitally enabled devices. And yet, citizen sensing might also be an
expanded way of practicing environmental sensing in relation to pedagogical and
political aims.11 The development of these alternative environmental monitoring
practices might, on one level, focus on technologies for engaging with environ-
ments, where alternative monitoring practices might be a way to question offi-
cial versions of events, while also developing tools for continually engaging with
environmental issues. Yet, on another level, as practices situated within and gen-
erative of milieus, citizen-sensing practices are also inevitably techno-geographical
as well as speculative. If more thoroughly engaged with the environmental con-
cerns they would monitor, they might even generate new subjects and politics of
experience. Citizen-sensing practices might then not necessarily be data-collection
exercises but rather ways of making particular environments and environmental
concerns matter and gain a foothold. In this way, citizen sensing might move
beyond the unquestioned if rather problematic equation of data-equals-action to
274 / Conclusion

engage with the extended milieus, moments of resonance, and points of collective
potential that might be forceful sites of investigation and practice.
In discussing environmental sensing and citizen-sensing practices, I have
attended to the experimental aspects of these engagements in thinking about the
distinct human and more-than-human distributions of experience that are brought
together and which take on consistency. However, rather than talk about these
practices through a discursive analysis that treats them as an object of study, I
have considered how an approach attuned to experimentation also seeks to mobi-
lize and invent abstractions along with concrescing practices, materialities, and
environments.12 In other words, I have attempted to write toward the edge of the
page, in-between the spaces of thinking and practicing, such that these are not
seen as oppositional modalities but rather as continuous in their commitment
to experimenting with ways of encountering environments and environmental
matters of concern with creative, critical, and political a/effect.
This research finally suggests that new approaches to computation might be
developed where digital devices expand beyond automated and user-controlled
applications toward more speculative and open engagements. One question to
bring to any environmental sensing project might then be: How does it give rise
to speculative adventures, or otherwise prevent experimentations with worlds?
The becoming environmental of computation might be as much a proposition as
a fact. Sensorized environments are propositions for particular types of worlds
to take hold and for distinct subjects of experience to be sustained. Sensorized
environments and citizen-sensing practices put in motion specific ways of feeling
worlds and of making particular problems matter. In this sense, citizen-sensing
practices materialize not as easy fixes to making environmental engagement
more democratic but rather as particular expressions of environmental problems,
politics, and citizenship. Given that these projects are so actively making worlds,
they are also sites that might then be encountered through further speculation.
Simondon might have opted to use the term invention over and above
speculation, and at the same time he investigated how processes of transindi-
viduation always left a preindividual reserve that was a site for further potentiali-
ties.13 And yet, invention is also a topic and practice that runs through Stengers
and Whitehead. Stengers discusses how speculation involves attending to the
invention of the field in which the problem finds its solution.14 There is an
adventure that is undertaken in formulating questions, and concepts can trans-
form the way in which a situation raises a problem.15 A speculative approach
can transform questions and the character of experienceit is a conceptual
approach that is charged with its ability to shake up and recast the usual approaches
to problems.16
I end this discussion by considering the theoretical influence of Whitehead
and Stengers, who, in a related way, discuss how it might be possible to be for a
 Conclusion / 275

world, and not simply of the world.17 Our inhabitations are ways of experienc-
ing and, in turn, making worlds. The etho-ecological relations that we articulate
along with multiple others require certain environments to take hold and endure
in order for those relations and experiences to be sustained. This is a process
of persuasion, infection, and power. It is also a process of experimentation and
ethics. The milieus that are put into play through environmental sensors are
ecologies of amplificationas they connect, they intensify.18 As computational
sensors increasingly take hold and concresce entities, relations, and environments
in distinct ways, the question of what sorts of worldsor program earthswe
are involved in sustaining comes into play. While this is not a simple proposal
to adopt one particular relation to these technologies, this study suggests that
the world-making operations and experiences of sensors might become an area
of more intensiveif openly indeterminateengagement. Program Earth is one
incomplete and speculative attempt at making an opening into this space.
This page intentionally left blank
 NOTES

INTRODUCTION
1. McLuhan, At the Moment of Sputnik.
2. There is an extensive literature across multiple disciplines on whole earth imagery.
For example, see Cosgrove, Contested Global Visions; Jasanoff, Image and Imagina-
tion; Poole, Earthrise; Diederichsen and Frank, The Whole Earth.
3. Committee on Scientific Accomplishments of Earth Observations from Space,
National Research Council, Earth Observations from Space, 15.
4. New York Times, Sputniks Legacy.
5. Tikhonravov, The Creation of the First Artificial Earth Satellite.
6. Mack, Viewing the Earth. For a discussion of satellites in relation to the televisual, see
Parks, Cultures in Orbit.
7. The complete text for the Kodak advertisement reads, The whole earth from a
business viewpoint, and details the boundless capacity of satellite sensing technology:
Aerial photographic surveillance started as an art of war. Now it has found work in help-
ing mankind make a better peace with his environment. Kodak Products, for example,
monitor dangerous ice on the sea, as well as the health of lakes, and the readiness of hill-
sides to slide down. Snow fields as fresh water sources are inventoried, as are fishing grounds
off continental coasts. Aerial photography also measures social phenomena. Our color-
infrared film has been found capable of providing accurate estimates of number of families
in areas of high population density. Statistics in the public library may lag behind population
shifts. Business decisions require fresh, solid facts. We have customers who can pick eco-
nomic facts out of the airfrom an appropriate altitude. Decision-makers who wish to get
in touch with such people should write Eastman Kodak Company. Cited in Horowitz,
Domestic Communications Satellites, 38.
8. Ibid. As Horowitz notes in this article, rather than serving ecological and public inter-
ests, primarily, the principal contractors for NASAs Earth Resources Technology Satellite,
launched last July (1972) to identify sources of environmental pollution and monitor min-
eral resources, are General Electric and Eastman Kodak; and one prospective satellite

277
278 / Notes to Introduction

owner, RCA Globcom, has already noted in its satellite plan to the FCC that it intends to
make satellite facilities available to the mining and petroleum industries.
9. For a discussion of how informational globalism coincides with infrastructural
globalism, see Edwards, A Vast Machine, 2325.
10. McLuhan, At the Moment of Sputnik, 49. Sputnik was launched October 4, 1957,
rather than October 17, 1957, as cited in this instance.
11. Simondon, Du mode dexistence, 56.
12. Ibid., 152; Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 60; Lamarre, Afterword, 92.
13. Berkeley, Edmund C. Berkeley Papers.
14. Welsh, Sensor Networks, Circa 1967.
15. Weiser, The Computer for the 21st Century, 98.
16. Ibid., 94.
17. Helmers, Creating Sensors; Hsu, Kahn, and Pister, Wireless Communications for
Smart Dust; Postscapes, A Brief History.
18. Gross, The Earth.
19. Ibid.
20. John Parkinson, chief technologist of Ernst & Young, quoted in Gross, The Earth.
21. Toshitada Doi, chairman of Sony Corporations Digital Creatures Lab, quoted in
Gross, The Earth.
22. Arthur, Smartphone Explosion in 2014; Thomas, Smartphones Set to Become
Even Smarter.
23. IBM, The Internet of Things.
24. Ibid.
25. Evans, The Internet of Things. For a discussion of the things in the Internet of
Things, see Gabrys, Re-thingifying the Internet of Things.
26. Bradley et al., Internet of Everything (IoE) Value Index; Cisco, Internet of
Everything.
27. Chan, IPv6.
28. Intel, What Does the Internet of Things Mean?
29. For instance, see Scottish Sensor Systems Centre.
30. Wilson, Sensor Technology Handbook; OSullivan and Igoe, Sensing and Controlling. See
also Gertz and Di Justo, Environmental Monitoring with Arduino.
31. Weiser, The Computer for the 21st Century, 78.
32. Combes, Gilbert Simondon; Simondon, Lindividuation la lumire.
33. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 31 and 6788 passim.
34. Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 16364.
35. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 524.
36. Simondon, Du mode dexistence, 149, 222; Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 62.
37. Neumann, First Draft of a Report on the EDVAC.
38. As Combes writes, Simondons approach entails a substitution of ontogenesis for
traditional ontology, grasping the genesis of individuals within the operation of individua-
tion as it is unfolding. See Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 3.
39. Hayles, My Mother Was a Computer, 1731.
40. For instance, see Cox, Speaking Code.
41. Mackenzie, Cutting Code, 169; Gabrys, Digital Rubbish.
42. Canguilhem, Knowledge of Life.
 Notes to Introduction / 279

43. For example, see Foucault, Security, Territory, Population.

44. Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 78; Lamarre, Afterword; Simondon, Du mode dexistence,
5556.
45. Whitehead, Modes of Thought, 94, 112; Whitehead, Process and Reality, 15, 41.
46. Simondon, The Genesis of the Individual, 306.
47. Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 4.
48. Ibid., 19.
49. Turner, From Counterculture to Cyberculture; Hhler, Spaceship Earth.
50. Heise, Sense of Place and Sense of Planet.
51. Edwards, Vast Machine, 25.
52. Ibid., xix.
53. Guattari, Schizoanalytic Cartographies, 1112.
54. Ibid.
55. Ibid., 6.
56. McLuhan, At the Moment of Sputnik, 49.
57. For example, see E. Odum, Ecology; H. Odum, Environment, Power and Society; Bate-
son, Steps to an Ecology of Mind.
58. Haraway, Simians, Cyborgs and Women, 164.
59. There is a rich literature that explores the ways in which cybernetics and informa-
tion theory have influenced understandings of and approaches to ecologies (and systems,
more generally). See, for instance, Haraway, The High Cost of Information; Taylor, Tech-
nocratic Optimism; Elichirigoity, Planet Management; Martin, Environment c. 1973; Bowker,
How to Be Universal.
60. For an overview of the area of these media-ecological distinctions, see Fuller, Media
Ecologies.
61. See, for instance, Hrl, The Ecological Paradigm.
62. Guattari, The Three Ecologies.
63. See Fuller, Media Ecologies, 4.
64. Massumi discusses the becoming-environmental of power in relation to Fou-
caults exposition of environmentality. I take up this specific use of becoming-environmental
of power in chapter 7 of Program Earth in relation to smart cities. Here, however, I draw
on Whitehead and Simondon to develop an expanded notion of the becoming environmen-
tal of computation through the individuations and concrescences generated through envi-
ronmental sensors. See Massumi, National Enterprise Emergency; Foucault, The Birth of
Biopolitics.
65. Gabrys, Atmospheres of Communication.
66. Gabrys, Digital Rubbish.
67. Civic science is a term from Fortun and Fortun, Scientific Imaginaries and Ethical
Plateaus. Street science is a term used by Corburn in Street Science. See also Burke et al.,
Participatory Sensing.
68. For example, see Goodchild, Citizens as Sensors.
69. For example, see Paulos, Honicky, and Hooker, Citizen Science; Aoki et al., A
Vehicle for Research.
70. The most commonly referenced platform for environmental data is one that
has been in continual transformation. First taking the form of Pachube, as developed by
Usman Haque, this platform was subsequently developed as an open yet commercially
280 / Notes to Introduction

based structure in the form of Cosm and has now become a more commercial and
subscription-led platform rebranded as Xively. The development and migration of this plat-
form from an open community to a commercial enterprise is a topic that could be researched
and analyzed at length. However, there is not room here to deal in depth with how environ-
mental sense data are aggregated, presented, and made accessibleor commercializedin
online platforms.
71. Key citizen-science research within science and technology studies includes (but is
not limited to): Irwin, Citizen Science; Irwin and Michael, Science, Social Theory and Public
Knowledge; Jasanoff, Technologies of Humility; Ellis and Waterton, Environmental Citi-
zenship in the Making; Wynne, May the Sheep Graze Safely?
72. Bratton and Jeremijenko, Suspicious Images, Latent Interfaces.
73. The work of Kim Fortun is relevant here in thinking about how the informating
of environmentalism takes place. See Fortun, Biopolitics and the Informating of Environ-
mentalism. At the same time, I read Fortuns work alongside Simondon, who in a less
epistemological register considers how in-forming and in-formation are processes of ex-
changing material and energy, of taking form, and of giving shape to individuals and envi-
ronments. See Simondon, Lindividuation la lumire, and Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 56.
I discuss this concept in more detail throughout this study, particularly in chapter 4.
74. Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas, 176. Latour and Stengers take up Whiteheads notion
of concern to discuss matters of fact and matters of concern. For instance, see Latour,
Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam?; Stengers, A Constructivist Reading of Process and
Reality.
75. Mackenzie, Wirelessness; Greenfield and Shepard, Urban Computing and Its
Discontents.
76. Hayles, RFID; Kitchin and Dodge, Code/Space; de Souza e Silva and Frith, Mobile
Interfaces in Public Spaces.
77. Dourish and Bell, Divining a Digital Future.
78. Ekman, Throughout.
79. Foth et al., From Social Butterfly to Engaged Citizen.
80. Boler, ed., Digital Media and Democracy; Jenkins and Thorburn, eds., Democracy and
New Media; Delwiche and Henderson, eds., The Participatory Cultures Handbook; Ratto and
Boler, DIY Citizenship.
81. Castells, Networks of Outrage and Hope; Earl and Kimport, Digitally Enabled Social
Change; Feenberg and Barney, Community in the Digital Age; Rainie and Wellman, Networked.
82. Dean, Anderson, and Lovink, Reformatting Politics; Lovink, Networks without a Cause;
Raley, Tactical Media.
83. Approaches to the more-than-human registers and materialities of participation
have been attended to and developed across a wide range of feminist technoscience litera-
ture. One key reference here is Barad, Posthumanist Performativity. See also Suchman,
Agencies in Technology Design. Haraway also develops this approach, drawing on White-
heads notion of misplaced concreteness, where she works beyond the abstractions of
primary and secondary qualities to consider the expanded ways in which the materialities
and practices of technoscience are situated. See Haraway, Modest_Witness, 269.
84. Stengers, A Constructivist Reading of Process and Reality.
85. For example, see McCullough, Ambient Commons.
86. Latour, Pandoras Hope; Stengers, The Invention of Modern Science.
 Notes to Chapter 1 / 281

1. SENSING AN EXPERIMENTAL FOREST

1. Stengers, A Constructivist Reading of Process and Reality, 109.
2. Ekman, Throughout.
3. Akyildiz et al., A Survey on Sensor Networks; Pottie and Kaiser, Wireless Inte-
grated Network Sensors; Cuff, Hansen, and Kang, Urban Sensing: Out of the Woods.
4. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 8889.
5. Stengers, A Constructivist Reading of Process and Reality, 99.
6. As N. Katherine Hayles writes in relation to distributed cognition of RFID tags,
When we understand that humans are not the only cognizers who can interpret informa-
tion and create meaning, we are free to imagine how a world rich in embodied contextual
processes might be fashioned to enhance the distributed cognitive systems that surround us
and that we ourselves are. While this research is influenced by this important more-than-
human media perspective that moves beyond human-centered approaches to computational
technology, here I am interested to bring Whitehead into this discussion of distributions of
sensing, not in order to emphasize cognition (with its potential connection to conscious-
ness), but rather to expand upon experience as a key way of drawing together multiple
sensing entities. See Hayles, RFID, 69.
7. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 20.
8. Ibid., 88.
9. Stengers elaborates on this sense of tuning within experiments, and writes, The
idea that experimentation appeals to facts as they are observed by means of experimental
appliances only refers to the stabilized end-product of a difficult operation. As Andrew Pick-
ering (1995) marvelously characterized it, in his Mangle of Practice, experimenters may well
know in advance what they want to achievewhat, for instance, their appliance should
detect. However, a long process of tuning will nevertheless be needed, within which noth-
ing will be trusted, neither the human hypothesis nor the observations made. Indeed, the
process of tuning works both ways, on human as well as on more-than-human agency,
constitutively intertwining a double process of emergence, of a disciplined human agency
and of a captured material agency. Stengers, A Constructivist Reading of Process and Real-
ity, 96.
10. Stengers, The Cosmopolitical Proposal.
11. Benson, Wired Wilderness.
12. Estrin, Reflections on Wireless Sensing Systems.
13. Center for Embedded Networked Sensing (CENS), Annual Progress Report.
14. Tolle et al., A Macroscope in the Redwoods; Elson and Estrin, Sensor Networks.
15. This chapter focuses on sensor applications for ecological study. However, this by no
means covers the entirety of sensor applications for environmental uses and beyond, includ-
ing agricultural management and energy saving in buildings. A whole range of automated
environments is emerging through sensor applications, some of which are addressed in this
study.
16. Szewczyk et al., An Analysis of a Large Scale Habitat.
17. The U.S. Long Term Ecological Research Network (LTER); National Ecological
Observatory Network (NEON).
18. Edwards et al., Introduction; Schimel et al., 2011 Science Strategy.
19. Microsoft Research, SenseWeb. As mentioned in an introductory note, Cosm,
which was formerly named Pachube, became a fee-based service in the form of Xively, and
282 / Notes to Chapter 1

so is now less oriented toward DIY engagements. See also Thingful for a map of devices
connected to the Internet.
20. Lehning et al., Instrumenting the Earth.
21. Nokia, Sensor Planet; IBM, A Smarter Planet; HP Labs, Central Nervous Sys-
tem for the Earth (CeNSE); Planetary Skin Institute.
22. For a discussion of the multiple actors invested in ubiquitous computing, including
governments, see Nold and van Kranenburg, The Internet of People.
23. While there is not space within this chapter to discuss these developments within
sensor systems, for a more extensive discussion of how emerging sensing technologies and
practices might be understood as forms of environmentality, see chapter 7 of Program Earth,
Citizen Sensing in the Smart and Sustainable City.
24. For a discussion of earlier attempts to program environments with sensors through
the prototypical if largely hypothetical technology of smart dust, see Gabrys, Telepathi-
cally Urban.
25. Center for Embedded Network Sensing (CENS), Annual Progress Report, 3.
26. Mackenzie discusses this issue of how relations or itineraries are drawn through
software in Cutting Code. See also Fuller, Behind the Blip.
27. Center for Embedded Network Sensing (CENS), Annual Progress Report, 3.
28. Latour, Science in Action.
29. Hamilton et al., New Approaches.
30. Goldman et al., Distributed Sensing Systems, 3.
31. Rundel et al., Tansley Review.
32. Center for Embedded Network Sensing (CENS), Terrestrial Ecology Observing
Systems.
33. Center for Embedded Network Sensing (CENS), Annual Progress Report, 6.
34. Center for Embedded Network Sensing (CENS), Center for Embedded Networked
Sensing, 5.
35. Estrin, Reflections on Wireless Sensing Systems, 2.
36. Goldman et al., Distributed Sensing Systems, 12.
37. Elson and Estrin, Sensor Networks, 2.
38. Ibid., 7.
39. Ibid., 10.
40. Ibid., 7.
41. Inevitably, incompatibilities within data sets are not the only issues with sensors.
Given that the embedded sensors are prototypes and tested in the wild, the devices at
times cease to function as intended, whether due to mechanical failure, calibration issues,
or bugs in the code. Given that the CENS project has also come to an end, some sensors
may cease to function and break down over time. For a more extended discussion on the
material processes of electronics as they break down, see Gabrys, Digital Rubbish.
42. Bowker, Biodiversity Datadiversity. For a detailed discussion of data issues that
have emerged specifically in relation to the CENS project, see Borgman, Wallis, and Enyedy,
Little Science Confronts the Data Deluge.
43. Roth and Bowen, Digitizing Lizards.
44. Goldman et al., Distributed Sensing Systems, 10.
45. Tolle et al., A Macroscope in the Woods.
46. Goldman et al., Distributed Sensing Systems, 6.
 Notes to Chapter 1 / 283

47. Ibid., 19, emphasis in original.

48. Estrin, Reflections on Wireless Sensing Systems, 2.
49. Center for Embedded Network Sensing (CENS), Annual Progress Report, 29.
50. Hyman, Graham, and Hansen, Imagers as Sensors.
51. Hayles, RFID, 4849.
52. Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas, 18081; Whitehead, Modes of Thought, 30, 157.
53. Weiser, The Computer for the 21st Century.
54. Turing, Intelligent Machinery, 117.
55. Ibid.
56. Whitehead, Modes of Thought; Massumi, Semblance and Event.
57. Whitehead, Modes of Thought, 158; Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 35253.
58. Whitehead, Modes of Thought, 138.
59. Ibid., 158. And as Stengers writes, We do not know how a bat, armed with its sonar,
or a dog, capable of tracking by smell, perceive their world. We can identify the features
they discriminate, but we can only dream of the contrast between that which they per-
ceive and what they are aware of. All we know is that their experience is, like ours, highly
interpretative, and that, like ours, it has solved an extraordinarily delicate problem: to give
access, in a more or less reliable way, to what it is important to pay attention to. Paying
attention is the interpretative choice from which our experience has issued. Stengers,
Thinking with Whitehead, 338.
60. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 88.
61. Shaviro, Without Criteria, 21.
62. While this notion of distributed experience can be found within Whiteheads writ-
ings, it also is a prior concept developed by William James in relation to radical empiricism.
Adrian Mackenzie takes up the latter concept in relation to wirelessness to discuss how
wireless technologies unfold these distributions of experience. See James, Essays in Radical
Empiricism; Mackenzie, Wirelessness.
63. For a more extended discussion on the development of facticity, see Halewood and
Michael, Being a Sociologist, 34; Stengers, A Constructivist Reading of Process and Reality.
64. Thanks are due to Mike Michael for conversations that have led to these points.
65. Simondon develops the ontogenetic aspects of individuals and experience at length.
For a discussion of this work, see Combes, Gilbert Simondon.
66. Parisi, Technoecologies of Sensation and Control. See also Guattari, Chaosmosis.
67. Clough, The New Empiricism, 51.
68. Helmreich, Intimate Sensing, 13032.
69. Goodwin, Seeing in Depth.
70. Foucault, The Order of Things; Kittler, Thinking Colors and/or Machines; Hayles,
Computing the Human; Parikka, Insect Media; Fuller, Boxes towards Bananas.
71. Hayles, RFID.
72. Braidotti, Transpositions, 41. See also Guattari, Chaosmosis.
73. Braidotti, Transpositions, 9697.
74. Whitehead, Modes of Thought; Uexkll, A Foray; Canguilhem, Knowledge of Life;
Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics.
75. Uexkll, A Foray, 4446.
76. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 2021.
77. Whitehead, Modes of Thought, 8990.
284 / Notes to Chapter 1

78. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 58.

79. Shaviro, Without Criteria, 25.
80. Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas, 238.
81. Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics.
82. Citizen-sensing applications have emerged through the James Reserve sensor
research. See Cuff, Hansen, and Kang, Urban Sensing; Estrin, Reflections on Wireless
Sensing Systems.

2. FROM MOSS CAM TO SPILLCAM

1. For just one of many examples, see BBC England, Webcams: Animals.
2. GlobalWarming.House.Gov., Oil Spill in the Gulf.
3. Simondon, Du mode dexistence, 56.
4. For example, see Haraway, Introduction.
5. This committee was disbanded in 2011. See Sheppard, Republicans Kill Global
Warming Committee.
6. Markey, Edward Markey to Lamar McKay.
7. Interspecies Internet is a project proposed by rock star Peter Gabriel in collaboration
with cognitive psychology and animal intelligence researchers, as well as Internet pioneer
Vint Cerf. The user group for this worldwide network consists of animals in zoos, which
are accessed via webcams. See Interspecies Internet.
8. OConnell, Nichols, and Karanth, eds., Camera Traps in Animal Ecology.
9. BBC News, Secret Life of the Cat. Human-oriented wearable camera technology
has also been in use for some time, from Microsofts SenseCam, which sought to create a
photographic memory for everyone, to the recently discontinued Google Glasses.
10. WildlifeTV, Wildlife Webcams.
11. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Macaulay Library.
12. The Cornell Lab of Ornithology, All about Birds.
13. As stated by Charles Eldermire, Bird Cams project leader at the Cornell Lab of Orni-
thology, on Critter Cams Viewers Becoming Citizen Scientists.
14. Ocean Networks Canada, Teen Spots Hagfish-Slurping Elephant Seal. The par-
ticular discovery in this case was brought forward by a Ukrainian teenage boy who emailed
a clip of a hagfish being consumed by an unknown creature in deep underwater spaces. As
it turns out, a female elephant seal was the creature eating the hagfish, which had not been
previously observed by scientists, as hagfish not only inhabit deep ocean spaces, but were
also assumed to be inedible. See http://www.oceannetworks.ca and http://digitalfishers
.net for more information on Ocean Networks Canadas citizen-science initiatives.
15. Just a few examples of research that analyzes science and visuality include Haraway,
Modest_Witness; Daston and Galison, Objectivity; Mody, The Sounds of Science.
16. Mitman, When Nature Is the Zoo, 13940.
17. Ibid.
18. Beyond the references mentioned above, Lucy Suchman undertakes a discussion of
sociomaterial relations of people and things that engages with visuality as part of its focus.
See Suchman, Reconfigurations.
19. Haraway, Modest_Witness, 223; Shapin and Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air-Pump.
20. Haraway, Situated Knowledges.
21. National Geographic, Crittercam.
 Notes to Chapter 2 / 285

22. Ibid.
23. Ibid.
24. Donna Haraway, Crittercam, 249. Haraway draws on Merleau-Ponty in her discus-
sion of infoldings of the flesh.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid., 24950.
27. While some research has argued for the adoption of the concept emplacement in
comparison to embodiment, I diverge from this approach as I seek to avoid the fixities
that can emerge through denotations and connotations of place. I am also cautious to
avoid appending environment to a mind-body dyad, thereby maintaining a substantial-
ist approach to sensing. In this sense, Whitehead and Simondon are key thinkers whom I
draw on to attempt to work beyond a substantialist understanding of sense (in other words,
minds that might decode or sense objects in environment), and instead take up processes
such as individuations, concrescences, and subject-superjects of experience to address the
particular attachments of sensing entities and environments. For a discussion of emplace-
ment in relation to embodiment, see Howes, Introduction.
28. Hayles, RFID, 48.
29. Ibid.
30. Andrejevic, The Webcam Subculture and the Digital Enclosure.
31. Goldberg, The Robot in the Garden.
32. For a collection of discussions on sensory mediation in relation to art and technol-
ogy, see Jones, Sensorium.
33. Hayles, RFID, 48.
34. Ibid.
35. Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas, 17982.
36. For a discussion of the sense of place in relation to rethinking the globallocal
divide and how this influences environmental imaginations, see Heise, Sense of Place. Heise
argues that the local is as much an assemblage as the global and does not equate to pure
unmediated access to the world.
37. Simondon, Du mode dexistence, 5052.
38. Ibid., 20. As Simondon writes, Lobjet technique un est unit de devenir.
39. Lamarre, Afterword, 95; See also Simondon, Du mode dexistence, 57.
40. Simondon, Du mode dexistence, 56. He writes, Il ne sagit pas en effet dun progrs
conu comme marche dans un sens fix lavance, ni dune humanisation de la nature; ce
processus pourrait aussi bien appatre comme une naturalisation de lhomme; entre homme
et nature se cre en effet un milieu techno-gographique qui ne devient possible que par
lintelligence de lhomme: lauto-conditionnement dun schme par le resultat de son fonc-
tionnement ncessite lemploi dune fonction inventive danticipation qui ne se trouve ni
dans la nature ni dans les objets techniques dj constitus; cest une oeuvre de vie de faire
ainsi un saut par-dessus la ralit donne et sa systmatique actuelle vers de nouvelles
formes qui ne sa maintiennent que parce quelles existent toutes ensemble comme un sys-
tme constitu; quand un nouvel organe apparait dans la srie volutive, il ne se maintient
que sil ralise une convergence systmatique et pluri-fonctionnelle.
41. Ibid., 5556.
42. Ibid., 55. The becoming environmental of technical objects is in this sense norma-
tive: it is what is needed to avoid overspecialization and disadaptation, and for a technical
object to become natural.
286 / Notes to Chapter 2

43. James San Jacinto Mountains Reserve.

44. Rundel et al., Tansley Review.
45. James San Jacinto Mountains Reserve, The Moss Cam Project.
46. Mishler, The Biology of Bryophytes.
47. Hamilton et al., New Approaches.
48. Hyman, Graham, and Hansen, Imagers as Sensors.
49. Mishler, The Biology of Bryophytes.
50. Jasanoff, Image and Imagination.
51. Haraway, Situated Knowledges.
52. Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas, 17882.
53. National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling,
Deep Water, 167, 187.
54. Markey, Edward Markey to Lamar McKay.
55. Ibid.
56. Jansen and Keilar, Markey.
57. The Global Language Monitor, Top Words of 2010.
58. GlobalWarming.House.Gov, Oil Spill in the Gulf.
59. Jonsson, BP Live Feed Spillcam.
60. Live Gulf Oil Spill Cam.
61. Stuever, BPs Oil Spillcam.
62. Helmreich, Nature/Culture/Seawater.
63. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Science in a Time of Crisis.
64. Ibid.
65. Serres, The Five Senses.
66. Clough, The New Empiricism, 51.
67. Roth and Bowen, Digitizing Lizards.
68. Ibid., 731.
69. Ibid., 721.
70. For a related discussion of environmental sensors, see Gabrys, Automatic Sensation.
71. Puig de la Bellacasa, Touching Technologies, Touching Visions.
72. Haraway, Situated Knowledges, 589.
73. Critter Cams Viewers.
74. Helmreich, Intimate Sensing, 149.
75. Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 78.
76. Lamarre, Afterword, 95.

