Search

Avant proposLes périodes de confinements qui se sont succédées depuis 2020 et le début de la crise de la Covid-19 ont rendu les outils numériques indispensables dans de nombreuses démarches et activités du quotidien. Maintien des liens avec les proches, télétravail, cours en ligne, démarches administratives dématérialisées : l’ensemble de la population a été amenée à prendre main des outils parfois peu familiers. Quels sont les impacts de cette période liée à la crise sanitaire sur le rapport au numérique des Français.es ?Une série de questions, introduites dans le Baromètre du numérique 2022 par le programme Société Numérique de l’Agence nationale de la cohésion des territoires, permet de répondre en partie à cette question globale en adressant les sujets du sentiment de compétence numérique, de l'autonomie et des freins perçus par les Français.es dans l'utilisation du numérique. Des inégalités en compétences numériques qui s’accentuentA la question « Depuis deux ans et les différentes périodes de confinement, avez-vous l’impression de mieux maîtriser les outils numériques pour les différentes démarches et activités de votre vie quotidienne », 57% des personnes interrogées répondent positivement (16% « Oui, tout à fait » et 41% « Oui, plutôt »). Toutefois, cette moyenne est sous-tendue par de grandes disparités. En effet, si le sentiment de s’être mieux approprié les outils numériques avec la pandémie est marqué chez les cadres et professions intellectuelles supérieures (71%), à l’inverse, les Français parmi les plus vulnérables (non diplômés et retraités), quant à eux, sont une minorité à avoir l’impression de gagner en maîtrise depuis ces deux dernières années (respectivement 38% et 43%). Par conséquent, l’écart se creuse sur le sentiment de monter en compétences chez les Français.es. En outre, l’impression de mieux maîtriser les outils numériques depuis deux ans décroît avec l’âge : elle concerne 74% des 18-24 ans, 68% des 25-39 ans, 61% des 40-59 ans, 52% des 60-69 ans, 36% des plus de 70 ans. Une progression sensible de l’autonomie face aux outils numériquesUne question introduite dans le Baromètre en 2018 et reconduite en 2019 et 2022 (« Quand vous rencontrez une difficulté en utilisant des outils informatiques et numériques : que faites-vous ? ») met en relief l'évolution des comportements, notamment une ce qui pourrait être interprété comme une augmentation de l'autonomie des Français.es : +9 points par rapport à 2019 de personnes qui se « débrouille seule » lorsqu'elles rencontrent une difficulté avec le numérique. Elle permet aussi de décomposer la population en quatre groupes : Les personnes « autonomes » : elles déclarent ne jamais rencontrer de difficultés ou déclarent se débrouiller seule : leur part dans la population adulte est passée de 39 % en 2018 à 51% en 2022 ;Les personnes qui cherchent de l’aide auprès de leur entourage : leur part a décru en quatre ans, passant de 36% à 29% ;Les personnes qui abandonnent quand elles rencontrent une difficulté : leur part a décru, passant de 8% à 5% ;Les personnes n’ayant jamais utilisé d’outils informatiques ou numériques : leur part est passée en quatre ans de 10% à 7%. Le niveau de diplôme continue de creuser les écarts : la proportion d’utilisateurs autonomes atteint 56% chez les titulaires du baccalauréat et 58% parmi les diplômé.e.s du supérieur, alors que les non-diplômé.e.s sont très minoritairement autonomes (32%). Alors que la population des internautes est constituée d’autant d’hommes que de femmes, les hommes affirment plus souvent savoir se débrouiller seuls (45%) que les femmes (36%). 11% des hommes et 10% des femmes affirment ne pas rencontrer de difficultés (12 %). L’interrogation sur les « effets de genre » dans la relation au numérique traverse depuis 15 ans les travaux qui se penchent sur les usages et les compétences numériques. De nombreux travaux ont ainsi mis en relief une moindre confiance des femmes dans leurs compétences numériques. Le cercle familial et amical, un recours important en cas de difficultés pour les plus vulnérables28% des personnes se tournent vers leurs proches quand elles rencontrent une difficulté à utiliser les outils numériques. Ce recours au cercle familial ou amical est plus marqué chez les 60-69 ans (38%) et les plus de 70 ans (33%), chez les titulaires d’un BEPC (33%), parmi les personnes au foyer (38%) et les retraités (31%). Les femmes seraient également plus enclines (35 %) que les hommes (22 %) à chercher de l’aide auprès de l’entourage. À mesure que les usages se multiplient, davantage de personnes rencontrent des freins dans l’utilisation des outils numériquesLe Baromètre numérique proposait, en 2022 comme en 2020, une liste de « freins qui vous empêchent, vous personnellement, d’utiliser pleinement les outils numériques dans votre quotidien, que ce soit sur smartphone, tablette ou ordinateur ». Parmi ces « freins », celui dont la progression est la plus forte depuis 2020, est le manque de maîtrise des outils informatiques pour pouvoir les utiliser pleinement (25%, + 7 points).Si le sentiment de ne pas maîtriser suffisamment les outils pour les utiliser pleinement est davantage cité par les 70 ans et plus (36%), leurs réponses sont restées stables depuis 2020 (+ 2 points), au contraire de l’ensemble des autres classes d’âges. Les 18-24 ans sont 19% à déclarer ce type de frein en 2022 (+ 11 points) « alors qu’ils sont, sur de nombreux usages, plus à l’aise que leurs ainés, et qu’ils expriment également avoir appris de nouveaux usages pendant la période Covid-19 » observent les analystes du Credoc.A mesure que les usages se multiplient, davantage de personnes rencontrent des freins dans l’utilisation des outils numériques. L’enquête Capacity avait d’ailleurs montré que, de manière un peu paradoxale, « plus on a d’usages numériques, plus on a d’ennuis … En clair, lorsque certaines personnes se contentent d’aller sur Google et de transférer des photos à des proches, elles ont peu de soucis avec Internet », observait alors Jean-François Marchandise, délégué général de la FING (Fondation Internet Nouvelle Génération). « C’est lorsque l’on a plusieurs dizaines d’usages différents – ce qui est le cas pour un internaute moyen – que les problèmes apparaissent. On perd des documents, on ne sait pas comment publier et dépublier des messages sur certains sites, on est parfois angoissé par certains actes sur une appli bancaire ou en traitant ses impôts… Ces nouveaux embarras numériques, concernent les gens qui sont déjà connectés. Plus les Français ont d’usages numériques non choisis, plus ils ont des ennuis ».Les 18-24 ans rencontrent par ailleurs le plus de freins liés à un accès difficile à internet (17%) et à un équipement dépassé (18%). En outre, les freins liés à l’équipement sont plus présents chez les personnes aux faibles revenus : 17% sont gênés par leur manque d’équipement, 11% par leur accès difficile à internet, et 14% par leur équipement dépassé.Le niveau de diplôme est également lié à des variations importantes dans les freins rencontrés : tandis que les non diplômé.e.s sont particulièrement concerné.e.s par la maîtrise insuffisante des outils (32%), le manque d’équipement (26%), et l’accès difficile à internet (16%). A l'inverse, les diplômé.e.s du supérieur sont les plus nombreux.ses à ne rencontrer aucun frein particulier dans leur usage des outils au quotidien (59%). Pour mieux maîtriser les outils, les adultes privilégient la formation individuelle en ligne« Les situations d’isolement créées par les différentes périodes de confinement ont mené de nombreuses personnes à devoir se familiariser rapidement et en autonomie avec de nouveaux outils numériques » observent les analystes du Credoc. « Dans ce contexte, on constate une forte augmentation des personnes interrogées considérant le fait de se former seul sur internet comme le dispositif le plus adapté pour mieux maîtriser les outils numériques depuis 2017 (28%, 16 points). Ce mode de formation est désormais autant plébiscité que l’aide à son cercle amical ou familial (28%, + 1 point) ». « Après deux ans de distanciation sociale, les dispositifs impliquant un échange en présentiel sont moins bien perçus cette année, qu’il s’agisse d’une formation sur le lieu de travail (11%, - 12 points), ou d’un accompagnement dans un lieu dédié en dehors du milieu professionnel, qu’il soit personnel (11%, - 6 points) ou collectif (16%, - 9 points) ».Tandis que la formation autonome sur internet était en 2017 surtout l’apanage des jeunes adultes, les écarts se sont résorbés en 2020, avec un fort engouement des 40-59 ans (31%, + 20 points) et des 60-69 ans (30%, + 20 points). La formation seule sur internet est également très appréciée par les plus diplômé.e.s (32% des diplômé.e.s du Bac ou équivalent, 31% des diplômé.e.s du supérieur) : le niveau de formation semble faciliter l’apprentissage autonome en matière numérique, les plus diplômé.e.s étant par ailleurs un des groupes ayant le plus l’impression de mieux maîtriser les outils du numériques depuis 2020.Les 70 ans et plus citent toujours moins que la moyenne ce mode d’apprentissage (19%), mais ils le font bien davantage qu’en 2017 (+ 14 points). Ces générations plus âgées s’en remettent avant tout à leur entourage (31%). Probablement car certains publics âgés sont vraiment en distance des usages numériques, une part importante des septuagénaires (30%) n’est pas en mesure d’identifier les dispositifs ou moyens d’aide qui lui seraient le plus adaptés (30%).Les jeunes générations se montrent, cette année, un peu plus ouvertes à se former hors du milieu professionnel, dans le cadre d’un accompagnement personnel sur un lieu dédié (18% des 18-24 ans, + 6 points), tandis que ce mode d’accompagnement est moins plébiscité dans tous les autres groupes sociaux.Les cours collectifs dans un lieu dédié (hors milieu professionnel) sont également moins bien perçus qu’en 2017, avec en particulier une baisse conséquente de la part des 60 ans et plus citant ce dispositif comme le plus adapté (22% des 60-69 ans, - 15 points ; 19% des 70 ans et plus, - 13 points). Ce sont désormais les 18-24 ans qui se montrent les plus favorables à ce dispositif (12%), ainsi que les cadres et professions intellectuelles supérieures (11%) et les résidents de l’agglomération parisienne (10%).La formation sur le lieu de travail apparaît enfin pertinente aux yeux des groupes socioprofessionnels les plus concernés : les cadres et professions intellectuelles supérieures (18%), les professions intermédiaires (22%) et les employé.e.s (14%). Les personnes au foyer vont pour, leur part, davantage s’adresser à leur cercle amical ou familial (40%).

