Robot–City Interaction: Mapping the Research Landscape—A Survey of the Interactions Between Robots and Modern Cities
The goal of this work is to describe how robots interact with complex city environments, and to identify the main characteristics of an emerging field that we call Robot–City Interaction (RCI). Given the central role recently gained by modern cities as use cases for the deployment of advanced technologies, and the advancements achieved in the robotics field in recent years, we assume that there is an increasing interest both in integrating robots in urban ecosystems, and in studying how they can interact and benefit from each others. Therefore, our challenge becomes to verify the emergence of such area, to assess its current state and to identify the main characteristics, core themes and research challenges associated with it. This is achieved by reviewing a preliminary body of work contributing to this area, which we classify and analyze according to an analytical framework including a set of key dimensions for the area of RCI. Such review not only serves as a preliminary state-of-the-art in the area, but also allows us to identify the main characteristics of RCI and its research landscape.
KeywordsRobots City ecosystems Robot–City interaction Smart cities
Modern cities have become a key element of the strategies for future investments not only for the important role they play in the socio-economic growth worldwide, but also for the increasing difficulty in being environmentally sustainable [31, 71]. As a consequence, a considerable number of efforts have been put by both the academic and industrial research communities into exploiting techniques from a wide range of domains such as ubiquitous computing, data analysis and knowledge engineering, with the aim of enabling cities to be more efficient, productive and competitive [4, 9, 24, 52, 54].
Robotics has also reached increased maturity in the last decades, as demonstrated by the amount of efficient open source hardware and software components, the availability of reliable techniques for basic perception, manipulation and navigation tasks, as well as the increasing number of cost-accessible robotic platforms . Thanks to these advancements, robots and autonomous systems have been identified as one of the most important modern disruptive technologies , i.e. technologies enabling massive economic transformations in the near future, and policy makers worldwide are nowadays investing to support the development of urban infrastructures able to integrate robotic technologies, therefore allowing such transformations .
Considering this, the main hypothesis of our work is that the study of how robots can integrate and co-operate with city environments is emerging as a new area of research, which we call Robot–City Interaction (RCI). Our challenge therefore becomes to assess the current state of this area, and to identify the main characteristics, the core themes and the research challenges associated with it. The methodology we use to achieve this consists in identifying a set of key dimensions for RCI and using them to review a body of relevant work, which can serve not only as a preliminary state-of-the-art for further reference, but also to give a more complete view on what is RCI and which is its research landscape.
we design a thorough methodology to identify RCI as an area of research;
we define a set of dimensions for analyzing works in the RCI area;
we provide a review of the state of the art in RCI;
we give a description of RCI and its main characteristics, for further reference;
we present the key research challenges, main areas and research landscape in RCI.
2 Research Methodology
Based on the methodology for literature search described in , our survey consists in defining first the core terminology of our work, as well as the search and selection criteria to be used (rest of this section), then presenting the analytical framework (Sect. 3) through which the literature can be analyzed and synthethized (Sect. 4), and finally describing the area of Robot–City Interaction with its characteristics and its research landscape (Sect. 5).
2.1 Core Terminology
Here, the main terminology of our work (the terms city, robot and interaction) is explained based on the relevant literature.
a large, culturally heterogeneous population, which is densely settled and bound in a municipality ;
the relationships held among the population, which change from being primary (familiar and neighborhood-related) contacts to being secondary/tertiary (impersonal, formal and bureaucratic contacts) ;
the facilities established by or for the population, i.e. “the fixed site, the durable shelter, the permanent facilities for assembly, interchange and storage; the essential social means are the social division of labor, which serves not merely the economic life but the cultural processes. [...] The city in its complete sense, then, is a geographic plexus, an economic organization, an institutional process, a theatre of social action, and an aesthetic symbol of collective unity.” .
Autonomous robots A generic definition of robots is employed in our work, i.e. any active, artificial, physical agent whose environment is the physical world, which makes decisions on its own, guided by the feedback it gets from its sensing apparatuses . We aim at investigating which robots could live in, engage with and benefit from a city ecosystem. In other words, we consider a robot as an agent with sensing capabilities, some levels of autonomy, and operating in a (surrounding) environment.
Interactions In general, interaction can be defined as “an occasion when two or more people or things communicate with or react to each other”,6 therefore stressing the importance of a reciprocal effect between its participants. In computer science, this reciprocal effect is mostly represented as information flowing from an artefact to a user and vice versa, e.g. Human–Computer Interaction and Human–Robot Interaction7 . Based on this, we define interaction as the reciprocal influence that robots and city systems have upon each other or, in other words, the set of communications, connections, actions that exist in scenarios where both robots and the city infrastructures are involved.
2.2 Search and Selection Criteria
First, the literature was searched according to dates, area and keyword criteria described in the following.
Apart from a few notable exceptions that were included in the analysis, there is little work related to robots operating in modern cities before the year 2000. Hence, the search was restricted to the time-span between 2000 and 2018.
We then explored areas that we considered could be treating one or more aspects of Robot–City Interaction. These can be roughly divided in three big (but not exclusive) areas, namely Robotics, Information Communication Technology and Computer Science. In the first area, we considered works on social robotics, cognitive robotics, aerial robotics, Human–Robot Interaction and Cloud Robotics. In the second area, we found works oriented towards problems of ubiquitous computing, sensors and sensor networks, internet of things, computer vision or ambient intelligence. In the last group, we considered work oriented to data management, artificial intelligence, data mining, machine learning, cognition and knowledge engineering.
We searched for papers combining words such as “robots/ autonomous systems/autonomous (mobile) agents” with words such as “city/cities”, “smart city/smart cities”, but also any sub-system of a city including, for instance, “road/crowd”, “urban”, “pedestrian/citizen”, “water/pipes” etc.
Summary of the RCI analytical framework
Urban robots the work involves robots operating with some levels of autonomy in a urban space—a social space including a population involved in commercial, administrative, industrial or cultural activities (as per definition of Sect. 2.1);
Smart infrastructures the work focuses on the technological integration of robots in a city ecosystem, and more particularly there is an aspect of data exchange between robots and the city infrastructures;
Open-ended interactions the work studies robots operating in a highly-dynamic context involving interactions of different kinds, and where proactivity in decision-making is necessary to deal with an unforeseeable number of situations.
The final selection, available in Table 3 of Appendix at the end of this work, consists of 67 papers providing a preliminary state-of-the-art in the area of Robot–City Interaction.
3 The RCI Analytical Framework
The analytical framework takes inspiration from semiotics theories aiming at studying how interactions are affected by the social and physical spaces in which they happen . Main insights behind these approaches are the idea that studying an interaction involves more than the players that take part into it (e.g. the nature of the interaction itself or the scope of it), and that the physical space is a key element to interpret interactions. This presents an interesting overlap with the main concepts of RCI, as we have defined in Sect. 2.1.
Agent context Dimensions describing characteristics specific to the autonomous agents acting in and with a city, e.g. the type of robots or their capabilities.
Urban context Dimensions characterizing the city as a set of connected infrastructures providing services to the citizens.
Information context Dimensions describing the information exchanged between the autonomous agents and the city, i.e. the nature of the communicated data.
Interaction context Dimensions characterizing the interactions between autonomous agents and single city systems, e.g. the citizens or the governance.