3. ANIMALS AS SENSORS
1. McConnell, Telemetry in Sea Mammals; Biuw et al., Variations in Behavior and
Condition.
2. For more information, see Argos; Benson, One Infrastructure, Many Global
Visions.
3. Wilson, Shepard, and Liebsch, Prying into the Intimate Details.
4. Newton, Bird Migration.
5. Pahl et al., Large Scale Homing in Honeybees.
6. The National Science Foundation, The Secret Lives of Wild Animals; Wikelski
et al., Simple Rules Guide Dragonfly Migration.
 Notes to Chapter 3 / 287

7. The Arctic Tern Migration Project; Egevang et al., Tracking of Arctic Terns.
8. Sirtrack, Sirtrack Working with Emperor Penguin; Sirtrack, Happy Feet Trans-
missions Ceased.
9. Cooke, Biotelemetry and Biologging; Johnson, Smart Collar in the Works.
10. Wilson and McMahon, Measuring Devices on Wild Animals; Northern Prairie
Wildlife Research Center, A Critique of Wildlife Radio-Tracking; Scandolara et al.,
Impact of Miniaturized Geolocators.
11. For a parallel discussion of biomonitoring, see Kosek, Ecologies of Empire.
12. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 238 and 22888 passim.
13. Wilson, Shepard, and Liebsch, Prying into the Intimate Details.
14. May, Unanswered Questions in Ecology, cited by Wikelski in Move It, Baby!
15. Benson, Wired Wilderness, 92.
16. Wikelski, Move It, Baby!
17. MoveBank; Dodge et al., The Environmental-Data.
18. Wikelski, Move It, Baby!
19. MoveBank, What Is Animal Tracking?
20. Wikelski, Move It, Baby!
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid.; Marshall, Foreword, 45.
25. Marshall, Foreword, 4.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid., 5.
28. International Cooperation for Animal Research Using Space (ICARUS) Initiative,
Technical Solution; Wikelski et al., Going Wild.
29. Pennisi, Global Tracking of Small Animals.
30. International Cooperation for Animal Research Using Space (ICARUS) Initiative,
Science & Projects.
31. As Pennisi writes, Because the space station is only 320 kilometers away, the ICARUS
system will demand much less energy than ARGOS to send data, reducing battery require-
ments. As currently designed, most tags for ICARUS will contain a GPS that regularly takes
stock of the wearers location, storing those data for many months if needed. To be most
energy efficient, the ICARUS tag will be preprogrammed to turn on only when the space
station will pass overhead and will deliver its data only when triggered by the space station.
See Pennisi, Global Tracking of Small Animals.
32. Hinchliffe, Sensory Biopolitics; Wikelski et al., Disaster Alert Mediation Using
Nature.
33. Schofield et al., Novel GPS Tracking.
34. Wilcove, No Way Home; Kurvits et al., Living Planet.
35. Block et al., Tracking Apex Marine Predator.
36. Warner Chabot of the Ocean Conservancy, as cited in Bauer, Tagging Pacific
Predators.
37. Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust.
38. BirdsEye Tools for Birders, BirdLog North America.
39. The Nature Conservancy, Precision Conservation.
288 / Notes to Chapter 3

40. The Migratory Connectivity Project, Citizen Science.

41. Large Pelagics Research Center, Tag a Tiny Program.
42. Yu, More Than 300 Sharks In Australia; Surf Life Saving Western Australia,
https://twitter.com/SLSWA; Zoological Society of London, Eel Conservation; EpiCol-
lect, Roadkill Garneau. See also OpenScientist, Mobile Citizen Science Apps!
43. Allan et al., A Cost-Effective and Informative Method. An instructional video
accompanying this paper is available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaSvS0grVjw.
44. xClinic Environmental Health Clinic and Living Architecture Lab, Amphibious
Architecture; Benjamin, Yang, and Jeremijenko, New Interaction Partners for Environ-
mental Governance.
45. Nitta, Extreme Green Guerillas.
46. Cornwell and Campbell, Co-Producing Conservation and Knowledge; Hurlbert
and Liang, Spatiotemporal Variation in Avian Migration Phenology; Cooper, Shirk, and
Zuckerberg, The Invisible Prevalence of Citizen Science; Laughlin et al., Integrating
Information from Geolocators.
47. Wikelski, Move It, Baby!
48. Savill et al. Wytham Woods; Elton, The Ecology of Invasions.
49. University of Oxford, Wytham Woods.
50. Dyo et al., WILDSENSING.
51. Dyo et al., Wildlife and Environmental Monitoring.
52. Dyo et al., WILDSENSING.
53. Pasztor et al., Selective Reprogramming.
54. Benson, Wired Wilderness, 48.
55. Sea Mammal Research Unit, Southern Elephant Seals as Oceanographic Samplers.
56. Biuw et al., Variations in Behavior and Condition.
57. McConnell, Telemetry in Sea Mammals.
58. For example, see National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Crit-
ical New Data.
59. McConnell, Telemetry in Sea Mammals.
60. Benson, Wired Wilderness, 19093.
61. International Cooperation for Animal Research Using Space (ICARUS) Initiative,
Countdown to ICARUS.
62. Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, Social Migration in Juvenile White Storks.
63. Rotics, Comparison of Juvenile and Adult Migration.
64. Brown et al., Observing the Unwatchable.
65. Rotics, Comparison of Juvenile and Adult Migration; Amezian and Khamlichi,
White Stork Satellite-Tracked.
66. Wikelski, Move It, Baby!
67. Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, Animal Tracker. http://www.orn.mpg.de/
animal_tracker.
68. Wikelski, Move It, Baby!; Wald, Follow That Bird.
69. e-obs.
70. Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, Animal Tracker app.
71. Wikelski, Move It, Baby!
72. Wikelski et al., Disaster Alert Mediation Using Nature.
73. Wikelski, Move It, Baby!; Maier, A Four-Legged Early-Warning System.
 Notes to Chapter 3 / 289

74. Canguilhem, Knowledge of Life, 109.

75. Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 4. As Combes writes, No individual would be able to
exist without a milieu that is its complement, arising simultaneously from the operation of
individuation: for this reason, the individual should be seen as but a partial result of the
operation bringing it forth. Thus, in a general manner, we may consider individuals as
beings that come into existence as so many partial solutions to so many problems of incom-
patibility between separate levels of being.
76. See also Simondon, Two Lessons on Animal and Man.
77. In addition to examples cited above, see Vandenabeele et al., Excess Baggage for
Birds.
78. Wilson and McMahon, Measuring Devices on Wild Animals.
79. Canguilhem, Knowledge of Life, 120.
80. Ibid., 119.
81. This argument resonates with Stengerss discussions in Cosmopolitics I and Cosmo-
politics II.
82. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 78.
83. Hayles, My Mother Was a Computer, 20.
84. For example, see Bateson, Steps to an Ecology of Mind; Negroponte, SEEK. See also
Clarke, John Lilly.
85. Canguilhem, Knowledge of Life, 96.
86. Ibid., 8990.
87. See Wiener, The Human Use of Human Beings. For a parallel discussion on automa-
tion, see Stacey and Suchman, Animation and Automation.
88. Lamarre, Afterword, 80.
89. Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 10; Simondon, Lindividuation la lumire, 28.
90. For example, see Stevens, Sensory Ecology, Behavior, and Evolution. A related analysis of
the informational influences on biology can be found in Keller, The Body of a New
Machine.
91. Technique, however, is one way to approach the open potential of machines, since
it is through technique that original engagements unfold, which cannot be limited to one
machinic function. See Canguilhem, Knowledge of Life, 93.
92. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 28. As Whitehead writes, becoming is a creative
advance into novelty. It is for this reason that the meaning of the phrase the actual world
is relative to the becoming of a definite actual entity which is both novel and actual, rela-
tively to that meaning, and to no other meaning of that phrase. Thus, conversely, each
actual entity corresponds to a meaning of the actual world peculiar to itself. . . . An actual
world is a nexus; and the actual world of one actual entity sinks to the level of a subordinate
nexus in actual worlds beyond that actual entity.
93. Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 31.
94. Ibid., 27. As Combes writes, In effect, a living being, in order to exist, needs to be
able to continue individualizing by resolving problems in the milieu surrounding it, which
is its milieu. . . . In the analysis proposed by Simondon, perception, for instance, appears as
an act of individuation operated by a living being to resolve a conflict into which it has
entered with its milieu. In his view, to perceive is not primarily to grasp a form; rather it is
the act taking place within an ensemble constituted by the relation between subject and
world, through which a subject invents a form and thereby modifies its own structure and
290 / Notes to Chapter 3

that of the object at the same time: we see only within a system in tension, of which we are
a subensemble. See also Simondon, Lindividuation la lumire, 264.
95. Simondon, The Genesis of the Individual, 306.
96. Ibid.
97. See Pritchard, Thinking with the Animal-Hacker.
98. Stengers, Cosmopolitics II, 362.
99. Ibid., 359.
100. Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 60; Simondon, Du mode dexistence, 152.
101. Tsing, Empowering Nature, 137.
102. Debaise, A Philosophy of Interstices, 108.

4. SENSING CLIMATE CHANGE AND EXPRESSING ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZENSHIP

1. The Finnish Society of Bioart, Environmental Computing.
2. Masco, Bad Weather.
3. Whitehead, Modes of Thought, 5.
4. Coen, The Earthquake Observers, 163. See also Aubin, Bigg, and Sibum, The Heavens
on Earth.
5. Kilpisjrvi Biological Station; Sustaining Arctic Observing Network (SAON);
SCANNET; International Network for Terrestrial Research and Monitoring in the Arctic.
6. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Report 2010, 8. This report
calls for a sustained, robust circumpolar monitoring network effective at detecting change
and discerning trends over the entire Arctic Region related to a range of environmental
stressors including pollutants, climate change and the interaction between them.
7. Anisimov et al., Polar Regions (Arctic and Antarctic).
8. Committee on Emerging Research Questions in the Arctic et al., The Arctic in the
Anthropocene, 12.
9. Cubasch et al., Introduction.
10. Global Climate Observing System (GCOS), Essential Climate Variables.
11. Committee on Understanding and Monitoring Abrupt Climate Change and Its
Impacts et al., Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change, 52; Brigham-Grette et al., Pliocene
Warmth, 142127.
12. Oceans at MIT with Ron Prinn. 400 ppm CO2? http://oceans.mit.edu/featured
-stories/5-questions-mits-ron-prinn-400-ppm-threshold.
13. Hartmann et al., Observations, 166; NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Orbiting
Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2). A number of videos explaining OCO-2 note the impor-
tance of gathering constant and global information on CO2: We can only manage what we
can measure. http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/galleries/Videos. OCO-2 gathers hundreds of thou-
sands of CO2 measurements every day by assessing diffracted light levels in the atmosphere.
See http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/observatory/instrument.
14. Stocker et al., IPCC, 2013; Scripps Institute of Oceanography, The Keeling Curve.
15. Hartmann et al., Observations: Atmosphere and Surface, 167.
16. Stocker et al., IPCC, 2013, 11.
17. Hartmann et al., Observations, 198.
18. CO2 has now been designated as a pollutant by the EPA. See Supreme Court of the
United States, Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (April 2, 2007);
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Endangerment and Cause. This legislation has
 Notes to Chapter 4 / 291

recently been put to work through the Clean Power Plan to limit CO2 levels. See U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Carbon Pollution Standards. For an expanded discus-
sion of how CO2 turns up as a pollutant relative to the environments that it begins to trans-
form, see Gabrys, Powering the Digital.
19. For instance, see Forest Carbon Project Inventory; Carbon Monitoring for Action
(CARMA). For an expanded discussion of climate change in relation to sinks, see Gabrys,
Sink.
20. A resource that lists a number of community-led and traditional ecological knowl-
edge projects in the Arctic is the Committee on Emerging Research Questions in the Arctic
et al., The Arctic in the Anthropocene.
21. At the time of this fieldwork, a Kilpisjrvi environmental sensor feed was viewable
on the Pachube platform, which was later renamed Cosm, and then Xively, as previously
mentioned. The Kilpisjrvi feed, which is no longer live but includes historic measurements
for light, humidity, temperature, noise, air quality, CO, and CO2, is now available at https://
xively.com/feeds/21544. The Kilpisjrvi webcam can be viewed at http://kilpis5.kilpis.hel
sinki.fi/appletvid.html.
22. Forsstrm et al., Seasonality of Phytoplankton; Lemke et al. Observations.
23. Vaughan et al., Observations.
24. Prowse et al., Climate Change Effects.
25. Strangeways, Measuring the Natural Environment, 1.
26. Bowker, Biodiversity Datadiversity.
27. Kohler, Landscapes and Labscapes, 11824. See also Cruikshank, Do Glaciers Listen?
28. Whitehead, Modes of Thought, 18. As Whitehead writes in relation to the matter-of-
fact, Consider, for example, the scientific notion of measurement. Can we elucidate the
turmoil of Europe by weighing its dictators, its prime ministers, and its editors of news-
papers? The idea is absurd, although some relevant information might be obtained. I am not
upholding the irrelevance of science. Such a doctrine would be foolish. For example, a daily
record of the bodily temperatures of men, above mentioned, might be useful. My point is
the incompleteness of the information.
29. Coen, The Earthquake Observers, 6, 20; Kohler, Landscapes and Labscapes, 12224.
30. Exchange for Local Observations and Knowledge of the Arctic (ELOKA); Atlas
of Community-Based Monitoring in a Changing Arctic. The Arctic Perspective Initiative
(API) has worked in collaboration with the Finnish Bioart Society on developing open
authoring, communications and dissemination infrastructures for the circumpolar region
in Kilpisjrvi.
31. On the different ways in which measurement may be operationalized toward much
different effects in relation to measure and value, see Verran, The Changing Lives of Mea-
sures and Values. On the ways in which experience and measurement generate speculative
registers of evidence and data, see Gabrys, Pollution Sensing and Fracking.
32. A discussion of the ways in which organisms incorporate and sense environments
can be found in Gabrys, Becoming Urban.
33. On the notion of organisms working through the materialities of changing environ-
ments, see Gabrys, Plastic.
34. For more project information, see Preemptive Media, Areas Immediate Reading
(AIR); Jeremijenko, Feral Robotic Dogs.
35. xClinic Environmental Health Clinic and Living Lab, Amphibious Architecture.
292 / Notes to Chapter 4

36. Costa, Pigeon Blog; Percifield, dontflush.me; Safecast.

37. Paterson, Vatnajkull (the sound of ); Collier, Ray, and Weber, The Pika Alarm.
38. Million Trees NYC.
39. Braidotti, Transpositions.
40. Ellis and Waterton, Environmental Citizenship in the Making.
41. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 8889; Whitehead, Modes of Thought, 158.
42. Fortun, Biopolitics and the Informating of Environmentalism.
43. Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 5; Simondon, Lindividuation la lumire, 32.
44. Simondon, Lindividuation la lumire, 32, as translated in Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 6.
45. Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 32.
46. Simondon, Lindividuation la lumire, 253, as translated in Combes, Gilbert Simon-
don, 31.
47. Simondon, Lindividuation la lumire, 63, as translated in Combes, Gilbert Simon-
don, 19.
48. Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 19.
49. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 88.
50. Stengers, A Constructivist Reading of Process and Reality, 103.
51. Stengers, Introductory Notes on an Ecology of Practices; Stengers, Cosmopolitics
II, 34950.
52. Stengers, Cosmopolitics II, 349.
53. Ibid., 350.
54. Braidotti, Transpositions, 14950.
55. Haraway, Situated Knowledges, 589.
56. For a complementary discussion of radical empiricism in relation to earthly con-
cerns, see Latour, A Plea for Earthly Sciences.
57. Kim TallBear, Uppsala 3rd Supradisciplinary Feminist Technoscience Symposium,
http://www.kimtallbear.com/homeblog/uppsala-3rd-supradisciplinary-feminist-techno
science-symposium-feminist-and-indigenous-intersections-and-approaches-to-technosci
ence. See also TallBear, Why Interspecies Thinking Needs Indigenous Standpoints.
58. On the notion of speculative empiricism, see Debaise, Un empirisme spculatif.
59. Edwards, A Vast Machine, 42739.
60. Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 252. Stengers also writes (discussing and citing
Whiteheads Process and Reality, 11), It pertains to speculative propositions to make us feel
what is, in fact, a generality that bears upon every proposition, 267. Generality, in many
ways, inheres as an environment in which facts take hold and have relevance.

5. SENSING OCEANS AND GEO- SPECULATING WITH A GARBAGE PATCH

1. Moore et al., A Comparison of Plastic and Plankton; Moore and Phillips, Plastic
Ocean.
2. Ebbesmeyer and Scigliano, Flotsametrics and the Floating World, 167.
3. For example, see Carpenter and Smith, Plastics on the Sargasso Sea Surface.
4. Ebbesmeyer and Scigliano, Flotsametrics and the Floating World, 227; Moore and Phil-
lips, Plastic Ocean.
5. For example, see National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, A Global
Map of Human Impacts. Not to be confined to surface views of the ocean, Google Earth
 Notes to Chapter 5 / 293

has also added an ocean layer that allows underwater views. See http://www.google
.com/earth/explore/showcase/ocean.html.
6. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), De-mystifying the
Great Pacific Garbage Patch.
7. For example, see Jordan, Midway.
8. Vitaliano, Legends of the Earth.
9. Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas, 17782.
10. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 89110.
11. Howell et al., On North Pacific Circulation; Pichel et al., Marine Debris Collects.
12. Lebreton, Greer, and Borrero, Numerical Modeling of Floating Debris.
13. Howell et al., On North Pacific Circulation.
14. Ibid.
15. Meanders and eddies are areas where most visible patches of garbage emerge,
whereas gyres tend to have overall higher concentrations of microplastics that are quite
often invisible or difficult to detect. See NOAA, De-Mystifying the Great Pacific Garbage
Patch.
16. Gregory and Ryan, Pelagic Plastics; U.S. EPA, Marine Debris in the North Pacific.
17. Derraik, The Pollution of the Marine Environment.
18. Gabrys, Plastic.
19. As Moore et al. write, Several limitations restrict our ability to extrapolate our find-
ings of high plastic-to-plankton ratios in the North Pacific central gyre to other areas of the
ocean. The North Pacific Ocean is an area of low biological standing stock; plankton popu-
lations are many times higher in nearshore areas of the eastern Pacific, where upwelling
fuels productivity. . . . Moreover, the eddy effects of the gyre probably serve to retain plas-
tics, whereas plastics may wash up on shore in greater numbers in other areas. Conversely,
areas closer to the shore are more likely to receive inputs from land-based runoff and ship
loading and unloading activities, whereas a large fraction of the materials observed in this
study appear to be remnants of offshore fishing-related activity and shipping traffic. See
Moore et al., A Comparison of Plastic and Plankton.
20. Arthur, Baker, and Bamford, Proceedings of the International Research Workshop;
Thompson et al., Lost at Sea; Thompson et al., Plastics, the Environment, and Human
Health; Andrady, Microplastics in the Marine Environment.
21. Gregory, Environmental Implications.
22. Barnes et al., Accumulation and Fragmentation; Takada, International Pellet
Watch; United Nations Environment Programme, Marine Litter: A Global Challenge.
23. Kaiser, The Dirt on Ocean Garbage Patches; U.S. EPA, Marine Debris in the
North Pacific.
24. Takada, International Pellet Watch.
25. Boerger et al., Plastic Ingestion; Thompson et al., Plastics, the Environment, and
Human Health.
26. Czar et al., Plastic Debris in the Open Ocean; Di Lorenzo et al., North Pacific
Gyre Oscillation; Goldstein, Rosenberg, and Cheng, Increased Oceanic Microplastic
Debris.
27. As Stengers writes, The production of the matter of fact that could operate as a
reliable witness for the adequacy of an interpretation is always an experimental achieve-
ment. As long as this achievement remains a matter of controversy, the putative matter of
294 / Notes to Chapter 5

fact will remain a matter of collective, demanding, concern. See A Constructivist Reading
of Process and Reality, 94. See also Latour, Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam?
28. Underwood, Experiments in Ecology.
29. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 78.
30. Barad, Posthumanist Performativity.
31. Gabrys, Speculating with Organisms in the Plastisphere.
32. Gabrys, Digital Rubbish; Gabrys, Plastic.
33. Howell et al., On North Pacific Circulation.
34. Ebbesmeyer et al., Tub Toys Orbit the Subarctic Gyre; Ebbesmeyer and Scigliano,
Flotsametrics and the Floating World.
35. Madrigal, Found.
36. Ebbesmeyer, Using Flotsam to Study Ocean Currents.
37. Ibid.; Law et al., Plastic Accumulation.
38. Ebbesmeyer writes, We must develop networks, which remain vigilant to collect
this flotsam. See Ebbesmeyer, Using Flotsam to Study Ocean Currents. This is some-
thing Ebbesmeyer has also supported through the efforts of Beachcombers Alert, http://
www.beachcombersalert.org.
39. Dohan and Maximenko, Monitoring Ocean Currents with Satellite Sensors; Inter-
national Pacific Research Center, Tracking Ocean Debris; SEA-MDI, Want to Track
Marine Debris?
40. Marine Traffic; Thingful.
41. Interagency Ocean Observation Committee.
42. Gillis, In the Ocean, Clues to Change.
43. Helmreich, Intimate Sensing, 148.
44. UK Argo, Deep Profile Floats.
45. Takada, International Pellet Watch.
46. Lauro et al., The Common Oceanographer; Smerdon, Manning, and Paull, Crowd-
sourcing Coastal Oceanographic Data.
47. Protei; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Marine Debris
Monitoring and Assessment Project.
48. WayDownSouth, Adopt an Argo Float. The Google Earth Argo Application is
available at http://argo.jcommops.org/argo.kml. See also EU-Argo RI, Deployed Floats.
49. Marine Debris Tracker.
50. Schupska, UGAs Marine Debris Tracker Named.
51. Ibid.
52. Llanos, Average Joe as Oceanographer?
53. Maximenko, Hafner, and Niiler, Pathways of Marine Debris.
54. Lumpkin and Pazos, Measuring Surface Currents with Surface Velocity Program
Drifters.
55. Newsroom UNSW, Our Plastics Will Pollute Oceans for Hundreds of Years.
56. Dohan and Maximenko, Monitoring Ocean Currents with Satellite Sensors; Lebre-
ton, Greer, and Borrero, Numerical Modeling; Maximenko, Hafner, and Niiler, Pathways
of Marine Debris.
57. Sebille, England, and Froyland, Origin, Dynamics, and Evolution.
58. Lumpkin, Maximenko, and Pazos, Evaluating Where and Why Drifters Die.
 Notes to Chapter 6 / 295

59. U.S. EPA, Marine Debris in the North Pacific.

60. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 110.
61. Ibid.
62. Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 223.
63. Ibid., 158.
64. James, Pragmatism, 12764.
65. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 103, 105.
66. Ibid., 21415.
67. Gabrys, Plastic.
68. Helmreich, Nature/Culture/Seawater; Stengers, A Constructivist Reading of
Process and Reality.
69. Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas, 176.
70. Shaviro, Without Criteria, 47. See also Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas, 176.
71. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 88.
72. Stengers, A Constructivist Reading of Process and Reality, 96.
73. Barthes, Plastic, 97.
74. Bensaude-Vincent et al., Matters of Interest.
75. Haraway, When Species Meet, 8893; Barad, Meeting the Universe Halfway, 39093.
76. Stengers, Including Nonhumans in Political Theory.

6. SENSING AIR AND CREATURING DATA

1. While all of these pollutants affect cardiovascular and pulmonary health, particulate
matter (PM) is of particular concern. As the World Health Organization (WHO) notes in a
fact sheet on air quality, PM affects more people than any other pollutant. The major com-
ponents of PM are sulfate, nitrates, ammonia, sodium chloride, carbon, mineral dust and
water. It consists of a complex mixture of solid and liquid particles of organic and inorganic
substances suspended in the air. The particles are identified according to their aerodynamic
diameter, as either PM (particles with an aerodynamic diameter smaller than 10 m) or PM
(aerodynamic diameter smaller than 2.5 m). The latter are more dangerous since, when
inhaled, they may reach the peripheral regions of the bronchioles, and interfere with gas
exchange inside the lungs. See WHO, Ambient (Outdoor) Air Quality.
2. London Air Quality Network (LAQN).
3. The EU air quality objective (2008) indicates that there should be no more than 40
m/m3 of NO2 per year. The New Cross Road station (in the borough of Lewisham)
recorded 51 m/m3 of NO2 in 2013. See the London Air Quality Network (LAQN); Euro-
pean Commission, Air Quality Standards.
4. Preemptive Media, Areas Immediate Reading.
5. Safecast.
6. Aoki et al., A Vehicle for Research; Create Lab, Speck; AirCasting. One DIY-
guide oriented toward air pollution sensing is Di Justo and Gertz, Atmospheric Monitoring
with Arduino. Also see ongoing work in the Citizen Sense project in the area of monitoring
air pollution.
7. U.S. EPA, Draft Roadmap, 2. See also Snyder et al., The Changing Paradigm.
8. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 22.
9. Ibid., 7, 16.
296 / Notes to Chapter 6

10. This notion of experience as constructive functioning has been discussed by White-
head, Process and Reality, 156, and is taken up further by Shaviro in Without Criteria, 48.
11. Whitehead, Modes of Thought, 114.
12. The U.S. EPA list on Toxic Air Pollutants includes 187 hazardous air pollutants,
including benzene, dioxin, mercury, and toluene. Some of these substances are carcino-
genic, while others can cause serious health effects ranging from respiratory disease, birth
defects, and even death. Very few of these substances are monitored regularly at air quality
monitoring stations.
13. U.S. EPA, What Are the Six Common Air Pollutants?
14. UK Clean Air Act; U.S. EPA, Clean Air Act; European Commission, Directive
2008/50/EC.
15. For example, see Choy, Ecologies of Comparison, 13968.
16. For established limits for common pollutants, see the U.S. AirNow Air Quality
Index; European Commission, Air Quality Standards. For a discussion of the ways in
which legal disputes become entangled in establishing both the matters of fact and concern
of air pollution, see Jasanoff, Thin Air. For a discussion on how exposure and harm
become increasingly difficult to link within newer regimes of chemical living, particularly
in relation to indoor air quality, see Murphy, Sick Building Syndrome.
17. Ambient PM pollution contributes to 3.2 million deaths annually, and there are
increasing levels of heart disease, lung cancer, and cardiopulmonary disease in association
with PM 2.5 exposure. See Lim et al., A Comparative Risk Assessment. The WHO sug-
gests that exposure to air pollutants is largely beyond the control of individuals and requires
action by public authorities at the national, regional, and even international levels. See
WHO, Ambient (Outdoor) Air Quality.
18. Air pollution is increasingly as much a rural environmental problem as an urban
one. See Citizen Sense for project work on air pollution and fracking.
19. Bickerstaff and Walker, The Place(s) of Matter; Whitehead, State Science and the
Skies; Irwin, Citizen Science.
20. Global Community Monitor. See also Ottinger, Buckets of Resistance.
21. Lidskog and Sundqvist, Governing the Air.
22. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 203; Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 259.
23. U.S. EPA, Draft Roadmap, 25.
24. Gabrys, Pritchard, and Barratt, Just Good Enough Data.
25. Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 16364, 518.
26. Ibid., 252.
27. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 11.
28. Ibid., 203; Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 259.
29. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 20.
30. As Whitehead notes, The data upon which the subject passes judgment are them-
selves components conditioning the character of the judging subject. It follows that any
presupposition as to the character of the experiencing subject also implies a general presup-
position as to the social environment providing the display for that subject. In other words,
a species of subject requires a species of data as its preliminary phase of concrescence. . . .
The species of data requisite for the presumed judging subject presupposes an environment
of a certain social character. Ibid., 203.
31. Ibid., 20.
 Notes to Chapter 6 / 297

32. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 233; Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 275.
33. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 155.
34. Ibid., 15358. As Whitehead notes, the subjectivist principle assumes the datum in
the act of experience can be adequately analyzed purely in terms of universals; and the
sensationalist principle assumes the bare subjective entertainment of the datum, devoid
of any subjective form of reception. Instead, the philosophy of organism inverts this analy-
sis where there are not objects for knowledge, but rather there are subjects with experi-
ence. Ibid., 15657.
35. Ibid., 68.
36. For example, see ibid., 219.
37. Bowker, Memory Practices in the Sciences; Barry, Motor Ecology; Whitehead, State
Science and the Skies; Stengers, The Invention of Modern Science.
38. Bureau of Inverse Technology (BIT), Feral Robot Engineering.
39. Jeremijenko, Feral Robotic Dogs.
40. Lane et al. Public Authoring & Feral Robotics.
41. As mentioned in the introduction to Program Earth, these links between information
and action are described as shorter circuits that enable greater participation. See Bratton
and Jeremijenko, Suspicious Images, Latent Interfaces.
42. Costa, Reaching the Limits; Costa, Pigeon Blog.
43. Costa, Pigeon Blog.
44. Preemptive Media, Areas Immediate Reading.
45. Costa, Reaching the Limits, 377.
46. Ibid., 379.
47. Braidotti, Transpositions.
48. Air Quality Egg, http://www.airqualityegg.com.
49. DiSalvo et al., Towards a Public Rhetoric through Participatory Design.
50. For a more extensive discussion of the political economies of participation and
maker communities in relation to DIY sensing technologies, see Gabrys, Pritchard, and
Calvillo, Making DIY Air Quality Sensors.
51. Aoki et al., Common Sense.
52. ClientEarth, Supreme Court Rules UK Government Is Breaking Air Pollution
Laws.
53. Cf. Shaviros discussion of ethics as unfolding first through aesthetic and affective
registers in The Universe of Things.
54. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 20.
55. Ibid., 23. Whitehead defines ingression as the particular mode in which the potenti-
ality of an eternal object is realized in a particular actual entity, contributing to the definite-
ness of that actual entity. Eternal objects, never actual, are figures of pure potential that
ingress within actual entities. Eternal objects are then an expression of potential, which
nevertheless requires entities to become concrete.
56. Cohen, Challenges and Benefits of Backyard Science.
57. Whitehead, Science and the Modern World, 200; Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead,
12630.
58. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 1213; Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 265.
59. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 88.
60. See Bowker, Biodiversity Datadiversity; and Gitelman, Raw Data Is an Oxymoron.
298 / Notes to Chapter 7

7. CITIZEN SENSING IN THE SMART AND SUSTAINABLE CITY

1. For example, see Archigram, A Guide to Archigram; Forrester, Urban Dynamics.
2. A wide range of studies in this area include Batty, The Computable City; Castells,
The Informational City; Droege, Intelligent Environments; Gabrys, Cit Multimedia; Graham
and Marvin, Splintering Urbanism; Mitchell, City of Bits.
3. Massumi, National Enterprise Emergency, 155; Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics, 261.
4. Cisco, Smart + Connected Communities.
5. A study could be written just on the role of white papers within smart city develop-
ments. Crafted by industry, universities, and governmental agencies, smart city white papers
appear to be a key way in which the imaginings and implementation of these urban devel-
opments circulate. The circulation of policy as discussed by Jennifer Robinson is part of
the way in which cities accumulate multilocated elsewheres within projects of urban
imagining. See Robinson, The Spaces of Circulating Knowledge. The documents drafted
in support of the Connected Urban Development project are similarly informed by multi-
ple white papers, including Zhen et al., Cities in Action for Climate Change, which was
developed by Cisco, Metropolis, and Connected Urban Development, and gathers together
details of eco-actions by and for cities around the world.
6. Foucault, The Confession of the Flesh.
7. Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics.
8. Allwinkle and Cruickshank, Creating Smart-er Cities; European Commission,
Green Digital Charter.
9. Lovink, The Digital City; Sassen, Global Networks, Linked Cities.
10. Ellison, Burrows, and Parker, Urban Informatics; Galloway, Intimations of Every-
day Life; Graham, The Cybercities Reader.
11. Elfrink (for Cisco), Intelligent Urbanization.
12. Harrison and Abbott Donnelly (for IBM), A Theory of Smart Cities.
13. Townsend et al., A Planet of Civic Laboratories, 4.
14. Hollands, Will the Real Smart City Please Stand Up?
15. Mackenzie, Wirelessness.
16. Borden and Greenfield, You Are the Smart City.
17. Fuller and Haque, Urban Versioning System; Greenfield and Shepard, Urban
Computing and Its Discontents.
18. Foucault, The Politics of Truth, 4445.
19. Foucault, Security, Territory, Population, 2223; Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics, 259
61.
20. Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics, 260.
21. Foucault, La naissance de la biopolitique; Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics.
22. Agrawal, Environmentality.
23. Luke, Environmentality as Green Governmentality.
24. While the English version of this passage in The Birth of Biopolitics translates this
term as environmentalism, in the French original Foucault uses the term environnementa-
lit, which is much closer to conveying the sensing of governmentality distributed through
environments, rather than a social movement oriented toward environmental issues. See
Foucault, La naissance de la biopolitique, 266; Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics, 261.
25. Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics, 259.
 Notes to Chapter 7 / 299

26. For example, see Anker, The Closed World of Ecological Architecture; Banham,
Architecture of the Well-Tempered Environment.
27. Massumi, National Enterprise Emergency.
28. Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 24445.
29. Ibid., 23945.
30. Revel, Identity, Nature, Life, 4952.
31. See Agamben, Homo Sacer.
32. Hayles, RFID.
33. Foucault, The Confession of the Flesh, 194.
34. Ibid., 19495; Agamben, What Is an Apparatus?
35. Mitchell and Casalegno, Connected Sustainable Cities.
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid., 97.
38. Ibid., 2.
39. Ibid., 5859.
40. Deleuze, Negotiations, 97.
41. Mitchell and Casalegno, Connected Sustainable Cities, 98.
42. Gabrys, Telepathically Urban, 58 and 5059 passim.
43. Mitchell, Me++.
44. Weiser, The Computer for the 21st Century.
45. Gabrys, Automatic Sensation; Hayles, RFID.
46. Haraway, Simians, Cyborgs and Women; see also Taylor, Technocratic Optimism.
47. Graham, Software-Sorted Geographies; Kitchin and Dodge, Code/Space; Thrift
and French, The Automatic Production of Space.
48. Gabrys, Digital Rubbish; Kittler, There Is No Software.
49. Mackenzie, The Performativity of Code, 88.
50. Mitchell and Casalegno, Connected Sustainable Cities, 56.
51. Gabrys, Digital Rubbish.
52. Mackenzie, Wirelessness.
53. Connected Urban Development.
54. Ibid.
55. Mitchell and Casalegno, Connected Sustainable Cities, 102.
56. Ibid., 8991.
57. Ibid., 2.
58. Mitchell and Casalegno, Connected Sustainable Cities, 101.
59. Townsend et al., A Planet of Civic Laboratories.
60. Barney, Politics and Emerging Media. See also Couldry and Powell, Big Data
from the Bottom Up.
61. Mitchell and Casalegno, Connected Sustainable Cities, 98.
62. Deleuze, Negotiations, 182.
63. Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics, 261.
64. For example, see Wiener, Cybernetics.
65. Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics, 24647.
66. Ibid., 252.
67. For example, see European Commission, Report of the Meeting of Advisory
Group.
300 / Notes to Chapter 7