A set of about fifty multi-criteria impact data from the NegaOctet database has been integrated into ADEME's IMPACTS database. These data will allow a better understanding of the impacts of services and equipment.The result of 36 months of research work by LCIE Bureau Veritas, APL Data Center, GreenIT.fr and DDemain as part of a call for projects by the French Environment and Energy Management Agency (ADEME), the NegaOctet standard makes it possible to measure and significantly reduce the environmental impact of digital services throughout their life cycle.The database contains 1,500 components and equipment classified according to four levels of granularity. Each piece of equipment is associated with up to 30 impact factors: from depletion of abiotic resources to global warming and eutrophication. Integration of NegaOctet in the ADEME Impacts DatabaseThey are available in the form of a downloadable file: Digital Sector Reference.This file includes:description of the life cycle inventory methodology used by the NegaOctet consortium;the multi-criteria impact data file according to defined assumptions.The file shows the environmental footprint according to different indicators of impact categories (use of abiotic resources, climate change, use of water resources, etc.) for 4 types of digital-related elements: digital services, terminal equipment, network equipment and datacenter equipment.Ademe's IMPACTS database is the official generic inventory database for the French government's environmental display program for consumer products. It is complementary to the sectoral reference systems of the display.ADEME's Impacts Base will become the Empreinte Base after merging with the Carbon Base in 2024.

Similar to what is happening in many professions, the use of digital technologies is increasing in social work practice. From using instant messaging systems to building databases. Even automated decision-making tools. These technologies are helping to transform the social work profession.Based on a review of the international literature, Steve Jacob and Seima Souissi analyze the recent transformations characterizing social work in the digital age.The authors first identify the potential of digital tools for social workers. It then discusses the transformation of tasks and the technical and communicational skills needed to adapt to the new work context. Finally, this state of the art looks at a series of challenges from the users' point of view, but also related to the acceptance and appropriation of these tools by the workers.In this article, the term "social worker" refers to professionals in the social field, social workers or social coaches. Potential of digital tools for social workersStudies show that digital technologies in social work promote the availability and sharing of information, as well as compliance with rules and procedures. " This saves time and increases the effectiveness of interventions. In addition, the documentation in information systems of summaries of conversations and actions undertaken with users promotes transparency and traceability of interventions, which facilitates the transfer of cases between professionals. By consulting the virtual file of a user, the interveners have access to all the data and previous interventions.Sharing information among staff within a facility, but also with other stakeholders involved in the intervention, increases intersectoral collaboration and the effectiveness of services to clients.In cases of litigation, transparency and traceability also provide protection for stakeholders." By providing access to more information about the practices of colleagues in similar situations, digital platforms increase the discretion of social workers. Practitioners thus explain that technology provides greater trust: it allows access to more information and is perceived as more reliable than advice from a colleague.Digital technologies can also contribute to compliant and consistent decision making in a context of frequent regulatory change. In this sense, technologies can " help reduce uncertainty ". Despite this desire to standardize processes and practices, the authors insist on the need for practitioners to listen and react to the individual needs of users.Finally, with the automation of requests through self-service solutions, the information provided by users is clearer and easier to analyze thanks to its standardized structure.Several studies emphasize the possibility for workers to save time by using digital tools to automate routine and time-consuming tasks. This allows workers to focus on more demanding requests and more vulnerable users. The transformation of the profession and skills of social workersThe use of digital technology implies a reorganization of work. The assumption of tasks by technological tools transforms work routines. Thus, the workers assume new roles and must develop multiple skills in order to meet the current requirements of the profession.With the integration of digital technologies, practitioners become responsible for the operation of these tools. This requires not only expertise in the field of social work, "but also a good understanding of the technical aspects of the system to evaluate algorithmic decisions and revise them as needed.The digital transformation of social work also aspires to actively involve and empower users. " Many tasks previously performed by social workers are now performed directly by users via digital platforms. The workers then act as "guides" orienting and assisting the users in the use of digital tools.Thus, the task of practitioners is no longer focused on problem solving and decision making involving specific professional knowledge. " It is now to provide a service that is largely focused on technical support.In the past, advocates responded to a wide range of requests through traditional means of communication (mail, telephone or meeting). Messages took different forms: documents prepared by advocates for internal administrative purposes, those used to communicate decisions and formal information about legal rights and obligations, and finally, more informal verbal communication. The studies reveal that " the boundaries between these forms of communication, which were once marked, are blurring with digital tools, as the more direct and informal style used in oral communication is also used to exchange on digital platforms ".Furthermore, the use of digital tools has the disadvantage of blurring the boundaries between the private and professional spheres and may have repercussions on the work performance and health of workers. Indeed, studies confirm that the accessibility and availability of professionals through these tools often opens the door to new requests for services and increases the number of questions from users.The instant conversation is an example of a means of communication that gives users direct access to stakeholders. It promotes an informal, close and rapid exchange between the participants. The use of this tool is not without its challenges for practitioners. The interactions, which take the form of immediate and spontaneous responses, are not based on predefined models, such as those used for official correspondence. In addition, officers are concerned about the level of language and tone to be used in these exchanges. In particular, they question the appropriateness in whether or not to use symbols and emoticons or whether to emphasize "we" or "I" when addressing users." Despite the immediacy of exchanges, digital interaction requires caution and careful writing because these are sensitive topics for users who may reuse the speaker's words in other contexts." The challenges of dematerializing social workPrivacy, data protection, algorithmic biases and technology limitationsSocial workers are required to protect the information they process. " However, they have less control over the conditions of information sharing. Digital technologies therefore raise challenges related to professional secrecy, control and protection of information.Moreover, while they have proven effective in areas such as processing and synthesizing large amounts of data, digital technologies, including those with artificial intelligence (AI), still have significant limitations. " Translating human thinking into mathematical rules is a major challenge for the dematerialization of this field of activity and risks discriminating against users due to algorithmic bias."Professional values under threatThe role of social workers is defined largely in terms of their ability to provide individual support to clients by exercising discretion. " Guided by a professional ethic, they deploy their practical judgment to ensure a balance between services based on individual case management and the application of complex administrative procedures and legal