3.1 Agent Context
As previously mentioned, the first analysis concerns aspects describing the autonomous agents that take part into in RCI scenarios. We consider here 3 dimensions: robot type, robot actions, level of autonomy.
ground, non-moving robots platforms with movable components such as the Baxter platforms;8
marine robots vessels used for underwater activities such as the Searobotics suite.16
navigation the fundamental act of moving from point A to point B;
perception the act of perceiving and understanding the environment through sensing and interpreting sensory data;
management the act of coordinating and managing the actions of humans and robots, acting independently or in groups;
manipulation the act of interacting with the environment through body-part movements, hence including body-part movement;
verbal communication the act of interacting with the social world using the past experience, exhibiting social competencies;
acquisition the act of interacting with the physical world acquiring new competencies.17
low autonomy includes the lowest levels of robot autonomy, e.g. manual, tele-operation and assisted tele- operation, in which the aspects of a task to achieve (e.g. sensing, planning, acting) are fully or partly performed by a human;
medium autonomy includes the range of batch processing, decision support and shared control (with or without robot initiative). Generally speaking, the robot performs its tasks autonomously, and the support of an external agent goes from narrowing the set of tasks, to determining the goals and to monitoring the execution;
high autonomy includes the highest levels of robot autonomy, e.g. executive control, supervisory control and full autonomy, where sensing, planning and acting are performed by the robot under or without external control.
3.2 Urban Context
The second context includes aspects describing the city as a complex system of infrastructures.
land the geographical area where robots are operating;
citizens the people involved, operating or benefitting from a robot–city interaction;
government the public administration appointed by the citizens, which will benefit from the interaction e.g. improving its services;
technologies the infrastructure and services enabling the robot–city interaction.
economy activities promoting to the innovation, entrepre neurship, economic growth and productivity to enhance competitiveness;
people activities promoting the citizens’ education, plurality, flexibility, creativity, cosmopolitanism, and participation in public life to enhance the social and human capital;
governance activities enhancing the citizens’ participation, public and social services and transparent governance;
mobility activities to improve the management systems for urban traffic, local and international accessibility, and safety to enhance the transports infrastructure;
environment activities to improve energy efficiency, sustainable resource management and environmental protection to protect natural resources;
living activities to enhance the citizens’ quality of life through cultural facilities, health conditions, individual safety, housing quality.
3.3 Information Context
The third context concerns the description of the type of information that is exchanged between robots and cities when interacting. Since the goal of the study is to analyze how autonomous agents are deployed in cities that rely on modern technologies, we describe such information in terms of data exchanged during a robot–city interaction. Due to the large information needs of robotics systems, we consider here information produced by the robots’ internal sensors as well as information produced by external sensors, provided that these are exchanged as part as the city infrastructure. The dimensions here considered are selected based on the four data dimensions typically used in Data Science .
megabytes e.g. tables and files;
gigabytes e.g. transactions;
terabytes e.g. datasets and records;
pentabytes e.g. large real-time data collections.
unstructured data such as texts, images or audios;
semi-structured data unstructured data annotated using markup languages (e.g. XML);
structured data i.e. as tabular data, XML files, JSON streams, or relational databases;
batch communication of data;
periodic communication of data;
real-time communication of data.
restricted if they only make use of privately accessible data;
open if they include some available external information such as openly accessible data.
3.4 Interaction Context
The last context concerns those aspects which describe the interaction between robots and the single components of a city, namely the land, the citizens, the government and the technologies.
intimate space (0 to 0.45 m ca.) the closest space to the self. Allowed actions span from approaching to touching.
personal space (0.45 to 1.2 m ca.) generally reserved for interactions with friends and family. Allowed actions include following, approaching and touching.
social space (1.2 to 3.7 m ca.) for interactions among acquaintances. Allowed actions include passing, following and approaching.
public space (from 3.7 m): for public speaking interactions. Allowed actions range from none (robot and citizens not interacting at all), to avoiding and following.
exhibit spaces frontstage places that are created to be looked at and passed through without altering them (e.g. public squares);
passage spaces frontstage places designed for the movement and passage from a space to another (e.g. streets or pathways);
special use spaces frontstage places reserved for a particular activity (e.g. restaurants, smoking areas);
secure spaces public and controlled areas, such as a hospital, a school, an airport;
backstages private spaces that only allowed people with a key/pass/password can access (e.g. a house).
yes if robots are appointed by the government or its services, or are contributing to improving them;
no in the opposite case.
data acquisition all the activities for collecting, checking the quality, filtering and describing new data.
data processing activities to process, manipulate and analyze the collected data, with the aim of generating new information supporting some data-related tasks;
data dissemination activities targeted to disseminate, deliver and share the processed information to external systems and end-users.
heterogeneous team if a team is composed by different types of robots;
homogeneous team if a team involves the same type of robots;
single-robot team if only one robot is considered (therefore there is no robot–robot interaction).
4 Literature Synthesis
In this section, we summarize the selected works to provide an initial state-of-the art in the area of Robot–City Interaction and to identify the current gaps of the area. After providing a synthesis based on the four contexts defined in Sect. 3, we give some conclusions based on the RCI areas that were identified during the process. As previously mentioned, all generated data (selected papers and dimensions identified for each of them) can be examined in Table 3 of Appendix at the end of this work.
4.1 Synthesis by Context
The RCI dimensions are discussed in this Section from the perspective of the four analytical contexts (i.e. the agent, urban, information and interaction context).
4.1.1 Agent Context
Wheeled non-humanoid platforms are more common, as these are often built ad-hoc, hence cheaper and more customizable; as for humanoid/legged platforms, these tend to be more specific to group–robot interaction scenarios [30, 33, 55, 64]. This is likely due to the presence of the citizens, which might naturally be more inclined to share the urban space with human-friendly presences. Aerial platforms—employed both as single units [16, 26, 28, 76] and in combination with other platforms , are less common, likely due to the rather recent emergence of drones as reliable platforms, as well as to the regulations currently restricting their usage in public spaces.
Along with the current research trends, navigation and perception are shown to be prominent in RCI, too. The strong co-occurrence between them mostly derives from the fact that perception is naturally required to navigate, which is a fundamental requirement for most of the applications. Indeed, many of the selected works focus on advanced navigation algorithms combined with state-of-the-art sensor technologies [29, 38, 56, 57, 62, 90]. Verbal communication and acquisition, which are medium-sized in the figure, are also somewhat common: This happens mostly in contexts where robots are required to interact with the citizens to achieve their goals, as in [30, 39, 45, 53, 69, 87]. The ability of management is mostly employed in combination with perception and navigation—typically scenarios involving more than one robot, e.g. such as monitoring spaces for security or traffic management purposes [5, 40, 51, 60, 61, 110, 112].
Figure 4 shows the robot autonomy level in the analyzed works. While a rather equal distribution can be observed, the literature reveals that the level of autonomy very much depends on the application domain. Robots with medium to high-level autonomy are mostly required in outdoor scenarios where the human presence is not necessary, such as driverless cars [3, 25, 40, 51, 61, 110, 112] and infrastructure maintenance [17, 41, 59, 67, 76, 86, 89]; on the contrary, a low to medium level of autonomy is observed when citizens are involved, both through public engagement [13, 22, 30, 49, 53, 87, 88, 109] and personal assistance [10, 39, 45, 69, 83].
4.1.2 Urban Context
In Fig. 5, we use network partitioning to analyze which city actuators (i.e. components) are mostly involved in a robot–city interaction. Nodes are sized according to how often an actuator was taking part to an interaction—be it a target, promotor or a mean through which the interaction happened; edges are weighted according to how often the two actuators have been observed together. We observe that technologies, intended as the ICT infrastructures employed by a city to better manage its own resources, are largely involved, as demonstrated by their node size and by the strong (thicker) connections they have with government, land and citizens. Interestingly, a large role is also played by the government, showing that many of the scenarios in RCI are intended to improve the services offered by the city. Citizens and land tend to be less involved in RCI, as the weaker connections with the other city actuators demonstrate.
Similarly, Fig. 6 presents the city domains in which robot–city interactions mostly take place. Governance has a central role here, combined with either the people’s well-being, the environmental infrastructure or the mobility services. This is also congruent with increasing efforts that governments and municipalities are putting into technological advancements, see initiatives such as the smart cities. As for the domain of living (intended as people’s well-being), few records of an interaction are reported. This shows that, despite the advancements of areas such as the Internet of Things, Ambient Intelligence or Ambient Assisted Living, scenarios in which smart homes interact with city administrations seems yet to be realized.