68. Deleuze, Negotiations, 83118.

69. Foucault, Intellectuals and Power, 207.

8. ENGAGING THE IDIOT IN PARTICIPATORY DIGITAL URBANISM

1. SeeClickFix; FixMyStreet.
2. This approach, where computation provides a universal language for addressing
problems, can be found in early writings on computing, from Leibniz on to Turing. In The
Universal Computer, Davis describes Leibnizs dream to achieve a universal means of calcu-
lating problems, where even war could be addressed and solved through computation.
This classic propensity of computation has been updated and brought into a critical space
of analysis in numerous works, not least of which is Morozovs popular text, To Save Every-
thing, Click Here. This chapter (as well as the whole of this section on Urban Sensing) is
situated in relation to both longer-standing approaches to and more recent critiques of
computation as a universal means for solving problems.
3. Stengers, The Cosmopolitical Proposal.
4. Ibid., 994.
5. Ibid., 995.
6. Ibid.
7. As Mike Michael writes, The idiot is as much a process as a figure. See Michael,
What Are We Busy Doing?
8. Ibid. For a related discussion of the idiot in relation to twitter, see Hawkins, Enact-
ing Public Value.
9. For example, see Goriunova, New Media Idiocy.
10. For example, see Canadian Centre for Architecture (CCA), Actions; Spontaneous Inter-
ventions; Latelier darchitecture autogre; Petrescu, Petcou, and Awan, Trans-Local-Act;
Public Works; Awan, Schneider, and Till, Spatial Agency.
11. For example, see Lydon et al., Tactical Urbanism, Volume 2; Ferguson and Urban Drift
Projects., Make_Shift City.
12. Code for America; Code For Europe; Adopt-a-Hydrant; Adopt-a-Siren; Adopt-a-
Drain.
13. Pahlka, Coding a Better Government.
14. Ibid.
15. Bell, Its Appy Hour!
16. Ibid.
17. Hern, Seven Urban Apps.
18. Bell, Its Appy Hour! It bears mentioning that Nesta also provide a summary on
how their predictions came to fare, and the civic apps prediction was noted as a slightly
disappointing sector, in that there was neither the explosion in civic apps nor the joining up
of these apps to public services in ways that would make them as effective as anticipated.
They reflect, Closer integration of apps with the work of public service providers could
help to see more scale, and notably, significant cost savings for cities and their citizens. Local
government is traditionally a slow adopter and therefore moving from small experiments to
genuine scale is always a challenge. A recurring narrative in many smart city and digital
participation initiatives is that it is the slowness and disjointedness of local government that
prevents these projects from having the effect they might otherwise have. See Nesta, 2013
Predictions.
 Notes to Chapter 8 / 301

19. Mejias, Off the Network, 6.

20. There is an extensive and advanced set of literatures that take up issues of digital
participation and (free) labor. While there is not room here to discuss this topic, see, for
example, Scholz, Digital Labor.
21. Goldman et al., Participatory Sensing.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid., 14. Emphasis in original.
24. Bell, Its Appy Hour!
25. Andrejevic, Nothing Comes between Me and My CPU, 1012.
26. Scholz, What the MySpace Generation Should Know.
27. Stengers, The Cosmopolitical Proposal, 995.
28. As cited in Davis, The Universal Computer, 17.
29. For two examples of urban science initiatives, see City Science; Center for Urban
Science + Progress.
30. Fuller and Goffey, Digital Infrastructures, 317.
31. As Anderson and Pold write, The city dweller may implement, experience, and use
urban scripts, but what happens when she is not satisfied with the foundation of participa-
tion in urban public life, the scripts themselves? This experience is a call for action where the
city dwellers take control of the urban scripts and become writerly by creating, hacking,
and rewriting the city. See The Scripted Spaces.
32. Sassen, Open Source Urbanism.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid.
35. For example, see Frasers critique of Habermas in Rethinking the Public Sphere.
36. See Davis, Hacking as a Civic Duty; alternatively, Cox, Speaking Code.
37. Gray Area Foundation for the Arts, Urban Prototyping Festival.
38. Ibid.
39. Sustainable Society Network, UP London-2013.
40. Urban Prototyping London, Festival Showcase.
41. Jimnez, The Right to Infrastructure.
42. TechniCity, Coursera.
43. Deleuze, Negotiations, 179
44. See Arnstein, A Ladder of Citizen Participation.
45. Stengers, The Cosmopolitical Proposal, 996.
46. Ibid.
47. Deleuze, Negotiations, 17980.
48. Ibid., 18182.
49. Anderson and Pold, The Scripted Spaces.
50. Latour, Pandoras Hope; Akrich, The De-Scription of Technical Objects.
51. Suchman, Human-Machine Reconfigurations.
52. Andrejevic, Nothing Comes between Me and My CPU, 102.
53. TechniCity. Coursera.
54. Deleuze and Guattari, What Is Philosophy, 6162.
55. TechniCity. Coursera.
56. Mackenzie, Transductions.
57. Stengers, The Cosmopolitical Proposal, 1000.
302 / Notes to Chapter 8

58. mySociety.
59. See FillThatHole; Citizens Connect.
60. FixMyStreet, Abandoned Christmas Tree.
61. FixMyStreet, Council Worker Mowing Rubbish!
62. FixMyStreet, Rubbish.
63. IBM ResearchBrazil, Citizen Sensing for Smarter Cities.
64. For representative examples of literature that attends to social media, digital media,
and capacities of political engagement, see Boler, Digital Media and Democracy; Dean, Democ-
racy and Other Neoliberal Fantasies.
65. For example, see Terranova, Network Culture; Castells, Networks of Outrage and Hope;
Rossiter, Organized Networks.
66. Fish et al., Birds of the Internet.
67. Barney, Politics and Emerging Media.
68. Ratto and Boler, DIY Citizenship.
69. Iveson, Mobile Media, 56.
70. For one example, see Townsend, Smart Cities.
71. See Spontaneous Interventions; PetaJarkata; Korsgaard and Brynskov, Prototyping a
Smart City; Cox, Support of Antisocial Notworking.
72. For a discussion of versioning in relation to cities, see Fuller and Haque, Urban
Versioning System.
73. The ABC of Tactical Media, a manifesto written by David Garcia and Geert
Lovink, states, Tactical Media are what happens when the cheap do it yourself media,
made possible by the revolution in consumer electronics and expanded forms of distribu-
tion (from public access cable to the internet) are exploited by groups and individuals who
feel aggrieved by or excluded from the wider culture. Tactical media do not just report
events, as they are never impartial they always participate and it is this that more than any-
thing separates them from mainstream media.
74. Raley, Tactical Media, 2829. See also Lovink and Rossiter, Dawn of the Organized
Networks.
75. Ibid. Raley draws here on Virnos discussion of virtuosity in Grammar of the Multi-
tude (and Virno, in his thinking on collectives, is in turn influenced by Simondon).
76. Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 17.
77. Stengers, The Cosmopolitical Proposal, 996.
78. Ibid., 998.

9. DIGITAL INFRASTR UCTURES OF WITHNESS

1. Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 1214; Lamarre, Afterword, 9294.
2. This is an interesting point of contrast with Whitehead, who suggests that concres-
cences are a less indeterminate actual entity or actual occasion. Yet with his focus on tech-
nology, Simondon draws out the ways in which technical objects may actually give rise
to conditions of indeterminateness. In addition to the above, see Simondon, Du mode
dexistence; Simondon, Technical Mentality; Whitehead, Process and Reality, 150.
3. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 81.
4. Stengers, The Cosmopolitical Proposal, 996.
5. See Graham, Disrupted Cities; and Bennett, The Agency of Assemblages.
 Notes to Chapter 9 / 303

6. Boyle, Yates, and Yeatman, Urban Sensor Data Streams; Cambridge Centre for
Smart Infrastructure and Construction, Annual Review 2014; Turgeman, Alm, and Ratti,
Smart Toilets.
7. Boyle, Yates, and Yeatman, Urban Sensor Data Streams.
8. Greater London Authority, Locations of TfL Street Cameras.
9. Ungerleider, The London Underground; Microsoft, Internet of Things.
10. Cambridge Centre for Smart Infrastructure and Construction (CSIC), Annual
Review 2014.
11. City of Westminster, Parking Bay Sensors.
12. Living PlanIT.
13. Environment Agency, River and Sea Levels.
14. Environment Agency, Air Pollution.
15. Monitrain, Condition Monitoring Protects Londons Thames Barrier.
16. Skyview, London Eye; Observator Instruments, Wind Monitoring and Alarm
System; London Eye, Systems and Controls.
17. Met Office, Weather Stations; Met Office, Weather Observations Website.
18. Boyle, Yates, and Yeatman, Urban Sensor Data Streams.
19. Living PlanIT. The London City Airport project is in part supported by the Technol-
ogy Strategy Board (TSB).
20. Future Cities Catapult, Sensing London.
21. Greater London Authority, Smart London Vision; Greater London Authority,
Smart London Plan; Future Cities Catapult, Sensing London. The TSB is a UK
government-funded body.
22. Greater London Authority, Smart London Plan, 3.
23. Boyle, Yates, and Yeatman, Urban Sensor Data Streams, 19. As these authors write,
Santander was deemed the smartest city in Europe largely due to the thousands of
sensorsmonitoring parking and environmental conditionsdeployed as part of a city-
scale experiment to prototype typical ICT applications and services that might be found in
a future smart city (www.smartsantander.eu). The experiment uses a tiered network infra-
structure comprised of thousands of IEEE 802.15.4-enabled sensor nodes, mostly Wasp
motes. The Spanish company Libelium (www.libelium.com) produces the devices, target-
ing embedded monitoring and control systems at the IoT-enabled smart city market.
24. For a discussion of Songdo, see Halpern et al., Test Bed Urbanism.
25. Singer, Mission Control, Built for Cities.
26. TechCentral.ie. Dublin to Become First Fully Sensored City.
27. IBM, Smarter Cities Challenge.
28. Siemens, The Crystal.
29. Greater London Authority, Royal Albert Dock; Royal Docks; Royal Albert Dock
London.
30. In addition to Site IQ, the security system included access cards, an overall security
system that automatically armed itself between 10 pm and 6 am, and CCTV cameras. Site
IQs pattern recognition was such that it could discern between a fox, which it would not
track, and a human, which it would track. See Siemens, Siveillance SiteIQ.
31. Miranda and Powell, Our Urban Future.
32. Ibid.
33. Ibid., 10.
304 / Notes to Chapter 9

34. Ibid., 18.

35. Ibid.
36. Siemens, Creating Cities.
37. Miranda and Powell, Our Urban Future, 22.
38. Wiener, The Human Use of Human Beings, 2225.
39. Sustainable Society Network, UP London 2013.
40. This logic fits with James Benigers classic description of the cycle of communica-
tion technologies developed to control conditions of overload, while also contributing to
new conditions of information overload. See Beniger, The Control Revolution.
41. Boyle, Yates, and Yeatman, Urban Sensor Data Streams, 1920.
42. Kranenburg, The Internet of Things.
43. Wiener, Cybernetics, 5.
44. See CityDashboard. http://citydashboard.org/london.
45. Easterling, The Action Is the Form, 155.
46. Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 15.
47. Simondon, Du mode dexistence, 15.
48. Wiener, Human Use of Human Beings, 2227.
49. Simondon, Du mode dexistence, 13.
50. Simone, Infrastructure.
51. Simone, People as Infrastructure, 407.
52. Mackenzie, Wirelessness, 49.
53. Ibid., 96.
54. Ibid., 56.
55. Graham, Disrupted Cities, 8.
56. Simone, Cities of Uncertainty.
57. Weiser, The Computer for the 21st Century, 94.
58. Ibid., 98.
59. Ibid., 94.
60. Ibid., 99.
61. Ibid., 102.
62. Simondon, Du mode dexistence, 55.
63. Ibid.
64. Mackenzie, Wirelessness, 20. On withness, see also Munster, An Aesthesia of Networks.
65. James, Pragmatism, 69. James also suggests that ordinary empiricism over-emphasizes
withness, whereas his proposal for radical empiricism he considered to be fair to both
the unity and the disconnection of experience. See James, Radical Empiricism, 47.
66. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 6264, 73, 81.
67. Ibid., 80.
68. Ibid., 79.
69. Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas, 6986.
70. Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 16163; cf. Debaise, A Philosophy of Interstices,
108.
71. Foucault, The Politics of Truth, 4445.
72. Miranda and Powell, Our Urban Future.
73. Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 22, 273. Stengers cites Whitehead, Process and
Reality, 4.
 Notes to Conclusion / 305

CONCLUSION
1. Guattari, Schizoanalytic Cartographies, 513.
2. Ibid., 1112
3. Weiser, The Computer for the 21st Century, 104.
4. Simondon, Du mode dexistence, 15; Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 19092.
5. Massumi, Semblance and Event, 173.
6. Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 67; Simondon, Du mode dexistence, 221.
7. Canguilhem, Knowledge of Life, 113. Cf. Braun, Environmental Issues.
8. Whitehead, Process and Reality, 9.
9. Ibid., 35, 42. See also Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 18.
10. Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 19.
11. Jasanoff, Technologies of Humility.
12. Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead.
13. Simondon, Technical Mentality.
14. Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 17.
15. Ibid.
16. Whitehead, Modes of Thought, 49.
17. Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 213.
18. Combes, Gilbert Simondon, 6465; Stengers, Thinking with Whitehead, 164.
This page intentionally left blank
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adopt-a-Drain. http://adoptadrainoakland.com.
Adopt-a-Hydrant. http://www.adoptahydrant.org.
Adopt-a-Siren. http://sirens.honolulu.gov.
Agamben, Giorgio. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Translated by Daniel Heller-
Roazen. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1998.
. What Is an Apparatus? Translated by David Kishik and Stefan Pedatella. Stanford,
Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2009.
Agrawal, Arun. Environmentality: Technologies of Government and the Making of Subjects. Dur-
ham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2005.
AirCasting. http://aircasting.org.
AirNow. Air Quality Index. http://airnow.gov.
Air Quality Egg. http://www.airqualityegg.com.
Akrich, Madeline. The De-Scription of Technical Objects. In Shaping Technology / Building
Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, edited by Wiebe E. Bijker and John Law, 20524.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1992.
Akyildiz, Ian F., Weilian Su, Yogesh Sankarasubramaniam, and Erdal Cayirci. A Survey on
Sensor Networks. IEEE Communications Magazine (August 2002): 10214.
Allan, Blake M., John P. Y. Arnould, Jennifer K. Martin, and Euan G. Ritchie. A Cost-
Effective and Informative Method of GPS Tracking Wildlife. Wildlife Research 40, no. 5
(2013): 34548.
Allsopp, Michelle, Adam Walters, David Santillo, and Paul Johnston. Plastic Debris in the
Worlds Oceans. Amsterdam: Greenpeace International, 2006. http://www.greenpeace
.org/international/en/publications/reports/plastic_ocean_report.
Allwinkle, Sam, and Peter Cruickshank. Creating Smart-er Cities: An Overview. Journal of
Urban Technology 18 (2011): 116.
Amezian, Mohamed, and Rachid El Khamlichi. White Stork Satellite-Tracked by German
Ornithologists Found Dead South of Tangier. Moroccan Birds (blog). December 11, 2013.
http://moroccanbirds.blogspot.com/2013/12/satellite-tracked-white-stork-dead.html.

307
308 / Bibliography

Anderson, Christian Ulrik, and Sren Pold. The Scripted Spaces of Urban Ubiquitous
Computing: The Experience, Poetics, and Politics of Public Scripted Space. Fibreculture
19 (2011): 11025.
Andrady, Anthony L. Microplastics in the Marine Environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin
62, no. 8 (2011): 1569605.
Andrejevic, Mark. Nothing Comes between Me and My CPU: Smart Clothes and Ubiqui-
tous Computing. Theory, Culture & Society 22, no. 3 ( June 2005): 11019.
. The Webcam Subculture and the Digital Enclosure. In Mediaspace: Place, Scale,
and Culture in a Media Age, edited by Anna McCarthy and Nick Couldry, 193208. Lon-
don: Routledge, 2004.
Anisimov, O. A., D. G. Vaughan, T. V. Callaghan, C. Furgal, H. Marchant, T. D. Prowse,
H. Vilhjlmsson, and J. E. Walsh. Polar Regions (Arctic and Antarctic). In Climate
Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by M. L.
Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, and C. E. Hanson, 65385. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Anker, Peter. The Closed World of Ecological Architecture. Journal of Architecture 10
(2005): 52752.
Aoki, Paul M., R. J. Honicky, Alan Mainwaring, Chris Myers, Eric Paulos, Sushmita Sub-
ramanian, and Allison Woodruff. Common Sense: Mobile Environmental Sensing
Platforms to Support Community Action and Citizen Science. In Adjunct Proceedings
UbiComp 2008, 5960. Seoul: ACM, 2008.
.A Vehicle for Research: Using Street Sweepers to Explore the Landscape of Envi-
ronmental Community Action. In CHI 09: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems, 37584. New York: ACM, 2009.
Archigram. A Guide to Archigram, 196174. London: Academy Editions, 1994.
Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP). Assessment 2009: Radioactivity in the
Arctic. Oslo: AMAP, 2010.
. Report 2010. Oslo: AMAP: 2010.
Arctic Perspective Initiative. http://arcticperspective.org.
Arctic Tern Migration Project. http://www.arctictern.info.
Argos. http://www.argos-system.org.
Arnstein, Sherry. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Planning Asso-
ciation 35, no. 4 ( July 1969): 21624.
Arthur, Charles. Smartphone Explosion in 2014 Will See Ownership in India Pass US.
Guardian. January 13, 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/13/
smartphone-explosion-2014-india-us-china-firefoxos-android.
Arthur, Courtney, Joel Baker, and Holly Bamford, eds. Proceedings of the International Research
Workshop on the Occurrence, Effects and Fate of Microplastic Marine Debris. Silver Spring,
Md.: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. January 2009.
Atlas of Community-Based Monitoring in a Changing Arctic. http://www.arcticcbm.org/
index.html.
Aubin, David, Charlotte Bigg, and Otto Sibum, eds. The Heavens on Earth: Observatories
and Astronomy in Nineteenth Century Science and Culture. Durham, N.C.: Duke University
Press, 2010.
 Bibliography / 309

Awan, Nishat, Tatjana Schneider, and Jeremy Till. Spatial Agency: Other Ways of Doing Archi-
tecture. London: Routledge, 2011.
Banham, Reyner. Architecture of the Well-Tempered Environment: Theory and Design in the First
Machine Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984.
Barad, Karen. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter
and Meaning. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2007.
. Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to
Matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28, no. 3 (2003): 80131.
Barnes, David K. A., Francois Galgani, Richard C. Thompson, and Morton Barlaz. Accu-
mulation and Fragmentation of Plastic Debris in Global Environments. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364, no. 1526 (2009): 198598.
Barney, Darin. Politics and Emerging Media: The Revenge of Publicity. Global Media Jour-
nal 1 (2008): 89106.
Barry, Andrew. Motor Ecology: The Political Chemistry of Urban Air. Critical Urban
Studies: Occasional Papers. London: Centre for Urban and Community Research at
Goldsmiths College, 1998.
Barthes, Roland. Plastic. In Mythologies, translated by Annette Lavers, 9799. 1957. Reprint,
New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1972.
Bateson, Gregory. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972.
Batty, Michael. The Computable City. International Planning Studies 2 (1995): 15573.
Bauer, Chris. Tagging Pacific Predators. Video Story for QUEST Northern California.
May 20, 2008. http://science.kqed.org/quest/video/tagging-pacific-predators.
BBC England. Webcams: Animals. http://www.bbc.co.uk/england/webcams/animals/.
BBC News. Secret Life of the Cat: What Do Our Feline Companions Get Up To? http://
www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22567526.
Bell, Haidee. Its Appy Hour! Nesta. http://www.nesta.org.uk/news/13-predictions-2013/
its-appy-hour.
Bellacasa, Mara Puig de la. Touching Technologies, Touching Visions: The Reclaiming
of Sensorial Experience and the Politics of Speculative Thinking. Subjectivity 28 (2009):
297315.
Beniger, James R. The Control Revolution: Technological and Economic Origins of the Information
Society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989.
Benjamin, David, Soo-In Yang, and Natalie Jeremijenko. New Interaction Partners for
Environmental Governance. In Sentient City: Ubiquitous Computing, Architecture and the
Future of Urban Space, edited by Mark Shepard, 4863. New York: Architectural League
of New York, 2011.
Bennett, Jane. The Agency of Assemblages and the North American Blackout. Public Cul-
ture 17, no. 3 (Fall 2005): 44565.
Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette, Sacha Loeve, Alfred Nordmann, and Astrid Schwarz. Mat-
ters of Interest: The Objects of Research in Science and Technoscience. Journal for
General Philosophical Science 42, no. 2 (2011): 36583.
Benson, Etienne. One Infrastructure, Many Global Visions: The Commercialization and
Diversification of Argos, a Satellite-Based Environmental Surveillance System. Social
Studies of Science 42, no. 6 (2012): 84368.
. Wired Wilderness: Technologies of Tracking and the Making of Modern Wildlife. Balti-
more, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010.
310 / Bibliography

Berkeley, Edmund C. Edmund C. Berkeley Papers (19231988). University of Minnesota

Libraries. Charles Babbage Institute.
Bickerstaff, Karen, and Gordon Walker. The Place(s) of Matter: Matter out of Place
Public Understandings of Air Pollution. Progress in Human Geography 27, no. 1 (2003):
4567.
BirdsEye Tools for Birders. BirdLog North America. http://www.birdseyebirding.com.
Biuw, Martin, Lars Boehme, Christophe Guinet, Mark Hindell, Daniel Costa, Jean-Benot
Charrassin, Fabien Roquet, Frdric Bailleul, Michael Meredith, Sally Thorpe, Yann
Tremblay, Birgitte McDonald, Young-Hyang Park, Stephen R. Rintoul, Nathaniel Bind-
off, Michael Goebel, Daniel Crocker, Phil Lovell, J. Nicholson, F. Monks, and Michael A.
Fedak. Variations in Behavior and Condition of a Southern Ocean Top Predator in
Relation to In Situ Oceanographic Conditions. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 104, no. 34 (August 21, 2007): 1370510.
Block, Barbara A., Ian D. Jonsen, Salvador J. Jorgensen, Arliss J.Winship, Scott A. Shaffer,
Steven J. Bograd, Elliott Lee Hazen, David G. Foley, G. A. Breed, A.-L. Harrison, James
E. Ganong, Alan Swithenbank, Michael Castleton, Heidi Dewar, Bruce R. Mate, George
L. Shillinger, K. M. Schaefer, Scott R. Benson, Michael J. Weise, Robert W. Henry, and
Daniel P. Costa. Tracking Apex Marine Predator Movements in a Dynamic Ocean.
Nature 475 ( July 7, 2011): 8690.
Boerger, Christiana M., Gwendolyn L. Lattin, Shelly L. Moore, and Charles J. Moore. Plas-
tic Ingestion by Planktivorous Fishes in the North Pacific Central Gyre. Marine Pollu-
tion Bulletin 60, no. 12 (2010): 227578.
Boler, Megan, ed. Digital Media and Democracy: Tactics in Hard Times. Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press, 2008.
Borden, Ed, and Adam Greenfield. You Are the Smart City. June 30, 2011. https://xively
logmein4.wpengine.com/blog/notes/you-are-the-smart-city.
Borgman, Christine L., Jillian C. Wallis, and Noel Enyedy. Little Science Confronts the
Data Deluge: Habitat Ecology, Embedded Sensor Networks, and Digital Libraries.
International Journal on Digital Libraries 7, no. 1 (2007): 1730.
Bowker, Geoffrey C. Biodiversity Datadiversity. Social Studies of Science 30, no. 5 (2000):
64383.
. How to Be Universal: Some Cybernetic Strategies, 19431970. Social Studies of Sci-
ence 23, no. 1 (1993): 10727.
. Memory Practices in the Sciences. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2005.
Boyle, David E., David C. Yates, and Eric M. Yeatman. Urban Sensor Data Streams. Inter-
net Computing, IEEE 17, no. 6 (2013): 1220.
Bradley, Joseph, Jeff Loucks, James Macaulay, and Andy Noronha. Internet of Everything
(IoE) Value Index. Cisco Whitepaper. 2013. http://internetofeverything.cisco.com/
sites/default/files/docs/en/ioe-value-index_Whitepaper.pdf.
Braidotti, Rosi. Transpositions: On Nomadic Ethics. Cambridge: Polity, 2006.
Bratton, Benjamin, and Natalie Jeremijenko. Suspicious Images, Latent Interfaces. In Situ-
ated Technologies Pamphlets 3. New York: Architectural League of New York, 2008.
Braun, Bruce. Environmental Issues: Inventive Life. Progress in Human Geography 32, no. 5
(2008): 66779.
Brigham-Grette, Julie, Martin Melles, Pavel Minyuk, Andrei Andreev, Pavel Tarasov, Robert
DeConto, Sebastian Koenig, Norbert Nowaczyk, Volker Wennrich, Peter Rosn, Eeva
 Bibliography / 311

Haltia, Tim Cook, Catalina Gebhardt, Carsten Meyer-Jacob, Jeff Snyder, Ulrike Herz-
schuh. Pliocene Warmth, Polar Amplification, and Stepped Pleistocene Cooling
Recorded in NE Arctic Russia. Science 340, no. 21 ( June 2013): 142127.
Brown, Danielle D., Roland Kays, Martin Wikelski, Rory Wilson, and A. Peter Klimley.
Observing the Unwatchable through Acceleration Logging of Animal Behavior. Ani-
mal Biotelemetry 1, no. 20 (2013): 116.
Bureau of Inverse Technology (BIT). Feral Robot Engineering. http://www.bureauit
.org/feral.
Burke, Jeff, Deborah Estrin, Mark Hansen, Andrew Parker, Nithya Ramanathan, Sasank
Reddy, and Mani B. Srivastava. Participatory Sensing. In Proceedings of the World Sensor
Web Workshop. Boulder, Colo.: ACM SENSYS, 2006.
Cambridge Centre for Smart Infrastructure and Construction (CSIC). Annual Review
2014. http://www-smartinfrastructure.eng.cam.ac.uk/news/20140327csicannualreview
2014released.
Canadian Centre for Architecture (CCA). Actions: What You Can Do with the City.
http://cca-actions.org.
Canguilhem, Georges. Knowledge of Life. Translated by Stefanos Geroulanos and Daniela
Ginsburg. 1965. Reprint, New York: Fordham University Press, 2008.
Carbon Monitoring for Action (CARMA). http://carma.org.
Carpenter, Edward J., and K. L. Smith Jr. Plastics on the Sargasso Sea Surface. Science 175,
no. 4027 (1972): 124041.
Castells, Manuel. The Informational City: Information Technology, Economic Restructuring, and
the Urban-Regional Process. Oxford: Blackwell, 1989.
. Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age. Cambridge: Polity,
2012.
Center for Embedded Network Sensing (CENS). University of California, Los Angeles.
http://research.cens.ucla.edu.
. Annual Progress Report. University of California, Los Angeles. April 30, 2010.
. Center for Embedded Networked Sensing. NSF Science and Technology Centers
proposal.
. Terrestrial Ecology Observing Systems. http://research.cens.ucla.edu/areas/
2007/Terrestrial/default.htm.
Center for Urban Science + Progress. http://cusp.nyu.edu.
Chan, Wilson. IPv6: Internet Protocol Version 6. http://www2.hawaii.edu/~esb/prof/
proj/ipv6/wilsonch/IPv6.html.
Choy, Tim. Ecologies of Comparison: An Ethnography of Endangerment in Hong Kong. Durham,
N.C.: Duke University Press, 2011.
Cisco. Internet of Everything. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M578lU2TGeI.
. Smart + Connected Communities. http://www.cisco.com/web/strategy/smart
_connected_communities.html.
Citizens Connect. http://www.cityof boston.gov/DoIT/apps/commonwealthconnect.asp.
Citizen Sense. http://citizensense.net.
CityDashboard. http://citydashboard.org/london.
City of Westminster. Parking Bay Sensors. https://www.westminster.gov.uk/parking-bay
-sensors.
City Science. http://cities.media.mit.edu.
312 / Bibliography

Clarke, Bruce. John Lilly, The Mind of the Dolphin, and Communication Out of Bounds.
communication +1 3, no. 1 (2014). http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1025&context=cpo.
ClientEarth. Supreme Court Rules UK Government Is Breaking Air Pollution Laws. May
1, 2013. http://www.clientearth.org/201305012170/news/press-releases/supreme-court
-rules-uk-government-is-breaking-air-pollution-laws-2170.
Clough, Patricia Ticineto. The New Empiricism: Affect and Sociological Method. Euro-
pean Journal of Social Theory 12, no. 1 (2009): 4361.
Code for America. http://codeforamerica.org.
Code for Europe. http://codeforeurope.net.
Coen, Deborah R. The Earthquake Observers: Disaster Science from Lisbon to Richter. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2013.
Cohen, Ronald C. Challenges and Benefits of Backyard Science. Sensing Change. Philadel-
phia, Pa.: Chemical Heritage Foundation. http://sensingchange.chemheritage.org/sen
sing-change/science/ronald-c-cohen.
Collier, Brian D., Chris Ray, and Shana Weber. The Pika Alarm. http://www.pikalarm.net.
Combes, Muriel. Gilbert Simondon and the Philosophy of the Transindividual. Translated by
Thomas Lamarre. 1999. Reprint, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2013.
Committee on Emerging Research Questions in the Arctic: Polar Research Board; Division
on Earth and Life Studies; National Research Council. The Arctic in the Anthropocene:
Emerging Research Questions. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2014.
Committee on Scientific Accomplishments of Earth Observations from Space, National
Research Council. Earth Observations from Space: The First 50 Years of Scientific Achieve-
ments. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2008.
Committee on Understanding and Monitoring Abrupt Climate Change and Its Impacts;
Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate; Division on Earth and Life Studies;
National Research Council. Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change: Anticipating Sur-
prises. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2013.
Connected Sustainable Cities. http://connectedsustainablecities.com.
Connected Urban Development. http://mobile.mit.edu/projects/connected-urban-develop
ment; https://web.archive.org/web/20130621085500/http://www.connectedurbandevel
opment.org.
. Connected Urban Development Visions from MITs Mobile Experience Lab.
Video. https://vimeo.com/6145800.
Cooke, Steven J. Biotelemetry and Biologging in Endangered Species Research and Animal
Conservation: Relevance to Regional, National, and IUCN Red List Threat Assess-
ments. Endangered Species Research 4 (2008): 16585.
Cooper, Caren B., Jennifer Shirk, and Benjamin Zuckerberg. The Invisible Prevalence of
Citizen Science in Global Research: Migratory Birds and Climate Change. PLoS One 9,
no. 9. (September 2014): e106508.
Corburn, Jason. Street Science: Community Knowledge and Environmental Health Justice. Cam-
bridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2005.
Cornell Lab of Ornithology. All about Birds. http://cams.allaboutbirds.org.
. Macaulay Library. http://macaulaylibrary.org.
Cornwell, Myriah L., and Lisa M. Campbell. Co-Producing Conservation and Knowledge:
Citizen-Based Sea Turtle Monitoring in North Carolina, USA. Social Studies of Science
42, no. 1 (2012): 10120.
 Bibliography / 313