frameworks. With the advent of digital technologies, this flexibility appears to be diminishing. The ability of practitioners to make individualized decisions is diminished because they are forced to follow the procedures imposed by digital systems.Virtual interactions also risk creating distance and leading to the commodification of the user. With digital technology, service providers are called upon to deliver services to more impersonal users. They no longer have individual narratives to develop in the course of their encounters with users. Collecting data in the form of a structured list does not allow for a deep and contextualized understanding of cases. It gives access to often reductive information about the users."In general, the studies reviewed reveal that the reduction of the role of practitioners and their alienation from digital tools can cause frustration and alter their professional fulfillment. These feelings affect job satisfaction as well as the quality of services and the effectiveness of interventions."Strategies for bypassing digital toolsStudies show that social workers use digital technologies in varying ways without necessarily complying with instructions, which poses a significant challenge for organizations. " Social workers are often willing to work around the barriers set by digital technologies, so as not to compromise their professional beliefs."However, " stakeholders appreciate the technology tool when it confirms their views and expectations. They are also willing to reconsider or modify a decision based on the information and suggestions provided by these tools. Their attitude varies according to their general perception of the technology's capabilities and limitations as well as their understanding of the tools' specific operating rules."These findings illustrate major problems arising from inequalities in the use of technologies according to the experience and personality of the stakeholders, which could be remedied by focusing on the digital mediation processes of these professionals.The risk of losing the link with the users" Although there seems to be a consensus on the positive effects of digital technologies for users and practitioners, " conclude Steve Jacob and Seima Souissi, this international literature review highlights several challenges related to the use of digital technologies. " The shift to digital communication requires not only an effort of adaptation on the part of practitioners to ensure that they are well understood by users, but also a great deal of caution in a context where the confidentiality of content is difficult to preserve. The dematerialization of social work also affects the professional values of the workers. " Forced to follow the procedures imposed by digital technologies, they lose the link with the users ".The transition to digital communication requires not only an effort of adaptation on the part of those involved to ensure that they are well understood by users, but also a great deal of caution in a context where the confidentiality of content is difficult to preserve."Because of their digital incompetence, some users are at risk of being denied access to social services. Similarly, digital technologies still have significant limitations that can lead to unreliable decisions. The dematerialization of social work also affects the professional values of social workers. Forced to follow the procedures imposed by digital technologies, they lose the link with users. These effects vary widely depending on the technology used and the degree of automation of tasks.The articles selected by the authors in this review of international scientific literature focus on various examples of practitioners, such as employment counsellors and social workers working with children and their families, substance abusers or vulnerable or disabled people. Most of the examples of dematerialization described take place in Europe.In the majority of the articles analyzed in this literature review, the dematerialization of social work is carried out using electronic case management systems. These tools make it possible to gather and centralize data on users, to process the follow-up of cases and, in some cases, to facilitate communication. Recently, more developed technological tools based on artificial intelligence (AI) have begun to be used in Denmark, the United States, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands to automate decision-making in the social field.This article was published by the Revue des politiques sociales et familiales as part of a dossier devoted to the " Dematerialization of public services and access to rights".

The involvement of citizens in the political decision-making process (consultation, consultation, committees, etc.) has been developing for many years in France, particularly at the territorial level. Since the end of the 1990s, various laws have required local authorities to set up participation bodies, such as the Voynet law in 1999 (which established development councils at the inter-municipal level) and the Local Democracy law of 2002 (which required the creation of neighbourhood councils in all cities with more than 80,000 inhabitants).At the same time, many initiatives are being developed at the local level, such as participatory budgets, which allow the inhabitants of a territory to vote on a part of the investment budget of the community (between 5 and 10%). By 2022, these will be present in 400 municipalities, bringing together 12 million inhabitants. These participatory democracy mechanisms often struggle to mobilize all the publics concerned. Thus, we observe an overrepresentation of university graduates, residents of the Paris area, technophiles, and senior citizens who are more often mobilized in neighborhood councils. And, in mirror image, the under-participation of various publics: young people, the precarious, foreigners, and those who are far from the digital world.The ANCT has introduced questions in the 2022 edition of the Digital Barometer to capture the public's disposition towards local online citizen consultations. A majority of people ready to give their opinion on local public life in an online citizen consultationTo the question " Some local elected officials organize citizen consultations: they ask their constituents for their opinion on a specific subject, in order to know their opinions and expectations. Would you be willing to give your opinion on local public life during a citizen consultation via a digital device (like an online platform)? " 62% of respondents say they are "somewhat" or "quite" willing to give their opinion during a citizen consultation via a digital device, with 23% saying they are "quite" willing to contribute.Among the people who declared themselves "completely" ready to participate in a citizen consultation launched by a local elected official via a digital device, 24% have already contributed to such a consultation. The proportion of citizens who have already taken part in a local online consultation is around 6%.But unequal representation of the publicMen declare themselves more ready than women to participate in this type of consultation (26% of the men questioned are "completely" ready to contribute against 20% of women). " This gap may be due less to the mode of participation via digital technology than to the nature of the contribution," comment the Credoc analysts: "the feeling of legitimacy to express oneself on political issues varies according to social groups, and women in particular tend to share their opinions less on these subjects, which have long been considered to be reserved for men.There are also differences according to degree level: 15% of non-graduates say they are "completely" willing to participate, compared to 29% of university graduates. And 8% of university graduates say they have already participated in this type of consultation.People living in rural communities are less willing to participate in this type of consultation (26% say they are "not at all" willing to contribute).Online consultation also appears to attract younger audiences than other forms of political participation.Political science has repeatedly shown that young people are moving away from traditional forms of political action (voting, participation in neighborhood councils). " Online citizen consultations seem to attract the younger generations more easily: 10% of 18-24 year olds and 9% of 25-39 year olds say they have already participated in this type of mechanism," observe the Credoc analysts. Those aged 70 and over, who are not very well equipped and not very "connected", are the ones who say they are "not at all ready" to take part in an online consultation via a digital device (35%, compared to 17% on average among those aged 18 and over). Participatory inflation?As part of a project dedicated to "digital democracy", the National Digital Council pointed out in 2021 a " participatory inflation ". It recalled that "online participation tools sometimes contain structural biases, such as the way information is prioritized, or a lack of transparency in the way contributions are subsequently processed. The functioning of citizen consultation platforms is then perceived as a "black box" for their users".According to the Conseil national du numérique, " the main criticism of the online deliberative model as practiced is the lack of influence, real or supposed, on the decision-making process. In the majority of cases, deliberation does not lead to the transfer or real sharing of decision-making power: it is the decision-maker who draws his own conclusions from the debate. The lack of binding force of the deliberation reinforces the asymmetry between the participants and the decision-makers.

