This thesis investigates how optimisation logics embedded in Urban Digital Twins (UDTs) shape the tension between efficiency and inclusivity within the contemporary and future cities. To do this I question: What happens when optimisation becomes the driving logic behind urban inclusion? Who is at risk of not being represented within an urban algorithm? And how can speculative design help bring to light and open these tensions to surface critical discussion?
Drawing on theories of algorithmic bias, data feminism and design ambiguity, I analyse how UDTs rely on binary classifications (such as high vs low demand, and predictable vs unpredictable), and how these simplify complexity to shape reality while determining who is recognised and who remains unseen in the process. To explore these dynamics, I looked into the binary logics within a specific urban algorithm (the Advier Hub Algorithm). The shortcomings of these binary logics were then extrapolated into a context where a fully Autonomous Urban Digital Twin (AUDT) would have control of the city. This speculation led to the formation of a scenario on which the final speculative artefact, The Behavioural Mirror, was formed.
This artefact was created for within the municipal context to help start the conversation around algorithmic justice within the urban environment, specifically in relation to Urban Digital Twins. The Behavioural Mirror, invites users to encounter a fictional interface that calculates a “visibility score” based on the legibility of their behavioural patterns rather than on identity alone; through the scenario of Sem, a nurse whose irregular hours fall outside optimisation models, participants are prompted to confront how systems silently sort populations according to behavioural norms.
In my research through design process, I combined theoretical framing, design exploration and iterative testing with municipal professionals, mobility experts and designers; in facilitated sessions, participants used the mirror to provoke dialogue, policy reflection and ethical awareness. Within this process questions were raised about data invisibility’s complexity, the trade-offs between opting out and the limits of rigid logics in public systems.
In the facilitated evaluation sessions, I observed the Behavioural Mirror effectively prompted participants to question their own assumptions and discuss the hidden rules of optimisation. Municipal professionals and mobility experts engaged deeply with the video within the artefact, often remarked on their discomfort and curiosity. Discussions ranged from technical concerns about data completeness to ethical debates on agency and refusal. Many participants suggested that the mirror could serve as a primer in team workshops, policy labs and ethical training days by creating a shared reference point for challenging binary logics in Urban Digital Twins. Overall, the testing confirmed that speculative artefacts can be effective in opening space for critical dialogue.
Future work could explore artefacts that foreground the choice of invisibility. What if you would like to choose not to be visible? Aside from this, it could be interesting to iterate and develop this artefact further to test its and other artefacts’ potential in influencing the urban decision making over time.