Cosgrove, Denis. Contested Global Visions: One-World, Whole-Earth, and the Apollo
Space Photographs. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 84, no. 2 (1994):
27094.
Costa, Beatriz da. Pigeon Blog. http://web.archive.org/web/20120418181942/;http://www
.beatrizdacosta.net/pigeonblog.php.
. Reaching the Limits. In Tactical Biopolitics: Art, Activism, and Technoscience, edited
by Beatriz da Costa and Kavita Philip, 36585. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2008.
Couldry, Nick, and Alison Powell. Big Data from the Bottom Up. Big Data & Society 1, no.
2 ( JulyDecember 2014): 15.
Cox, Geoff. Speaking Code: Coding as Aesthetic and Political Expression. Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press, 2013.
. Support of Antisocial Notworking. http://www.anti-thesis.net/?p=869.
Czar, Andrs, Fidel Echevarra, J. Ignacio Gonzlez-Gordillo, Xabier Irigoien, Brbara
beda, Santiago Hernndez-Len, lvaro T. Palma, Sandra Navarro, Juan Garca-de-
Lomas, Andrea Ruiz, Mara L. Fernndez-de-Puelles, and Carlos M. Duartei. Plastic
Debris in the Open Ocean. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, no. 28
( July 15, 2014): 1023944.
Create Lab. Speck. http://www.specksensor.com.
Critter Cams Viewers Becoming Citizen Scientists. Narrated by Robin Young with Vicki
Croke. Here & Now. WBUR, July 4, 2014. http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/07/04/
critter-cams-scientists.
Cruikshank, Julie. Do Glaciers Listen? Local Knowledge, Colonial Encounters, and Social Imagina-
tion. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2005.
Cubasch, Ulrich, Donald Wuebbles, Deliang Chen, Maria Cristina Facchini, David Frame,
Natalie Mahowald, and Jan-Gunnar Winther. Introduction. In IPCC, 2013: Climate
Change 2013; The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assess-
ment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by Thomas F. Stocker,
Dahe Qin, Gian-Kasper Plattner, Melinda Tignor, Simon K. Allen, Judith Boschung,
Alexander Nauels, Yu Xia, Vincent Bex and Pauline M. Midgley, 11958. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Cuff, Dana, Mark Hansen, and Jerry Kang. Urban Sensing: Out of the Woods. Communi-
cations of the Association for Computing Machinery 51, no. 3 (2008): 2433.
Daston, Lorraine, and Peter Galison. Objectivity. Brooklyn: Zone Books, 2007.
Davis, Martin. The Universal Computer: The Road from Leibniz to Turing. New York: W. W.
Norton, 2000.
Davis, Paul M. Hacking as a Civic Duty. March 23, 2012. http://www.shareable.net/blog/
hacking-as-a-civic-duty.
Dean, Jodi. Democracy and Other Neoliberal Fantasies: Communicative Capitalism and Left Poli-
tics. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2009.
Dean, Jodi, Jon W. Anderson, and Geert Lovink, eds. Reformatting Politics: Information Tech-
nology and Global Civil Society. London: Routledge, 2006.
Debaise, Didier. A Philosophy of Interstices: Thinking Subjects and Societies from White-
heads Philosophy. Subjectivity 6, no. 1 (2013): 10111.
. Un empirisme spculatif: Lecture de Procs et Ralit de Whitehead. Paris: Vrin, 2006.
Deleuze, Giles. Negotiations: 19721990. Translated by Martin Joughin. 1990. Reprint, New
York: Columbia University Press, 1995.
314 / Bibliography

Deleuze, Giles, and Flix Guattari. What Is Philosophy? Translated by Graham Burchell and
Hugh Tomlinson. 1991. Reprint, London: Verso, 1994.
Delwiche, Aaron, and Jennifer Jacobs Henderson, eds. The Participatory Cultures Handbook.
London: Routledge, 2012.
Derraik, Jos G. B. The Pollution of the Marine Environment by Plastic Debris: A Review.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 44, no. 9 (2002): 84252.
Diederichsen, Diedrich, and Anselm Frank. The Whole Earth: California and the Disappearance
of the Outside. Berlin: Haus der Kulteren der Welt, 2013.
Di Justo, Patrick, and Emily Gertz. Atmospheric Monitoring with Arduino. Sebastopol, Calif.:
OReilly Media Press, 2013.
Di Lorenzo, Emanuele, Niklas Schneider, Kim M. Cobb, P. J. S. Franks, Kettyah C. Chhak,
Arthur J. Miller, James C. McWilliams, Steven J. Bograd, Hernan Arango, Enrique Cur-
chitser, Thomas M. Powell, and Pascal Rivire. North Pacific Gyre Oscillation Links
Ocean Climate and Ecosystem Change. Geophysical Research Letters 35 (2008): 16.
DiSalvo, Carl, Marti Louw, David Holstius, Illah Nourbakhsh, and Ayca Akin. Towards a
Public Rhetoric through Participatory Design: Critical Engagements and Creative
Expression in the Neighborhood Networks Project. Design Issues 28, no. 3 (2012): 4861.
Dodge, Somayeh, Gil Bohrer, Rolf Weinzierl, Sarah C. Davidson, Roland Kays, David
Douglas, Sebastian Cruz, Jiawei Han, David Brandes, and Martin Wikelski. The
Environmental-Data Automated Track Annotation (Env-DATA) System: Linking Ani-
mal Tracks with Environmental Data. Movement Ecology 1, no. 3 (2013): 114.
Dohan, Kathleen, and Nikolai Maximenko. Monitoring Ocean Currents with Satellite Sen-
sors. Oceanography 23, no. 4 (2010): 94103.
Dourish, Paul, and Genevieve Bell. Divining a Digital Future: Mess and Mythology in Ubiquitous
Computing. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2011.
Droege, Peter, ed. Intelligent Environments: Spatial Aspects of the Information Revolution.
Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1997.
Dyo, Vladimir, Stephen A. Ellwood, David W. MacDonald, Andrew Markham, Cecilia Mas-
colo, Bence Psztor, Niki Trigoni, and Ricklef Wohlers. Wildlife and Environmental
Monitoring Using RFID and WSN Technology. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM Conference
on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys 2009). New York, N.Y.: ACM, 2009.
Dyo, Vladimir, Stephen A. Ellwood, David W. MacDonald, Andrew Markham, Niki Trigoni,
Ricklef Wohlers, Cecilia Mascolo, Bence Pasztor, Salvatore Scellato, and Kharsim
Yousef. WILDSENSING: Design and Deployment of a Sustainable Sensor Network
for Wildlife Monitoring. ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems 9, no. 4,
(March 2010): 133.
Earl, Jennifer, and Katrina Kimport. Digitally Enabled Social Change: Activism in the Internet
Age. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2011.
Easterling, Keller. The Action Is the Form. In Sentient Cities: Ubiquitous Computing, Archi-
tecture, and the Future of Urban Space, edited by Mark Shepard, 15458. Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press, 2011.
Ebbesmeyer, Curtis. Using Flotsam to Study Ocean Currents. NASA Ocean Motion and
Surface Currents. http://oceanmotion.org/html/gatheringdata/flotsam.htm.
Ebbesmeyer, Curtis, W. James Ingraham Jr., Thomas C. Royer, and Chester E. Grosch, Tub
Toys Orbit the Subarctic Gyre. EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 88,
no. 1 (2007): 112.
 Bibliography / 315

Ebbesmeyer, Curtis, and Eric Scigliano. Flotsametrics and the Floating World: How One Mans
Obsession with Runaway Sneakers and Rubber Ducks Revolutionized Ocean Science. New
York: HarperCollins, 2009.
Edwards, Paul N. A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global
Warming. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2010.
Edwards, Paul N., Geoffrey C. Bowker, Steven J. Jackson, and Robin Williams. Introduc-
tion: An Agenda for Infrastructure Studies. Journal of the Association for Information Sys-
tems 10, no. 5 (May 2009): 36474.
Egevang, Carsten, Iain J. Stenhouse, Richard A. Phillips, Aevar Petersen, James W. Fox, and
Janet R. D. Silk. Tracking of Arctic Terns Sterna paradisaea Reveals Longest Animal
Migration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107, no. 5 (February 2, 2010): 14.
Ekman, Ulrik, ed. Throughout: Art and Culture Emerging with Ubiquitous Computing. Cam-
bridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2013.
Elfrink, Wim. Intelligent Urbanization. 2009. http://blogs.cisco.com/news/video.
Elichirigoity, Fernando. Planet Management: Limits to Growth, Computer Simulation, and the
Emergence of Global Spaces. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 1999.
Ellis, Rebecca, and Clare Waterton. Environmental Citizenship in the Making: The Par-
ticipation of Volunteer Naturalists in UK Biological Recording and Biodiversity Policy.
Science and Public Policy 31, no. 2. (2004): 95110.
Ellison, Nick, Roger Burrows, and Simon Parker, eds. Urban Informatics: Software, Cities
and the New Cartographies of Knowing Capitalism. Information, Communication and
Society 10, no. 6 (2007): 785960.
Elson, Jeremy, and Deborah Estrin. Sensor Networks: A Bridge to the Physical World. In
Wireless Sensor Networks, edited by Cauligi S. Raghavendra, Krishna M. Sivalingam, and
Taieb Znati, 320. Norwell, Mass.: Kluwer, 2004.
Elton, Charles. The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants. 1958. Reprint, Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press, 2000.
Environment Agency (UK). Air Pollution. http://apps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiy
by/124274.aspx.
. River and Sea Levels. http://apps.environment-agency.gov.uk/river-and-sea-levels.
e-obs. http://www.e-obs.de.
EpiCollect. Roadkill Garneau. https://epicollectserver.appspot.com/project.html?name=
RoadkillGarneau.
Estrin, Deborah. Reflections on Wireless Sensing Systems: From Ecosystems to Human
Systems. Radio and Wireless Symposium: IEEE ( January 911, 2007): 14.
Evans, Dave. The Internet of Things: How the Next Evolution of the Internet Is Changing
Everything. Cisco Whitepaper. April 2011. http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac79/
docs/innov/IoT_IBSG_0411FINAL.pdf.
EU-Argo Research Infrastructure (RI). Deployed Floats. http://www.euro-argo.eu/Main
-Achievements/European-Contributions/Floats/Deployments.
European Commission. Air Quality Standards. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/
quality/standards.htm.
. Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May
2008 on Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air for Europe. Official Journal of the Euro-
pean Union. November 6, 2008. L 152/1.
316 / Bibliography

. Green Digital Charter. http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sus

tainable_growth/green_digital_charter/index_en.htm.
. Report of the Meeting of Advisory Group. ICT Infrastructure for Energy-Efficient
Buildings and Neighborhoods for Carbon-Neutral Cities. September 16, 2011. http://
ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sustainable_growth/docs/smart-cities/
smart-cities-adv-group_report.pdf.
Exchange for Local Observations and Knowledge of the Arctic (ELOKA). https://eloka
-arctic.org.
Feenberg, Andrew, and Darin Barney, eds. Community in the Digital AgePhilosophy and Prac-
tice. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004.
Ferguson, Francesca, and Urban Drift Projects, eds. Make_Shift City: Renegotiating the Urban
Commons. Berlin: Jovis, 2014.
FillThatHole. http://www.fillthathole.org.uk.
Finnish Society of Bioart. Environmental Computing. Field_Notes: A Field Lab for Theory
and Practice on Art & Science Work. http://bioartsociety.fi/field_notes/?page_id=8.
Fish, Adam, Luis F. R. Murillo, Lilly Nguyen, Aaron Panofsky, and Christopher M. Kelty.
Birds of the Internet. Journal of Cultural Economy 4, no. 2 (2011): 15787.
FixMyStreet. http://www.fixmystreet.com.
. Abandoned Christmas Tree. https://www.fixmystreet.com/report/69857.
. Council Worker Mowing Rubbish! https://www.fixmystreet.com/report/395965.
. Rubbish. https://www.fixmystreet.com/report/110531.
Forest Carbon Project Inventory. http://forestcarbonportal.com.
Forrester, Jay W. Urban Dynamics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1969.
Forsstrm, Laura, Sanna Sorvari, Atte Korhola, and Milla Rautio. Seasonality of Phyto-
plankton in Subarctic Lake Saanajrvi in NW Finnish Lapland. Polar Biology 28, no. 11
(2005): 84661.
Fortun, Kim. Biopolitics and the Informating of Environmentalism. In Lively Capital: Bio-
technologies, Ethics, and Governance in Global Markets, edited by Kaushik Sunder Rajan,
30626. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2012.
Fortun, Kim, and Michael Fortun. Scientific Imaginaries and Ethical Plateaus in Contem-
porary U.S. Toxicology. American Anthropologist 107, no. 1 (2005): 4354.
Foth, Marcus, Laura Forlano, Christine Satchell, and Martin Gibbs, eds. From Social Butterfly
to Engaged Citizen: Urban Informatics, Social Media, Ubiquitous Computing, and Mobile Tech-
nology to Support Citizen Engagement. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2011.
Foucault, Michel. The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collge de France 19781979. Translated
by Graham Burchell. 2004. Reprint, New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008.
. The Confession of the Flesh. In Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other
Writings 19721977. Translated by Colin Gordon, Leo Marshall, John Mepham, and Kate
Soper, 194228. New York: Vintage Books, 1980.
. Intellectuals and Power: A Conversation between Michel Foucault and Gilles
Deleuze. In Language, Counter-Memory, Practice. Translated by Donald F. Bouchard and
Sherry Simon, 20517. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1977.
. La naissance de la biopolitique: Cours au Collge de France 19781979. Paris: ditions du
Seuil/Gallimard, 2004.
. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. 1970. Reprint, London:
Routledge, 1994.
 Bibliography / 317

. The Politics of Truth. Translated by Lysa Hochroth and Catherine Porter. Los Ange-
les: Semiotext(e), 1997.
. Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collge de France 19771978. Translated by
Graham Burchell. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
. Society Must Be Defended. Translated by David Macey. London: Penguin, 2003.
Fraser, Nancy. Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually
Existing Democracy. Social Text 25/26 (1990): 5680.
Fuller, Matthew. Behind the Blip: Essays on the Culture of Software. Brooklyn: Autonomedia,
2003.
. Boxes towards Bananas: Dispersal, Intelligence and Animal Structures. In Sentient
Cities: Ubiquitous Computing, Architecture, and the Future of Urban Space, edited by Mark
Shepard, 17381. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2011.
. Media Ecologies: Materialist Energies in Art and Technoculture. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press, 2005.
Fuller, Matthew, and Andrew Goffey. Digital Infrastructures and the Machinery of Topo-
logical Abstraction. Theory, Culture & Society 29, nos. 45 (2012): 31133.
Fuller Matthew, and Usman Haque. Urban Versioning System. In Situated Technologies
Pamphlets 2. New York: Architectural League of New York, 2008.
Future Cities Catapult. Sensing London. https://futurecities.catapult.org.uk/project/
-sensing-london/.
Gabrys, Jennifer. Atmospheres of Communication. In The Wireless Spectrum: The Politics,
Practices and Poetics of Mobile Technologies, edited by Barbara Crow, Michael Longford
and Kim Sawchuk, 4659. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010.
. Automatic Sensation: Environmental Sensors in the Digital City. Senses and Society
2, no. 2 (2007): 189200.
. Becoming Urban: Sitework from a Moss-Eye View. Environment and Planning A 44,
no. 12 (2012): 292239.
. Cit Multimdia: Noise and Contamination in the Information City. Conference
proceedings from Visual Knowledges, University of Edinburgh, September 1720, 2003.
http://webdb.ucs.ed.ac.uk/malts/other/VKC/dsp-abstract.cfm?ID=84, http://www.jen
nifergabrys.net/wp-content/uploads/2003/09/Gabrys_InfoCity_VKnowledges.pdf.
. Digital Rubbish: A Natural History of Electronics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press, 2011.
. Plastic and the Work of the Biodegradable. In Accumulation: The Material Politics
of Plastic, edited by Jennifer Gabrys, Gay Hawkins, and Mike Michael, 20827. London:
Routledge, 2013.
. Pollution Sensing and Fracking: Practices of Citizen-Based Air-Quality Monitor-
ing. Presentation at the Environment Research Group seminar, University of London,
April, 2015.
. Powering the Digital: From Energy Ecologies to Electronic Environmentalism.
In Media and the Ecological Crisis, edited by Richard Maxwell, Jon Raundalen, and Nina
Lager Vestberg, 318. New York: Routledge, 2014.
. Re-Thingifying the Internet of Things. In Sustainable Media, edited by Nicole
Starosielski and Janet Walker. New York: Routledge, 2016.
. Sink: The Dirt of Systems. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 27, no. 4
(2009): 66681.
318 / Bibliography

. Speculating with Organisms in the Plastisphere. In An Ecosystem of Excess, edited

by Heike Catherina Mertens, 5061. Berlin: Ernst Schering Foundation, 2014.
. Telepathically Urban. In Circulation and the City: Essays on Urban Culture, edited by
Alexandra Boutros and Will Straw, 4863. Montreal: McGill-Queens Press, 2010.
Gabrys, Jennifer, Gay Hawkins, and Mike Michael, eds. Accumulation: The Material Politics of
Plastic. London: Routledge, 2013.
Gabrys, Jennifer, Helen Pritchard, and Benjamin Barratt. Just Good Enough Data: Recast-
ing Evidence through Citizen-Based Air Pollution Monitoring.
Gabrys, Jennifer, Helen Pritchard, and Nerea Calvillo. Making DIY Air Sensors and Mate-
rializing Digital Citizenship.
Galloway, Anne. Intimations of Everyday Life: Ubiquitous Computing and the City. Cul-
tural Studies 18, nos. 23 (2004): 384408.
Garcia, David, and Geert Lovink. The ABC of Tactical Media. nettime. May 16, 1997.
http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9705/msg00096.html.
Gertz, Emily, and Patrick Di Justo. Environmental Monitoring with Arduino: Building Simple
Devices to Collect Data about the World around Us. Beijing: OReilly Maker Press, 2012.
Gillis, Justin. In the Ocean, Clues to Change. New York Times. August 11, 2014. http://
www.nytimes.com/2014/08/12/science/in-the-ocean-clues-to-change.html?_r=0.
Gitelman, Lisa, ed. Raw Data Is an Oxymoron. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2013.
Global Climate Observing System (GCOS). Essential Climate Variables. http://www
.wmo.int/pages/prog/gcos/index.php?name=EssentialClimateVariables.
Global Community Monitor. http://www.gcmonitor.org.
Global Drifter Program. Satellite-Tracked Surface Drifting Buoys. http://www.aoml.noaa
.gov/phod/dac.
Group on Earth Observations (GEO). Global Earth Observation System of Systems
(GEOSS) Portal. http://www.geoportal.org/web/guest/geo_home_stp.
Global Language Monitor. Top Words of 2010. November 27, 2010. http://www.language
monitor.com/new-words/top-words-of-2010.
GlobalWarming.House.Gov. Oil Spill in the GulfLive Cam. BP Oil Spill Live Video
Feed. http://www.markey.senate.gov/GlobalWarming/spillcam.html.
Goldberg, Ken, ed. The Robot in the Garden: Telerobotics and Telepistemology in the Age of the
Internet. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2000.
Goldman, Jeffrey, Katie Shilton, Jeffrey A. Burke, Deborah Estrin, Mark Hansen, Nithya
Ramanathan, Sasank Reddy, Vids Samanta, Mani Srivastava, and Ruth West. Partici-
patory Sensing: A Citizen-Powered Approach to Illuminating the Patterns That Shape
Our World. Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars,
2009.
Goldman, Jeffrey, Nithya Ramanathan, Richard Ambrose, David A. Caron, Deborah
Estrin, Jason C. Fisher, Robert Gilbert, Mark H. Hansen, Thomas C. Harmon, Jenni-
fer Jay, William J. Kaiser, Gaurav S. Sukhatme, and Yu-Chong Tai. Distributed Sens-
ing Systems for Water Quality Assessment and Management. Washington, D.C.:
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Foresight and Governance Proj-
ect, February 2007.
Goldstein, Miriam C., Marci Rosenberg, and Lanna Cheng. Increased Oceanic Microplas-
tic Debris Enhances Oviposition in an Endemic Pelagic Insect. Biology Letters 8, no. 5
(2012): 81720.
 Bibliography / 319

Goodchild, Michael F. Citizens as Sensors: The World of Volunteered Geography. Geo-

Journal 69 (2007): 21121.
Goodwin, Charles. Seeing in Depth. Social Studies of Science 25, no. 2 (1995): 23774.
Google Glass. http://www.google.com/glass.
Goriunova, Olga. New Media Idiocy. Convergence 19, no. 2 (May 2013): 22335.
Graham, Stephen, ed. The Cybercities Reader. London: Routledge, 2004.
. Disrupted Cities: When Infrastructure Fails. New York: Routledge, 2010.
. Software-Sorted Geographies. Progress in Human Geography 29 (2005): 56280.
Graham, Stephen, and Simon Marvin. Splintering Urbanism: Networked Infrastructures, Tech-
nological Mobilities and the Urban Condition. London: Routledge, 2001.
Gray Area Foundation for the Arts. Urban Prototyping Festival to Transform Public Space
through Citizen Experiments. October 11, 2012. http://grayarea.org/press/urban-proto
typing-festival-to-transform-public-space-through-citizen-experiments.
Greater London Authority. Locations of TfL Street Cameras. http://80.79.211.134/data
store/applications/locations-tfl-street-cameras.
. Royal Albert Dock. http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/housing-land/land
-assets/royal-albert-dock.
. Smart London Plan. http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/smart_lon
don_plan.pdf.
. Smart London Vision. https://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/business-economy
/vision-and-strategy/smart-london.
Greenfield, Adam, and Mark Shepard. Urban Computing and Its Discontents. In Situated
Technologies Pamphlets 1. New York: Architectural League of New York, 2007.
Gregory, Murray R. Environmental Implications of Plastic Debris in Marine Settings
Entanglement, Ingestion, Smothering, Hangers-On, Hitch-Hiking and Alien Invasions.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364, no. 1526 (2009):
201325.
Gregory, Murray R., and Peter G. Ryan. Pelagic Plastics and Other Seaborne Persistent
Synthetic Debris: A Review of Southern Hemisphere Perspectives. In Marine Debris,
edited by James M. Coe and Donald B. Rogers, 4966. New York: Springer, 1997.
Gross, Neil. The Earth Will Don an Electronic Skin. Business Week. August 30, 1999.
http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_35/b3644024.htm.
Guattari, Felix. Chaosmosis: An Ethico-Aesthetic Paradigm. Translated by Paul Bains and Julian
Pefanis. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995.
. Schizoanalytic Cartographies. Translated by Andrew Goffey. 1989. Reprint, London:
Bloomsbury, 2013.
. The Three Ecologies. Translated by Ian Pindar and Paul Sutton. London: Athlone,
2000.
Halewood, Michael, and Mike Michael. Being a Sociologist and Becoming a Whiteheadian:
Toward a Concrescent Methodology. Theory, Culture & Society 25, no. 4 (2008): 3156.
Halpern, Orit, Jesse LeCavalier, Nerea Calvillo, and Wolfgang Pietsch. Test-Bed Urban-
ism. Public Culture 25, no. 2 (2013): 272306.
Hamilton, Michael P., Eric A. Graham, Philip W. Rundel, Michael F. Allen, William Kaiser,
Mark H. Hansen, and Deborah L. Estrin. New Approaches in Embedded Networked
Sensing for Terrestrial Ecological Observatories. Environmental Engineering Science 24,
no. 2 (2007): 192204.
320 / Bibliography

Haraway, Donna. Crittercam: Compounding Eyes in Naturecultures. In When Species

Meet, 249263. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008.
. The High Cost of Information in PostWorld War II Evolutionary Biology: Ergo-
nomics, Semiotics, and the Sociobiology of Communication Systems. Philosophical
Forum 13 (Winter-Spring 19811982): 24478.
. Introduction: The Persistence of Vision. In Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and
Nature in the World of Modern Science. New York: Routledge, 1989.
. Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium. FemaleMan_Meets_Onco-Mouse. New York:
Routledge, 1997.
. Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge,
1991.
. Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Par-
tial Perspective. Feminist Studies 14, no. 3 (1988): 57599.
. When Species Meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008.
Harrison, Colin, and Ian Abbott Donnelly. A Theory of Smart Cities. Proceedings of the 55th
Annual Meeting of the International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS). 2011. http://jour
nals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings55th/article/view/1703.
Hartmann, Dennis L., Albert M. G. Klein Tank, Matilde Rusticucci, Lisa V. Alexander, Ste-
fan Brnnimann, Yassine Abdul-Rahman Charabi, Frank J. Dentener, Edward J. Dlugo-
kencky, David R. Easterling, Alexey Kaplan, Brian J. Soden, Peter W. Thorne, Martin
Wild, and Panmao Zhai. Observations: Atmosphere and Surface. In IPCC, 2013: Cli-
mate Change 2013; The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by Thomas F.
Stocker, Dahe Qin, Gian-Kasper Plattner, Melinda Tignor, Simon K. Allen, Judith Bosc-
hung, Alexander Nauels, Yu Xia, Vincent Bex and Pauline M. Midgley, 159254. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Harvey, David, and Donna Haraway. Nature, Politics, and Possibilities: A Debate and Dis-
cussion with David Harvey and Donna Haraway. Environment and Planning D: Society
and Space 13, no. 5 (1995): 50727.
Hawkins, Gay. Enacting Public Value on the ABCs Q and A: From Normative to Performa-
tive Approaches. Media International Australia 146 (2013): 8292.
Hayles, N. Katherine. Computing the Human. Theory, Culture & Society 22, no. 1 (2005):
13151.
. My Mother Was a Computer: Digital Subjects and Literary Texts. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2005.
. RFID: Human Agency and Meaning in Information-Intensive Environments.
Theory, Culture & Society 26, nos. 23 (2009): 4772.
Heise, Ursula K. Sense of Place and Sense of Planet: The Environmental Imagination of the Global.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Helmers, Carl. Creating Sensors: The Story of a New Publication. Sensors ( January 1984):
1819.
Helmreich, Stefan. Alien Ocean: Anthropological Voyages in Microbial Seas. Berkeley: University
of California Press, 2009.
. Intimate Sensing. In Simulation and Its Discontents, edited by Sherry Turkle, 129
50. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2009.
. Nature/Culture/Seawater. American Anthropologist 113 (2011): 13244.
 Bibliography / 321

Hern, Alex. Seven Urban Apps Guaranteed to Improve the Quality of City Life. Guardian.
March 11, 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/mar/11/city-apps-should-not
-be-without.
Hinchliffe, Steve. Sensory Biopolitics: Knowing Birds and a Politics of Life. In Sentient
Creatures, edited by Kristin Asdal, Tone Druglitr, and Steve Hinchliffe. May 2014, draft
chapter. http://www.biosecurity-borderlands.org/research.
Hhler, Sabine. Spaceship Earth: Envisioning Human Habitats in the Environmental
Age. GHI Bulletin, 42 (Spring 2008): 6585.
Hollands, Robert G. Will the Real Smart City Please Stand Up? City 12, no. 3 (2008): 30320.
Hrl, Erich, ed. The Ecological Paradigm: Perspectives of a General Ecology of Media and Technol-
ogy. New York: Fordham University Press, 2014.
Horowitz, Andrew. Domestic Communications Satellites. Radical Software 2, no. 5 (Win-
ter 1973): 3640.
Howell, Evan A., Steven J. Bograd, Carey Morishige, Michael P. Seki, and Jeffrey J. Polovina.
On North Pacific Circulation and Associated Marine Debris Concentration. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 65, nos. 13 (2012): 1622.
Howes, David. Introduction: Empires of the Senses. In Empire of the Senses: The Sensual
Culture Reader, edited by David Howes, 117. Oxford: Berg, 2005.
HP Labs. Central Nervous System for the Earth (CeNSE). http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/
globalcitizenship/environment/techgallery/cense.html.
Hsu, V., Joseph M. Kahn, and Kris S. J. Pister. Wireless Communications for Smart Dust.
Electronics Research Laboratory Memorandum Number M98/2. January 30, 1998.
Hurlbert, Allen H., and Zhongfei Liang. Spatiotemporal Variation in Avian Migration Phe-
nology: Citizen Science Reveals Effects of Climate Change. PLoS One 7, no. 2 (February
2012): e31662.
Hyman, Josh, Eric Graham, and Mark Hansen. Imagers as Sensors: Correlating Plant CO2
Uptake with Digital Visible-Light Imagery. Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop
on Data Management for Sensor Networks. Vienna, Austria. September 2328, 2007.
IBM. Citizen Sensing for Smarter Cities. IBM Research-Brazil. 2013. http://researcher.
watson.ibm.com/researcher/files/br-fernandokoch/IBM-CitizenSensor%28web%29
.pdf.
. The Internet of Things. IBMSocialMedia. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
sfEbMV295Kk.
. Smarter Cities Challenge. http://smartercitieschallenge.org/index.html.
. A Smarter Planet. http://www.ibm.com/smarterplanet.
Intel. What Does The Internet of Things Mean? March 12, 2014. http://www.youtube
.com/watch?v=Q3ur8wzzhBU.
Interagency Ocean Observation Committee (IOOC). http://www.iooc.us/ocean-observa
tions/platforms.
International Cooperation for Animal Research Using Space (ICARUS) Initiative. Count-
down to ICARUS. http://icarusinitiative.org.
. Science & Projects. http://icarusinitiative.org/science-projects.
. Technical Solution. Max Planck Institute. November 15, 2011. http://icarusinitia
tive.org/technical-solution.
International Network for Terrestrial Research and Monitoring in the Arctic. http://www
.eu-interact.org.
322 / Bibliography

International Pacific Research Center (IPRC). Tracking Ocean Debris. Newsletter of the
International Pacific Research Center 8, no. 2 (2008): 1416. http://iprc.soest.hawaii.edu/
newsletters/iprc_climate_vol8_no2.pdf.
Interspecies Internet. http://interspecies-internet.org.
Irwin, Alan. Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise, and Sustainable Development. London:
Routledge, 1995.
Irwin, Alan, and Mike Michael. Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge. Maidenhead:
Open University Press, 2003.
Iveson, Kurt. Mobile Media and the Strategies of Urban Citizenship: Control, Responsibi-
lization, Politicization. In From Social Butterfly to Engaged Citizen: Urban Informatics,
Social Media, Ubiquitous Computing, and Mobile Technology to Support Citizen Engagement,
edited by Marcus Foth, Laura Forlano, Christine Satchell, and Martin Gibbs, 5570.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2011.
James, William. Essays in Radical Empiricism. 1912. Reprint, Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press, 1996.
. Pragmatism. 1907. Reprint, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
James San Jacinto Mountains Reserve. http://www.jamesreserve.edu.
. The Moss Cam Project: The Star Moss, Tortula princeps, a Desiccation-Tolerant
Plant. http://www.jamesreserve.edu/mosscam (site discontinued).
Jansen, Lesa, and Brianna Keilar. Markey: Spillcam Was Game-Changer in BP Disaster
Response. CNN. April 20, 2011. http://edition.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/20/mar
key.bp.
Jasanoff, Sheila. Image and Imagination: The Formation of Global Environmental Con-
sciousness. In Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and Environmental Governance,
edited by Clark A. Miller and Paul N. Edwards, 30937. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,
2001.
. Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science. Minerva 41
(2003): 22344.
. Thin Air. In Dbordements: Mlanges Offerts Michel Callon, edited by Madeleine
Akrich, Yannick Barthe, Fabian Muniesa, and Philippe Mustar, 191202. Paris: Presses
des Mines, 2010.
Jenkins, Henry, and David Thorburn, eds. Democracy and New Media. Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press, 2003.
Jeremijenko, Natalie. Feral Robotic Dogs. https://www.nyu.edu/projects/xdesign/feral
robots.
Jimenez, Alberto Corsn. The Right to Infrastructure: A Prototype for Open Source Urban-
ism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 32, no. 2 (2014): 34262.
Johnson, Kirk. Smart Collar in the Works to Manage Wildlife Better. New York Times.
August 29, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/30/us/30collars.html?_r=1&hp.
Jones, Caroline A., ed. Sensorium: Embodied Experience, Technology, and Contemporary Art.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2006.
Jonsson, Patrik. BP Live Feed Spillcam Now Offers 12 Views of Oil Spill. Christian Science
Monitor. June 3, 2010. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0603/BP-live-feed-spill
cam-now-offers-12-views-of-oil-spill.
Jordan, Chris. Midway: Message from the Gyre (2009-). http://www.chrisjordan.com/gal
lery/midway.
 Bibliography / 323