In France, more than 12 million people are disabled. These people need reliable information on the accessibility of establishments open to the public (ERP) to facilitate their mobility.French regulations require that residential buildings, public buildings, roads and public transport be made accessible to people with disabilities. However, it is still necessary to allow the persons concerned to know which places are correctly fitted out and accessible to them.In practice, the daily life of people with disabilities is often constrained by a lack of quality, real-time information on the accessibility of means of transport.In The Conversation, Élise Ho-Pun-Cheung, associate researcher in political science at Aix-Marseille University (AMU), paints a picture of the difficulties transport operators and local authorities face in collecting, harmonizing and making data accessible. "For example, it is sometimes difficult, if not impossible, to know in advance whether a bus will be equipped with a low floor or whether the pathway before the stop is wide enough to allow a wheelchair to pass.In a comprehensive booklet on the standardization of open data, Data Publica comments on the case of data related to the accessibility of places and means of transportation. An obligation to open data related to transport accessibilityThe law on mobility requires road managers and transport authorities to create databases describing accessibility by December 2023. The objective of this obligation is to enable people with disabilities or reduced mobility to move around and access all urban spaces in the same way as a valid person. The law for a digital Republic of 2016, for its part, imposes the principle of openness by default of public and general interest data. In order to ensure that this data, which is intended to be open, is homogeneous throughout France and meets the expectations of people with disabilities, the Ministerial Delegation for Accessibility (DMA), now attached to the Ministry of Ecological Transition and Territorial Cohesion, has launched several projects. They have led to the publication of several open data standards with regulatory value.Many local authorities do not yet have all of the road and transport accessibility data for their territory. An important collection work is therefore necessary.The road accessibility data exchange standard, validated by the CNIG at the end of 2021, will harmonize this collection of geographic information describing the accessibility of roadways, public spaces, and establishments open to the public (ERP).The NeTEx accessibility profile for France allows the exchange of information related to the accessibility of public transport (of a station, a platform, etc.). Common specifications and conversion rules must ensure data interoperability between these two standards.The Ministerial Directorate for Accessibility also encourages local authorities to go beyond their legal obligations by also collecting and publishing data on the accessibility of establishments open to the public using a third standard, which is also compatible with the other two.These three standards meet complementary needs and were designed under the impetus of the ministerial directorate for accessibility, through working groups bringing together slightly different profiles (specialists in the description of roads or transport depending on the subject). They have endeavoured to translate into data schemas the needs expressed by the associations of disabled people."Publishing data on the accessibility of transport and public buildings does not guarantee that they are actually accessible. Data standards are not strictly technical objects, which should be the business of a few technicians disconnected from the reality of users," concludes Élise Ho-Pun-Cheung, " but political objects, which must be designed in accordance with the principles of consultation.

In a file entitled " Humans & Machines. What interactions at work? "the National Digital Council calls for digital tools to be put at the service of workers. It identifies 10 levers to make workers actors in their relationship with digital technology.The report first looks at how interactions are formed between humans and the role that the body and non-verbal language play in them, before extending this examination to human-machine interactions. From menial workers to managersThese observations are confronted with the experiences of the workers, starting with the menial workers. In industry, some industrial robots or exoskeletons have improved working conditions by performing dangerous tasks in the place of workers.The questions that emerged during the industrial revolution remain, however, entirely relevant: the loss of autonomy, the denial of know-how, the reinforcement of control and surveillance devices...More recently, we are witnessing an extension of certain devices to other categories of menial workers, in the service sector for example, with a reinforcement of the timing of the tasks to be carried out, which is often experienced as going against the qualities of emotional empathy and the interactional basis of many of these professions.Intermediate workers and managers had been relatively unaffected by the industrial revolutions until then. But the digital revolution has brought the machine into the office: e-mails, business telephones, company messaging systems, videoconferencing, surveillance tools.Digital tools are now omnipresent and challenge the bodies and ways of working of these socio-professional categories, with a particularly strong impact on local managers.Despite the positive effects of digital tools for efficiency, transparency, autonomy at work, the tools can be perceived as competitors and as synonymous with a loss of responsibility for these managers.Anticipating the effectsWhile there is often a significant gap between the intentions behind the design of tools and their actual use," observe Justine Cassell, Olga Kokshagina, Dominique Pasquier and Éric Salobir, members of the Conseil national du numérique, " it is necessary to anticipate their effects with measures to :Involve the workers concerned as early as possible in the design and deployment of their tools;Train all stakeholders (workers, managers, social partners, occupational physicians, etc.) in their use;Carry out an impact study prior to their deployment, including their potential effects on work, but also on interactions within teams and collective dynamics.The authors of the report observe that it is then a matter of "encouraging support for employees through a continuous process of evaluation and improvement of exchanges around these tools and the working methods they generate in order to:Implement a continuous feedback system on how workers experience their relationship with digital tools;Supporting the deployment of hybrid work, between telework and face-to-face work, which is not a burden but a source of opportunities and an increase in the quality of life at work and in personal life;Ensure the effectiveness of an open, multi-level, regular and transparent social dialogue including all stakeholders concerned by digital tools;Making digital work a pillar of corporate social and environmental responsibility. "Make the regulation of digital work tools efficient and effective"While digital rights and freedoms enjoy a rich and developing legal and regulatory framework, their applications in the work context need to be consolidated, particularly in the area of digital surveillance at work." This would include:To make the regulation of digital work tools efficient and effective, by clarifying the pre-existing provisions on digital rights and freedoms applicable in a work context, by reinforcing them and by ensuring that those who use the tools are involved in the design and implementation of the regulation;Increase vigilance and the effectiveness of workers' rights in the area of workplace surveillance. It is essential to reinforce the information of workers on their rights and the means of recourse available to them in case of breach. This training must also be aimed at the workers' representatives in order to better ensure their monitoring and advisory mission;Encourage and deepen research on digital work tools and their contributions and impacts on workers.This dossier is the result of debates organized within the National Digital Council, meetings with stakeholders and a review of existing scientific literature. " Far from claiming to offer a conclusive view on this subject, this work aims to encourage the production of other works, reflections and especially to exchange on this subject. "

At the end of October, the open public data platform data.gouv.fr had more than 39,000 datasets and 206,344 resources made available by more than 2,379 organizations. They gave rise to 1,938 reuses. For the past two years, use of the data.gouv.fr platform has been steadily increasing, reaching 612,866 visits in October 2019 alone, representing 4,829,616 page views (including 3,589,180 unique page views) and 226,018 downloads (including 176,658 unique downloads).In two years, the number of active contributors has risen from 23,000 to 44,700 (an increase of 62%).Monthly visits increased by 140% over the same period.Land data tops the list of most viewed datasets The DVF database (requests for property values) produced by the Direction générale des finances publiques (DGFiP) is now available in open data. It contains all the information - price or description of property, etc.. - It contains all the information - price or description of the property, etc. - declared at the time of real estate transfers for valuable consideration (sales or auctions in particular). It allows everyone to know the real prices of transactions and specialized operators to offer tools to evaluate a property to buy or sell. This database gives access to the sale price and the date of transaction (of a built or unbuilt property), to the description of the property (number of rooms, surface area, lot number, etc.) and the geolocation. The DVF database is the most viewed dataset on Data.gouv.fr, ahead of the National Directory of Associations (Ministry of the Interior) and the Sirene database of companies and establishments (Insee).