4.1.3 Information Context
4.1.4 Interaction Context
Here, we aim at understanding how and how much robots interact of the city ecosystem in terms of its single components (i.e. citizens, land, government, technologies).
Figure 12 show how robots interact with their surrounding geographical space (the land). Expectedly, backstage spaces are less common in RCI scenarios, followed by secure spaces and special spaces such as hospitals [39, 103], construction sites [76, 86, 89] and underground city infrastructures [48, 75]. Publicly available passage and exhibit spaces are overall more common, specifically in outdoor scenarios.
4.2 Synthesis by RCI Area
One of the main considerations to be drawn from the previous section is that a series of patterns have emerged during the analysis, which allow us to group the reviewed papers according to the aspects and characteristics they share. We grouped the literature in six macro-areas, which we have identified as: Urban Security (us), Citizen Assistance (ca), Public Space Engagement (pse), Mobility in Urban Dynamic Environments (de), Autonomous Urban Transportation (au) and Urban Maintenance (um). These areas are helpful not only to have a better view over the main RCI themes, but also to understand more precisely specific characteristics and open challenges. We invite the reader to use Figs. 16, 17, 18 and 19 as support and reference for the description of each area. Also, it is worth mentioning here that many works might naturally overlap but, for the sake of simplification, they are presented as belonging to one area only.
4.2.1 Urban Security
We found in this area works focusing on the collaboration between robots and city services with the aim of supporting the citizens during an emergency [26, 44, 107], intelligent designs of networked infrastructures that integrate robots [27, 28, 78, 81], and planning/ decision-making solutions for monitoring situations such as parkings or road networks [16, 79].
highly mobile platforms such as UAVs and wheeled robots, which are able to precisely perform outdoor navigation, environmental perception and manage a situation;
robots operating mostly autonomously, sometimes partially supervised by humans;
central role of the government as an actor w.r.t. land/ citizens, as well as the governance and the citizens’ well-being representing the city aspects mostly studied;
low quantities of (mostly) raw and semi-structured sensor data communicated;
communication of data both in batch and periodically, e.g. if an emergency is detected;
personal to public interactions between robots and citizens, generally in public spaces such as exhibit or passage places;
high cooperation between robots and the city municipality;
robots able to acquire, process and share knowledge, generally operating in a team rather as a single element.
4.2.2 Citizen Assistance
This area comprehends applications of robots employed to carry out public assistive services for the citizens. Methods and technologies from Ambient Assisted Living, sensor networks, Cloud Robotics and HRI are combined in order to present solutions that aim at improving the citizens’ quality of life, either in their homes or in spaces providing assistive services (e.g. hospitals).
Works in this area range from intelligent systems and software architectures testing and simulating how robots communicate with intelligent environments [55, 103] and perform assistive-specific tasks [10, 83], to real-world applications where mobile platforms are continuously operating autonomously [39, 45, 69].
wheeled and humanoid platforms with a medium autonomy, both due to the close contact with the citizens;
basic capabilities of navigation and perception, essential verbal communication, partial acquisition capabilities aiming at a more personalized interaction with the citizens;
involvement of the government as an actor, in combination with the citizens and technologies, while the land actuator is of secondary importance;
focus on the people and living city domains, and lower interest in the economical, environmental and mobility ones;
exchanged data low in volume (mostly MB), communicated both in batch (when receiving a user input) and real-time (through the perceiving sensors);
employment of unstructured, semi-structured and structured data, but no usage of open data;
essentially personal interactions between citizens and a single mobile agent, mainly happening in spaces with restricted access (backstage places such as houses, and secure/special use spaces such as hospitals);
no robot–government interaction;
data acquisition and processing capabilities, and little ability to disseminate (and share) data.
4.2.3 Public Space Engagement
Public Space Engagement is the area focusing on employing robots in everyday social environments (for example, public squares, museums and shopping malls) and on studying how robots socially and ethically interact with the citizens. Techniques from ubiquitous computing, wireless sensor networks, HRI and social science are employed to study both a wide range of aspects, from infrastructure and networking, to ethical and social acceptance.
Works here can be divided into architectures and frameworks allowing interaction between robots, humans and ubiquitous sensors [33, 68, 94], and works aiming at analyzing the public engagement and social acceptance, either on demand [30, 53, 87, 109], or through personalization , or directly using the robots’ proactivity [13, 49, 88].
a low level of autonomy, due to the employment of robots in much larger, dynamic, and uncertain environments;
large involvement of citizens, government and technologies in the interactions, and minor importance of the land;
usage of autonomous agents to support the economical, municipal and well-being aspect of the city;
low quantities of unstructured/semi-structured data exchanged, both in batch (if the system is queried) or in real-time (sensor data);
mostly social or public interactions, rare personal interactions;
interactions happening in front spaces, both exhibit and special use spaces (e.g. public squares and museums);
no robot–government interaction.
mostly single robots are employed;
data acquisition and processing capabilities, less investigation of data dissemination and knowledge sharing.
4.2.4 Mobility in Urban Dynamic Environments
In this area, we find research investigating how robots can interact with urban dynamic environment for pedestrian-like autonomous navigation. A wide range of techniques, spanning from perception, navigation and planning to image processing, are investigated here.
Works in this area focus on robot navigation in highly constrained indoor environments (e.g. a museum or an exhibition) [11, 29, 95, 99] or outdoor areas, both autonomously [1, 56, 57], through interaction with the citizens if the space is unknown [23, 64]. Other works focus on improving the simultaneous localization and navigation through the integration of some a priori knowledge, e.g. some pre-analyzed human behaviors [63, 70, 77, 102] or knowledge from some external sources [7, 65, 80].
wheeled platforms (both humanoid and non), equipped with navigation, perception and (less often) verbal communication abilities;
higher levels of autonomy;
a larger (w.r.t. the previous areas) involvement of the land and citizens as actuators of the interactions, lower presence of the government;
mobility and well-being of people being the most concerned city domains;
low quantities of unstructured/semi-structured data exchanged, mostly in batch;
little usage of open data (with exception of );
mainly social and public robot–citizens interactions;
mostly social or public interactions, happening in exhibit, passage and special use spaces;
little robot–government interaction (only reported in );
employment of mostly single robots, which do not necessitate data dissemination, due to the focus on performing advanced navigation.
4.2.5 Autonomous Urban Transportation
Autonomous Urban Transportation is the area concerned with using robot agents to monitor, control and manage the traffic and mobility of the city. The works in this area combine techniques for image processing, data collection, navigation and planning, with the aim of improving the performance of intelligent vehicles which can navigate in dynamic and uncertain environments.
We find here both works tackling problems of perception and sensing, e.g. how to navigate in hard conditions such as obstacles, rain, or fog [38, 62, 90, 113], and works tackling problems issuing from coordination and knowledge sharing, including multi-vehicle coordination [3, 40, 51, 110], citizen-vehicle coordination [25, 112] or traffic-based coordination .
centrality of the land and technologies actuator, less priority given to both government and citizens;
large focus on the mobility aspect of the city;
data exchanged in low quantities, privately and in real-time;
public robot–citizens interactions in passage spaces (roads and crossings);
occasional robot–government interaction;
data acquisition and processing are fundamental actions, dissemination of data is yet to be employed;
mostly teams of the same kind of robots (e.g. vehicles) employed.
4.2.6 Urban Maintenance
Urban Maintenance is the area focusing on applying robotics solutions to maintain the city’s distributed infrastructures. Enabling techniques in this case come from machine learning, ubiquitous computing, wireless sensor networks and motion planning.