Kaiser, Jocelyn. The Dirt on Ocean Garbage Patches. Science 328, no. 5985 (2010): 1506.
Keller, Evelyn Fox. The Body of a New Machine: Situating the Organism between Tele-
graph and Computers. In Refiguring Life: Changing Metaphors of Twentieth-Century Biol-
ogy, 7991. New York: Columbia University Press, 1995.
Kilpisjrvi Biological Station. http://www.helsinki.fi/kilpis/english/index.htm.
Kitchin, Rob, and Martin Dodge. Code/Space: Software and Everyday Life. Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press, 2011.
Kittler, Friedrich A. There Is No Software. CTHEORY. October 18, 1995. http://www
.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=74.
. Thinking Colors and/or Machines. Theory, Culture & Society 23, nos. 78 (2006):
3950.
Kohler, Robert E. Landscapes and Labscapes: Exploring the Lab-Field Border in Biology. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2002.
Korsgaard, Henrik, and Martin Brynskov. Prototyping a Smart City. DC8 Workshop, 6th
International Conference on Communities and Technologies (C&T 6). Munich, Ger-
many. June 30, 2013. https://pure.au.dk/ws/files/70459732/DC8_6_Korsgaard_Bryns
kov.pdf.
Kosek, Jake. Ecologies of Empire: On the New Uses of the Honeybee. Cultural Anthropol-
ogy 25, no. 4 (2010): 65078.
Kranenburg, Rob van. The Internet of Things: A Critique of Ambient Technology and the
All-Seeing Network of RFID Network Notebooks. Amsterdam: Institute of Network
Cultures, 2008.
Kurvits, Tiina, Christian Nellemann, Bjrn Alfthan, Aline Khl, Peter Prokosch, Melanie
Virtue, and Janet F. Skaalvik, eds. Living Planet: Connected PlanetPreventing the End of
the Worlds Wildlife Migrations through Ecological Networks. United Nations Environment
Programme, GRID-Arendal, 2011.
Lamarre, Thomas. Afterword: Humans and Machines. In Muriel Combes, Gilbert Simon-
don and the Philosophy of the Transindividual, translated by Thomas Lamarre, 79108.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2013.
Lane, Giles, Camilla Brueton, George Roussos, Natalie Jeremijenko, George Papamarkos,
Dima Diall, Dimitris Airantzis, and Karen Martin. Public Authoring & Feral Robotics.
Cultural Snapshot 11 (March 2006). http://proboscis.org.uk/publications/SNAPSHOTS
_feralrobots.pdf.
Large Pelagics Research Center. Tag a Tiny Program. http://www.tunalab.org/tagatiny
.htm.
Latelier darchitecture autogre. http://www.urbantactics.org.
Latour, Bruno. Pandoras Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1999.
. A Plea for Earthly Sciences. In New Social Connections: Sociologys Subjects and
Objects, edited by Judith Burnett, Syd Jeffers, and Graham Thomas, 7284. London: Pal-
grave Macmillan, 2010.
. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987.
. Why Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Con-
cern. Critical Inquiry 30 (2004): 22548.
324 / Bibliography

Laughlin, Andrew J., Caz M. Taylor, David W. Bradley, Dayna LeClair, Robert G. Clark, Rus-
sell D. Dawson, Peter O. Dunn, Andrew Horn, Marty Leonard, Daniel R. Sheldon, Dave
Shutler, Linda A. Whittingham, David W. Winkler, and D. Ryan Norris. Integrating
Information from Geolocators, Weather Radar, and Citizen Science to Uncover a Key
Stopover Area of an Aerial Insectivore. Auk 130, no. 2 (2013): 23039.
Lauro, Federico M., Svend Jacob Senstius, Jay Cullen, Russell Neches, Rachelle M. Jensen,
Mark V. Brown, Aaron E. Darling, Michael Givskov, Diane McDougald, Ron Hoeke,
Martin Ostrowski, Gayle K. Philip, Ian T. Paulsen, and Joseph J. Grzymski. The Com-
mon Oceanographer: Crowdsourcing the Collection of Oceanographic Data. PLoS
Biology 12, no. 9 (September 9, 2014): 15.
Law, Kara Lavender, Skye Mort-Ferguson, Nikolai A. Maximenko, Giora Proskurowski,
Emily E. Peacock, Jan Hafner, and Christopher M. Reddy. Plastic Accumulation in the
North Atlantic Subtropical Gyre. Science 329, no. 5996 (2010): 118588.
Lebreton, Laurent C. M., S. D. Greer, and Jose Carlos Borrero. Numerical Modeling
of Floating Debris in the Worlds Oceans. Marine Pollution Bulletin 64, no. 3 (2012):
65361.
Lehning, Michael, Nicholas Dawes, Mathias Bavay, Marc Pariange, Suman Nath, and Feng
Zhao. Instrumenting the Earth: Next-Generation Sensor Networks and Environmen-
tal Science. In The Fourth Paradigm: Data-Intensive Scientific Discovery. Microsoft
Research, 2009.
Lemke, Peter, Jiawen Ren, Richard B. Alley, Ian Allison, Jorge Carrasco, Gregory Flato,
Yoshiyuki Fujii, Georg Kaser, Robert Thomas, and Tingjun Zhang. Observations:
Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground. In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science
Basis; Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovern-
mental Panel on Climate Change, edited by S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen,
M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H. L. Miller, 33783. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2007.
Lidskog, Rolf, and Gran Sundqvist, eds. Governing the Air: The Dynamics of Science, Policy,
and Citizen Interaction. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2011.
Lim, Stephen, et al. A Comparative Risk Assessment of Burden of Disease and Injury
Attributable to 67 Risk Factors and Risk Factor Clusters in 21 Regions, 19902010: A Sys-
tematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 380, no. 9859
(December 15, 2012): 222460.
Live Gulf Oil Spill Cam: Watch Video Feed of BP Spill. Huffington Post. May 20, 2010.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/20/live-gulf-oil-spill-video-feed_n_583682
.html.
Living PlanIt. http://www.living-planit.com.
Llanos, Miguel. Average Joe as Oceanographer? Crowdsourcing Goes to Sea (with Cave-
ats). NBC News. September 13, 2014. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environ
ment/average-joe-oceanographer-crowdsourcing-goes-sea-caveats-n202411.
London Air Quality Network (LAQN). http://www.londonair.org.uk.
London Eye. Systems and Controls. http://www.londoneye.com/LearningAndDiscovery/
Education/TeacherResource/OnlineResource/systems/systpup.pdf (site discontinued).
Lovink, Geert. The Digital City: Metaphor and Community. In Dark Fiber: Tracking Criti-
cal Internet Culture, 4267. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2002.
. Networks without a Cause: A Critique of Social Media. Cambridge: Polity, 2012.
 Bibliography / 325

Lovink, Geert, and Ned Rossiter, Dawn of the Organized Networks. Fibreculture Journal 5
(2005). http://five.fi breculturejournal.org/fcj-029-dawn-of-the-organised-networks.
Luke, Timothy W. Environmentality as Green Governmentality. In Discourses of the Envi-
ronment, edited by ric Darier, 12151. Oxford: Blackwell, 1999.
Lumpkin, Rick, Nikolai Maximenko, and Mayra Pazos. Evaluating Where and Why Drift-
ers Die. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 29, no. 2 (2012): 300308.
Lumpkin, Rick, and Mayra Pazos. Measuring Surface Currents with Surface Velocity Pro-
gram Drifters: The Instrument, Its Data, and Some Recent Results. In Lagrangian Analy-
sis and Prediction of Coastal and Ocean Dynamics (LAPCOD), edited by Annalisa Griffa,
A. D. Kirwan, Arthur J. Mariano, Tamary Ozgokmen, and Thomas Rossby, 3967. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Lydon, Mike, Dan Bartman, Tony Garcia, Russ Preston, and Ronald Woudstra. Tactical
Urbanism, Volume 2. http://issuu.com/streetplanscollaborative/docs/tactical_urbanism
_vol_2_final.
Mack, Pamela. Viewing the Earth: The Social Construction of the Landsat Satellite System. Cam-
bridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1990.
Mackenzie, Adrian. Cutting Code: Software and Sociality. New York: Peter Lang, 2006.
. The Performativity of Code: Software and Cultures of Circulation. Theory, Cul-
ture & Society 22, no. 1 (2005): 7192.
. Transductions: Bodies and Machines at Speed. London: Continuum, 2002.
. Wirelessness: Radical Empiricism in Network Cultures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,
2010.
Madrigal, Alexis C. Found: Worlds Oldest Message in a Bottle, Part of 1914 Citizen-Science
Experiment. Atlantic. September 5, 2012. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ar
chive/2012/09/found-worlds-oldest-message-in-a-bottle-part-of-1914-citizen-science
-experiment/261981.
Maier, Elke. A Four-Legged Early-Warning System. MaxPlanckResearch 2 (2014): 5863.
Marine Debris Tracker. http://www.marinedebris.engr.uga.edu.
Marine Traffic. http://www.marinetraffic.com.
Markey, Edward J. Edward Markey to Lamar McKay. Washington, D.C: House Commit-
tee on Energy and Commerce, 111th Congress, May 19, 2010.
Marshall, Greg. Foreword: Advances in Animal-Borne Imaging. Marine Technology Society
Journal 41, no. 4 (Winter 2007/2008): 45.
Martin, Reinhold. Environment c. 1973. Grey Room 14 (Winter 2004): 78101.
Masco, Joseph. Bad Weather: On Planetary Crisis. Social Studies of Science 40, no. 1 (Febru-
ary 2010): 740.
Massumi, Brian. National Enterprise Emergency: Steps toward an Ecology of Powers.
Theory, Culture & Society 26, no. 6 (2009): 15385.
. Semblance and Event: Activist Philosophy and the Occurrent Arts. Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press, 2011.
Maximenko, Nikolai, Jan Hafner, and Peter Niiler. Pathways of Marine Debris Derived
from Trajectories of Lagrangian Drifters. Marine Pollution Bulletin 65, nos. 13 (2012):
5162.
Max Planck Institute for Ornithology. Animal Tracker app. https://itunes.apple.com/us/
app/animal-tracker/id813629500?mt=8&ign-mpt=uo%3D4.
. Animal Tracker. http://www.orn.mpg.de/animal_tracker.
326 / Bibliography

. Social Migration in Juvenile White Storks. https://www.orn.mpg.de/3297372/

Social_Migration_in_Juvenile_White_Storks.
May, Robert. Unanswered Questions in Ecology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London B 354 (1999): 195159.
McConnell, Bernie. Telemetry in Sea Mammals. Presentation at New Techniques in
Mammal Research. London: Mammal Society Symposium, Zoological Society of Lon-
don. November 2627, 2010.
McCullough, Malcolm. Ambient Commons: Attention in the Age of Embodied Information. Cam-
bridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2013.
McLuhan, Marshall. At the Moment of Sputnik the Planet Became a Global Theater in
Which There Are No Spectators but Only Actors. Journal of Communication 24, no. 1
(1974): 4858.
Mejias, Ulises Ali. Off the Network: Disrupting the Digital World. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 2013.
Met Office. Weather Observations Website. http://wow.metoffice.gov.uk.
. Weather Stations. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/science/first-steps/
observations/weather-stations.
Michael, Mike. What Are We Busy Doing? Engaging the Idiot. Science, Technology &
Human Values 37, no. 5 (September 2012): 52854.
Microsoft. Internet of Things. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsembedded/en-gb/
internet-of-things.aspx.
Microsoft Research. SenseCam. http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/cambridge/
projects/sensecam.
. SenseWeb. http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/senseweb.
Migratory Connectivity Project. Citizen Science. http://www.migratoryconnectivitypro
ject.org/citizen-science.
Million Trees NYC. http://www.milliontreesnyc.org.
Miranda, Pedro Pires de, and Martin Powell, eds. Our Urban Future: The Crystal; A Sustainable
Cities Initiative by Siemens. Dublin: Booklink, 2013.
Mishler, Brent D. The Biology of Bryophytes with Special Reference to Water. Fremontia
31, no. 3 (2003): 3438.
Mitchell, William J. City of Bits: Space, Place, and the Infobahn. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,
1995.
. Me++: The Cyborg Self and the Networked City. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2003.
Mitchell, William J., and Federico Casalegno. Connected Sustainable Cities. Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Mobile Experience Lab Publishing, 2008. http://connectedsustainablecities.com/
downloads/connected_sustainable_cities.pdf.
Mitman, Gregg. When Nature Is the Zoo: Vision and Power in the Art and Science of
Natural History. Osiris 11 (1996): 11743.
Mody, Cyrus. The Sounds of Science: Listening to Laboratory Practice. Science, Technol-
ogy, & Human Values 30, no. 2 (2005): 17598.
Monitrain. Condition Monitoring Protects Londons Thames Barrier. http://www.moni
tran.com/products/mtn2200ic-mtnm2200ic.
Moore, Charles J., Shelly L. Moore, Molly K. Leecaster, and Steve B. Weisberg. A Com-
parison of Plastic and Plankton in the North Pacific Central Gyre. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 42, no. 12 (2001): 12971300.
 Bibliography / 327

Moore, Charles J., and Cassandra Phillips. Plastic Ocean: How a Sea Captains Chance Discovery
Launched a Determined Quest to Save the Oceans. New York: Avery, 2011.
Morozov, Evgeny. To Save Everything, Click Here: Technology, Solutionism, and the Urge to Fix
Problems That Dont Exist. London: Allen Lane, 2013.
MoveBank. http://www.movebank.org.
. What Is Animal Tracking? http://www.movebank.org/node/857.
Muir, John. My First Summer in the Sierra. 1911. Reprint, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt,
1998.
Munster, Anna. An Aesthesia of Networks: Conjunctive Experience in Art and Technology. Cam-
bridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2013.
Murphy, Michelle. Sick Building Syndrome and the Problem of Uncertainty. Durham, N.C.:
Duke University Press, 2006.
mySociety. http://www.mysociety.org.
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2). http://oco
.jpl.nasa.gov.
National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS). A Global Map of Human
Impacts to Marine Ecosystems. http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/globalmarine.
National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. Deep
Water: The Gulf Oil Disaster. Report to the President, January 2011.
National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON). http://www.neoninc.org.
National Geographic. Crittercam. http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/critter
cam-about.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Critical New Data to be
Added to the Integrated Ocean Observing System in 2011. May 16, 2011. http://ocean
service.noaa.gov/news/weeklynews/may11/ioostagging.html.
. De-Mystifying the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/
info/patch.html.
. Marine Debris Monitoring and Assessment Project. http://marinedebris.noaa
.gov/research/marine-debris-monitoring-and-assessment-project.
National Science Foundation. The Secret Lives of Wild Animals. http://www.nsf.gov/
news/special_reports/animals/dragonfly.jsp.
Nature Conservancy. Precision Conservation. http://www.conserveca.org/our-stories/
all/7-spotlight/132-precision-conservation#.U_dUl0jjm9c.
Negroponte, Nicholas, with the Architecture Machine Group. Seek. In Software: Informa-
tion Technology: Its New Meaning for Art, curated by Jack Burnham. New York: Jewish
Museum, 1970.
Nesta. 2013 Predictions: How Did We Do? http://www.nesta.org.uk/news/13-predictions
-2013/2013-predictions-how-did-we-do.
Neumann, John von. First Draft of a Report on the EDVAC. Contract No. W-670-ORD-4926
between the United States Army Ordnance Department and the University of Penn-
sylvania. Moore School of Electrical Engineering: University of Pennsylvania, June 30,
1945.
Newsroom UNSW (University of New South Wales, Australia). Our Plastics Will Pollute
Oceans for Hundreds of Years. January 9, 2013. http://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/
science/our-plastics-will-pollute-oceans-hundreds-years.
Newton, Ian. Bird Migration. London: Collins, 2010.
328 / Bibliography

New York Times. Sputniks Legacy. September 24, 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/video/

science/space/1194817120962/sputnik-s-legacy.html.
Nitta, Michiko. Extreme Green Guerillas. 2007. http://www.michikonitta.co.uk.
Nokia. Sensor Planet. http://research.nokia.com/page/232 (site discontinued).
Nold, Christian, and Rob van Kranenburg. The Internet of People for a Post-Oil World.
In Situated Technologies Pamphlets 8. New York: Architectural League of New York, 2011.
Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. A Critique of Wildlife Radio-Tracking and Its
Use in National Parks. August 3, 2006. http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/93895.
Observator Instruments. Wind Monitoring and Alarm System. http://www.observator
meteohydro.com/cms/uploads/documenten/licentie_1/document_34.pdf.
Ocean Networks Canada. Teen Spots Hagfish-Slurping Elephant Seal. http://www.you
tube.com/watch?v=nzMB8jqioV0.
Oceans at MIT with Ron Prinn. 400 ppm CO2? Add Other GHGs, and Its Equivalent to
478 ppm. http://oceans.mit.edu/featured-stories/5-questions-mits-ron-prinn-400-ppm
-threshold.
OConnell, Allan F., James D. Nichols, K. Ullas Karanth, eds. Camera Traps in Animal Ecology:
Methods and Analyses. Tokyo: Springer, 2011.
Odum, Eugene. Ecology: The Link between the Natural and the Social Sciences. 1963. Reprint,
London: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1975.
Odum, Howard T. Environment, Power and Society. New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1971.
OpenScientist. Mobile Citizen Science Apps! http://www.openscientist.org/p/citizen
-science-for-your-phone.html.
OpenStreetMap. http://www.openstreetmap.org.
OSullivan, Dan, and Tom Igoe. Sensing and Controlling the Physical World with Sensors. Bos-
ton: Thompson Course Technology, 2004.
Ottinger, Gwen. Buckets of Resistance: Standards and the Effectiveness of Citizen Sci-
ence. Science, Technology, & Human Values 35, no. 2 (2010): 24470.
Pahl, Mario, Hong Zhu, Jrgen Tautz, and Shaowu Zhang. Large Scale Homing in Honey-
bees. PLoS ONE 6, no. 5 (May 2011): e19669.
Pahlka, Jennifer. Coding a Better Government. TED. February 2012. http://www.ted.com
/talks/jennifer_pahlka_coding_a_better_government?language=en.
Parikka, Jussi. Insect Media: An Archaeology of Animals and Technology. Minneapolis: Univer-
sity of Minnesota Press, 2010.
Parisi, Luciana. Technoecologies of Sensation and Control. In Deleuze and Guattari and
Ecology, edited by Bernd Herzogenrath, 182200. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.
Parks, Lisa. Cultures in Orbit: Satellites and the Televisual. Durham, N.C.: Duke University
Press, 2005.
Pasztor, Bence, Luca Mottola, Cecilia Mascolo, Gian Pietro Picco, Stephen Ellwood, and
David Macdonald. Selective Reprogramming of Mobile Sensor Networks through
Social Community Detection. In Proceedings of 7th European Conference on Wireless Sen-
sor Networks (EWSN2010). Coimbra: Springer, 2010.
Paterson, Katie. Vatnajkull (the Sound of ). http://www.katiepaterson.org/vatnajokull.
Paulos, Eric, R. J. Honicky, and Ben Hooker. Citizen Science: Enabling Participatory
Urbanism. In Handbook of Research on Urban Informatics: The Practice and Promise of the
Real-Time City, edited by Marcus Foth, 41436. Hershey, Pa.: IGI Global, 2009.
Pennisi, Elizabeth. Global Tracking of Small Animals Gains Momentum. Science 334, no.
6059 (November 25, 2011): 1042.
 Bibliography / 329

Percifield, Leif. dontflush.me. http://dontflush.me.

PetaJakarta. http://petajakarta.org.
Petrescu, Doina, Constantin Petcou, and Nishat Awan. Trans-Local-Act: Cultural Practices
Within and Across. Paris: aaa/peprav, 2010.
Pichel, William G., James H. Churnside, Timothy S. Veenstra, David G. Foley, Karen S.
Friedman, Russell E. Brainard, Jeremy B. Nicoll, Quanan Zheng, and Pablo Clemente-
Colon. Marine Debris Collects within the North Pacific Subtropical Convergence
Zone. Marine Pollution Bulletin 54 (2007): 120711.
Pickering, Andrew. The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1995.
Planetary Skin Institute. http://www.planetaryskin.org.
Plastics Europe. PlasticsThe Facts: An Analysis of European Plastics Production, Demand
and Waste Data for 2011. http://www.plasticseurope.org.
Poole, Robert. Earthrise: How Man First Saw the Earth. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University
Press, 2008.
Postscapes. A Brief History of the Internet of Things. http://postscapes.com/internet-of
-things-history.
Pottie, Gregory J., and William J. Kaiser. Wireless Integrated Network Sensors. Communi-
cations of the ACM 43, no. 5 (2000): 5158.
Preemptive Media. Areas Immediate Reading (AIR). http://www.pm-air.net/index.php.
Pritchard, Helen. Thinking with the Animal-Hacker: Articulation in Ecologies of Earth
Observation. APRJA. 2013. http://www.aprja.net/?p=990.
Protei. http://scoutbots.com.
Prowse, Terry D., Frederick J. Wrona, James D. Reist, John J. Gibson, John E. Hobbie, Lucie
M. J. Lvesque, and Warwick F. Vincent. Climate Change Effects on Hydroecology of
Arctic Freshwater Ecosystems. Ambio 35, no. 7 (November 2006): 34758.
Public Works. http://www.publicworksgroup.net.
Rainie, Lee, and Barry Wellman. Networked: The New Social Operating System. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press, 2012.
Raley, Rita. Tactical Media. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2009.
Ratto, Matt, and Megan Boler. DIY Citizenship: Critical Making and Social Media. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press, 2014.
Revel, Judith. Identity, Nature, Life: Three Biopolitical Deconstructions. Theory, Culture &
Society 26, no. 6 (2009): 4554.
Robinson, Jennifer. The Spaces of Circulating Knowledge: City Strategies and Global
Urban Governmentality. In Mobile Urbanism Cities and Policymaking in the Global Age,
edited by Eugene McCann and Kevin Ward, 1540. Minneapolis: University of Minne-
sota Press, 2011.
Rossiter, Ned. Organized Networks: Media Theory, Creative Labor, New Institutions. Amster-
dam: NAI, 2006.
Roth, Wolff-Michael, and G. Michael Bowen. Digitizing Lizards: The Topology of Vision
in Ecological Fieldwork. Social Studies of Science 29, no. 5 (1999): 71964.
Rotics, Shay. Comparison of Juvenile and Adult Migration in White Storks (Ciconia ciconia)
with Implications on Survival. Presentation at Symposium on Animal Movement and
the Environment. May 5, 2014. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhe07jTtM60.
Royal Albert Dock London. Funding and Investment. http://abp-london.co.uk/business
-centre/funding-and-investment.
330 / Bibliography

Royal Docks. http://www.royaldocks.london.

Rundel, Philip W., Eric A. Graham, Michael F. Allen, and Jason C. Fisher. Tansley Review:
Environmental Sensor Networks in Ecological Research. New Phytologist 182 (2009):
589607.
Ryan, Peter G., Charles J. Moore, Jan A. van Franeker, and Coleen Moloney. Monitoring
the Abundance of Plastic Debris in the Marine Environment. Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364, no. 1526 (2009): 19992012.
Safecast. http://blog.safecast.org.
Sassen, Saskia, ed. Global Networks, Linked Cities. London: Routledge, 2002.
. Open Source Urbanism. domus. June 29, 2011. http://www.domusweb.it/en/
op-ed/2011/06/29/open-source-urbanism.html.
Savill, P. S., C. M. Perrins, K. J. Kirby, and N. Fisher. Wytham Woods: Oxfords Ecological Labo-
ratory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Scandolara, Chiara, Diego Rubolini, Roberto Ambrosini, Manuela Caprioli, Steffen Hahn,
Felix Liechti, Andrea Romano, Maria Romano, Beatrice Sicurella, and Nicola Saino.
Impact of Miniaturized Geolocators on Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Fitness Traits.
Journal of Avian Biology 45, no. 5 (September 2014): 41723.
SCANNET: A Circumarctic Network of Terrestrial Field Bases. http://www.scannet.nu/
content/view/43/140.
Schiele, Edwin. From Your Shopping Cart to the Ocean Garbage Patch. NASA Ocean
Motion and Surface Currents. http://oceanmotion.org/html/impact/garbagepatch.htm.
Schimel, Dave, Michael Keller, Steve Berukoff, Becky Kao, Hank Loescher, Heather Powell,
Tom Kampe, Dave Moore, Wendy Gram, Dave Barnett, Rachel Gallery, Cara Gibson,
Keli Goodman, Courtney Meier, Stephanie Parker, Lou Pitelka, Yuri Springer, Kate
Thibault, and Ryan Utz. 2011 Science Strategy: Enabling Continental-Scale Ecological
Forecasting. National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), 2011.
Schofield, Gail, Charles M. Bishop, Grant MacLean, Peter Brown, Martyn Baker, Kostas A.
Katselidis, Panayotis Dimopoulos, John D. Pantis, and Graeme C. Hays, Novel GPS
Tracking of Sea Turtles as a Tool for Conservation Management. Journal of Experimen-
tal Marine Biology and Ecology 347 (2007): 5868.
Scholz, Trebor, ed. Digital Labor: The Internet as Playground and Factory. New York: Rout-
ledge, 2012.
. What the MySpace Generation Should Know about Working for Free. April
3, 2007. http://collectivate.net/journalisms/2007/4/3/what-the-myspace-generation
-should-know-about-working-for-free.html (site discontinued).
Schupska, Stephanie. UGAs Marine Debris Tracker Named in Apples Apps We Cant
Live Without. June 5, 2014. http://news.uga.edu/releases/article/marine-debris-tracker
-apple-apps-we-cant-live-without-0614.
Scottish Sensor Systems Centre. http://sensorsystems.org.uk.
Scripps Institute of Oceanography. The Keeling Curve. https://scripps.ucsd.edu/pro
grams/keelingcurve.
Sea Mammal Research Unit. Southern Elephant Seals as Oceanographic Samplers. http://
biology.st-andrews.ac.uk/seaos.
Sebille, Erik van, Matthew H. England, and Gary Froyland. Origin, Dynamics, and Evolu-
tion of Ocean Garbage Patches from Observed Surface Drifters. Environmental Research
Letters 7, no. 4 (2012): doi:10.1088/17489326/7/4/044040.
 Bibliography / 331

SeeClickFix. http://en.seeclickfix.com.
Serres, Michel. The Five Senses: A Philosophy of Mingled Bodies. Translated by Margaret Sankey
and Peter Cowley. 1985. Reprint, London: Continuum, 2008.
. Hermes: Literature, Science, Philosophy. Edited by Josu V. Harari and David F. Bell.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982.
Shapin, Steven, and Simon Schaffer. Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experi-
mental Life. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1985.
Shaviro, Steven. The Universe of Things: On Speculative Realism. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 2014.
. Without Criteria: Kant, Whitehead, Deleuze, and Aesthetics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press, 2009.
Sheppard, Kate. Republicans Kill Global Warming Committee. Guardian. January 6, 2011.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jan/06/republicans-kill-global-warm
ing-committee.
Siemens. Creating Cities. http://www.thecrystal.org/exhibition.html.
. The Crystal. http://www.thecrystal.org.
. Siveillance SiteIQA Better Way to View Automated Video Surveillance. http://
w3.siemens.co.uk/buildingtechnologies/uk/en/security/product-portfolio/siveillance
-site-iq/pages/siveillance-site-iq.aspx.
Silva, Adriana de Souza e, and Jordan Frith. Mobile Interfaces in Public Spaces: Locational Pri-
vacy, Control, and Urban Sociability. London: Routledge, 2012.
Simondon, Gilbert. Du mode dexistence des objets techniques. Editions Aubier, 1958.
. The Genesis of the Individual. Translated by Mark Cohen and Sanford Kwinter.
In Incorporations, edited by Jonathan Crary and Sanford Kwinter, 296319. New York:
Zone Books, 1992.
. Lindividuation la lumire des notions de forme et dinformation. Grenoble: ditions
Jrome Millon, 2005.
. Technical Mentality. Translated by Arne De Boever. In Gilbert Simondon: Being and
Technology, edited by Arne De Boever, Alex Murra, Jon Roffe, and Ashley Woodward,
115. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2012.
. Two Lessons on Animal and Man. Translated by Drew S. Burk. 2004. Reprint, Minne-
apolis: Univocal Publishing, 2011.
Simone, AbdouMaliq. Cities of Uncertainty: Jakarta, the Urban Majority, and Inventive
Political Technologies. Theory, Culture & Society 30, nos. 78 (December 2013): 24363.
. Infrastructure: Introductory Commentary by AbdouMaliq Simone. November
26, 2012. http://www.culanth.org/curated_collections/11-infrastructure/discussions/12
-infrastructure-introductory-commentary-by-abdoumaliq-simone.
. People as Infrastructure: Intersecting Fragments in Johannesburg. Public Culture
16, no. 3 (2004): 40729.
Singer, Natasha. Mission Control, Built for Cities: I.B.M. Takes Smarter Cities Concept to
Rio de Janeiro. New York Times. March 3, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/
business/ibm-takes-smarter-cities-concept-to-rio-de-janeiro.html?pagewanted=all&
_r=0.
Sirtrack. Happy Feet Transmissions Ceased. September 12, 2011. http://www.sirtrack
.com/index.php/news/news/21-happy-feet-transmissions-ceased.
332 / Bibliography

. Sirtrack Working with Emperor Penguin Happy Feet. http://www.sirtrack.com

/index.php/news/case-studies/70-sirtrack-working-with-emperor-penguin-qhappy-feetq.
Skyview. London Eye. http://www.skyview.co.uk/acatalog/London_Eye.html.
Smerdon, Andrew M., James P. Manning, and Elizabeth M. Paull. Crowdsourcing Coastal
Oceanographic Data: A New Wireless Instrument for Fishing Boats to Gather Seabed
Temperature. http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/epd/ocean/MainPage/lob/Aquatec_poster
.pdf.
Snyder, Emily G., Timothy H. Watkins, Paul A. Solomon, Eben D. Thoma, Ronald W. Wil-
liams, Gayle S. W. Hagler, David Shelow, David A. Hindin, Vasu J. Kilaru, and Peter W.
Preuss. The Changing Paradigm of Air Pollution Monitoring. Environmental Science
and Technology 47 (2013): 1136977.
Southeast Atlantic Marine Debris Initiative (SEA-MDI). Want to Track Marine Debris?
Theres an App for That. http://sea-mdi.engr.uga.edu/?p=155.
Spontaneous Interventions. http://www.spontaneousinterventions.org/interventions.
Stacey, Jackie, and Lucy Suchman. Animation and AutomationThe Liveliness and Labors
of Bodies and Machines. Body and Society 18, no. 1 (March 2012): 146.
Stengers, Isabelle. A Constructivist Reading of Process and Reality. Theory, Culture & Soci-
ety 25, no. 4 (2008): 91110.
. The Cosmopolitical Proposal. In Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy,
edited by Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel, 9941003. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2005.
. Cosmopolitics. Translated by Robert Bononno. 1997. Minneapolis: University of Min-
nesota Press, 2010.
. Cosmopolitics II. Translated by Robert Bononno. 1997. Reprint, Minneapolis: Univer-
sity of Minnesota Press, 2011.
. Including Nonhumans in Political Theory: Opening Pandoras Box? In Political
Matter: Technoscience, Democracy and Public Life, edited by Bruce Braun and Sarah What-
more, 334. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010.
. Introductory Notes on an Ecology of Practices. Cultural Studies Review 11, no. 1
(2005): 18396.
. The Invention of Modern Science. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 2000.
. Thinking with Whitehead: A Free and Wild Creation of Concepts. Translated by Michael
Chase. 2002. Reprint, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2011.
Stevens, Martin. Sensory Ecology, Behavior and Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2013.
Stocker, Thomas F., Dahe Qin, Gian-Kasper Plattner, Melinda Tignor, Simon K. Allen,
Judith Boschung, Alexander Nauels, Yu Xia, Vincent Bex, and Pauline M. Midgley, eds.
IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013; The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I
to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Strangeways, Ian. Measuring the Natural Environment. 2000. Reprint, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2003.
Stuever, Hank. BPs Oil Spillcam: A Horror Movie about the Gulf Thats Deeply Compel-
ling. Washington Post. May 26, 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content
/article/2010/05/25/AR2010052505047.html.
Suchman, Lucy. Agencies in Technology Design: Feminist Reconfigurations. Digital Cul-
tures: ParticipationEmpowermentDiversity. Online Proceedings of the 5th European
 Bibliography / 333

