Robots in public spaces: implications for policy design
This academic paper examines the policy design implications of deploying autonomous robots in public spaces. By reviewing previous public policy approaches to disruptive technologies, the authors synthesize key insights into a policy design checklist covering safety, privacy and ethics, productivity, esthetics, co-creation, equitable access, and systemic innovation. The article argues that well-designed anticipatory public policy can enhance opportunities while reducing the risks of undesirable outcomes.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Policymakers, researchers, and urban planners looking to design effective regulations for robots operating in public spaces.
What the document contains
The document addresses the integration of autonomous robots in public and quasi-public spaces, analyzing issues of public safety, trust, privacy, urban planning, socio-technical transitions, and proposing a seven-point policy design checklist.
Specific binding legislative text, mandatory enforcement mechanisms, and formal legal definitions of robot liability.
- The increasing presence of robots in public spaces requires anticipatory public policy to balance opportunities and risks.
- Trust in public robots depends on perceptions of safety, competence, and integrity regarding information use.
- Effective governance must prevent negative externalities such as congestion and the degradation of public spaces.
- A proposed policy design checklist covers safety, privacy and ethics, productivity, esthetics, co-creation, equitable access, and systemic innovation.
· Abstract and Introduction · 1. Robots in public spaces · 2. Key public policy issues (Trust, Planning, Socio-technological transitions) · 3. A policy design checklist · 4. Conclusion
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Accountability
2/5Clear responsibility for AI outcomes
As robots become more autonomous, the relationships between the operator and the robot becomes more indirect. This raises challenges for those making public policy around the operation of robots in public spaces
2.1. Trust
screening score · 2026-10-23
Fairness
3/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
Greater use of robots in public spaces could produce benefits only enjoyed by affluent individuals and communities while imposing unwelcome challenges for poorer ones.
Table 1
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Oversight
2/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
Governors cannot fully control atmospheres, but in allowing robots into public spaces they can specify the allowable features and functions of those robots
1. Robots in public spaces
screening score · 2026-10-23
Transparency
3/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
Transparency concerning the nature of the technology and its capabilities and limitations is essential to allowing trust to develop
2.1. Trust
screening score · 2026-10-23
Enforcement
4/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
Regulation and monitoring could reduce safety risks to the public through prescribing specific features of robots and requiring operators hold licenses.
Table 2
screening score · 2026-10-23
Impact Assessment
2/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
These insights cover (1) safety, (2) privacy and ethics, (3) productivity, (4) esthetics, (5) co-creation, (6) equitable access, and (7) systemic innovation.
ABSTRACT
screening score · 2026-10-23