We find in this area works focusing on the data acquisition problem to improve autonomous planning and navigation of outdoor machineries [17, 41, 76, 86, 89], works for environmental recognition [42, 48, 59, 67, 75] and works aiming at optimizing cooperation and resource consumption [5, 60].
heterogeneous platforms types, from non-humanoid wheeled robots to marine/aerial robots;
high level of autonomy;
land, government and technologies as core participants of an interaction, less involvement of the citizens;
mostly public robot–citizens interaction;
robots operating essentially in front spaces, either as single units or homogeneous teams;
acquisition and data processing more employed than data dissemination.
5 The RCI Research Landscape
Based on the analysis we conducted, we characterize in this section RCI as a multidisciplinary field, while providing a discussion on its research landscape.
Here, we look at answering the question: what did we discover from our literature review, and how has our view changed since the beginning our work?
The literature review confirmed our hypothesis that integrating robotics platforms into modern city systems is a complex problem, as induced by the variety of research areas involved. However, the growing interest on research topics involving robots in cities calls for an identification of the open problems under a unified perspective.
Summary of the characteristics for each RCI area
The analysis of the urban context (Sect. 4.1.2) confirmed our idea that the interest in integrating robot technologies in the city’s ecosystems is growing, and showed how much the city actors and domains are being involved in the robot–city interactions. Advanced data and communication technologies, which are largely involved in RCI scenarios, allow the creation of solid city infrastructures, guaranteeing efficient robot–city interactions. Public institutions and governments, at the same time, encourage investments and initiatives in this area with the aim of improving their offer and services. The lack of balance in the way city actuators take part in robot–city interactions (e.g. citizens or land having a lower priority), as well as the small number of scenarios involving the economical and people well-being aspects, suggest what new directions can be undertaken in the near future.
Some interesting conclusions about the nature of the information exchanged between robots and city systems can also be drawn from the analysis of the information context in Sect. 4.1.3. Robots in RCI deal with small amounts of real-time, unstructured (sensory) data, which do not impose any model constraints. This constitutes a remarkable discrepancy w.r.t. how information in managed within modern city systems (see, for instance, the smart cities initiatives), where a high degree of organization is required to manage the heterogeneous information (both sensory and common-sense knowledge) gathered from different sources. Similarly, while one of the main aspects of smart cities is the usage of open data to promote knowledge sharing, the surveyed works seem to make mostly usage of proprietary or closed data.
The difficulty of sharing knowledge in RCI scenarios also emerges from the analysis of the interaction dimensions (see Sect. 4.1.4). Indeed, we learnt that robots are extensively used as mobile agents for data acquisition and processing (also) thanks to the cities’ advanced network technologies, while less efforts are put in improving the cooperative aspects—as demonstrated by the few literature involving intimate-to-personal robot–citizens interaction, multi-robots cooperation (both heterogeneous and homogeneous teams), robot–governance interaction, and data sharing/dissemination.
5.2 Main Characteristics of RCI
Here, we aim at answering the following question: which are the main characteristics and challenges of the Robot–City Interaction, based on our findings?
First, we saw throughout the analysis how RCI has an interdisciplinary nature, due to the number of different disciplines contributing to it. Based on this, we say that:
Robot–City Interaction is a cross-disciplinary field of study, combining cutting-edge methods and technologies from a wide range of areas such as Robotics, Information and Communication Technologies, Artificial Intelligence, Knowledge Representation, Ethics, Security and Privacy, to design and implement systems in which autonomous agents are integrated in complex urban environments.
urban robots which act autonomously in city contexts, both as data producers and data consumers of the city knowledge;
smart infrastructures that centralize and digitalize the urban knowledge from a number of heterogeneous sources, e.g. such as power, water, transports and, ultimately, autonomous robots;
open-ended interactions between robots and the surrounding environment, where proactivity in decision-making is necessary to deal with an unforeseeable number of situations to be dealt with;
assistive services i.e. robots are deployed by and for the city to improve its own services and, consequently, the quality of life of its citizens.
robots are enabled with the main cognitive abilities, e.g. they are able to fully observe (through sensors and feedbacks), reason (through integration, analysis and decision-making) and act (through collaborative data sharing);
all the actuators of a city (land, citizens, technologies and governance) are involved, i.e. they should all be playing a role in the scenario and benefit from it;
a two-way interaction between robot and the city ecosystem happens, in which robots contribute to the city knowledge as mobile data collectors (through data acquisition), but also benefit from the heterogenous knowledge provided by the city (through data dissemination and sharing).
5.3 RCI: A Research Landscape
Finally, based on our findings and the characteristics of RCI, which directions can be undertaken, so to facilitate the design and implementation of systems in which robots and cities can better interact with each other?
The answer to this question finds its origins in the areas directly contributing to RCI. In the rest of the section, some directions which could shape RCI in the future are presented based on three perspectives: infrastructure and data challenges, aiming at improving the integration of robots in city ecosystems; knowledge-related challenges aiming at improving how robots can reason and get conclusions about their surrounding environment; and ethical and policy challenges aiming at determining new norms and regulations to allow the actual implementation of RCI scenarios.
5.3.1 Smart Infrastructures
A major issue arising from the works analyzed is the difficulty in facing the high dynamism, heterogeneity and scale of modern cities. Factors such as monitoring sensors, subject to deterioration, or the presence of citizens, whose actions are unpredictable, bring uncertainty and contradictions, which are difficult to handle even by the most advanced cognitive robots. Planning in uncertain environments is still a challenge for robotics and, for this reason, few projects have been reported as actually being deployed at large-scale (e.g. cities, buildings, streets); an attempt is currently being held within the European Robotics League, aiming at running a number of “robots in smart city challenges” under the ERL in Smart Cities tournaments.19 Without a way to allow robots to understand how to interact with the surrounding environment, it is clearly difficult to envision an efficient robot–city interaction.
One way to go is to look at it from an IoT and sensor networks perspective, therefore finding ways to guarantee robust and maintainable infrastructures for a reliable collection, communication and exchange of data. Sensor technologies currently work in small-scaled environments (smart offices, smart homes) but are often not scalable to the cities, as demonstrated by the little effort put in bringing Ambient Intelligence solutions into RCI scenarios. On the other hand, it is evident that a major challenge is on the difficulty of experimenting with such a large, diverse and physically distributed environment like a city. Issues like deployment, testing and simulation of RCI systems are critical to the development of robust research contributions.
In parallel to this, RCI requires efforts towards rethinking robots not as standalone units, but as part of a larger and complex infrastructure. This means not only improving the platforms’ computational and connectivity capabilities, but also to design and implement methods and approaches for reliable data communication and processing, hence guaranteeing the seamless integration of robots with dynamic interconnected environments. While this would naturally empower robots with the ability of managing the large amounts of data they produce for and they are provided by the city (the data quantity problem), an important aspect that needs to be better investigated is for them to better deal with the variety of information sources (the data heterogeneity problem) .
This also opens an interesting challenge from an ICT perspective, in terms of the capabilities offered by data infrastructures provided by the cities. Data infrastructures are a crucial element in modern cities, since they provide the adequate support for the interaction of the different city systems, robots included. Within the smart cities initiatives, central data management infrastructures have emerged as innovative solutions to build a common facility to efficiently manage, integrate and re-deliver the heterogeneous data from the urban environment. These “city data hubs”  are centralized nodes that control and monitor the heterogeneous information provided by the different city systems (e.g. government services, transport and traffic control, water, health care, energy, waste), and whose aim is to reduce the development costs for the applications relying on such services, as well as enabling intelligent data processing mechanisms (mining, analytics, aggregation, alignment, linking) at the scale of the entire city, in a common data infrastructure.