Smart cities" is a concept that originated in the early 2000s with North American technology companies. In France, " smart cities" are local initiatives, most often led by local governments and their associations, that aim to harness the potential of megadata to improve public services for users (transportation, water distribution, sanitation, waste management, roads, street lighting, etc.).But what is a "smart city"? Is a "smart city" necessarily a digital city? If cities are more connected and better managed, do they meet the expectations of citizens?In 2021, more than 200 territories in France will be involved in projects integrating digital innovations. While some projects are at the forefront, the concepts of "smart city" and "smart territory" in France today encompass very different realities. Each local authority has its own projects, and sometimes promotes them vigorously. The companies that support them also contribute to this diversity.In a report very well documented report, the General Inspection of the Administration (IGA) noted the "dynamics of intelligent territories" while pointing out the absence of a strategic framework. In a study, also very complete, a consortium of consultants undertook, at the request of the Direction Générale des Entreprises (DGE), to " to define a possible French model of intelligent territory ". After having tried to promote a common vision of the European intelligent territory, via the "Intelligent Cities Challenge".Before highlighting the rich lessons of these two recent reports, let's revisit the warnings, expressed as early as 2017, by Jean Haëntjens and the CNIL's Digital Innovation Laboratory on the urban governance issues posed by the "smart city" as initially introduced by major players in the digital economy. "Political city" or "digitized service city"?The economist and urban planner Jean Haëntjens, in a synthesis book, " Smart city, intelligent city: what models for tomorrow? "published by the Documentation Française, looks back at the foundations of this very particular form of intelligence that is the intelligence of cities. " Companies, including the Gafams, have invested entire sectors of the urban economy: transportation, distribution, housing, tourism, etc. They are multiplying their smart offers. They are multiplying their smart offers. For Jean Haëntjens, "the smart city offer, as it is formulated today by the major players in the digital economy, is not only a technical offer; it is also a cultural, societal and political offer.According to Jean Haëntjens, a confrontation is now open between two radically different conceptions of urban governance: "Until recently," the author reminds us, "the strategic importance of this confrontation seems to have been largely underestimated by political leaders. Fascinated by the technical promises of the smart city offer, they have shown little interest in the economic, cultural, political and ideological content of this offer. They have often been in the forefront of welcoming Amazon's plans to set up shop before measuring the negative consequences for local commerce."On the one hand, the political city, governed by a mayor elected by citizens, whose mission is to seek the long-term general interest;on the other hand, a digitalized city as a service (city as a service) aiming to respond in real time to the demands of urban consumers and driven by companies that ensure both the collection of data and their processing by algorithms.In a more fundamental way, "two conceptions of space are being opposed. The first, that of the political city, privileges the public and real space; the second, that of the digitalized city-service, privileges the private and virtual space".The principle of a confrontation between political city and digitized city-service, which could still seem theoretical in 2017, has now become a reality. " Many cities have found that navigation applications such as Waze (a subsidiary of Google) were disrupting their traffic plans. This application aims to recommend to drivers the shortest travel time without taking into account the nuisance caused by passing a school or a hospital.Starting in 2017, several cities (Barcelona, London, Lyon, Milan, Paris, etc.) have thus been forced to react very actively to offers from Uber, Airbnb or self-service skateboard rental companies. "They have shown that they retain control of public space. Elected officials who had spontaneously embraced the smart city concept also realized that opinions did not follow them. In France, a survey conducted in September 2017 by Obsoco (Observatoire société et consommation) already revealed a great discrepancy between what may appear to be a goal pursued by some elected officials (the hyperconnected metropolis) and that of the French (the average city, peaceful, operating on proximity and neighborly relations). Since then, French people's distrust of technosolutionism, digital giants, and digital liberalism has only grown. Putting the City's data on the map: four scenarios from the CNILIn 2017, the CNIL's Digital Innovation Laboratory (LINC) devoted, a prospective notebook on the political and social issues of data in the city.Highlighting the consequences of the " datafication " of cities on public policies, and in particular on the relationships and power relations between private platforms and urban decision-makers, this study puts the "Smart City" approaches into perspective through the lens of the platform economy, and the power relations between public actors, private actors (in mobility, flows, civic techs) and citizens. In the last part, the study explores four prospective regulatory scenarios that would allow for a private/public rebalancing through data. How to organize a return to the public actor of data produced through individuals in the context of services provided by private actors? How can we allow these public actors to reuse this high value-added data for purposes of general interest, while respecting the rights of the companies in question, as well as the rights and freedoms of the individuals concerned?When the economic models of platforms transform the city: the arrival of major digital players in urban services (Sidewalk CityLab, Waze, Uber or Facebook) raises questions about the quid pro quo asked of individuals, and about those asked of public players.The fluid city: who benefits from the flows? The promise of the fluid city raises the question of the freedom and rights of individuals, who sometimes tend to be reduced to the status of the city's encumbrances, a sum of elements to be optimized and problems to be resolved by technology.Towards a "private browsing" mode in public space? The imperatives of security and the generalization of the devices of capture put at evil the anonymity, however constitutive of the city.These four proposals range from "mandatory private open data" to "citizen portability" through "augmented general interest data", and data access platform solutions. Intelligent territory and connected local public service: which tools for a controlled development?The IGA in a report on intelligent territories and connected local public servicespublished in January 2022, the IGA noted the "dynamics of intelligent territories".A wide variety of local initiativesThis theme of intelligent cities and territories is "one of the aspects of current territorial development policies. It marks an evolution in the relationship between digital technology and public initiative, "still largely dominated,in terms of financial commitment, by the question of infrastructure, from the deployment of successive generations of mobile telephony to that of optical fiber . "This dynamic is not uniform across the country," the authors of the report observe. It is reflected in "an extraordinary variety of local initiatives. These initiatives sometimes claim to be intelligent territories, and sometimes they are de facto linked to them. The projects launched tend to meet several objectives: optimizing public services (budget savings, reducing environmental impact, user satisfaction), renewing citizen participation in local public life, and increasing the attractiveness of a territory.A lack of strategic frameworkThe IGA mission points to " a frequent absence of strategy and evaluation of the coherence and impact of digital developments." These weaknesses can, however, be explained by the strong evolutionary nature of possible uses and technological solutions. Consequently, it is much more the pooling of practices, solutions, and feedback (including failures), than the construction of a model, the contours of which would clash with the very specific needs of each territory, that can be beneficial to the actors carrying these projects. Although exchange networks exist, through associations of elected officials or support institutions, there is no single formalized place for pooling. The state can play a leading role in this, facilitating pooling at both the national and local levels." Despite a few models that are thought out and globally represented as such (e.g. Angers, Dijon), which nevertheless regularly start with a defined number of uses (or "business verticals": lighting, roads, water/sanitation, etc.), the iterative approach dominates." " Local actors face obstacles when it comes to placing smart territory projects within a strategic and programmatic framework: the diffuse nature of the digital revolution, which affects trades that were previously managed in silos in a transverse manner, the speed of technological innovation , but also the inadequacy or even absence of engineering for the development of their projects. On this basis, "there is no set model for intelligent territories, but a set of principles, objectives and fields of action that can bring them together, sometimes enlightened by shared experiences.Insufficient consideration of security, sovereignty and digital sobriety issuesThe IGA mission also points to a consideration of the issues of security, sovereignty and digital sobriety " still insufficient, although it is progressing." The increase in computer attacks makes local actors more receptive to the recommendations of the National Agency for Information Systems Security (ANSSI), which plays a central role in security and requires a sustainable effort."The IGA mission proposes the following definition of sovereignty: "Sovereignty is a field close to security, but which refers to the control of the use of the data collected. As these are the results of public action, even under delegated management, it is legitimate for the local authorities responsible for the services in question to retain the lead role in this area. However, they are sometimes in difficulty when faced with service providers who, for example, withhold information in the name of business secrecy, or when faced with digital companies whose capacity to capture and exploit data is often much greater than that of public actors and who are fond of data that is considered open.The Mission observes that local authorities "experience in a very concrete way the relationship, sometimes a power struggle, with large private entities and in particular with GAFAM (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon ), sometimes trying to remedy the situation (e.g., the data charter in Nantes mentioned above). But they are often deprived in terms of technical means and levers of action.Assessing