Symposium on Gender & ICT, University of Bremen. March 5, 2009. http://www.infor

matik.uni-bremen.de/soteg/gict2009/proceedings/GICT2009_Suchman.pdf.
. Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions. 2nd ed. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2007.
. Reconfigurations. In Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions,
25986. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
. Subject Objects. Feminist Theory 12, no. 2 (2011): 11945.
Supreme Court of the United States. Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency. 549 U.S.
497. April 2, 2007.
Surf Life Saving Western Australia. https://twitter.com/SLSWA.
Sustainable Society Network. UP London 2013. http://uplondon.org.
Sustaining Arctic Observing Network (SAON). http://arcticobserving.org.
Szewczyk, Robert, Alan Mainwaring, Joseph Polastre, Joseph Anderson, and David Culler.
An Analysis of a Large Scale Habitat Monitoring Application. In Sensys04: Proceedings
of the Second ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, 21426. New York:
ACM Press, 2004.
Takada, Hideshige. International Pellet Watch: Studies of the Magnitude and Spatial Varia-
tion of Chemical Risks Associated with Environmental Plastics. In Accumulation: The
Material Politics of Plastic, edited by Jennifer Gabrys, Gay Hawkins, and Mike Michael,
184207. London: Routledge, 2013.
TallBear, Kim. Uppsala 3rd Supradisciplinary Feminist Technoscience Symposium: Femi-
nist and Indigenous Intersections and Approaches to Technoscience. October 17, 2013.
http://www.kimtallbear.com/homeblog/uppsala-3rd-supradisciplinary-feminist-tech
noscience-symposium-feminist-and-indigenous-intersections-and-approaches-to-techno
science.
. Why Interspecies Thinking Needs Indigenous Standpoints. FieldsightsTheo-
rizing the Contemporary, Cultural Anthropology Online. April 24, 2011. http://culanth
.org/fieldsights/260-why-interspecies-thinking-needs-indigenous-standpoints.
Taylor, Peter. Technocratic Optimism: H. T. Odum and the Partial Transformation of Eco-
logical Metaphor after World War II. Journal of the History of Biology 21, no. 2 (Summer
1988): 21344.
TechCentral.ie. Dublin to Become First Fully Sensored City. April 1, 2014. http://www
.techcentral.ie/dublin-to-become-first-fully-sensored-city.
TechniCity. Coursera. http://www.coursera.org/course/techcity.
Terranova, Tiziana. Network Culture: Politics for the Information Age. London: Pluto Press, 2004.
Thingful. https://thingful.net.
Thomas, Daniel. Smartphones Set to Become Even Smarter. Financial Times. January 3,
2014. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/210864c6-72f9-11e3-b05b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3ihi
UWZgT.
Thompson, Richard C., Charles J. Moore, Frederick S. vom Saal, and Shanna H. Swan.
Plastics, the Environment, and Human Health: Current Consensus and Future Trends.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364, no. 1526 (2009):
215366.
Thompson, Richard C., Ylva Olsen, Richard P. Mitchell, Anthony Davis, Steven J. Rowland,
Anthony W. G. John, Daniel McGonigle, and Andrea E. Russell. Lost at Sea: Where
Does All the Plastic Go? Science 304, no. 5672 (2004): 838.
334 / Bibliography

Thompson, Richard C., Shanna H. Swan, Charles J. Moore, and Frederick S. vom Saal. Our
Plastic Age. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364, no.
1526 (2009): 197376.
Thrift, Nigel, and Shaun French. The Automatic Production of Space. Transactions of the
Institute of British Geographers 27, no. 3 (2002): 30935.
Tikhonravov, M. K. The Creation of the First Artificial Earth Satellite: Some Historical
Details. Journal of the British Interplanetary Society 47, no. 5 (May 1994): 19194.
Tolle, Gilman, Joseph Polastre, Robert Szewczyk, David Culler, Neil Turner, Kevin Tu,
Stephen Burgess, Todd Dawson, Phil Buonadonna, David Gay, and Wei Hong. A
Macroscope in the Redwoods. In SenSys05: Proceedings of the Third International Confer-
ence on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, 5163. New York: ACM Press, 2005.
Townsend, Anthony. Smart Cities: Big Data, Civic Hackers, and the Quest for a New Utopia. New
York: W. W. Norton. 2013.
Townsend, Anthony, Rachel Maguire, Mike Liebhold, and Matthias Crawford. A Planet of
Civic Laboratories: The Future of Cities, Information, and Inclusion. Palo Alto, Calif.:
Institute for the Future and the Rockefeller Foundation, 2010.
Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt. Empowering Nature; or, Some Gleanings in Bee Culture. In
Naturalizing Power: Essays in Feminist Cultural Analysis, edited by Sylvia Junko Yanagi-
sako and Carol Lowery Delaney, 11344. New York: Routledge, 1995.
Turgeman, Yaniv J., Eric Alm, and Carlo Ratti. Smart Toilets and Sewer Sensors Are Com-
ing. Wired. March 21, 2014. http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2014/03/ideas
-bank/yaniv-j-turgeman.
Turing, Alan. Intelligent Machinery. In Mechanical Intelligence: Collected Works of A. M. Tur-
ing, edited by Darrel C. Ince, 10727. 1948. Reprint, Amsterdam: North Holland, 1992.
Turner, Fred. From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and
the Rise of Digital Utopianism. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 2006.
Uexkll, Jacob von. A Foray into the Worlds of Animals and Humans. Translated by Joseph D.
ONeil. 1934. Reprint, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010.
UK Argo. Deep Profile Floats. http://www.ukargo.net/about/technology/deep_profile
_floats.
UK Clean Air Act, 1956. 4 & 5 Eliz. 2 chapter 52. London: HMSO, 1956.
Underwood, A. J. Experiments in Ecology: Their Logical Design and Interpretation Using Analysis
of Variance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1997.
Ungerleider, Neal. The London Underground Has Its Own Internet of Things. Fast Com-
pany. May 8, 2014. http://www.fastcolabs.com/3030367/the-london-underground-has-its
-own-internet-of-things.
United Nations Environment Programme. Marine Litter: An Analytical Overview. Nai-
robi: UNEP, 2005. http://www.unep.org/regionalseas/marinelitter/publications/docs
/anl_oview.pdf.
. Marine Litter: A Global Challenge. Nairobi: UNEP, 2009. http://www.unep.org/
pdf/unep_marine_litter-a_global_challenge.pdf.
United Nations Environment Programme Yearbook. Plastic Debris in the Ocean. Nai-
robi: UNEP, 2011. http://www.unep.org/yearbook/2011/pdfs/plastic_debris_in_the_
ocean.pdf.
University of Oxford. Wytham Woods. http://www.wytham.ox.ac.uk.
Urban Prototyping London. Festival Showcase. 2013. http://uplondon.net/wp-content/
uploads/2013/05/UP-London-Street-Exposition.pdf.
 Bibliography / 335

U.S. EPA. Carbon Pollution Standards for New, Modified and Reconstructed Power Plants.
http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards.
. Clean Air Act. http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/amendments.html.
. Draft Roadmap for Next Generation Air Monitoring. March 8, 2013. http://www
.eunetair.it/cost/newsroom/03-US-EPA_Roadmap_NGAM-March2013.pdf.
. Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Sec-
tion 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.
. Marine Debris in the North Pacific. A Summary of Existing Information and Iden-
tification of Data Gaps. EPA-909-R-11006. San Francisco, Calif.: EPA, 2011.
. Toxic Air Pollutants. http://www3.epa.gov/airtrends/agtrnd95/tap.html.
. What Are the Six Common Air Pollutants? http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/
urbanair.
U.S. Long Term Ecological Research Network (LTER). http://www.lternet.edu.
Vandenabeele, Sylvie P., Edward Grundy, Michael I. Friswell, Adam Grogan, Stephen C.
Votier, and Rory P. Wilson. Excess Baggage for Birds: Inappropriate Placement of Tags
on Gannets Changes Flight Patterns. PLoS One 9, no. 3 (March 2014): e92657.
Vaughan, David G., Josefino C. Comiso, Ian Allison, Jorge Carrasco, Georg Kaser, Ronald
Kwok, Philip Mote, Tavi Murray, Frank Paul, Jiawen Ren, Eric Rignot, Olga Solomina,
Konrad Steffen, and Tingjun Zhang. Observations: Cryosphere. In Climate Change 2013:
The Physical Science Basis; Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by Thomas F. Stocker, Dahe Qin, Gian-
Kasper Plattner, Melinda Tignor, Simon K. Allen, Judith Boschung, Alexander Nauels,
Yu Xia, Vincent Bex, and Pauline M. Midgley, 31782. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2013.
Verran, Helen. The Changing Lives of Measures and Values: From Center Stage in the
Fading Disciplinary Society to Pervasive Background Instrument in the Emergent
Control Society. Sociological Review 59, special issue, Measure and Value, edited by
Lisa Adkins and Celia Lury (2012): 6072.
Virno, Paolo. A Grammar of the Multitude. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e), 2004.
Vitaliano, Dorothy B. Legends of the Earth. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1973.
Wald, Chelsea. Follow That Bird: Real-Time Data on Migrating Birds, Coming to a Phone
Near You. June 20, 2014. http://www.earthtouchnews.com/discoveries/innovation/
follow-that-bird-real-time-data-on-migrating-birds-coming-to-a-phone-near-you.
WayDownSouth. Adopt an Argo Float. http://argofloats.wikispaces.com/Adopt+an+
Argo+Float.
Weiser, Mark. The Computer for the 21st Century. Scientific American 265, no. 3 (1991):
94104.
Welsh, Matt. Sensor Networks, Circa 1967. January 21, 2010. http://matt-welsh.blogspot
.co.uk/2010/01/sensor-networks-circa-1967.html.
Whitehead, Alfred N. Adventures of Ideas. 1933. Reprint, New York: The Free Press, 1967.
. Modes of Thought. 1938. Reprint, New York: The Free Press, 1966.
. Process and Reality. 1929. Reprint, New York: The Free Press, 1985.
. Science and the Modern World. 1925. Reprint, New York: The Free Press, 1967.
Whitehead, Mark. State Science and the Skies: Governmentalities of the British Atmosphere. Mal-
den, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.
Wiener, Norbert. Cybernetics; or, Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine.
New York: John Wiley, 1948.
336 / Bibliography

. The Human Use of Human Beings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1954.

Wikelski, Martin. Move It, Baby! Keynote presentation at Symposium on Animal Move-
ment and the Environment. May 5, 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxtJAX
QQU40&index=2&list=PLxuqUEe7JoCMayKHK-Ryi_tcq1RxTA4.
Wikelski, Martin, Roland W. Kays, N. Jeremy Kasdin, Kasper Thorup, James A. Smith, and
George W. Swenson. Going Wild: What a Global Small-Animal Tracking System Could
Do for Experimental Biologists. Journal of Experimental Biology 210 (2007): 18186.
Wikelski Martin, David Moskowitz, James S. Adelman, Jim Cochran J, David S. Wilcove,
and Michael L. May. Simple Rules Guide Dragonfly Migration. Biology Letters 2, no. 3
(2006): 32529.
Wikelski, Martin, Uschi Mller, Wolfgang Arne Heidrich, and Franz Xaver Kmmeth.
Disaster Alert Mediation Using Nature. (May 8, 2012 patent filing date; November 14,
2013 publication date), WO 2013167661 A2.
Wilcove, David S. No Way Home: The Decline of the Worlds Great Animal Migrations. Washing-
ton, D.C.: Island Press, 2008.
Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust. http://www.wwt.org.uk.
WildlifeTV. Wildlife Webcams. http://www.wildlifetv.co.uk/webcams.
Wilson, Jon S., ed. Sensor Technology Handbook. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2005.
Wilson, Rory P., and Clive R. McMahon. Measuring Devices on Wild Animals: What
Constitutes Acceptable Practice? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4, no. 3 (2006):
14754.
Wilson, Rory P., E. L. C. Shepard, and N. Liebsch. Prying into the Intimate Details of Ani-
mal Lives: Use of a Daily Diary on Animals. Endangered Species Research 4 (2008): 12337.
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. Science in a Time of Crisis. http://www.whoi
.edu/deepwaterhorizon.
World Health Organization (WHO). Ambient (Outdoor) Air Quality and Health. Fact
Sheet No. 313 (March 2014). http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en.
Wynne, Brian. May the Sheep Graze Safely? A Reflexive View of the Expert-Lay Knowl-
edge Divide. In Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology, edited by Scott
Lash, Bronislaw Szerszynski, and Brian Wynne, 4483. London: Sage, 1996.
xClinic Environmental Health Clinic and Living Architecture Lab. Amphibious Architec-
ture. http://www.environmentalhealthclinic.net/amphibiousarchitecture.
Xively. https://xively.com.
Yu, Alan. More Than 300 Sharks In Australia Are Now on Twitter. All Things Considered.
National Public Radio. January 1, 2014. http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/
2013/12/31/258670211/more-than-300-sharks-in-australia-are-now-on-twitter.
Zhen, Zhao, et al. Climate Change: Cities in Action. Montreal: Metropolis and Cisco in
partnership with Connected Urban Development, 2009. http://old.metropolis.org/sites/
default/files/publications/2009/Climate-Change-Cities-in-Action_0.pdf.
Zoological Society of London. Eel Conservation. http://www.zsl.org/conservation/
regions/uk-europe/eel-conservation.
 INDEX

Page numbers in italics refer to photographs and other illustrations.

abstractions, 23, 3233, 52, 118, 153, 228, 242, agency, 281n9; individuation of, 3233;
254, 259, 261, 27374, 280n83 participatory, 200, 227, 264; of sensors, 65,
accountability, 73, 74, 76, 231, 233 218, 225, 228. See also actions/activism;
actions/activism, 19, 51, 118, 129, 17971, 176, citizenship, environmental
22728, 257, 297n41; amplifying, 7680; AIR. See Areas Immediate Reading (AIR,
data-driven, 16, 36, 132, 165, 17375, 176, Preemptive Media)
17778; distributed, 201, 225; environmen- AirCasting citizen sensing kits, 159
tal, 19, 20, 32, 42, 79, 161, 165; monitoring air pollution/quality, 15781; animal-
leading to, 2013, 204, 267; participatory, sensing, 84, 16976, 17981; citizen-
21120, 243; urban, 234, 237. See also sensing, 15862, 16269, 17681; rural,
agency; citizen science; citizen-sensing; 296n18; sensing, 172, 212, 246; World
citizenship, environmental; engagement; Health Organization (WHO) fact sheet
politics on, 295n1. See also pollution
actor-network theory (Latour), 225 Air Quality Egg project, 161, 174, 17576, 177,
actual entities. See entities, actual 180
actual occasions, 9, 3132, 43, 45, 49, 123, 128, Akrich, Madeline, 225
143, 154, 160, 167, 18081, 24244, 259, 302n2 algorithmic processes, 8, 22, 32, 40, 4142,
actuators, 33, 43, 208, 215; automated 43, 45, 47, 227, 237, 249, 251, 255
actuation, 196, 200201, 207. See also AMAP. See Arctic Monitoring and Assess-
sensor-actuators ment Programme (AMAP)
Adopt-a-Hydrant platform, 21112 ambient intelligence, 201, 225, 255
a/effect, 12, 100, 1067, 210, 274; data, 162, ambividuals, 2012, 208. See also individuals
166, 17071, 173, 178, 18081; registers of, Amphibious Architecture project, 89, 126
11, 153; sensing, 48, 49 amplification, 7680, 202, 275
Africa, urban infrastructures in, 260; citizen Anderson, Christian Ulrik, 224, 301n31
science in, 95 Andrejevic, Mark, 215, 225
Agamben, Giorgio, 192 Animal Messaging Service, 85, 86, 91

337
338 / Index

animals, tracking, 81107; badgers, 83, assemblages, 10, 179, 238, 260, 285n36
9093; behavioral, 35, 63, 1036; elephant Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorologi-
seals, 62, 81, 83, 9395, 284n14; goats, 98; cal Laboratory (AOML), 150
of migration and movement, 19, 8390, Atlas of Community-Based Monitoring in a
85, 91, 94; perceptual worlds, 1047; Changing Arctic, 124
planetary data provided by, 8788; and atmometers, 122
problem of milieus, 99103; remote, automata, 102, 103, 258
6062, 8788; RFID, 6466; satellite, 94, automaticity/automatism, 11, 201, 207, 253,
95; on Sputnik 2, 2; technologies for, 25659, 261
8487; whales, 86. See also birds, automation, 53, 103, 198, 207, 250, 251,
monitoring; creatures; Crittercam; 27075. See also actuators, automated
tagging, animal actuation
Animal Tracker app, 95, 96, 9798 autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs),
AOML. See Atlantic Oceanographic 146
and Meteorological Laboratory
(AOML) badgers, tracking, 9093, 94
API. See Arctic Perspective Initiative Barthes, Roland, 153, 154
(API) Bateson, Gregory, 102
applications/apps: citizen-sensing, 19, 24, batteries, 41, 148, 287n31
54, 99, 140, 145, 147, 148, 208, 244, 284n82; becoming, 64, 67, 132; of data, 16869; of
of digital urbanisms, 21120; ecological, entities, 16061, 167; experiences of, 9,
50, 125, 281n15; educational, 22130; ICT, 3233, 1045, 106, 132; processes of, 9,
199, 303n23; participatory, 18, 22, 2324, 1045, 16061; in smart cities, 25461,
21112, 214, 274; sensor, 3, 5, 37, 41, 44, 98, 265; tuning to new registers of, 3233;
189, 240, 273, 281n15; for smart cities, 195, withness as, 24243, 260. See also compu-
221, 257, 262. See also civic apps; and tation, becoming environmental
individual apps being, 106, 129, 152, 28990n94; of data, 168
architecture: computer, 10, 34, 258, 261; 69; emergence of, 13, 167; in smart cities,
data, 42, 186, 194, 238; smart, 24851 25461; withness as, 24243, 260
Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Bellacasa, Maria Puig de la, 78
Programme (AMAP), 114, 290n6 Beniger, James R., 304n40
Arctic Perspective Initiative (API), 124, Benjamin, David, 89
291n30 Benson, Etienne, 84
Arctic Region: monitoring changes in, 117 Berkeley, Edmund C., 5
25, 150, 290n6; warming of, 11213, 114, big data, 34, 38, 215, 21617, 247, 255
11920 biodiversity, 19, 116, 142
Arduino open-source electronics, 17, 19 biomonitoring, 44, 5859, 68, 80. See also
Areas Immediate Reading (AIR, Preemptive biosensing/biosensors
Media), 126, 158, 17374 biopolitics 2.0, 190, 19194, 201, 2023, 205
Argo floats, 145, 147, 147 biosensing/biosensors, 68, 8283, 174, 245.
Argos satellite systems, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, See also biomonitoring
287n31 biota, 11920
Arnstein, Sherry, 222 biotelemetry, 6263
artists/arts, climate-related sensing BirdLog North America platform, 89
practices, 111, 11820, 12324, 13839 BirdReturns (California Nature Conser-
Asia, pollution levels in, 164 vancy), 89
 Index / 339

birds, monitoring, 33, 3435, 36, 44, 61, 82, 84, CCTV cameras, 237, 244, 24546, 249, 257,
89; bird cams, 44, 59, 59, 60; geese, 85, 88, 303n30
94; white storks, 9599, 96 Center for Embedded Networked Sensing
BIT. See Bureau of Inverse Technology (CENS) research project, 28, 29, 33, 3747,
(BIT) 39, 54, 282n41
Blue Marble (photograph), 1 Central Nervous System for the Earth
bodies, sensing, 4748, 5052, 58, 6466, 123, (CeNSE), 35
15253, 163, 254, 257. See also embodiment Cerf, Vint, 284n7
Boler, Megan, 235 CH4. See methane (CH4)
Bowen, G. Michael, 42 Chabot, Warner, 88
Boyle, David E., 303n23 China, pollution levels in, 164
Braidotti, Rosi, 51, 127 Cisco Systems, Inc., 78, 186, 188, 200
British Petroleum (BP) oil spill (Gulf of cities: digital, 185, 2024, 22425, 227, 230,
Mexico), 57, 59, 7376 233, 23536; pollution in, 19, 12627, 164,
Brynskov, Martin, 235 17375, 177; rewriting, 301n31; sensor-
buoys, 7, 116, 140, 14546, 148, 149, 15051, 154 based, 212, 213, 21718, 22033, 237, 261;
Bureau of Inverse Technology (BIT), 170 speculative, 24165. See also smart cities;
urbanism; urbanism, participatory
calamities, environmental, 39, 57, 7376, 79, digital; urbanization
9899, 193. See also events, environmental citizen science: air quality monitoring, 165;
California, 140; Muirs writings on, 128; animal tracking, 8890, 97; marine debris
Nature Conservancy in, 89; Southern, tracking, 14649; practices of, 79, 27374;
172, 17375. See also James Reserve sensor projects of, 19, 54, 12325; use of term,
research (University of California) 279n67; webcam watching, 6162. See also
cameras, 36, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 207, 226, 269, science
284n9; as sensors, 5760, 65, 67, 76, 78. citizen-sensing: accuracy of, 17980; air
See also CCTV cameras; Crittercam; quality monitoring, 15862, 16269, 176
Moss Cam; Spillcam; webcams 81; animal tracking projects, 8890, 95,
Canguilhem, Georges, 12, 52, 191, 271; and 97, 284n82; apps for, 19, 54, 99, 140, 145,
problem of milieus, 99103 208, 284n82; data collection through, 129,
capacities: of citizenship, 131, 181, 208, 211, 16979, 18081, 196, 23334; kits for, 117
214, 215, 220; computational, 3334, 269; 18, 119, 159, 17375, 176; of marine debris,
of devices, 4, 13, 16, 54; perceptive, 37, 49, 14651; modalities of, 18990; oceanic
102; sensing, 1922, 36, 4445, 47, 50, 65, studies, 13940, 14649; platforms for,
66, 69, 112, 123, 155, 171, 234, 236 19899, 230; practices of, 79, 107, 13034,
carbon, 45, 116, 118. See also hydrocarbons 15862, 178, 271, 27374; productivity of,
carbon dioxide (CO2): Keeling Curve 199200; projects of, 1718, 1820, 31, 54,
register of, 11617; limiting levels of, 12328, 16979, 27273; in smart cities,
29091n18; measuring, 3, 44, 45, 146, 185205, 257; technologies of, 27172, 273;
163; temperature levels connected to, terms of, 128; with webcams, 6068, 76.
122, 123 See also engagement, in citizen-sensing;
carbon monoxide (CO), 17, 163, 170, 17374, participation, citizen; sensing practices
175 citizenship, environmental, 11134; capaci-
cards: electronic access, 22425; plastic spill, ties of, 215, 220; data-led, 171, 17879,
76, 144 19596; DIY, 235; ecological, 132, 175;
Casalegno, Federico, 186, 194, 199200 experiments with, 161, 17680, 219;
340 / Index

expressing, 12728, 130; fixing, 212; migrating animals for, 85, 8990, 91, 94.
modalities of, 175, 177, 187, 18990, 205; See also networks; sensor networks;
practices of, 112, 13132, 173, 17980, 193 sensors
97, 2034, 211; in smart cities, 185205, communities, 132, 186, 263; engagement
23033; urban, 186, 199200, 202, 211, of, 202, 203; environmental monitoring
220. See also actions/activism; agency; projects of, 12325, 158, 165, 177; open,
governance; politics 27980n70. See also civic apps; common
City Bug Report platform (Denmark), 235 good
City Dashboard project (London), 257 computability, 215, 21718, 23234, 236,
CitySourced, 211 23738
civic apps, 21216, 23033, 300n18. See also computation, becoming environmental,
applications/apps; and individual apps 818, 20, 24, 25, 95, 113, 131, 186, 197, 218,
Clean Air Act of 1956 ( UK), 163 267, 272, 274; aspects of, 21, 242; and
Clean Air Act of 1963 ( U.S.), 163 cameras-as-sensors, 59, 76, 78; milieus
Clean Power Plan (U.S. EPA), 29091n18 created by, 1213, 18, 103; oceanic, 146, 153;
climate change, 11134; effects on organ- through organisms, 45, 95, 103; participa-
isms, 113, 114, 118, 11920, 12425, 12830; tory, 102, 124, 189, 210; sensing processes,
governance and, 191, 194; measuring, 45, 16, 3234, 3638, 45, 48, 76, 90, 93, 128,
11517, 12122, 12730, 13132; monitoring, 160, 215, 26869, 279n64, 281n6; in smart
35, 44, 81, 11213, 118, 123, 13334, 146, 150; cities, 185205; techno-geographic pro-
politics of, 134, 171; science of, 11517. See cesses of, 4, 51, 5759, 67; as way of life, 6,
also earth; global warming; tempera- 9, 18, 30, 47, 192, 234. See also ubiquitous
tures, earth computing
Clough, Patricia Ticineto, 50 computationally based technologies, 8183;
CO. See carbon monoxide (CO) citizen-sensing kits, 11718, 119, 17375;
CO2. See carbon dioxide (CO2) logics of, 18, 104, 188, 208, 213, 22334,
coal, as contributor to air pollution, 16364 237; modalities of, 122, 19596, 198, 217;
co-creation, 32. See also creativity monitoring, 19, 131, 187, 19293; sensing,
code/coding, 11, 19798, 212, 215, 25960. 16, 1920, 32, 48, 101, 146, 160, 215, 281n6;
See also software in smart cities, 18586, 189, 191, 207, 212.
Code for America project, 212, 213 See also technologies, digital
cognition, 6, 11, 45, 281n6 computerization, 215, 25859, 274, 300n2;
collectives, , 8, 9, 51, 64, 127, 13134, 238, 263, architecture of, 10, 34, 258, 261; distrib-
302n75; as objects of monitoring, 15152; uted, 7, 30; failures at, 22730; planetary,
potential of, 10, 53, 124, 129, 256, 259, 272, 1318, 52, 26775; processes of, 45, 47, 185
27374 86; sensing as part of, 1012
Combes, Muriel, 13, 7980, 1045, 289n75, concerns. See matters of concern
28990n94 concrescences, 53, 78, 165, 260, 273; of data,
command-and-control, 194, 197, 261 4849, 7778, 161, 166, 17779, 296n30; of
common good, 215, 220, 226, 228, 233, 235, earth, 14, 104, 139, 269; of experiences,
241. See also communities 32, 38, 285n7; of objects, 10, 143; of
Common Sense mobile air quality sensing plastics, 142, 15152; process of, 3233, 44,
devices, 159, 177 104; of sensing, 45, 52, 5354, 66, 7677,
communication: on environmental issues, 279n64; of sensors, 9, 5758, 17778,
12, 13, 19, 77, 93; satellite, 2, 147, 15051; 260; of subjects, 10, 1213, 32, 296n30; of
technologies for, 34, 304n40; using subject-superjects, 13, 45, 128, 296n30;
 Index / 341

technological, 15, 4849, 151, 179; White- Crystal building (Siemens, London), 248,
head on, 10, 263, 302n2; withness as, 242 24854, 250, 256, 259; Forces of Change
43. See also entities, concrescences of; exhibit, 266; Play the City Game exhibit,
environment(s), concrescences of 251, 25254
concretizations, 22, 71, 218, 269, 272, 280n83; CSC. See Connected Sustainable Cities
of digital infrastructures, 25461; envi- project (CSC, MIT Mobile Experience
ronmental, 4, 47, 67, 6869, 78, 129; of Lab/Cisco)
processes, 9, 49, 5051, 105; of sensing/ CTD-SRDLs (conductivity-temperature-
sensors, 1415, 7980, 130, 247; Simondon depth satellite relay data loggers), 81,
on, 10, 15, 25960, 261, 263; of techno- 94
geographies, 4, 7980, 263; of technolo- CUD. See Connected Urban Development
gies, 67, 242, 25461, 26263 (CUD) initiative
conductivity-temperature-depth satellite Curitiba, Brazil, 193, 195, 202
relay data loggers. See CTD-SRDLs cyberinfrastructures, 35, 44
(conductivity-temperature-depth satellite cybernetics, 1015, 185, 201, 270, 272, 292;
relay data loggers) ecology and, 15, 197; organisms and, 102
connectedness: ecological, 1617; sensing, 3, 104, 105, 251, 254; of smart cities, 196,
7, 89, 123; in smart cities, 19496, 202, 25659; of systems, 197, 279n59; urban,
228, 247, 253, 255, 257, 259. See also 251, 254
interconnectedness
Connected Sustainable Cities project (CSC, DAMN. See Disaster Alert Mediation
MIT Mobile Experience Lab/Cisco), 184, Using Nature (DAMN) forecasting
18687, 192, 193, 19498, 200, 2025 method
Connected Urban Development (CUD) DARPA, See U.S. Defense Advanced
initiative, 186, 19496, 203 Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
conservation, 54, 63, 88, 89 dashboards, cybernetic, 251, 252, 25657
constructivism, 22, 166, 24445, 264 data, 32, 49, 53, 86, 92, 94, 226; amalgamat-
contingency, digital infrastructure as, 254, ing, 35, 38, 43, 68, 27980n70; architecture
25961 of, 42, 186, 194, 238; on climate change,
Corburn, Jason, 279n67 11213, 11517, 11725; concrescences of,
Cornell Herons Pond Cam (Ithaca, New 4849, 7778, 161, 166, 17779; creaturing,
York), 59 15781; ecological, 38, 79; engagement
cosmology, 53, 16768, 209 through, 8890, 16162, 16970, 17677;
cosmopolitics, 33, 155; ecological, 23638; environmental, 1314, 3637, 84, 11415,
Stengers on, 106, 209, 21516, 222, 230, 12025, 161; experiences of, 49, 16769,
238. See also politics 180; from garbage patches, 14243; gener-
Cosm platform, 35, 27980n70, 28182n19, ation of, 16869, 176, 194; localized, 14, 30,
291n21. See also Pachube platform; Xively 38, 40; migratory, 8390; mining of, 62,
platform 216, 234; monitoring, 53, 11415, 189; net-
Costa, Beatriz da, 126, 17374, 175 works of, 8, 53, 5758; oceanographic, 81,
creativity, 32, 5253, 12530, 165, 167, 270 14651; ontologies of, 4243; parsing of, 8,
creatures: 6063, 77, 90; creaturing data, 47, 227, 256; for political action, 16, 36, 132,
157181 165, 171, 17375, 176, 17778; processing of,
Crittercam, 58, 6364, 80, 86 4142, 51, 7778, 181; real-time, 34, 8890;
crowdsourcing, 18, 19, 127, 207, 210, 216, 219, relevance of, 16569, 180; for sustainabil-
223, 227, 234, 235, 246 ity, 199200; transmitting, 3, 67, 33, 41,
342 / Index