A robust infrastructure for data communication is the necessary condition for the interaction of robots with city environments, and it would allow them to better model the environment and better plan for goal achievement. In order to do this, such infrastructures require new algorithms to process, compute, secure and privatize the information flow from robots to the city, and new mechanisms that clearly expose how to make sense of the available data. In other words, the Data Science techniques that have been employed so far only in highly restricted scenarios (see the RoboEarth  framework), have to be adapted to allow more flexible online data processing and sharing mechanisms. Using data with a high degree of organization, or delegating the computation to the main reasoning engine of the data hubs are solutions which would allow the robots’ workload to be relieved, facilitating their management capabilities, their cooperation and their integration in the city infrastructure. By empowering robots with the ability to mine and exploit knowledge from the data hubs, they would be able to filter, prune and restrict their reasoning, therefore improving the performance in achieving their tasks. At the same time, robots should integrate in the city data hubs the knowledge they collected continuously, so that consistent information about objects, people and activities in the environment is always provided to other agents and uncertainty and knowledge gaps are reduced.
more robust sensors and network communications to guarantee reliable data exchange;
increase computation and connectivity capabilities for robots to cope with data volume issues;
extend and improve the capabilities offered to robots by the city data infrastructures;
new Data Science solutions to mine and exploit city knowledge and deal with data heterogeneity.
5.3.2 Knowledge-Based Environments for Robots
Assuming the symbolic integration between robots and cities, the second direction to take rather concerns the ability of robots to understand and reason with data available from the city. As seen, the lack of structure in the robots’ knowledge representations makes the compilation and data processing a time and energy-consuming task. In this view, semantic technologies  have an interesting role to play as means to structure knowledge.
Successfully applied in scenarios aggregating knowledge from heterogeneous sources, semantic technologies provide support both to the representation, integration and curation of data across sources, as well as to the interaction between data and domain experts, towards what can be defined as multi-domain, browsable and accessible conceptual “knowledge city graphs”.
without imposing specific data-model constraints, such technologies can intensively facilitate the robots’ high-level reasoning, but also their interoperability, cooperation, and knowledge sharing;
thanks to their standards for representing heterogeneous knowledge, semantic technologies could help in better representing the many types of information required for successfully accomplishing robotics tasks (e.g. exact times, 3D geometric information, kinematic structures and appearance models), whose representation is currently very challenging;
in the same way, semantic technologies could also support robots in dealing with the diversity of cognitive abilities and of types of knowledge (hybrid reasoning) that is needed to perform their tasks;
their flexibility facilitates the representation dynamic environments subject to unexpected and frequent changes, therefore allowing robots to act with more awareness in uncertain and unfamiliar environments.
From an AI perspective, more effort has to be put in representing knowledge which is relevant to robotics. There is an urgent need for designing and developing symbolic representations for robots to be more robust and reliable, and efforts focused on representing more common domain knowledge are required (as opposed to the widely-spread instance-based knowledge representations), as this is highly relevant for robots to achieve their tasks. Methods for the evaluation and validation robot knowledge bases are also required. From the institutional perspective, this also means extending and encouraging open data initiatives, through engaging citizens and data providers towards the integration and acceptance of robots acting in smart city environments.
leveraging semantic technologies to increase interoperability between robots and city ecosystems;
exploiting the large amounts of machine-accessible external (and open) knowledge to improve robot tasks;
enlarging, extending and refining the representations of domain knowledge that can be relevant to robots (and robotics in general);
encouraging and exploiting open data initiatives.
5.3.3 Ethical Regulations and Policies
The last point of the previous section also relates to the third direction that we have identified in the RCI landscape—namely, how to regulate a robot–city interaction.
Our survey has revealed that several societal and ethical barriers exist, which prevent robots to be extensively employed in cities (see flying drones mostly being used in secure spaces, or driverless systems only used as driving assistants or pedestrian pods). Research areas such as robot ethics, social science, data security and privacy have therefore the opportunity to investigate which methods would allow robots to be more ethically, socially and legally acceptable. HRI approaches are needed to study how to establish fruitful robot–citizens interactions at an intimate and personal distance. When coming to social and public distances, trust issues are to be addressed, as robots in RCI need to operate in environments with citizens that might not have consented to the interaction with them. Social acceptance of robots by naive users is a key issue, and ethical methodologies are needed to guarantee the safety of non-experts creating dynamisms in the environments where robots act, therefore improving the willingness of citizens to share the urban space with robotics platforms. AI trust and transparency tools to explain the logics of robotic behavior and decision-making are also needed . Clear regulations and policies establishing the transparency of data exchange and communication are needed, in order for robots to be respectful of the fundamental laws and rights. By improving policy contexts and by focusing on the citizens’ needs, public entities and local authorities could in fact understand what robotics technologies can be offered in response to their urban needs, therefore facilitating the interaction of robotics technologies with political and institutional components.
increase of the robots’ social acceptability;
transparency tools enabling robots to explain their behavior;
safety dispositions for the citizens when robots operating nearby;
data protection policies when communicating and exchanging data.
5.4 Relation of RCI to Other Fields
We acknowledge that Robot–City Interaction stands at the crossing of many fields, from robotics and autonomous and intelligent systems to knowledge and information management. We conclude by presenting how RCI relates and differs to its closely related areas.
Ambient Intelligence Ambient Intelligence is mainly concerned with the application of advanced technologies in private spaces . Although many results from Ambient Intelligence can be inherited by RCI, the latter considers private spaces a part of a larger city system, and highlights therefore how the intelligence of urban structures can contribute to use cases of wider scope, e.g. from buildings to towns [2, 14].
Urban Robotics Urban Robotics has been defined as robotics in the service of cities and citizens . While this is very pertinent to RCI, Urban Robotics research applications focus only on exploiting robots to address societal challenges, while omitting the interaction and infrastructure aspects between robots and cities—namely, how these two components can benefit from each other.
Human–Robot Interaction As opposed to Urban Robotics, the main focus of HRI is the interaction between humans and robots (and the ethical and psychological implications of it). HRI studies the different forms of interaction, depending on factors such as the proximity of the participants or the type of robots engaged. RCI and HRI have commonalities, e.g. a solid body a work in HRI finds application in urban spaces, while the proxemics studies help RCI to assess how robots are perceived and received by citizens. The main difference lies in the fact that RCI studies how city services and the citizens’ quality of life can be improved by deploying robots as part of an interconnected digital infrastructure.
Roboethics Roboethics also deals with the interaction between robots and humans, but rather focuses on the the human ethical implications of designer, manufacturers, and users of robots . This area overlaps with RCI in what they both address social and ethical issues of the application of robots to our daily lives. Roboethics however focuses on more bio-ethical issues, while RCI addresses ethical implications from a Urban Policy perspective: in other words, in order for robots to operate in a smart city ecosystem, governance measures have to be undertaken too.
Networked Robotics, Cloud Robotics Networked Robotics focuses on the challenges inherent the physical constraints (limited computing and storage capabilities) onboard groups of robot devices connected via wired or wireless communication . Cloud Robotics was then promoted to enable networked robotics with cloud computing technologies. Cooperating robots are expected to operate intensively in a city environment, hence these areas can certainly contribute to RCI with a number of solutions and protocols using existing networks not only for decision making, but also for fast knowledge and data sharing. However, Networked Robotics and Cloud Robotics are rather focused on the hardware, networks and scalability aspects with respect to RCI.
define RCI as the cross-disciplinary field of study, which combines cutting-edge methods and technologies from a wide range of areas such as Robotics, Information and Communication Technologies, Artificial Intelligence, Knowledge Representation, Ethics, Security and Privacy, to design and implement systems in which autonomous agents are integrated in complex urban systems;
identify the main characteristics of RCI, namely the infrastructure aspect (robots as part of a digitalised infrastructure managing the city services), the interaction aspect (robots behaving as data producers and data consumers of the city knowledge) and the city service aspect (robots are deployed by and for the city to improve its own services);
identify the main challenges for RCI, designed with the goal of establishing an interaction between robots and complex environments, where the constraints of involving (1) fully autonomous cognitive robots, (2) the four city actuators and (3) a bi-directional data communication are respected;
identify the six RCI areas, consisting in Citizen Assistance, Public Space Engagement, Mobility in Urban Dynamic Environments , Autonomous Urban Transportation, Urban Security and Urban Maintenance, and their own characteristics;
outline a vision for future RCI research, emphasising the need for combining knowledge-based urban environments with modern data infrastructures technologies and robot-aware regulations.