the overall environmental impact of digital technology "is still a new subject, which requires the deployment of new methodologies.Local digital governance is not very participatory, despite emerging initiatives "Moving from very top-down approaches, sometimes justified by technical reasons, to a construction involving citizens and users is a necessity, if only to facilitate the acceptance of new forms of public service.In this regard, the IGA mission points out " several shortcomings in the way connected territory projects are governed: an organization in silos, a very vertical operation, a lack of expertise, little anticipation (...) But above all, the production of digital developments of public services has a common characteristic: it is a top-down production generally conceived and/or put into service with little or no participation of its recipients, whether they are agents or users.Do not exclude a part of the population from access to public servicesAll the actors we met, " the authors of the report point out, "have identified the risk of smart territories that would exclude part of the population from access to public services. As a result, many initiatives led by the State (digital advisors), local authorities (digital inclusion actions, maintaining a mix of physical and digital public services) and associations have been put in place to limit the risk of exclusion. These one-off measures must be part of a long-term approach that takes into account the digital revolution and the transformation of public services.A flexible and agile framework and a sharing of practicesFor the authors of the report, " the balanced and optimized deployment of intelligent territories suffers from this lack of a strategic framework, just as it suffers from shortcomings in terms of evaluation": they call for the construction of a development model as well as the sharing of practices."The successful development of digital uses of local public services requires both a flexible and agile framework and a better-constructed support offer to territories, particularly by the State.On the first point, the IGA mission notes first of all " the need for local actors to take the measure of user demand and to encourage participatory approaches in the analysis of needs and the identification of the digital public service offer. But to be satisfied, this approach should be largely inspired by the provision to local authorities of a simplified methodology inspired by impact studies or even adapted public utility surveys. In this respect, and in order to compensate for the lack of local expert resources, either internal or external, for many local authorities, the Mission calls for "the development of structures for the pooling of resources, such as mixed syndicates"."More generally, the authors of the report add, "if local actors do not demand that a 'ready-made' digital development model be proposed to them, they remain, on the whole, quite helpless when it comes to building a 'tailor-made' response to the needs of their territory in this area.Expectations of the StateAt the central level, however diverse it may be, the State's action " lacks coordination and legibility. It needs clearer guidance and affirmation of its position in the fields where it is most expected by the decentralized authorities: security and sovereignty, standardization and its industrial impacts, evaluation and experience sharing." It is also important to strengthen the capacities of decentralized services, as their current weaknesses too often prevent them from playing their role in supporting local projects, with the redeployment of available resources from infrastructures to uses being a hypothesis to explore.Expectations of the State also relate to the tools deployed. "The logic of calls for projects, while it creates a dynamic in the ecosystem and may seem adapted to a nascent and evolving subject, suffers from limitations: it instills a dynamic in "fits and starts" and only benefits project leaders who are sufficiently informed, sized and ready on the date of the launch.The IGA mission also mentions the question of " the support engineering offered to beneficiaries in need, or even the reorientation of its interventions towards a more structured multi-year approach, if it is decided to launch a national policy for intelligent territories.Finally, the State is expected to "take into account cross-cutting issues and/or issues requiring national impetus (e.g., cybersecurity, standardization), in association with local or sectoral ecosystem players (local authorities, businesses). Panorama: from the smart city to the reality of connected territoriesThe diagnosis and recommendations of the IGA are largely consistent with those of a study on the deployment of smart territory tools and methods in FranceThe IGA's diagnosis and recommendations are largely in line with those of a study on smart territory, commissioned by the Direction générale des Entreprises (DGE), the Fédération française des télécoms (FFT), the Syndicat professionnel des fabricants de fils et de câbles électriques et de communication (SYCABEL), the Alliance française des industries du numérique (AFNUM) and the INFRANUM federation (which brings together companies and territories).The objective of this study was twofold: to contribute to the definition of a possible French model of the intelligent territory and to produce recommendations to promote its definition.Its authors (a consortium including Civiteo, Datactivist - Innopublica, KPMG and Parme Avocats) conducted more than 70 hearings and interviews and led a dozen workshops between January and July 2021. In total, more than 150 people were interviewed and/or took part in collective work sessions.The authors of the study have undertaken to define what is meant by the term " intelligent territory", to conduct a survey (use cases, technologies selected, economic models, data management, mutualization, interoperability, norms and standards, use of open source) and then, by analyzing the trajectories of pioneering territories, to identify a possible French model.From smart city to smart territory"In the absence of a shared definition, the authors of the study observe, " the multiple stakeholders are today facing real difficulties. They are waiting for words to be proposed to characterize the actions underway in the territories and for concrete and workable definitions to be established behind the fragile concept of the whole.First of all, local elected officials: "whatever the size of the community, they see the opportunities and challenges of using new digital tools to improve the performance, variety and quality of services offered to their constituents. But they do not have a reference framework that explains in a simple way the meaning and relevance of the choices they make or would like to make. In addition, elected officials legitimately do not want to undergo a digital transformation that would be uniformly imposed on everyone.Then there are the companies, large groups that operate the main urban functions, infrastructure managers, digital services companies or start-ups of local or national scope: "they are seeking to stabilize one (or more) model(s) for the deployment of intelligent territories in which their service offering will provide significant value to public policies. Moreover, they "sometimes take a critical look at the capacity of local authorities to deploy large-scale projects. They point to a lack of technical expertise, cumbersome purchasing procedures and siloed operations.Inter-municipal cooperation structures, such as mixed unions and public digital service operators (PSNOs): " Historically built to spearhead territorial mutualization, they represent a key link in the territorialization of digital services and technological innovation. In some areas, they are the sole contact and supplier for small and medium-sized municipalities.The actors of the territories concerned, moreover, are obviously numerous. Citizens, users of public services, associations, training establishments, various businesses in the territories, merchants, public establishments, actors in the mixed economy and the social and solidarity economy or in the health sector: "All are potentially beneficiaries and impacted by territorial management choices. In the absence of a model or a definition that is available and easily shared, they are confronted with difficulties in understanding the issues at stake, and this creates the risk of misunderstandings, controversies and polemics.Terminology: Smart City or intelligent territory?A first result of this study is to "settle the question of words. " The majority of the actors interviewed prefer the term " smart city " to "smart territory".This is due to the very nature of the territories involved. "In 2017, less than thirty territories had initiated a smart project. All were major cities or metropolises. In 2021, more than 200 territories in France have initiated projects incorporating digital innovations. They are of all sizes. The issue is no longer that of cities, but that of territories (urban, suburban, rural).If " the ingenious and positive dimension of the word smart is not fully reflected in the choice of the word intelligent (clever)", it is adopted as such and "suits (almost) everyone"."An intelligent territory is structured on the basis of objectives, but also of principles and values.A smart territory is defined first and foremost by the use of digital tools. It mobilizes new tools and makes digital innovation a political issue (or even a public policy in its own right). "Local public services are therefore engaged in a process of digital transformation for one or more core businesses of territorial action. Since this transformation involves the collection and production, then the transport, storage and processing of data, the territory is also described as "connected". (in reference to the interactions between the Internet of Things and the new capacity to link different fields of public action, previously compartmentalized).This technical characteristic does not embrace the whole dimension of the subject: "An intelligent territory is structured from objectives, but also from principles and values".An intelligent territory must, moreover: In sum, the authors conclude, " if the territory is intelligent, it is because the actors who live there are able to shape it thanks to a reasoned use of the technologies that are present there.to inscribe its action in principles concerning ecological transitions, the carbon footprint of public action and the territory, and the trajectories necessary to respect the Paris - COP21 agreements.to contribute to the better living of its inhabitants by providing them with the best possible services, more proximity, more services respectful of the environment and health, more inclusion.involve citizens. It contributes to participatory democracy, to the co-construction of public decisions and to the evaluation of public policies through new tools.know how to mobilize all its resources, human, financial and environmental, to transform itself.A smart territory is first and foremost a territory"Building an intelligent territory is a way of building and implementing a territorial project. Or more precisely, a way of affirming that the method is consubstantial with the project.This construction is local: it involves the actors