147, 160; urban, 200, 214, 255; variables for, digitectomy, 77

12829. See also big data Disaster Alert Mediation Using Nature
databases, 42, 44, 65, 203, 215, 216 (DAMN) forecasting method, 9899. See
data creaturing, 15781; citizen-sensing also calamities, environmental
projects, 16979, 18081; concrescence dispositifs, 186, 192, 19697, 203
of, 17879, 296n30; materializing and disturbances, environmental. See calamities,
monitoring, 16269. See also creatures environmental; weather
data gathering: citizen-sensing, 129, 17778. DIY (do-it-yourself ) projects, 60, 89, 161,
196, 23334; democratization of, 15859, 302n73; air quality monitoring, 165, 177;
161, 165, 168, 17677, 202, 213, 27273; DIY, citizen involvement in, 189, 235; data
1820; grassroots, 17375; instrumenta- gathering with, 1820; digital, 207, 208;
tion of, 87, 166; or organisms, 8890, 93; engagement in, 158, 28182n19; sensor-
passive, 21415, 22627; practices of, 7, 53, based, 17, 18, 35, 124, 208; urban, 23233,
107, 12327, 161, 16869, 176, 178, 181, 212; 24344. See also science, grassroots
and processing, 7778, 16970; remote, dontflush.me project, 126
19, 3435, 7173, 81; sensor-based, 30, 32, drifters/drifts, 142, 14446, 147, 153. See also
39, 54, 69, 21617, 257; transmitting, 21, 33, cards, plastic spill; debris, marine; Global
93. See also instrumentation; measure- Drifter Program; gyres, oceanic; oceans
ment(s); sensor data drones, 6061, 79, 146
data loggers, 81, 83, 94
datasets, 79, 187, 282n41; environmental, 114, earth: concrescences of, 14, 104, 113, 128, 132,
175, 176; scientific, 17778, 180 139, 269; instrumenting, 7, 3337, 39, 150;
dataspaces, 4243, 77, 16970 programmability of, 18, 1118, 36, 52,
datum, 12, 128, 15152, 297n34; Whitehead 104, 114, 128, 197, 26775; propositions for,
on, 20, 53, 16769, 170, 297n34 13334; pulse of, 8788; spaceship earth,
Davis, Martin, 300n2 14; stressors on, 266; upper atmosphere
Debaise, Didier, 1067 of, 1, 2; whole earth, 1, 277n1, 277n7. See
debris, marine: accumulation of, 137, 141, also Google Earth platform
154; tracking of, 13941, 14445, 14651. See Earthrise (photograph), 1, 14
also garbage patches, oceanic; plastics, Easterling, Keller, 257
marine concentrations of Eastern Garbage Patch, 140, 141. See also
deforestation, 3, 19, 88, 116, 118 Great Pacific Garbage Patch; gyres,
Deleuze, Giles, 51, 201, 205, 20910, 221, 224 oceanic
25, 228 Eastman Kodak Company, 23, 277n7, 277
democratization: of creaturely sensor data, 78n8
181; of engagement, 1820, 132, 178, 179 Ebbesmeyer, Curtis, 137, 144, 294n38
80, 208, 210, 235. See also data gathering, eBird project (Cornell Lab of Ornithology),
democratization of 89
Denali National Park (Alaska), 84 eco-actions, 298n5. See also actions/activism;
Descartes, Ren, 102, 103 drones
Desigo management system (Siemens), eco-drones, 6061. See also drones
24951, 256 ecology, 73, 102, 273, 275; aerial, 9599, 163;
determinism, 4, 264. See also indeterminacy animal, 9099, 102, 103; apps for, 50, 125,
diffusion tubes, 158, 165 281n15; of citizenship, 132, 175; as connec-
digital city. See cities, digital; smart cities tions, 1617; cosmopolitical, 23638;
digital media. See media, digital cybernetic, 15, 197; Guattari on, 16, 51;
 Index / 343

instrumentation in study of, 23, 3337, matters of concern, 27071; with mea-
63, 76; machine, 3943; media, 1318; of surement, 12324; with milieus, 90, 127,
movement, 84, 100; observations of, 14, 274; modalities of, 155, 228; participatory,
35, 38, 39, 6873, 27273; processes of, 49, 214, 228; political, 176, 178, 225, 235, 236;
57, 71, 73, 88, 118; relationships in, 34, 42, processes of, 209, 236; public, 61, 165;
53, 86, 125, 269, 275; sensing, 20, 3031, 33, sensor-based, 50, 80, 160, 227; in smart
57, 79, 8390, 11725, 281n15 cities, 199200; technological, 19, 230,
ecology, sensing. See data gathering 235, 25758; technoscientific, 15455;
eco-monitoring, 195. See also monitoring urban, 207, 234, 237. See also actions/
ecosystems, 15, 28, 50, 142, 230; Arctic, 114, activism; citizen science; citizen-sensing;
120. See also systems participation
eddies, oceanic, 293n15, 293n19. See also engineering, 1415, 134, 188
gyres, oceanic; oceans entities, 129, 165, 192, 254, 264, 267, 271;
education. See knowledge; machine learn- actual, 910, 43, 53, 140, 151, 179, 242,
ing; Massive Open Online Course 297n55, 302n2; becoming, 16061, 167;
(MOOC) collective, 51, 124, 256, 263; concrescences
Edwards, Paul N., 14, 133 of, 1011, 1315, 32, 38, 53, 72, 127, 215, 242;
efficiency, 40, 197, 204, 212; in smart cities, creaturely, 178; cybernetic, 256; environ-
185, 188, 19396, 198, 2023, 207 ments relationship to, 910, 128, 151, 152,
electronic waste, 16 15354, 242; experiencing, 30, 32, 160, 168,
elephant seals, tracking, 62, 81, 83, 9395, 281n6; individuation of, 1314, 1045, 122,
284n14 151, 265, 272; noncomputational, 22730;
ELOKA. See Exchange for Local Observa- sensing, 52, 127, 285n27; subject-superject,
tions and Knowledge of the Arctic 160, 255. See also more-than-human
(ELOKA) entities
Elson, Jeremy, 41 environment(s), 52, 53, 191, 264, 281n15,
Elton, Charles, 9093 290n6; acting upon, 19, 20, 32, 42, 79, 161;
embodiment, 22, 64, 78, 285n27. See also animate, 65, 66; concrescences of, 10, 11,
bodies, sensing 1213, 14, 15, 4849, 73, 176, 17980; con-
empiricism: of BP oil spill, 7476; radical, cretizations of, 4, 47, 67, 6869, 78, 129;
13334, 283n62, 304n65 data on, 1314, 3637, 84, 11415, 12025,
endurance, 144, 151, 152, 153, 168 161; entities relationship to, 910, 128,
energy, 195, 199; distribution of, 249, 25255; 151, 152, 15354, 242; experiencing, 1920,
exchanges of, 12829; monitoring of, 189, 127, 268; facts in, 15152, 178, 292n60; gov-
202, 207, 237, 269; of organisms, 44, 67, 95, ernance of, 19091, 192, 194, 2013; images
1012; saving, 4041, 281n15, 287n31 of, 5758, 68, 7376, 179; individuation of,
engagement, 58, 59, 143, 165, 241, 243, 269; in 11, 58, 76, 265, 279n64; in-forming, 80,
citizen-sensing, 89, 15862, 16465, 180, 12830, 159, 167, 169, 175, 267, 280n73; man-
18990, 199, 215, 222; in citizenship, 2023, agement of, 8, 3637, 53; milieus of, 1213,
222, 228, 271, 27273; community, 202, 1617, 18, 197, 26263; new, 4, 78; oceanic,
203; data-driven, 8890, 16162, 16970, 13755, 147; organisms relationship to,
17677; democratization of, 1820, 132, 4445, 70, 152; participation in, 1047, 132,
178, 17980, 208, 210, 235; DIY, 158, 281 155, 160, 177, 179; programming, 3, 4, 912,
82n19; environmental, 1920, 52, 79, 118, 30, 19698, 203, 267; relevance of, 113, 153,
161, 175, 17880, 273; habitat-forming, 34, 166, 17879; reshaping, 1, 15; satellite
80, 89; of the idiot, 20738; with monitoring of, 23; sedimentation of, 13,
344 / Index

32; in smart cities, 187, 19094, 204 242, digital technology and, 21, 198; distrib-
265; social, 165, 167, 17879, 213, 257, uted, 283n62; ecological, 45, 125; of
296n30; studying, 38, 45, 4849, 12025; entities, 30, 32, 160, 168, 281n6; environ-
techno-geographic, 67, 71, 267; transfor- mental, 1920, 132, 268; experiments
mation of, 48, 77; use of term, 910, 12, relationship to, 2930, 77; felt, 64, 12324;
197; webcams constructing of, 5859; forms of, 4142, 49; inventive, 5254, 105;
Whitehead on, 12, 39. See also calamities, measurement as, 12025, 133; of more-
environmental; engagement, environ- than-human entities, 44, 47, 51; processes
mental; politics, environmental; sensing of, 49, 54, 128; sensing, 11, 59, 281n6; of
practices subject-superjects, 71, 73, 77, 124, 133, 180,
environmental activism. See actions/ 285n27; of superjects, 22, 58, 79; techno-
activism geographies of, 5780; urban, 223, 237,
environmental changes, 45, 77, 102, 12025, 241; Whitehead on, 32, 51, 54, 283n62. See
132, 133, 273; data-driven, 32, 88, 9899, also subjects, experiencing
166; epistemology of, 11, 58, 6566, 129; experiments, 75, 132, 165, 178, 220, 262; with
monitoring, 3, 39, 11317; studying, 3536, environmental citizenship, 161, 17680,
38, 12829 219; experiences relationship to, 2930,
Environmental Computing working group, 77; with matters of fact and concern,
112, 118 49, 14243; monitoring, 15960, 177;
environmentalism, 1, 16, 129, 280n73, 298n24 sensing, 124, 2954, 17576; smart cities
environmentality, 185205; biopolitics in, construction as, 24445; tuning, 33, 281n9;
19194; Foucault on, 52, 187, 19091, 201, worlds of, 27075. See also data gathering;
203, 2045, 279n64, 298n24; of sensor instrumentation; measurement(s); obser-
systems, 3536; in smart cities, 187, 190 vations; science
94, 204, 242, 265; urban, 204, 256. See also Extreme Green Guerilla project, 89
computation, becoming environmental;
practices, environmental facts, 49, 53, 124, 15152, 165, 178, 292n60;
environmental sensors. See sensors, relevance of, 15152, 16667, 181, 292n60.
environmental See also matters of fact
EPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection feedback, 187, 196, 256
Agency (EPA) feeling, 12, 22, 3233, 52, 12324, 153, 16770
EpiCollect (online platform), 89 Feral Robotic Dogs project, 126, 169, 17071,
ERG. See Kings College Environmental 173, 175, 177, 180
Research Group (ERG) fieldwork, 12728, 131
Estrin, Deborah, 41 FillThatHole platform (UK), 230
European Union (EU), air quality filtering, 41, 43, 65
objectives, 157, 163, 178, 295n3 Finnish Society of Bioart, 291n30
events, environmental, 44, 47, 95, 9899, FixMyStreet platform (UK), 210, 221, 229,
179, 189, 206. See also calamities, 23033, 232
environmental flotsam, 137, 14445, 150, 294n38. See also
Exchange for Local Observations and debris, marine; oceans
Knowledge of the Arctic (ELOKA), 124 forecasts, 43, 81, 9899, 114, 133, 164
experiences, 101, 153, 267; of becoming, 9, forests, experimental. See James Reserve
3233, 1045, 106, 132; of climate change, sensor research (University of California)
127, 132; collective, 12728; concrescences formations. See in-formation/in-forming
of, 32, 38, 285n27; data, 49, 16769, 180; Fortun, Kim, 129, 279n67, 280n73
 Index / 345

Foucault, Michel: on biopolitics, 2023; on 194, 2013; Foucault on, 2089; milieus of,
environmentality, 52, 187, 19091, 201, 203, 12, 190, 191, 19596; urban, 187, 197. See
2045, 279n64, 298n24; on governance, also citizenship, environmental; politics
2089; on milieus, 12, 54, 271; on power, GPS tracking systems: air pollution sensing
192, 193, 264, 271 with, 172, 173; citizen science with, 88;
Fuller, Matthew, 21617 DIY, 89; GSM mobile phones, 94;
Future Cities Catapult, 247 ICARUS, 87, 287n31; white stork tracking
project using, 9599. See also satellites
Gabriel, Peter, 284n7 Graham, Stephen, 261
garbage patches, oceanic, 136, 13755; Great Pacific Garbage Patch, 13738, 14041,
emergence of, 293n15; geo-speculating 144, 149. See also garbage patches, oceanic
with, 15255; locating, 13839, 14043; greenhouse gas, atmospheric measure-
monitoring, 14351; myth of, 138, 139; use ments of, 116
of term, 137. See also debris, marine; ground truth, 35, 7173, 74, 76, 86
gyres, oceanic Guattari, Flix, 1415, 16, 51, 224, 225, 269
Garcia, David, 302n73 Gulf of Mexico. See British Petroleum (BP)
geese, tracking, 85, 88, 94 oil spill (Gulf of Mexico)
geo-engineering, 134. See also engineering gyres, oceanic, 13739, 150, 151, 153; concen-
geo-mythology, 139, 15255 trations of microplastics in, 136, 14142,
geo-speculating, 13755; from geo- 143, 293n15, 293n19. See also drifters/drifts;
mythologizing to, 15255; locating oce- garbage patches, oceanic
anic garbage patches, 13839, 14043;
monitoring, 14351. See also speculation hackathons, 212, 21920
GEOSS. See Global Earth Observation hacking, 89, 200, 21819
System of Systems (GEOSS) Haque, Usman, 27980n70
GitHub software repository, 212 Haraway, Donna: on Crittercam, 58; on
Global Community Monitor (activist ecosystems, 15; on infoldings of flesh, 64;
group), 165 on science, 6263, 132, 280n83; on sensory
Global Drifter Program, 140, 149, 15051. See practices, 67, 72, 78
also drifters/drifts Hayles, N. Katherine: on computation, 11,
Global Earth Observation System of 45; on distributed sensing, 63, 6566, 67;
Systems (GEOSS), 150 on media, 51; on RFID tags, 58, 281n6
globalism, 14, 188 Hazegh, Cina, 173
global warming, 59, 73, 133 Heise, Ursula K., 285n36
Globcom (RCA), 27778n8 Helmreich, Stefan, 5051, 74, 79, 146
Goffey, Andrew, 21617 Horowitz, Andrew, 2, 27778n8
Goodwin, Charles, 50 Howell, Evan A., 141
Google Earth platform, 138, 139; locating hydrocarbons, 7576. See also carbon;
oceanic garbage patches, 141, 147, 292 carbon dioxide (CO2); carbon monoxide
93n5. See also earth (CO)
Google Glasses, 284n9
Google Map, visualizing air pollution with, IBM Corporation, 7, 188, 200, 247
17374 ICARUS (International Cooperation for
governance, 3536, 204, 212, 298n24, 300n18; Animal Research Using Space), 87, 94,
accountability of, 230, 233; distributed, 287n31
201, 2023; environmental, 19091, 192, ICT connectivity, 199, 202, 303n23
346 / Index

idiot, 20738; actions of, 21120; Deleuze on, concretizations of, 25461; as contin-
20910; as distributed condition, 22526; gency, 254, 25961; environmental aspects
as noncomputational entity, 22730, 236; of, 77, 242; as more-than-human event,
private life intersecting with public par- 26364; productive, 199200; sensing, 214,
ticipation, 22627; as process, 300n7; in 26263; in smart cities, 193, 198, 199200,
sensor-based cities, 22033; Stengers on, 2013, 207, 241; technologies of, 188, 261
20910, 21516, 223, 230, 235, 243; urban 65; urban, 194, 237, 243, 244, 249, 263; of
participation encounters, 234, 23738 withness, 253, 25461
images/imaging, 69, 72, 77, 86; environ- inhabitations, 1, 76, 90, 205, 209, 238, 265;
mental, 5758, 68, 7376, 179; monitoring animal sensory, 9495; committed, 7879;
based on, 5760; photographic, 1, 23; engagement with, 34, 80, 89; making
real-time, 75, 76; sensor, 39, 4344, 58, worlds through, 64, 104, 275; milieus of,
6068; time-sequencing of, 7071 100, 124; urban, 19596, 223, 236, 244
imaginaries, 179, 197, 265; digital, 1023, 208, instrumentation, 146, 203, 233; for data gath-
261; of programming, 21, 27075; sensor, ering, 87, 166; ecological, 23, 7, 3337, 39,
36, 94; of smart cities, 18586; urban, 205, 63, 76, 150; monitoring, 12123; technolo-
261, 298n5 gies of, 50, 166. See also data gathering;
indeterminacy, 74, 254, 258, 25960, 261, 272, experiments; measurement(s); science
302n2. See also determinism Intel Corporation, 8, 9, 246, 247
individuals, 9, 10, 129, 158, 201, 208, 280n73; interconnectedness, 8, 15. See also
air quality monitoring by, 164, 16569; connectedness
governance of, 190, 2023; milieus rela- International Cooperation for Animal
tionship to, 13, 289n75; problems in Research Using Space (ICARUS). See
milieus of, 99103 ICARUS (International Cooperation for
individuation, 9, 53, 129; of agency, 3233; of Animal Research Using Space)
entities, 1314, 1045, 122, 151, 265, 272; International Panel on Climate Change
environmental, 11, 58, 76, 265, 279n64; (IPCC), 115, 116
measurement as, 123, 124; milieus rela- Internet, 33, 60, 257, 284n7
tionship to, 99, 133, 289n75; of organisms, Internet of Things, 68, 2021, 30, 177,
78, 103; practices of, 13132; processes of, 240, 255, 262, 269. See also Thingful
104, 105, 209, 285n27; of sensing, 11, 66, 78, platform
279n64; Simondon on, 13, 28990n94. See interoperability, 198
also transindividuations Interspecies Internet, 60, 284n7
infection, 152, 153, 264. See also persuasion interventions, 22, 142, 190, 235; civic, 21819;
in-formation/in-forming, 189, 297n41; of human, 57, 6263, 65; in smart cities, 194,
citizenship, 133, 178, 234; of milieus, 66, 19596. See also non/intervention
129, 133, 15152; of objects, 67, 77; sensing invention, 67, 80, 99, 107, 132; dealing with
practices, 37, 66, 73, 7980, 1012, 105; problems of milieus, 99, 274; of experi-
Simondon on, 11, 129, 280n73. See also ence, 5254, 105; and smart cities con-
environment(s), in-forming struction, 24445; technological, 159, 258
infrastructures, 35, 38, 244, 245; pervasive, in/visibility, 6, 6263
4041; sensing, 8, 93, 116, 24647; of involvement, participation as, 175, 17981,
smart cities, 18586, 188; urban, 220, 230 297n41
33, 242, 245 IPCC. See International Panel on Climate
infrastructures, digital, 24165; adoption Change (IPCC)
of, 212; automaticity of, 253, 25659; Iveson, Kurt, 235
 Index / 347

Jambek, Jenna, 148 Libelium Smart World (Spain), 240, 303n23

James, William, 152, 181, 283n62; on rela- life, ways of. See ways of life
tions, 129, 133; on withness, 263, 304n65 Living PlanIT project (London), 246
James Reserve sensor research (University Locke, John, 53
of California), 2954; Bird Box Cam, 33, logics, 196, 198, 202; of automatism, 25657;
36; ecological study area, 30; instrumenta- computational, 18, 188, 208, 213, 23334,
tion in, 3337, 39; sensing, 32, 3747, 42, 237; cybernetic, 15, 104; of sensing
6873, 284n82; soil moisture sensor, 46; stimuli, 1012
tree sap measurement, 39; wired woods London, smart cities technologies in, 241,
at, 28, 29. See also Moss Cam 24557, 26465
Jeremijenko, Natalie, 89, 126, 170 London Air Quality Network (LAQN)
Jimnez, Alberto Corsn, 220 station, 156, 15758, 162, 177, 246
Johnsen, Kyle, 148 long-term ecological research sites
justice, environmental, 165, 17375, 202 (LTERs), 35
Lovink, Geert, 236, 302n73
Kant, Immanuel, 48, 168, 181, 209 lure, 25, 32, 52, 130, 153, 272
Keeling Curve register of CO2 concentra-
tions, 11617 machine learning, 62, 92, 93, 258
Kilpisjrvi Biological Field Station (Lap- machines, 67, 77, 258, 289n91; connecting
land), 110, 11112, 114, 115, 118, 291n21, with machines, 255, 259; ecologies of,
291n30; library, 117, 121. See also Mount 3943; intelligent, 4748; organisms and,
Saana (Lapland) 95, 1023, 106; societies of, 22426
Kings College Environmental Research Mackenzie, Adrian, 19798, 228, 260, 263,
Group (ERG), 15758 283n62
Kittler, Friedrich A., 51 macroplastics, 13839, 142, 149, 153. See also
knowledge, 63, 7879, 133 microplastics; plastics, marine concentra-
Kohler, Robert E., 122 tions of
Korsgaard, Henrik, 235 macroscopes, 34
Kranenburg, Rob van, 255 Madrid, Spain, smart city projects in, 195
Maker Cities, 211
laboratories, 2, 29, 71, 150, 158. See also manifestoes, 211, 302n73
Center for Embedded Networked Sens- mapping/maps, 1, 2, 19, 145, 17071, 173
ing (CENS) research project; James Marine Debris Tracker (University of
Reserve sensor research (University of Georgia), 148. See also debris, marine
California); Kilpisjrvi Biological Field Markey, Edward J., 59, 73
Station (Lapland) Marshall, Greg, 86
Lake Saanajrvi (Lapland), 11921 Massive Open Online Course (MOOC), 210,
Landsat (satellite), 2, 6263 221
LAQN. See London Air Quality Network Massumi, Brian, 191, 270, 279n64
(LAQN) station materialities, 153, 155, 161, 187, 198, 200,
Latour, Bruno, 106, 225, 280n74 280n83; air quality, 16269; computa-
Leachs Storm Petrels study (Great Duck tional, 190, 197; oceanic, 141, 143
Island, Maine), 34 matters of concern, 3233, 47, 49, 132, 14243,
lead (Pb), 163 15254, 161, 29394n27; datas role in
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm von, 216, attending to, 166, 171; engagements with,
300n2 27071; participation in, 178
348 / Index

matters of fact, 14243, 152, 153, 154, 291n28, 93, 95, 99, 101, 106; material, 15354;
29394n27 multiple, 111, 124; of organisms, 99103,
Max Planck Institute for Ornithology stork 1047; perceptions of, 100101, 106; politi-
tracking project (Germany), 9599 cal, 12, 127; problem of, 81107, 274, 289
McLuhan, Marshall, 1, 34, 15, 79 90n94; sensing, 66, 100101, 130, 275;
measurement(s), 72, 159, 173, 259; of climate technical, 7680, 103, 15354; techno-
change, 45, 11517, 12122, 12730, 13132, geographic, 58, 6668, 78, 263
134; devices for, 67, 39, 5758; experi- Million Trees NYC project (New York), 127
ences of, 12025, 133; folk, 12324, 131; miniaturization, 33, 86
infrastructure as, 25456; ocean, 12530; Mitchell, William J., 186, 194, 199200
relevance of, 121, 124, 127, 133; science of, Mitman, Gregg, 62
13132, 291n28; variables for, 8, 101, 112, mobile phones, 54, 94, 214. See also smart-
114, 11517, 12025, 12829 phones
media: approaches to, 4950; civic, 23536; modalities, 22, 62, 80, 106, 181, 262; of
digital, 21, 22, 234, 235; DIY, 302n73; citizenship, 175, 177, 187, 18990, 205;
environmental, 1318, 22; organisms as, computational, 122, 19596, 198, 217;
12425, 12829; participatory, 189, 192, digital, 219, 220; of engagement, 155, 228;
198, 199200, 236; sensor-based, 33, 38; sensory, 58, 6465, 7273, 78, 87, 16667,
social, 21, 31, 126, 221, 22223, 234; tactical, 18990, 19798, 237; of withness, 243, 254
23536, 302n73; technologies of, 51, 79 61, 26364, 26465
mediations, 13, 50, 65, 77, 78 monitoring, 22, 38, 79, 88, 147, 177, 208,
meetup, 211 290n6; actions resulting from, 2013,
Mejias, Ulises Ali, 213 204, 267; air quality, 15862, 16269, 176
methane (CH4), 170 81; arts and sciences work in, 11820;
Met Office (UK), 94, 246 cameras-as-sensors, 5760; community,
Michael, Mike, 209, 300n7 12325, 158, 165, 177; computational, 19,
microplastics: in gyres, 136, 14142, 143, 131, 187, 19293; concrescences of, 161,
293n15, 293n19; tracking of, 138, 14849. 17980; data from, 53, 11415, 189; DIY
See also macroplastics; plastics, marine modes of, 1820, 158; instrumentation
concentrations of for, 12123; marine environments, 63,
migrations, 97, 114; sending messages via 9395; networks for, 8, 10, 14, 35, 42, 47,
tagged animals on, 85, 86, 91; tracking, 19, 69, 237; objects of, 152; of oceanic gar-
3435, 57, 81, 82, 8390, 96. See also ecol- bage patches, 139, 14351; pollution, 125
ogy, of movement 26; practices of, 3, 12627, 16970, 178, 196,
Mihaly, Steven, 62 273; propositional nature of, 13334; in
milieus, 9, 11, 48, 52, 103, 114, 122, 132, 255, smart cities, 194, 257; technologies of,
273; of arts and sciences, 11820; climate 2013; with webcams, 6566. See also
change effects on, 118, 120; computa- animals, tracking; biomonitoring;
tional, 1213, 18, 103; engagements with, climate change, monitoring; sensing
90, 127, 274; environmental, 1213, 1617, practices; sensors
18, 197, 26263; expressions of, 125, 12728, MOOC. See Massive Open Online Course
131; Foucault on, 12, 54, 271; of gover- (MOOC)
nance, 12, 190, 191, 19596; individuals Moore, Charles J., 137, 141, 293n19
relationship to, 13, 289n75; individuation more-than-human entities, 53, 79, 127, 132,
of, 99, 133, 289n75; in-forming, 66, 129, 133, 281n9; digital infrastructures and, 263
15152; living intersecting with technical, 64; environmental sensing by, 32, 45, 58,
 Index / 349

12425; experiences of, 44, 47, 125; in-forming, 12829; participatory, 213,
humans interactions with, 72, 129; 234; in smart cities, 185, 18889, 2035,
participation of, 2122, 179, 241, 280n83; 22021, 246, 25459, 265; worldwide, 177.
processes of, 32, 44, 48, 51, 16869; of See also actor-network theory; monitor-
subjects, 5152 ing, networks for; sensor networks
Morozov, Evgeny, 300n2 Neumann, John von, 10, 258
Moss Cam, 44, 56, 5859, 60, 6873, 70, 74, New Cross Road (London), air quality
7678, 7980 sensing on, 15758, 254, 295n3
motes, sensor, 34, 4041, 303n23 New Urban Mechanics, 211, 212
Mount Saana (Lapland), 119, 11920, 120 nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 157, 158, 175,
MoveBank platform, 84, 8788, 97 295n3
Muir, John, 128 nitrogen oxide (NO), 157
mySociety (nonprofit organization, UK), nitrogen oxides (NOx), 159, 163, 164, 17374
230 Nitta, Michiko, 89
mythology. See geo-mythology NO. See nitrogen oxide (NO)
NOAA. See U.S. National Oceanic and
Nancy, Jean-Luc, 263 Atmospheric Administration
NASA, 35. See also U.S. National Aeronautics nodes, 94, 201, 265; citizens as, 196, 203, 215;
and Space Administration (NASA) sensing, 34, 4041, 87, 93, 99, 145, 187
National Endowment for Science, Tech- noise: environmental, 41, 114, 145, 164, 232;
nology and the Arts, UK. See Nesta pollution from, 19, 145, 164
(National Endowment for Science, nonhuman. See more-than-human entities
Technology and the Arts, UK) non/intervention, 61, 63. See also
National Science Foundation Science and interventions
Technology Center. See Center for nonrelations, 243. See also relations/
Embedded Networked Sensing (CENS) relationships
research project North Pacific Gyre, 137, 141, 143, 293n19
Natural Environment Research Council North Pacific Subtropical High, 140
Sea Mammal Research Unit (University NO2. See nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
of St. Andrews), elephant seal tracking NOx. See nitrogen oxides (NOx)
project, 9395
nature, 2, 6263, 67, 77, 80 objectives/objectivity, 78, 18081, 188, 191,
Negroponte, Nicholas, 102 198
neoliberalism, 14, 19091, 202 objects, 6, 8, 20, 22, 64, 73, 129, 225, 297n55;
NEON. See U.S. National Ecological antecedent, 13, 15; computational, 106,
Observatory Network (NEON) 15455; concrescences of, 10, 143; earth
Nesta (National Endowment for Science, as, 13, 14, 139; as in-formation, 67, 77;
Technology and the Arts, UK), 21213, movement of, 145, 146; oceanic travel of,
21415, 230, 300n18 14445; technical, 57, 67, 101, 103, 11314,
nesting patterns, remote sensing of, 3435, 271, 285n42, 302n2; technoscientific, 142,
36, 40, 44, 57, 60 151, 15455. See also data; datum; entities;
networks, 18, 22, 35, 164, 188, 237, 271; Internet of Things
amalgamations of, 24554; buoys as, 146, observations, 37, 44, 49; ecological, 14, 35,
149, 151; communication, 20; data- 38, 39, 6873, 27273; environmental,
sharing, 8, 53, 5758; digital, 212; DIY, 1819, 35, 50, 177; experimental, 29, 31,
124; ecological, 114; extended, 5759, 99; 75; networks of, 3839; scientific, 6263,
350 / Index