See also Human–Machine Interaction and Animal–Computer Interaction.
Originally considered as social interaction by , we believe that “verbal communication” and “acquisition” should be considered separately due to the variety and complexity of city scenarios.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 1.Althoff D, Althoff M, Wollherr D, Buss M (2010) Probabilistic collision state checker for crowded environments. In: 2010 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp 1492–1498Google Scholar
- 2.Azhar S (2011) Building information modeling (bim): trends, benefits, risks, and challenges for the aec industry. Leaders Manag Eng 11(3):241–252Google Scholar
- 3.Baber J, Kolodko J, Noel T, Parent M, Vlacic L (2005) Cooperative autonomous driving: intelligent vehicles sharing city roads. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 12(1):44–49Google Scholar
- 4.Bakıcı T, Almirall E, Wareham J (2013) A smart city initiative: the case of barcelona. J Knowl Econ 4(2):135–148Google Scholar
- 5.Bartlett O, Gurau C, Marchegiani L, Posner I (2016) Enabling intelligent energy management for robots using publicly available maps. In: 2016 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, pp 2224–2229Google Scholar
- 6.Beer J, Fisk AD, Rogers WA (2014) Toward a framework for levels of robot autonomy in human–robot interaction. J Hum Robot Interact 3(2):74Google Scholar
- 7.Berkvens R, Jacobson A, Milford M, Peremans H, Weyn M (2014) Biologically inspired slam using wi-fi. In: 2014 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2014). IEEE, pp 1804–1811Google Scholar
- 8.Berners-Lee T, Hendler J, Lassila O et al (2001) The semantic web. Sci Am 284(5):28–37Google Scholar
- 9.Bischof S, Karapantelakis A, Nechifor C-S, Sheth AP, Mileo A, Barnaghi P (2014) Semantic modelling of smart city data. https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/knoesis/572
- 10.Bonaccorsi M, Fiorini L, Cavallo F, Saffiotti A, Dario P (2016) A cloud robotics solution to improve social assistive robots for active and healthy aging. Int J Soc Robot 8(3):393–408Google Scholar
- 11.Burgard W, Cremers AB, Fox D, Hähnel D, Lakemeyer G, Schulz D, Steiner W, Thrun S (1998) The interactive museum tour-guide robot. In: Aaai/iaai, pp 11–18Google Scholar
- 12.Cao L (2017) Data science: challenges and directions. Commun ACM 60(8):59–68Google Scholar
- 13.Carton D, Turnwald A, Wollherr D, Buss M (2013) Proactively approaching pedestrians with an autonomous mobile robot in urban environments. In: Desai J, Dudek G, Khatib O, Kumar V (eds) Experimental robotics. Springer tracts in advanced robotics, vol 88. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 199–214Google Scholar
- 14.Cavallo F, Limosani R, Manzi A, Bonaccorsi M, Esposito R, Di Rocco M, Pecora F, Teti G, Saffiotti A, Dario P (2014) Development of a socially believable multi-robot solution from town to home. Cognit Comput 6(4):954–967Google Scholar
- 15.Cook DJ, Augusto JC, Jakkula VR (2009) Ambient intelligence: technologies, applications, and opportunities. Pervasive Mob Comput 5(4):277–298Google Scholar
- 16.Cook K, Bryan E, Yu H, Bai H, Seppi K, Beard R (2013) Intelligent cooperative control for urban tracking with unmanned air vehicles. In: 2013 international conference on unmanned aircraft systems (ICUAS). IEEE, pp 1–7Google Scholar
- 17.Cui Y, Voyles RM, Lane JT, Mahoor MH (2014) Refresh: a self-adaptation framework to support fault tolerance in field mobile robots. In: 2014 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2014). IEEE, pp 1576–1582Google Scholar
- 18.Daga E, d’Aquin M, Adamou A, Motta E (2016) Addressing exploitability of smart city data. In: 2016 IEEE international smart cities conference (ISC2). IEEE, pp 1–6Google Scholar
- 19.Dameri RP (2013) Searching for smart city definition: a comprehensive proposal. Int J Comput Technol 11(5):2544–2551Google Scholar
- 20.d’Aquin M, Motta E (2016) The epistemology of intelligent semantic web systems. Synth Lect Semant Web Theory Technol 6(1):1–88Google Scholar
- 21.d’Aquin M, Davies J, Motta E (2015) Smart cities’ data: challenges and opportunities for semantic technologies. IEEE Internet Comput 19(6):66–70Google Scholar
- 22.Datta C, Vijay R (2010) Neel: an intelligent shopping guide using web data for rich interactions. In: 2010 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, pp 87–88Google Scholar
- 23.De Nijs R, Juliá M, Mitsou N, Gonsior B, Wollherr D, Kühnlenz K, Buss M (2011) Following route graphs in urban environments. In: 2011 IEEE RO-MAN. IEEE, pp 363–368Google Scholar
- 24.Del Casino VJ Jr (2016) Social geographies ii: robots. Prog Hum Geogr 40(6):846–855Google Scholar
- 25.Dresner KM, Stone P (2007) Sharing the road: autonomous vehicles meet human drivers. IJCAI 7:1263–1268Google Scholar
- 26.Ermacora G, Toma A, Rosa S, Bona B, Chiaberge M, Silvagni M, Gaspardone M, Antonini R (2014) A cloud based service for management and planning of autonomous uav missions in smart city scenarios. In: International workshop on modelling and simulation for autonomous systems. Springer, pp 20–26Google Scholar
- 27.Ermacora G, Rosa S, Bona B (2015) Sliding autonomy in cloud robotics services for smart city applications. In: Proceedings of the 10th annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction extended abstracts. ACM, pp 155–156Google Scholar
- 28.Ermacora G, Toma A, Antonini R, Rosa S (2016) Leveraging open data for supporting a cloud robotics service in a smart city environment. In: Menegatti E, Michael N, Berns K, Yamaguchi H (eds) Intelligent autonomous systems 13. Advances in intelligent systems and computing, vol 302. Springer, Cham, pp 527–538Google Scholar
- 29.Fassbender D, Heinrich BC, Wuensche H-J (2016) Motion planning for autonomous vehicles in highly constrained urban environments. In: 2016 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, pp 4708–4713Google Scholar
- 30.Foster ME, Alami R, Gestranius O, Lemon O, Niemelä M, Odobez J-M, Pandey AK (2016) The mummer project: engaging human–robot interaction in real-world public spaces. In: International conference on social robotics. Springer, pp 753–763Google Scholar
- 31.Fund U.N.P. (2007) Unleashing the potential of urban growth. http://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/695_filename_sowp2007_eng.pdf. Accessed July 2017
- 32.Giffinger R, Pichler-Milanović N (2007) Smart cities: ranking of European medium-sized cities. Centre of Regional Science, Vienna University of Technology, WienGoogle Scholar
- 33.Glas DF, Kamei K, Kanda T, Miyashita T, Hagita N (2015) Human-robot interaction in public and smart spaces. In: Mohammed S, Moreno JC, Kong K, Amirat Y (eds) Intelligent assistive robots. Springer, Berlin, pp 235–273Google Scholar
- 34.Goffman E et al (1978) The presentation of self in everyday life. Harmondsworth, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 36.Gottdiener M, Budd L, Lehtovuori P (2015) Key concepts in urban studies. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
- 37.Hall ET (1966) The hidden dimension. Doubleday & Co, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 38.Hashim MSM, Lu T-F, Basri HH (2012) Dynamic obstacle avoidance approach for car-like robots in dynamic environments. In: 2012 IEEE symposium on computer applications and industrial electronics (ISCAIE), pp 130–135Google Scholar