of the territory: these territorial actors are multiple and " an intelligent territorial project only takes shape when there is a meeting between a vision (the political project) and actors who collaborate in its construction and/or its implementation when they usually do not".In reality, the authors of the study observe a variety of configurations. " Elected officials get involved without the structured support of their administrations, managers push without the support of their elected officials. Innovative ecosystems emerge without the support of the community.Some professions and many use casesWhile "all of the local authority's business lines are now potentially concerned", certain business lines are the focus of experimentation, investment and the first effective deployments."The businesses concerned by the main investments and actual deployments have a common characteristic: they are flow businesses whose structural organization is already based on networks and whose management has long relied on data. These are mobility, energy management (including public lighting), water management and waste management.A few other professions are emerging, notably those of the environment in the broadest sense of the term (air quality, for example), heritage management, tourism and commerce, which also lend themselves to the deployment of sensors and the collection of measurements and data useful for steering public action."A few rare global projects integrate several "business verticals" but there are many territorial projects that start with one or another of the themes (for example, digitization actions in support of local businesses during the health crisis)."There is no consensus on the subject of security and the " safe city ". "Eminently political, the decision of elected officials to use innovative digital tools to build or complete security management systems in public spaces is considered by some as an essential component of the intelligent territory and by others as a component to be excluded.Technological choices and infrastructuresAll the innovations tested and deployed are based on technology and infrastructure choices."Local authorities are questioning the appropriateness of new investments and the sustainability of current choices. For certain uses, data collection from an ever-increasing variety of sensors can be done via fiber, low-speed networks, 4 or 5G. For identical projects, some companies are promoting Bluetooth technology, others Wi-Fi.Some structural questions remain unanswered to this dayData hosting: "Should we develop integrated urban data platforms for some, and use them for others? Should innovative storage technologies be used, by installing real data lakes (especially in the announced perspective of using algorithms endowed with artificial intelligence)?"Is it useful to have a digital twin, and how much does it cost? (the digital twin is a tool for simulating and anticipating the impacts of many public decisions (urban planning, mobility, energy, environment, carbon footprint...). " The current prototypes are financially inaccessible for most territories"."Should the intelligent territory project be headed by a hypervisor? This control and management tool can bring together in a single place the digital management of several urban functions (as is the case in Dijon); or it can be a software assembly of dashboards useful to elected officials and general management, with each of the technical functions managed and supervised by an autonomous system (not to say in silo).Another concern is the question of how these tools are developed: open source or not.A diversity of economic models"Defining the value chain of an intelligent territory is a complex exercise. It integrates multiple components that depend on each territory, the businesses involved, and the possible stakeholders. It is not only economic, but also social and environmental," say the authors.For some cases, an economic model can be described. In some cases, an economic model can be described: "Here, savings are made (for public finances, but also for energy or water not consumed). Elsewhere, pollution is avoided, waste is better sorted, materials are recycled. New services created thanks to richer tools and methods of cooperation thanks to digital tools. New revenues and/or avoided expenses, performance objectives, service commitments, all of these elements can be integrated into the classic management methods and contracts of territorial public action.The authors note that public and private players are "looking for simple models that provide proof of return on investment, but the legitimate diversity of expectations and the complexity of offers make this a perilous exercise.Intelligent territories: a method  The concept of intelligent territory is also defined by the method. " If we listen carefully to the stakeholders, a few principles govern it. It is almost systematically a question of transversality, experimentation and user involvement. Of course, data management plays a special role.An intelligent territory project can be designed, prepared and implemented in a global, cross-cutting and uncoordinated way, as in Dijon or Angers, or also in La Rochelle and Cozzano. It can also be deployed initially by choice of a priority (the management of downtown businesses in many "Action Cœur de ville" areas), or by opportunity (when a concession is renewed on the proposal of public lighting or parking management operators, etc.).A smart territory frequently uses learning methods that make room for experimentation, prototypes or proofs of concept (POC). "In principle, this experimental method calls for generalization and "scaling up" of successful experiments. It is clear that the method comes up against many difficulties and that the innovations incubated and validated as real sources of progress for the territory do not easily find the relays (financial, technical, methodological, human, political) allowing their deployment. Finally, the governance of an intelligent territory project is based on analyzing and listening to the needs of residents and users. "Depending on the project, more or less sophisticated design methods are used (with, for example, the use of Ux design workshops and the temporary or permanent installation of a living lab). However, these methods do not seem to be compulsory. Nor is the effective integration of residents in the governance of projects.Data managementA common feature of all the projects is the consensus among the actors of the smart territory projects: " the digital systems deployed produce, consume and use more and more massive data" . Data management is associated with data publication. The opening of data is presented both as a legal obligation and as a democratic counterpart to the increased use of digital tools and data-driven management. "In concrete terms, in France today, most local authorities that have implemented smart territory projects have at least one open data portal and are beginning to disseminate data collected or produced by these new systems.Structuring data management requires skills and tools: however, it is "very rarely anticipated in intelligent territory projects. This is true for local authorities, but it is also true for the local teams of companies in charge of operating digitized public services. While the need to build a framework and rules for data governance within smart territories is perceived by all, "no model is emerging, with the possible exception of the first legal rules experimented by a few territories.MutualizationAmong the key questions are those of mutualization: investment, public purchasing processes, governance, and sharing of experiences. "While the principle is interesting, there are still strong questions about the possible legal arrangements, the relevance of the proposed assemblies or the most effective perimeters.SovereigntyThe notion of sovereignty is very present in smart territory projects: it refers however to different meanings."For some, the intelligent territory must demonstrate economic patriotism (some local authorities express the risk of overcosting French solutions in the face of foreign competitors). For others, sovereignty is first and foremost an issue of digital sovereignty and data protection, the question being more European than French. For still others, the issue is local and the intelligent territory must guarantee territorial public sovereignty over the tools and data used to manage public services.Digital SobrietyAs smart territories integrate objectives for a sustainable ecological and energy trajectory, the issue of digital sobriety is logically brought to the fore. "While some initiatives (in La Rochelle, for example) illustrate this concern, the issue remains largely embryonic and sometimes focuses on the energy consumption of data collection and storage systems. However, it is a much broader issue, including the origin of digital equipment, its maintenance, reconditioning and the entire purchasing policy of the local authority. A set of common objectives for intelligent territories is emerging"If there is no French model of intelligent territory," conclude the authors, "the projects of intelligent territories today in France have as common objectives to use new digital tools and the piloting of public services by the data to : To do this, smart territories must:A global political project that works towards universal principles of progress by integrating responses to the challenges of ecological transitions;A local political project that contributes to the better living of the inhabitants by improving the quality, efficiency and effectiveness of the services provided to them, taking into account the political priorities and specificities of each territory;A democratic project that involves citizens in the governance of projects, ensuring that the use of digital technology does not create new divides;An economic project that contributes to the image and attractiveness of the territory for the benefit of all its stakeholders.Think about the use of digital tools in a way that is consistent with the general objectives and aim in particular for digital sobriety;Involve new actors, or make possible new forms of involvement of public and private actors of the territory (without a predefined perimeter of the new stakeholder communities);Consider opportunities for mutualization and alliance of territories;Favour agile methods in each phase of their projects;Ensure that public control of governance, digital tools and data used is maintained;Integrate more globally the principles of sovereignty in the choice of technologies and tools;Rigorously protect residents' personal data;Integrate responses to emerging cybersecurity issues. 715 local authorities committed to open public dataAccording to the OpenDataFrance Territory Open Data Observatory, in October 2021, 14% of the 4,605 local authorities concerned by the obligation to open public data had opened at least one set of data. 715 local authorities (and 178 associated organizations) publish data in open data, an increase of 21% in one year for all local authorities. The opening up of the market concerns, in the first place, the metropolises and large cities and regions. 94% of the regions, 60% of the departments and 60% of the cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants have taken steps to open up their businesses.