11314; sensor, 3435, 4041, 43; technolo- 13132, 165, 189, 200, 2078, 21216, 23738;
gies of, 20, 154; weather, 33, 35 computational, 102, 124, 189, 210; concept
observatories, 35, 38, 146; ecological, 6873, of, 2122; in digital urbanism, 20738;
77, 11317 distributed, 179, 218; ecology of, 23638;
oceans, 13755; circulation patterns in, 81, environmental, 1047, 132, 155, 160, 177,
114, 13941, 14445, 15051, 153, 293n15, 179; human, 65, 258; as involvement, 175,
293n19; Google Earth views of, 29293n5; 17981, 297n41; ladder of, 22223; media,
stresses on, 116, 149. See also drifters/ 189, 192, 198, 199200, 236; more-than-
drifts; garbage patches, oceanic; gyres, human registers of, 2122, 179, 241,
oceanic; Southern Ocean 280n83; practices of, 215, 237, 243; pro-
Ocean Surface Current Simulator cesses of, 54, 24243, 263; programming,
(OSCURS), 144 198201; public intersecting with private
ontologies, 4243, 50, 66, 78 lives, 22627; sensoring, 37, 54, 17677,
open-source technologies, 17, 173; urban, 21315, 23336, 271; in smart cities, 189,
207, 211, 217, 220 198201, 203, 263, 265; technological, 21,
organisms, 10, 77, 78, 116, 142, 153; cameras 204, 230; withness of, 24344. See also
monitoring, 58, 61, 63; climate change actions/activism; agency, participatory;
effects on, 113, 114, 118, 11920, 12425, engagement; urbanism, participatory
12830; computational, 90, 95, 1023; digital
cybernetic, 1023, 104, 105, 251, 254; data particulate matter (PM), 157, 159, 163, 164,
collected on, 8890, 93; environments 295n1, 296n17
relationship to, 4445, 7071, 87, 130, 152; Pb. See lead (Pb)
individuation of, 78, 103; machines and, Pennisi, Elizabeth, 287n31
95, 1023, 106; as media, 12425, 12829; perceptions, 45, 118, 128, 153, 28990n94;
milieus of, 99103, 1047; mobile, 81107; capacities of, 37, 49, 102; environmental
more-than human, 65; remote viewing operations of, 1023, 1047; inventiveness
of, 57, 6062; as sensors, 8283, 9099; as part of, 5253; of milieus, 100101, 106;
tracking of, 8182, 85, 8890; urban, 252, processes of, 45, 4850; sensory, 43, 73
253; Whiteheads philosophy of, 4849, persistent organic pollutants (POPs), 113, 142
104, 151, 152, 297n34. See also animals, persuasion, 26465, 272, 275. See also
tracking; individuals; more-than-human infection
entities PetaJarkata project (Indonesia), 235
OSCURS. See Ocean Surface Current petropolitics, 80. See also politics
Simulator (OSCURS) phenology, 44, 45, 5859, 69
ozone (O3), 163, 17374 photography, aerial, 1, 23
Pickering, Andrew, 281n9
Pachube platform, 27980n70, 28182n19, Pigeon Blog project, 126, 172, 17375, 177, 180
291n21. See also Cosm platform; Xively Pika Alarm project, 126
platform planet. See computerization, planetary;
Pacific Ocean. See Great Pacific Garbage earth
Patch; gyres, oceanic; North Pacific Planetary Skin (Cisco), 35
Gyre; North Pacific Subtropical High plankton, plastics ratios to, 141, 293n19
Pahlka, Jennifer, 212 plastics, marine concentrations of, 13755;
Parisi, Luciana, 50 accumulations of, 138, 13940, 141; circu-
participation, 33, 178, 209, 241; apps for, 18, lation of, 15354; concrescences of, 142,
22, 2324, 21112, 214, 274; citizen, 79, 15152; as societies of objects, 152, 153;
 Index / 351

tracking of, 14651. See also debris, relationality of, 187, 234; of speculation,
marine; garbage patches, oceanic; gyres, 265, 272
oceanic; macroplastics; microplastics practices, 22, 49, 65, 71, 166, 200, 272; arts
platforms, 35, 43, 89, 257; citizen-sensing, and sciences, 111, 11820, 12324, 13839;
19899, 230; data, 84, 27980n70; digital, citizen-sensing, 79, 107, 13034, 15862,
21120, 23033, 241; ocean-observing, 145, 178, 271, 27374; climate change, 11517,
146; participatory, 189, 235; sensor-based, 134; computational, 11, 187; digital, 12,
19, 40, 118, 175, 195. See also individual 21120, 242; environmental, 11, 1218,
online platforms 20, 29, 45, 47, 53, 79, 1067, 130; of in/
PM. See particulate matter (PM) visibility, 6263; knowledge, 63, 7879;
Pold, Sren, 224, 301n31 participatory, 215, 237, 243; political, 47, 53,
policies, environmental, 19, 164, 16970, 79, 200; read/write/execute urban, 217
298n5 20; scientific, 11, 118; sensation as, 64; in
politics, 22, 79, 80, 102, 133, 200, 225, 230; of smart cities, 194, 197, 205, 236, 244, 257,
citizenship, 112, 174, 243; climate change, 263, 265; of sustainability, 16, 80, 199
134, 171; computational operations of, 197, 200; technoscientific, 54, 280n83. See also
203, 236; of disruption, 18, 235, 236; citizenship, environmental, practices of;
encounters with, 27075; of engagement, data gathering, practices of; sensing
176, 178, 225, 235, 236; environmental, 4, practices
16, 18, 20, 53, 130, 13132, 17981, 273; Preemptive Media project. See Area Imme-
influencing changes in, 132, 165, 171, 173, diate Reading (AIR, Preemptive Media)
177, 178; milieus relationship to, 12, 127; prehensions, 49, 129, 152; concrescences of,
practices of, 47, 53, 79, 200; rules of the 32, 72; modes of, 10, 168, 179
game, 2089; science and, 178, 180; of preindividual reserve, 129, 258
smart cities, 189, 197, 217, 243, 265; of sub- problems, 133, 209; of automation, 27075;
jects, 127, 132. See also actions/activism; environmental, 107, 122, 131, 154, 159,
biopolitics 2.0; citizenship, environ- 179; of milieus, 81107, 274, 28990n94;
mental; cosmopolitics; governance; solving, 14, 213, 21516, 228, 23034, 237
neoliberalism 38, 300n2; urban, 193, 197, 208, 210, 219,
pollution: definitions of, 43, 16365; moni- 229, 232, 235, 257
toring, 19, 15758, 15862, 178, 193, 277 processes, 52, 65, 129, 142, 146, 19798, 244,
78n8; noise, 19, 145, 164; sensing, 11134, 268, 281n6, 281n9; automating, 25659;
17071, 268; urban, 19, 12627, 164, 17375, of becoming, 9, 1045, 16061; civic, 218
177. See also air pollution/quality; 19; computational, 45, 47, 18586;
garbage patches, oceanic; and individual concrescences of, 3233, 44, 104; of
chemical pollutants concretizations, 9, 49, 5051, 105; of data
Ponto, Kevin, 173 production, 4142, 51, 7778, 16970, 181;
POPs. See persistent organic pollutants digitalization of, 77, 236; distributed, 48,
(POPs) 190; ecological, 49, 57, 71, 73, 88, 118; of
potential, 14, 35, 103, 217, 297n55; collective, engagement, 209, 236; environmental,
10, 53, 124, 129, 256, 259, 263; open, 27174, 34, 29, 3436, 76, 103, 12425, 141, 262
289n91 63; of experiences, 49, 54, 128; of images-
power, 12, 53, 168, 187, 202, 214, 222; becom- as-sensors, 39, 4344, 58, 6068; of
ing environmental of, 18588, 279n64; individuation, 104, 105, 209, 285n27;
distributed, 54, 190, 192, 204; Foucault on, more-than-human, 32, 44, 48, 51, 16869;
192, 193, 264, 271; microphysics of, 19596; of participation, 54, 24243, 263; of
352 / Index

perception, 45, 4850; of programming, relevance, 12, 77, 165; of data, 16569, 180;
27075; of sensation, 22, 48, 64, 66; environmental, 113, 153, 166, 17879;
sensing, 2223, 33, 45, 50, 101, 125, 257; of facts, 15152, 16667, 181, 292n60; of
sensor, 45, 51, 53, 54, 77, 78; technical, 57, measurements, 121, 124, 127, 133; of
6768; urban, 18586, 188, 194, 199200, sensing technologies, 32, 54, 58
203, 207, 227, 237, 241; webcam, 80. See also remotely operated vehicles (ROVs), 72,
algorithmic processes 7376, 75
programming: environmental, 3, 4, 912, 30, remote sensing, 29, 69, 138; of animals,
19698, 203, 267; of participation, 198 6062, 8788; buoys, 146, 154; data from,
201; relational project of, 1314. See also 19, 7173, 81; satellite, 24, 15, 3435, 145,
code/coding; computation, becoming 151, 277n7. See also sensing practices;
environmental; earth, programmability webcams
of; software resources, 35, 188, 194, 198, 226, 27778n8
Project Igloo (U.S. military), 6 responsiveness, 8, 71, 103, 200, 201; compu-
propositions, 153, 265, 272, 274, 292n60 tational, 19293, 196; programmed, 105,
prototypes/prototyping: of Air Quality 2013
Egg, 174, 175; of computational technolo- Revel, Judith, 192
gies, 31; sensor, 36, 37; urban, 207, 211, 212, re-versioning, 23536
218, 21920 RFID (radio-frequency identification)
proxies, 4347, 123, 150, 174 tags, 6466, 85, 86, 94; Hayles on, 51, 58,
6566, 281n6; in WildSensing project,
quantified self, 20, 213 92, 93
Roadkill Garneau, 89
radiation, 115, 158; detecting, 5, 122, 126 Robinson, Jennifer, 298n5
radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags. robots, 40, 92, 147, 200. See also Feral
See RFID (radio-frequency identification) Robotic Dogs project
tags Rockefeller Foundation report, 188, 200
Raley, Rita, 236 Rossiter, Ned, 236
Raspberry Pi, 19 Roth, Wolff-Michael, 42
Ratto, Matt, 235 ROVs. See remotely operated vehicles
read/write/execute urban practices, 21720 (ROVs)
rebound effect, 202 Royal Docks area (London), 24849
recycling, 16, 194
regulation, 116, 190, 194, 196, 201, 252, 256 Safecast project, 126, 158
relations/relationships, 122, 236, 254, 256, San Francisco Garden Registry platform
261, 263; digital, 259, 271; distributing, (U.S.), 235
2954; formation of, 1, 14, 132; James on, Santander, Spain, smart cities projects, 247,
129, 133; of power, 187, 234; reality of, 129 303n23
30; technological, 7980, 83, 228. See also Sassen, Saskia, 21718
subject-superjects satellites, 14, 5, 116, 141; animal tracking
relations/relationships, environmental, 4, using, 94, 95; communicating with, 2,
18, 3537, 4849, 51, 67, 123, 126; ecological, 147, 15051; Landsat, 2, 6263; sensing
34, 42, 53, 86, 125, 269, 275; with entities, technology of, 24, 15, 3435, 94, 145, 151,
910, 128, 151, 152, 15354, 242; with organ- 277n7, 27778n8; systems of, 81, 84. See
isms, 4445, 7071, 87, 130; sensor-based, also Argos satellite systems; CTD-
22, 4344, 50, 53, 59, 69, 78, 106, 230 SRDLs (conductivity-temperature-depth
 Index / 353

satellite relay data loggers); GPS tracking 6068; individuation of, 11, 66, 78, 279n64;
systems in-forming, 37, 66, 73, 7980, 1012, 105;
Scholz, Trebor, 215 infrastructures of, 8, 93, 116, 24647; inti-
Schulte, Jamie, 173 mate, 5052; localized, 40, 47; in marine
science, 78, 100; civic, 18, 279n67; climate environments, 12530, 145, 14551, 147;
change, 11517; community-oriented, milieus of, 66, 100101, 130, 275; mobile,
12325; environmental, 3, 20, 31, 88, 124, 19, 50; monitoring, 58, 1011, 14, 21, 34,
131; grassroots, 11718, 17375, 177, 208; 203, 268; more-than-human entities, 32,
Haraway on, 6263, 132, 280n83; of mea- 45, 58, 12425; multiscalar, 3435; net-
surement, 13132, 291n28; observations worked, 3, 58, 9, 43, 54; nodes of, 34,
in, 6263, 11314; political effects of, 178, 4041, 87, 93, 99, 145, 187; organisms
180; urban, 21617, 279n67; Whitehead, becoming, 8183; participatory, 37, 54,
on, 100, 180. See also citizen science; 17677, 21315, 23336, 271; passive, 58,
experiments; instrumentation; 21415, 22627; processes of, 2223, 33, 50,
technoscience 101, 125, 257; programming, 9293; pro-
Sebille, Erik van, 150 liferation of, 34, 78; proxy, 4347, 123,
SeeClickFix platform (U.S.), 213, 230 174; radiation, 5, 126; robotic, 40, 17073;
sensation, 4950, 64, 65, 68, 72, 7779, superjectal, 4849, 7778, 104; systems of,
297n34; distributed, 22, 45, 53, 58, 66, 93; 4041, 4142, 4347, 53; technicity of, 4,
interpretive acts of, 32, 166; processes of, 106; techno-geographies of, 68, 71, 72, 75,
22, 48, 64, 66 78; triggering other sensors, 4344; types
sense, 32, 50, 73, 106, 107, 285n27; concretiza- of, 5; urban, 177, 22223, 223; variables
tions of, 1415, 7980; distributing, 4752, for, 8, 11, 84, 85, 93, 101, 106, 112, 11416,
6466, 6768; grounding, 58; infolding 12025. See also biosensing/biosensors;
of, 6364, 6768, 102; more-than-human bodies, sensing; capacities, sensing;
modalities of, 45, 58; programming, 1012 citizen-sensing; computation, becoming
SenseCam (Microsoft), 284n9 environmental, sensing processes; data
sensibility, 1, 53, 7778, 167 gathering; ecology, sensing; remote
Sensing London initiatives, 247 sensing; satellites, sensing technology of;
sensing practices, 71, 207, 218, 267, 272; air technologies, sensing/sensor
quality, 172, 17375, 179, 212, 246; animals, sensor-actuators, 44, 207, 224, 22728, 256,
44, 81107; arts and sciences, 111, 11820, 259, 261, 272. See also actuators
12324, 13839; cameras as, 5760, 65, 67, sensor data: analysis of, 234, 268; environ-
75, 78; on climate change, 11726; collab- mental, 27273; gathering, 30, 32, 39, 54,
orative, 5052, 83; complications in, 130 69, 21617, 257; ground-truthing, 8586;
34; concrescences of, 45, 52, 5354, 66, monitoring, 88, 200; multiple forms
7677, 279n64; concretizations of, 1415, of, 63, 217; platforms of, 118, 21314;
130, 247; digital, 158, 16869, 17778, 179, processing of, 3435, 43, 69. See also
181; DIY, 17, 18, 35, 124, 208; education on, observations
22130; electronic, 29, 176; embedded, 31, sensor networks: animal, 8788, 9099, 100,
32, 43, 282n41; embodied, 63, 285n27; 102; CENS, 28, 29, 33, 3747, 39, 54, 282n41;
engagement with, 50, 80, 160, 227; environmental, 18, 20, 43, 52, 83;
entities, 52, 127, 285n27; environmental, extended, 19, 5759; at James Reserve,
58, 6668, 7778, 1012, 118; experiences 6873; wireless, 22, 2930, 34, 41, 194. See
of, 11, 59, 281n6; experiments in, 124, also networks
2954, 17576; images as, 39, 4344, 58, Sensor Planet (Nokia), 35
354 / Index

sensors, 126, 153, 188, 233, 273; agency of, in, 196, 25659; digital infrastructures in,
65, 225, 228; computational, 1920, 101, 193, 198, 199200, 2013, 207, 241; educa-
146; concrescences of, 9, 5758, 17778, tion on, 22130; efficiency in, 185, 188,
260; concretizations of, 1415, 130, 247; 19396, 198, 2023, 207; environmentality
data-gathering, 30, 32, 39, 54, 69, 21617, in, 187, 19094, 204, 242, 265; London
257; digital, 260, 274; distributions of, initiatives, 24554, 26465; measurement
65, 237; DIY, 17, 18, 35, 124, 208; envi- in, 25456; networks in, 185, 18889, 203
ronmental, 59, 6566, 106, 197, 198, 204, 5, 22021, 246, 25459, 265; participation
269, 271; experimenting with, 17576; in, 189, 198201, 203, 219, 263, 265; Play
in London, 25456; monitoring, 58, 21, the City game, 251, 25254; politics of,
34, 54, 103, 196, 203, 268; organisms as, 189, 197, 217, 243, 265; practices in, 194, 197,
8283, 9099; platforms of, 19, 40, 118, 205, 236, 244, 257, 263, 265; productivity
175, 195; processes triggering, 22, 40, in, 193, 194, 196, 2023; programming,
4142, 43, 45, 249, 251; in smart cities, 19698; projects related to, 184, 186, 243
194, 216, 22021, 24554, 257, 303n23. See 44, 247, 256; proposals for, 208, 218;
also applications/apps, sensor; bio- remaking, 18790; sensors in, 24554,
sensing/biosensors; buoys; cameras; 303n23; sustainability in, 185205, 208, 237,
cities, sensor-based; modalities, sensory; 257; systems management in, 24950, 251,
systems, sensor; technologies, sensing/ 25254; use of term, 188, 220; ways of
sensor life in, 189, 194, 19596, 197, 2025. See also
Serres, Michel, 76 cities; connectedness, in smart cities;
servo-mechanisms, 256 practices, in smart cities; technologies,
Shaviro, Steven, 49, 53, 153 in smart cities; urbanism, participatory
Siberia, tracking of geese in, 85 digital
Simondon, Gilbert, 274, 285n27, 302n75; on smart dust, 6
affect, 106; on automation, 106, 270; on Smarter Planet (video, IBM), 7
automatism, 25758; on citizenship, 273; Smarter Planet initiative (Cisco), 188
on computation becoming environ- smart grids, 188, 221, 241, 253
mental, 9, 279n64; on concretization, 10, Smart London Plan (Greater London
15, 25960, 261, 263; on creativity, 5253; Authority), 246, 247
on in-formation/in-forming, 11, 129, smartphones, 7, 18, 19, 158, 214, 233, 245.
280n73; on mediation, 13; on milieus, 12, See also mobile phones
99103, 271; on organisms, 104; on per- SO2. See sulfur dioxide (SO2)
ception, 105, 28990n94; relations, 256; on social media. See media, social
techno-geographies, 58, 6667, 80, 93; on society of objects, 143, 15152, 153, 15455
technologies, 103, 228, 242, 265, 270, 272, software, 20, 53, 92, 99, 188, 196, 212, 237.
302n2; on withness, 245 See also code/coding
Simone, AbdouMaliq, 259, 260, 261 Southern California, sensing pollution in,
Singer, Brooke, 173 172, 17375
Smart + Connected Communities (Cisco), Southern Ocean, 9395, 147
186 space(s), 12, 146, 187, 209, 219, 271; computa-
smart cities, 30, 240, 241, 262, 298n5; apps tional, 197, 236; of data, 4243, 77, 16970;
for, 195, 221, 257, 262; automatism in, 256 earthly, 1, 14; media, 1516; sensor, 14546;
59; being and becoming in, 25461, 265, urban, 188, 190, 237
279n64; biopolitics 2.0 and, 19194; citi- Spaceship Earth (photograph), 14
zenship in, 185205, 23033; cybernetics Speck citizen-sensing kit, 159
 Index / 355

speculation, 171, 173, 24165, 269, 273; sustainability: architectural, 24851; citizen
Whitehead on, 272, 274. See also cities, engagement in, 2023; London initia-
speculative; geo-speculating tives, 241, 24557, 26465; Play the City
Spillcam, 5960, 68, 72, 7376, 75, 78, 7980 game, 251, 25254; practices of, 16, 80,
Spinoza, Baruch, 106 199200; in smart cities, 185205, 208, 237,
Sputnik (satellite), 12, 34, 7, 15, 88 257
Stengers, Isabelle: on citizenship, 132; on systems, 3, 80, 86, 153, 187, 281n6; animal
computation becoming environmental, observing, 99, 114; complex, 113, 117;
12; on constructivism, 166; on cosmo- control, 244, 303n23; cybernetic, 197,
politics, 106, 209, 21516, 222, 230, 238; on 279n59; global, 21719; management of,
ecology of practices, 131; on idiot per- 24950, 251, 25254; satellite, 2, 81, 84;
sona, 20910, 21516, 223, 230, 235, 243; sensor, 31, 3338, 40, 4245, 48, 5051, 75,
influence of, 27475; on invention, 274; on 282n23; smart, 197201; telemetric, 78;
matters of fact, 29394n27; on organisms, urban, 189, 236, 241, 24546, 252, 25557.
152, 288n59; on politics, 235; on science See also ecosystems; networks; sensor
and technology, 62, 106; on speculation, networks
265; on tuning, 281n9; on Whitehead, 22,
29, 13031, 237, 255, 264, 280n74, 292n60 tagging, animal, 19, 85, 8899, 91, 98, 287n31;
storks, tracking of, 9599, 96 and problem of milieus, 99103
streets, fixing, 23033, 232 Tagging of Pacific Predators (TOPP), 88
subjectivities, 1415, 205, 297n34 taking into account, process of, 66, 25556,
subjects, 20, 129, 134; concrescences of, 10, 265
1213, 32, 296n30; experiencing, 13, 22, 42, TallBear, Kim, 133
52, 58, 7778, 104, 128, 268, 269; media TDU. See Traceable Drifter Unit (TDU)
spaces effects on, 1516; more-than- technicity, 4, 106, 228, 230, 25859
human, 5152; perceiving, 32, 104; politics TechniCity course (MOOC), 206, 22124,
of, 127, 132; sensing, 54, 133; tuning to new 223, 228, 230
registers of becoming, 3233; Whitehead technics, 53, 7980
on, 13031, 296n30; worlds relationship technoculture, 80, 242, 270
to, 28990n94 techno-geographies: computational, 4, 51,
subject-superjects: breathings articulation 5758, 67; concretizations through, 4,
of, 163; concrescence of, 13, 45, 128, 7980, 263; of environments, 67, 71, 267;
296n30; concretizations of, 269; creatures of experiences, 5780; milieus of, 58,
as, 90, 128, 167; as entities, 160, 255; expe- 6668, 78, 263; practices of, 273; of sens-
riencing, 71, 73, 77, 124, 133, 180, 285n27; ing, 68, 71, 72, 75, 78; Simondon on, 58,
feeling, 16770, 285n27; sensing, 4849, 6667, 80, 93; of web cameras, 69, 73
104, 131; Whitehead on, 13, 4849, 5152, technologies: capacities of, 269; communi-
6667, 127, 255. See also superjects cation, 34, 147, 304n40; concrescences of,
Subpolar Gyre, 141. See also gyres, oceanic 15, 4849, 151, 179; concretizations of, 67,
Subtropical Gyre, 141, 144. See also gyres, 242, 25461, 26263; digital, 21, 13132,
oceanic 188, 194, 198, 200, 203, 22124, 241, 26165;
Suchman, Lucy, 225, 284n18 distributed, 26162; of engagement, 19,
sulfur dioxide (SO2), 157, 163, 164 230, 235, 25758; environmental, 1112, 21,
superjects, 22, 52, 58, 7778, 79, 128. See also 29, 78, 12530, 191, 199200, 201, 285n42;
subject-superjects inventiveness of, 159, 258; milieus of,
surveillance, 35, 6566, 200, 234, 266, 277n7 7680, 103, 15354; monitoring, 2013;
356 / Index

Simondon on, 103, 228, 242, 265, 270, 272, transindividuations, 254, 256, 258, 25960,
302n2; in smart cities, 18586, 189, 195, 26263, 272, 274
21718, 225, 24554, 263, 26465; urban, transit systems, 199, 202, 213, 24546, 249
21720; wireless, 20, 260, 263. See also TSB. See Technology Strategy Board (TSB)
computationally based technologies; Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt, 106
objects, technical; open-source tuning, 3233, 34, 16667, 268, 281n9
technologies Turing, Alan, 4748, 52
technologies, sensing/sensor, 19, 39, 67 Twitter, 150, 221, 235, 257
68, 7172, 122, 129, 188, 272, 283n62; air
quality, 15862, 16979; animal tracking, ubiquitous computing, 30, 45, 186, 188, 194
8487; citizen adoption of, 15862, 166, 96, 198, 199200, 215; development of,
214, 27172, 273; concrescences of, 15, 4748; environmental technologies of,
4849, 151, 179; distributed, 7677, 241; 190, 262; literature on, 2021; sensors as
experiments in, 124; infrastructural, 188, tool within, 18, 31; Weiser on, 6, 89,
26165; instrumentation of, 50, 166; 269. See also computation, becoming
media, 51, 79; miniaturization of, 33, 86; environmental
monitoring, 3, 6566, 85, 86, 143, 150, 166, Uexkll, Jakob von, 52
16970, 178, 180; of observation, 20, 154; U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects
participatory, 21, 204, 230; political Agency (DARPA), 35
engagement through, 47, 178; relevance U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
of, 32, 54, 58; tracking, 104, 105; trans- (EPA), 159; air quality index from, 174; on
formations through, 10, 21920, 254; environmental monitoring, 166, 178, 180;
visual, 63, 78. See also satellites, sensing pollutants designated by, 163, 29091n18,
technology of 296n12
Technology Strategy Board (TSB), 247 U.S. National Aeronautics and Space
technoscience, 54, 63, 133, 280n83. See also Administration (NASA), 35, 27778n8
science U.S. National Ecological Observatory
telemetry, 2, 7, 94 Network (NEON), 35, 38, 39
telepresence, 6566 U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
temperatures, earth: CO2 levels connected Administration (NOAA), 138, 144, 148
to, 122, 123; sensing of, 81, 94, 95; warm- unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). See
ing, 16, 4445, 85, 11213, 114, 11517, drones
11920. See also climate change; global urbanism, 186, 245; computational, 188, 192,
warming 19394, 22425; open-source, 207, 211, 217
Terrestrial Ecology Observing Systems 18, 220; tactical, 219, 236
(TEOS), 3747 urbanism, participatory digital, 20738;
Thingful platform, 145, 146. See also Internet actions of, 21120; apps for, 21120; fixing
of Things problems, 23033; imaginaries of, 205,
Traceable Drifter Unit (TDU), 14445 261, 298n5; open-source, 21718; pro-
tracking. See animals, tracking; debris, posals for, 23738; read/write/execute
marine, tracking of practices, 21720; rethinking, 230, 233
transduction, 129 36; and societies of machines, 22426;
transformations, 1, 13, 65, 77, 168, 197, 235, withness and, 24243, 264. See also
236; through digital technologies, 10, prototypes/prototyping, urban; science,
21920, 254; environmental, 48, 181; in urban; sensing practices, urban; smart
smart cities, 198, 217, 22124, 242 cities
 Index / 357

urbanization, 185, 218, 237, 247, 252. See also matters-of-fact, 291n28; on measure-
cities; problems, urban; smart cities ment, 123; on misplaced concreteness,
Urban Prototyping initiative, 21920 280n83; on objectivity of data, 181; on
perception, 48; philosophy of organisms,
Vatnajkull (the sound of ) project, 126 4849, 104, 151, 152, 280n74, 297n34; on
Virno, Paolo, 302n75 relation, 129; on relevance, 165; on
visibility, 5758, 72, 76, 77, 78. See also in/ science, 100, 180; on sensing, 132, 281n6,
visibility 285n27; on speculation, 272, 274; on sub-
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 170 jectivist principle, 297n34; on subjects,
13031, 296n30; on subject-superjects, 13,
waste. See debris, marine; electronic waste; 4849, 5152, 6667, 127, 255; on super-
garbage patches, oceanic; plastics, jects, 22; on withness, 24243, 26364; on
marine concentrations of worlds, 128. See also Stengers, Isabelle, on
ways of life, 138, 155, 158; computation as Whitehead
part of, 6, 9, 18, 30, 47, 192, 234; private white papers, 35, 186, 188, 221, 298n5
intersecting with public participation, WHO. See World Health Organization
22627; sensors influencing, 22324; in (WHO)
smart cities, 189, 194, 19596, 197, 2025; Wiener, Norbert, 103, 253, 256, 258
sustainability in, 199200; urban, 215, Wikelski, Martin, 84, 8586, 87, 97, 98, 99
217, 219 WildSensing project (University of
weather, 34, 144; monitoring, 33, 70, 81, 94, Cambridge/Oxford University), 9093
150, 245, 246, 25051. See also climate withness, 24165; as automatism, 25659; as
change; temperatures, earth contingency, 25961; digital infrastruc-
weather stations, 35, 39, 112, 246, 257 ture of, 253, 25461; James on, 304n65; as
webcams, 5780; images-as-sensors, 6068; measurement, 25456; modalities of,
marine deployments of, 62, 63; milieus 243, 25461, 26364, 26465; sensors and,
of, 7680; monitoring with, 6566; as 24554; speculative cities and, 26165;
sensor systems, 59; in smart cities, 257; urban projects related to, 24243, 264;
techno-geographies of, 73. See also cam- Whitehead on, 24243, 263
eras; Crittercam; Moss Cam; Spillcam world(s), 64, 67, 153, 178, 209; concrescing,
Weiser, Mark, 4748, 262; on ubiquitous 48, 123; experiencing, 49, 123; experi-
computing, 6, 89, 269 menting, 27075; perceiving, 4850, 1047;
Western Garbage Patch, 141. See also Great subjects relationship to, 28990n94; un-
Pacific Garbage Patch mediated access to, 285n36; Whitehead
Whitehead, Alfred North, 9, 152; on becom- on, 128; withness of, 26364. See also earth
ing, 160, 289n92; on breathing, 16263; on World Health Organization (WHO), 295n1,
citizenship, 127, 273; on climate change, 296n17
113; on community, 263; on computation Wytham Woods (Oxford), badger study in,
becoming environmental, 12, 279n64; on 9093
concrescence, 10, 263, 302n2; cosmologies
of, 16768, 209; on datum, 20, 53, 16769, Xively platform, 175, 27980n70, 28182n19,
179, 297n34; on the environment, 12, 39; 291n21
on experiences, 32, 51, 54, 283n62; on
facts, 16667; influence of, 3637, 274 Yang, Soo-In, 89
75; ingression definition, 297n55; on Yates, David C., 303n23
invention, 274; on involvement, 179; on Yeatman, Eric M., 303n23
This page intentionally left blank
(continued from page ii)
36 Gameplay Mode: War, Simulation, and Technoculture
P at r i c k C r o g a n
35 Digital Art and Meaning: Reading Kinetic Poetry, Text Machines, Mapping Art, and
Interactive Installations
R o b e rt o S i m a n o ws k i
34 Vilm Flusser: An Introduction
A n k e F i n g e r , R a i n e r G u l d i n, a n d G u s tavo B e r na r d o
33 Does Writing Have a Future?
V i l m F lu s s e r
32 Into the Universe of Technical Images
V i l m F lu s s e r
31 Hypertext and the Female Imaginary
Jaishree K. Odin
30 Screens: Viewing Media Installation Art
K at e M o n d lo c h
29 Games of Empire: Global Capitalism and Video Games
N i c k D y e r - W i t h e f o r d a n d G r e i g d e P e ut e r
28 Tactical Media
R i ta R a l e y
27 Reticulations: Jean-Luc Nancy and the Networks of the Political
Philip Armstrong
26 Digital Baroque: New Media Art and Cinematic Folds
T i m ot h y M u r r ay
25 Ex-foliations: Reading Machines and the Upgrade Path
T e r ry H a r p o l d
24 Digitize This Book! The Politics of New Media, or Why We Need Open Access Now
G a ry H a l l
23 Digitizing Race: Visual Cultures of the Internet
Lisa Nakamura
22 Small Tech: The Culture of Digital Tools
B y r o n H aw k , D av i d M . R i e d e r , a n d O l l i e O v i e d o, E d i t o r s
21 The Exploit: A Theory of Networks
A l e x a n d e r R . G a l lo way a n d E u g e n e T h ac k e r
20 Database Aesthetics: Art in the Age of Information Overflow
V i c t o r i a V e s na , E d i t o r
19 Cyberspaces of Everyday Life
Mark Nunes
18 Gaming: Essays on Algorithmic Culture
A l e x a n d e r R . G a l lo way
17 Avatars of Story
M a r i e - L au r e R ya n
16 Wireless Writing in the Age of Marconi
T i m ot h y C . C a m p b e l l
15 Electronic Monuments
G r e g o ry L . U l m e r
14 Lara Croft: Cyber Heroine
A s t r i d D e u b e r - M a n k o ws k y
13 The Souls of Cyberfolk: Posthumanism as Vernacular Theory
Thomas Foster
12 Dj Vu: Aberrations of Cultural Memory
P et e r K r a p p
11 Biomedia
E u g e n e T h ac k e r
10 Avatar Bodies: A Tantra for Posthumanism
Ann Weinstone
9 Connected, or What It Means to Live in the Network Society
S t e v e n S h av i r o
8 Cognitive Fictions
Joseph Tabbi
7 Cybering Democracy: Public Space and the Internet
D i a na S ac o
6 Writings
V i l m F lu s s e r
5 Bodies in Technology
Don Ihde
4 Cyberculture
Pierre Lvy
3 Whats the Matter with the Internet?
Mark Poster
2 High Techn: Art and Technology from the Machine Aesthetic to the Posthuman
R . L . R ut s k y
1 Digital Sensations: Space, Identity, and Embodiment in Virtual Reality
Ken Hillis
This page intentionally left blank
J E N N I F E R G A B R Y S is reader in the Department of Sociology, Goldsmiths,
University of London, and principal investigator of the Citizen Sense research
project. She is author of Digital Rubbish: A Natural History of Electronics and
coeditor of Accumulation: The Material Politics of Plastic.