- 39.Hawes N, Burbridge C, Jovan F, Kunze L, Lacerda B, Mudrová L, Young J, Wyatt JL, Hebesberger D, Körtner T, Ambrus R, Bore N, Folkesson J, Jensfelt P, Beyer L, Hermans A, Leibe B, Aldoma A, Faulhammer T, Zillich M, Vincze M, Al-Omari M, Chinellato E, Duckworth P, Gatsoulis Y, Hogg DC, Cohn AG, Dondrup C, Fentanes JP, Krajník T, Santos JM, Duckett T, Hanheide M (2016) The STRANDS project: long-term autonomy in everyday environments. CoRR, abs/1604.04384. arXiv:1604.04384
- 40.He M, Takeuchi E, Ninomiya Y, Kato S (2016) Precise and efficient model-based vehicle tracking method using rao-blackwellized and scaling series particle filters. In: 2016 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, pp 117–124Google Scholar
- 41.Helm V, Ercan S, Gramazio F, Kohler M (2012) Mobile robotic fabrication on construction sites: Dimrob. In: 2012 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, pp 4335–4341Google Scholar
- 42.Hertzberg J, Kirchner F (1996) Landmark-based autonomous navigation in sewerage pipes. In: Proceedings of the 1st Euromicro workshop on advanced mobile robot. IEEE, pp 68–73Google Scholar
- 43.Hollands RG (2008) Will the real smart city please stand up? intelligent, progressive or entrepreneurial? City 12(3):303–320Google Scholar
- 44.Hong JH, Min B-C, Taylor JM, Raskin V, Matson ET (2012) Nl-based communication with firefighting robots. In: 2012 IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics (SMC). IEEE, pp 1461–1466Google Scholar
- 45.Hoshino S, Ugajin S (2016) Adaptive patrolling by mobile robot for changing visitor trends. In: 2016 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, pp 104–110Google Scholar
- 46.Hu G, Tay WP, Wen Y (2012) Cloud robotics: architecture, challenges and applications. IEEE Netw 26(3):21–28Google Scholar
- 47.Hüttenrauch H, Eklundh KS, Green A, Topp EA (2006) Investigating spatial relationships in human–robot interaction. In: 2006 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems. IEEE, pp 5052–5059Google Scholar
- 48.Jiang B, Sample AP, Wistort RM, Mamishev AV (2005) Autonomous robotic monitoring of underground cable systems. In: 12th international conference on advanced robotics. ICAR’05. Proceedings. IEEE, pp 673–679Google Scholar
- 49.Kanda T, Shiomi M, Miyashita Z, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2010) A communication robot in a shopping mall. IEEE Trans Robot 26(5):897–913Google Scholar
- 50.Kasap ÇB (2016) Philosophy of interaction. Current Topics in Social Sciences, p 97Google Scholar
- 51.Khan MM, Ali H, Berns K, Muhammad A (2016) Road traversability analysis using network properties of roadmaps. In: 2016 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, pp 2960–2965Google Scholar
- 52.Khorov E, Lyakhov A, Krotov A, Guschin A (2015) A survey on ieee 802.11 ah: an enabling networking technology for smart cities. Comput Commun 58:53–69Google Scholar
- 53.Kim RH, Moon Y, Choi JJ, Kwak SS (2014) The effect of robot appearance types on motivating donation. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 210–211Google Scholar
- 54.Kitchin R (2014) The real-time city? big data and smart urbanism. GeoJournal 79(1):1–14Google Scholar
- 55.Kubotal N, Shimomura Y (2006) Human-friendly networked partner robots toward sophisticated services for a community. In: SICE-ICASE. International joint conference. IEEE, pp 4861–4866Google Scholar
- 56.Kümmerle R, Ruhnke M, Steder B, Stachniss C, Burgard W (2013) A navigation system for robots operating in crowded urban environments. In: 2013 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp 3225–3232Google Scholar
- 57.Kümmerle R, Ruhnke M, Steder B, Stachniss C, Burgard W (2015) Autonomous robot navigation in highly populated pedestrian zones. J Field Robot 32(4):565–589Google Scholar
- 58.Kuper A (2013) The social science encyclopedia. Routledge, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
- 59.La HM, Gucunski N, Kee S-H, Yi J, Senlet T, Nguyen L (2014) Autonomous robotic system for bridge deck data collection and analysis. In: 2014 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2014). IEEE, pp 1950–1955Google Scholar
- 60.Latscha S, Kofron M, Stroffolino A, Davis L, Merritt G, Piccoli M, Yim M (2014). Design of a hybrid exploration robot for air and land deployment (herald) for urban search and rescue applications. In: 2014 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2014). IEEE, pp 1868–1873Google Scholar
- 61.Lawitzky A, Wollherr D, Buss M (2013) Energy optimal control to approach traffic lights. In: 2013 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, pp 4382–4387Google Scholar
- 62.Lee U, Jung J, Shin S, Jeong Y, Park K, Shim DH, Kweon I-S (2016) Eurecar turbo: a self-driving car that can handle adverse weather conditions. In: 2016 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, pp 2301–2306Google Scholar
- 63.Lichtenthäler C, Peters A, Griffiths S, Kirsch A (2013) Social navigation-identifying robot navigation patterns in a path crossing scenario. In: International conference on social robotics. Springer, pp 84–93Google Scholar
- 64.Lidoris G, Bauer KKA, Xu T, Kuhnlenz K, Wollherr D, Buss M (2007) The autonomous city explorer project: aims and system overview. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems. IROS 2007. IEEE, pp 560–565Google Scholar
- 65.Maier D, Kleiner A (2010) Improved gps sensor model for mobile robots in urban terrain. In: 2010 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp 4385–4390Google Scholar
- 66.Manyika J, Chui M, Bughin J, Dobbs R, Bisson P, Marrs A (2013) Disruptive technologies: advances that will transform life, business, and the global economy, vol 180. McKinsey Global Institute San Francisco, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
- 67.Mathibela B, Posner I, Newman P (2013) A roadwork scene signature based on the opponent colour model. In: 2013 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, pp 4394–4400Google Scholar
- 68.Matson ET, Min B-C (2011) M2m infrastructure to integrate humans, agents and robots into collectives. In: 2011 IEEE instrumentation and measurement technology conference (I2MTC). IEEE, pp 1–6Google Scholar
- 69.Matsumoto T, Satake S, Kanda T, Imai M, Hagita N (2012) Do you remember that shop? Computational model of spatial memory for shopping companion robots. In:2012 7th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, pp 447–454Google Scholar
- 70.Mehta D, Ferrer G, Olson E (2016) Autonomous navigation in dynamic social environments using multi-policy decision making. In: 2016 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, pp 1190–1197Google Scholar
- 71.Mori K, Yamashita T (2015) Methodological framework of sustainability assessment in city sustainability index (csi): a concept of constraint and maximisation indicators. Habitat Int 45:10–14Google Scholar
- 72.Motta E, Sabou M (2006) Next generation semantic web applications. In: Asian semantic web conference. Springer, pp 24–29Google Scholar
- 73.Mumford L (1937) What is a City? naGoogle Scholar
- 74.Murdock P, Bassbouss L, Kraft A, Bauer M, Logvinov O, Ben Alaya M, Longstreth T, Bhowmik R, Martigne P, Brett P, Mladin C, Chakraborty R, Monteil T, Dadas M, Davies J, Nappey P, Diab W, Raggett D, Drira K, Wang C (2016) Semantic interoperability for the web of things. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01362033/
- 75.Nassiraei AA, Kawamura Y, Ahrary A, Mikuriya Y, Ishii K (2007) Concept and design of a fully autonomous sewer pipe inspection mobile robot kantaro. In: 2007 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. IEEE, pp 136–143Google Scholar
- 76.Omari S, Gohl P, Burri M, Achtelik M, Siegwart R (2014) Visual industrial inspection using aerial robots. In: 2014 3rd international conference on applied robotics for the power industry (CARPI). IEEE, pp 1–5Google Scholar