Children aged 3 to 17 years spend an average of three hours per day in front of screens, a screen time that tends to increase with age, according to theANSES (National Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health Safety).During the March-May 2020 lockdown, Children aged 6-12 had a daily screen exposure rate of approximately seven hours (including time spent in education).Faced with the psychological and physical health risks, but also with the exposure of private data, the role of parents is often invoked to regulate the time spent on the Web."If screens contribute to the development of children and young adolescents as well as to family blossoming, early exposure and overexposure to inappropriate content can have harmful effects (language delay, concentration difficulties, cognitive delay, etc.).Many parents would like to see specific tools and signs: 46% of them do not feel that they have enough support in supervising their children's digital activities.The report of the High Council for Public Health of January 2020 reflects these expectations and reminds us that it is essential to be at their side.To better support parents, the site jeprotegemonenfant.gouv.fr is evolving to become a unique information portal on digital parenting. The platform centralizes - for parents - the practical tools and resources necessary for a reasonable use of screens among minors. Children are being equipped with cell phones at an increasingly early ageIn 2021, 95% of the population aged 15 years or older will have a cell phone: 77% will have a smartphone, 21% another type of phone.CREDOC questioned, within the framework of the Digital Barometer 2021CREDOC questioned young people under 25 about the age they were when they got their first cell phone. 60% of those under 25 years of age indicate that they were twelve years old or younger35% had it before age 12 and 25% in the year they turned 12.One third had a cell phone in college, between the ages of 13 and 16, and only 4% had one after they turned 16.CREDOC then asked people aged 25 or over with a child aged 6 or over at what age they had bought or given a cell phone to their child. Parents surveyed report equipping significantly younger children, with 28% reportedly providing a phone to children 10 years old or younger, while only 15% of 12-24 year olds surveyed had it that early.This increasing precociousness can be appreciated more easily when we detail the situation of respondents under 25 years of age. If we divide the population into three age groups, we can see that the proportion of young people equipped before the age of 12 is constantly increasing, rising from 28% for the generation born between 1996 and 1999 to 44% for the 2004-2008 generationAnother specificity is that among the under-25s, girls have equipped themselves earlier than boys: 41% of them had a cell phone before the age of 12, against only 30% of boys. Parents say they are increasingly vigilant about their children's screen timeAccording to the 2021 edition of the Digital Barometer, parents are becoming more and more aware of the time their children spend on screens. 48% restrict phone calls or texting, and nearly six out of ten parents restrict time spent watching TV, playing video games or on the Internet.Each of these measures for supervising and limiting children's screen time is a significant improvement over the measures established in 2012 or even 2014.For example, in 2020, 59% of parents supervise the time spent on video games, up 10 points from 2014 and 12 points from 2012. The increase in supervision of phone use is even more significant: 48% of parents say they are vigilant in this regard, +17 points compared to 2014 and +16 points compared to 2012."The socio-demographic analysis shows few significant differences," comments CREDOC."Barely do we note a greater vigilance regarding the time spent in front of the screens of the inhabitants of the Parisian agglomeration, but also - with regard to the time spent in front of the television - of the executives, while the employees more often seek to set up rules framing the use of the telephone and the sending of SMS by their children." Younger parents seem to be the most coercive, but it is likely that the children in their care are younger and therefore more likely to need rules and safeguards." A significant need for support for familiesA survey conducted by Ipsos on behalf of the OPEN association, in partnership with UNAF (Union Nationale des Associations Familiales) sheds light on the digital behaviors and practices of families after the health crisis. The study is based on the testimonies of 2012 parents (with children aged 0 to 17 years) and 600 children aged 7 to 17 years interviewed between July 9 and 22, 2021.According to the study, the various confinements have left their mark, particularly with regard to the consumption of screens, which has increased by 44% for parents and 53% for children.According to the parents surveyed, the smartphone is the tool most used by their children, especially for the following age groups: 11-14 year olds (70%) , 15-17 year olds (87%). According to these estimates, smartphone use increases by 11 points, from 37% to 48% between 2019 and 2021. Among other tools used by children: 88% of parents surveyed say they connect to the Internet several times a day. The majority of parents recognize that this consumption is excessive for themselves (77%) but also for their children (74%) and for their teenagers (87%).the tablet is up 23 points (from 17% to 40% between 2019 and 2021),television increases by 8 points (64% vs. 72%),the computer gains 6 points (32% vs. 38%),the console loses 6 points (38% vs 32%).The perceptions of parents (59%) and children (56%) are very close in recognizing that children's screen use has increased over the past 18 months.YouTube, children's favorite networkSome of the social networks most used by children include:YouTube/YouTube Kids (40%)Snapchat (25%)TikTok (23%)Parents have difficulty estimating the amount of time their children spend in front of screensConcerning the uses, the survey notes a gap between the perceptions of the parents and those of the children at different levels.The gap in perception of the time spent in front of screens is glaring between parents and children, especially during the week. Thus, the study highlights that 7-10 year olds spend almost three times more time on the smartphone than their parents imagine, and the same is true for the computer or game console, for this same age group.However, this gap tends to diminish on weekends and during vacations. This tends to prove that when parents are present or not busy, they are lucid about the reality of their children's digital practices.Parents lost in the reality of their children's activitiesSimilarly, there are significant differences when it comes to the activities their children do on the Internet. This is particularly true for the 7-10 year old age group, where parents report that 49% of them watch short videos, while 66% of these children report doing so. This gap is also notable for activities such as watching movies (37% vs. 74% for 7-10 year olds) or watching TV series (43% vs. 73% for 11-14 year olds).As for social networks, the same observation applies: parents find it difficult to estimate the number of social networks consulted by their children. According to parents, children aged 7-10 and 11-14 use an average of 1.9 and 3.2 social networks respectively. Children declare using 2.5 and 3.6 social networks respectively.Different perceptions of riskAs for the risks of the Internet, here again the perceptions of parents and children diverge. On the one hand, parents mention social risks related to their children's digital practices, in particular: While children rather mention health problems such as :dependency (51% on average),cyberstalking (49%),contact with strangers (43%).headaches (43% on average),difficulty falling asleep (42%),passivity (39%).The different ways to regulate digital practicesParental guidance is often symbolized by the establishment of rules and limits, to the detriment of dialogue.The parents surveyed say they have rules in place to control their children's screen use. This includes: 39% of respondents prefer to discuss good digital practices with their children. However, only 25% adapt their behavior to set an example.banning the use of screens at the table (53%),limit screen time per day/week (52%),prohibit the use of screens before bedtime (43%).Some parents will opt for the implementation of a monitoring solution with or without consultation of their children. The study notes that 41% of parents have already used spyware, 30% of them in consultation with their child, a process that has increased by 70% in 2 years.Parents in need of supportAccording to the study, 1 parent out of 2, i.e. 46% of respondents, do not feel accompanied or not accompanied enough. To get help in digital education, parents will turn first to family and friends, while digital actors are relegated to 7th place on the scale of trust.Parents' expectations for potential coaching include:educational resources such as practical tips or non-digital tools for dialogue,local actions and events such as awareness days for children or training workshops for parents,technical tools or solutions.