- 77.Park C, Ondřej J, Gilbert M, Freeman K, O’Sullivan C (2016) Hi robot: Human intention-aware robot planning for safe and efficient navigation in crowds. In: 2016 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, pp 3320–3326Google Scholar
- 78.Petriu EM, Patry GG, Whalen TE, Al-Dhaher A, Groza VZ (2002) Intelligent robotic sensor agents for environment monitoring. In: 2002 IEEE international symposium on virtual and intelligent measurement systems VIMS’02. IEEE, pp 14–19Google Scholar
- 79.Petsch K, Dotzlaf P, Daubenspeck C, Duthie N, Mock A (2012) Automated parking space locator: Rsm. In: ASSE North central section conferenceGoogle Scholar
- 80.Radwan N, Tipaldi GD, Spinello L, Burgard W (2016) Do you see the bakery? Leveraging geo-referenced texts for global localization in public maps. In: 2016 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp 4837–4842Google Scholar
- 81.Rahman A, Jin J, Cricenti A, Rahman A, Palaniswami M, Luo T (2016) Cloud-enhanced robotic system for smart city crowd control. J Sens Actuator Netw 5(4):20Google Scholar
- 83.Röning J, Holappa J, Kellokumpu V, Tikanmäki A, Pietikäinen M (2014) Minotaurus: a system for affective human–robot interaction in smart environments. Cognit Comput 6(4):940–953Google Scholar
- 84.Russell S, Norvig P, Intelligence A (1995) A modern approach. Artif Intell 25:27Google Scholar
- 85.Salvini P (2017) Urban robotics: towards responsible innovations for our cities. Robot Auton Syst (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2017.03.007. ISSN 0921-8890. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921889016303505
- 86.Sandy T, Giftthaler M, Dörfler K, Kohler M, Buchli J (2016) Autonomous repositioning and localization of an in situ fabricator. In: 2016 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp 2852–2858Google Scholar
- 87.Sarabia M, Le Mau T, Soh H, Naruse S, Poon C, Liao Z, Tan KC, Lai ZJ, Demiris Y (2013) icharibot: design and field trials of a fundraising robot. In: International conference on social robotics. Springer, pp 412–421Google Scholar
- 88.Satake S, Hayashi K, Nakatani K, Kanda T (2015) Field trial of an information-providing robot in a shopping mall. In: 2015 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, pp 1832–1839Google Scholar
- 89.Schmidt D, Proetzsch M, Berns K (2010) Simulation and control of an autonomous bucket excavator for landscaping tasks. In: 2010 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp 5108–5113Google Scholar
- 90.Schneemann F, Heinemann P (2016) Context-based detection of pedestrian crossing intention for autonomous driving in urban environments. In: 2016 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, pp 2243–2248Google Scholar
- 91.Scholtz J (2003) Theory and evaluation of human robot interactions. In: Proceedings of the 36th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences. IEEE, p 10Google Scholar
- 92.Scollon R, Scollon SW (2003) Discourses in place: language in the material world. Routledge, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
- 93.Sheridan TB, Verplank WL (1978) Human and computer control of undersea teleoperators. Technical report, DTIC DocumentGoogle Scholar
- 94.Shiomi M, Sakamoto D, Kanda T, Ishi CT, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2011) Field trial of a networked robot at a train station. Int J Soc Robot 3(1):27–40Google Scholar
- 96.Sinaeepourfard A, Garcia J, Masip-Bruin X, Marin-Tordera E, Yin X, Wang C (2016) A data lifecycle model for smart cities. In: 2016 international conference on information and communication technology convergence (ICTC). IEEE, pp 400–405Google Scholar
- 97.SPARC (2013) Strategic research agenda for robotics in 2014–2020. https://www.eu-robotics.net/cms/upload/topic_groups/SRA2020_SPARC.pdf. Accessed Sept 2018
- 98.Steinfeld A, Fong T, Kaber D, Lewis M, Scholtz J, Schultz A, Goodrich M (2006) Common metrics for human–robot interaction. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART conference on human–robot interaction. ACM, pp 33–40Google Scholar
- 99.Thrun S, Bennewitz M, Burgard W, Cremers AB, Dellaert F, Fox D, Hahnel D, Rosenberg C, Roy N, Schulte J, et al (1999) Minerva: a second-generation museum tour-guide robot. In: 1999 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. Proceedings, vol 3. IEEEGoogle Scholar
- 100.Tiddi I (2016) Explaining data patterns using knowledge from the web of data. Ph.D. thesis, The Open UniversityGoogle Scholar
- 101.Tiddi I, Bastianelli E, Bardaro G, d’Aquin M, Motta E (2017) An ontology-based approach to improve the accessibility of ros-based robotic systems. In: Proceedings of the knowledge capture conference (K-CAP2017). ACM, p 13Google Scholar
- 102.Trautman P, Ma J, Murray RM, Krause A (2013) Robot navigation in dense human crowds: the case for cooperation. In: 2013 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp 2153–2160Google Scholar
- 103.Tsuji T, Mozos OM, Chae H, Pyo Y, Kusaka K, Hasegawa T, Morooka K, Kurazume R (2015) An informationally structured room for robotic assistance. Sensors 15(4):9438–9465Google Scholar
- 104.Veruggio G, Operto F (2006) Roboethics: a bottom-up interdisciplinary discourse in the field of applied ethics in robotics. Int Rev Inf Ethics 6(12):2–8Google Scholar
- 105.Vom Brocke J, Simons A, Niehaves B, Riemer K, Plattfaut R, Cleven A et al (2009) Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. ECIS 9:2206–2217Google Scholar
- 106.Wachter S, Mittelstadt B, Floridi L (2017) Transparent, explainable, and accountable ai for robotics. Sci Robot 2(6):eaan6080Google Scholar
- 107.Wagoner A, Jagadish A, Matson ET, EunSeop L, Nah Y, Tae KK, Lee DH, Joeng J-E (2015) Humanoid robots rescuing humans and extinguishing fires for cooperative fire security system using harms. In: 2015 6th international conference on automation, robotics and applications (ICARA). IEEE, pp 411–415Google Scholar
- 108.Waibel M, Beetz M, Civera J, d’Andrea R, Elfring J, Galvez-Lopez D, Häussermann K, Janssen R, Montiel J, Perzylo A et al (2011) Roboearth. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 18(2):69–82Google Scholar
- 109.Weiss A, Igelsböck J, Tscheligi M, Bauer A, Kühnlenz K, Wollherr D, Buss M (2010) Robots asking for directions: the willingness of passers-by to support robots. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE international conference on human–robot interaction. IEEE Press, pp 23–30Google Scholar
- 110.Wellhausen L, Jacob MG (2016) Map-optimized probabilistic traffic rule evaluation. In: 2016 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, pp 3012–3017Google Scholar
- 111.Wirth L (1938) Urbanism as a way of life. Am J Sociol 44(1):1–24Google Scholar
- 112.Wulfmeier M, Wang DZ, Posner I (2016) Watch this: Scalable cost-function learning for path planning in urban environments. In: 2016 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, pp 2089–2095Google Scholar
- 113.Yamauchi B (2010) All-weather perception for man-portable robots using ultra-wideband radar. In: 2010 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp 3610–3615Google Scholar
- 114.Yanco HA, Drury J (2004) Classifying human-robot interaction: an updated taxonomy. In: 2004 IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics, vol 3. IEEE, pp 2841–2846Google Scholar
- 115.Zicari RV (2014) Big data: challenges and opportunities. Big Data Comput 564Google Scholar
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.