Smart and Novelty Villages as the Quality Place of Virtuality

Abstract

From the perspective of the recent orientations of virtual geographies, the idea of smart and novelty villages in the context of renovated material rural worlds is conceptualized. The sum of new virtual and new materiality produces virtual and novelty spaces and places, which acquire a precise territorial dimension in the rural policy and politics of smart villages. Smart villages can not only be framed in global smart contexts, but they can also play a fundamental role in de-global territorial horizons as an instrument of resistance to global processes of rural restructuring. The smart political idea or orientation takes shape in each rural community with a different expression in the form of new local materials. The concept of quality virtuality is developed theoretically along three axes: the encounter between smart, novelty and new materials; the smart in the equitable rural community; and the right to disconnection in remote rural areas.

1. Introduction

We are currently in a stage that some authors, such as Ash, Kitchin, and Leszcinsky, have described as virtual and digital geographies [1], to situate the virtual turn of geography as a disciplinary response to rapid transitions to a digital world in all dimensions of human life that affects the praxis and the academic orientation of human geography itself. The virtual is clearly a novelty in (remote) rural areas. The novelty word suggests two geographical acceptances: new and unusual. An example in geographical terms is that tourists are still a novelty on this remote rural area, or smart is a novelty in this transitional village.

In a historical perspective, virtuality is the spatial quality of reality and the virtual; virtual spaces are traditionally spectral spaces or rituals spaces. Currently, these spaces are characterized by new communication technologies. Virtual and real categories make up the real virtuality, as suggest Shields [2]. In this sense, the virtual and the real are the new spatial virtuality, or in other words, the Quality of Virtuality. The opposite of the virtual is the concrete, and this suggests, in Shields terminology, baroque cyberspaces [2]. Within this analytical framework arises the morality and ethics of social relations at a distance and its implications for everyday life. In this theoretical orientation, Hillis [3] discusses the concept virtual realities in the framework of a variety of virtual environments in terms of the production of the sensation of ritual spaces. Virtual realities operate within social contexts and suggest digital sensations in socio-spatial practices. In this perspective, it is possible to differentiate variable territorial narratives of ritual cyber-spaces; Hine [4] analyzed the relevance of the Internet (1) as a cultural artifact; (2) as its repercussions on time space and technology relations; (3) as the new virtual community authenticity and identity in internet contexts.

New virtual and new materiality, as an interdisciplinary theoretical and political fieldwork that arises in this millennium as a response to post-constructivism and a material (re)turn to human geography, produces virtual and novelty realities with a new quality, essence or nature in/of rural places and areas, which are expressed topologically and topographically in renovated smart villages as a global recent approach or idea to new digital communities in place with planning, political and socioeconomic dimensions. The topological territorial expression is facilitated by new communication technologies and topographic expression in the form of new materialities that allow the integration of the virtual world. Smart and novelty villages are be rebuilt in the countryside in what are essentially traditional architectures.

The purpose of this contribution is to analyze from the last theoretical trends of human geography: (1) the possible combinations, in an additional way, between new virtual and new material worlds in specific new and renewed smart places in a global perspective and the possible repercussions on the nature of the rural community; (2) and the own concept of old and new geographical materiality. Through the concepts of the encounter between smart, novelty and material worlds are defined the global concept smart and novelty villages in the first section. The second section introduces the smart idea in the community world and the equity and social class perspective for poor and rich people. The last section discusses the right to disconnection in remote rural areas and the popular and community approaches to smart villages associated with the real need for non-normative smart villages in each community, mainly in the global South. In this context, the main research question of this text is to introduce the roots and the main analytical dimensions that emerge with the smart quality virtualities. As a consequence, the final object of this contribution is to introduce the concept to smart quality virtualities through the latest trends in new materialism in human geography in order to propose possible open scenarios on the integration of the concept of virtuality and new materialism to implement different qualities of transitional delicatessen to renovate virtualities in place.

2. Smart, Novelty and Material Worlds

Novelty and virtual worlds are open to fluid analysis, but materials have a rigid and binary nature. Virtual and material have an open battle, but virtual geographies and material geographies can have a complementarily relationship, particularly in the form of virtual natures. An adequate virtual vision of the world suggests a global and spectral nature; in contrast, materials are fixed and local in nature with a spatial definition in smart. Kinsley [5], in his review article, pays special attention to the material conditions of the digital world through the ‘technics’, using works on geography and technology. The technics would be a local commodity in rural areas that will allow the linking of the virtual and the real in the form of smart local styles.

Virtual reality is instead defined according to a social reality that brings together the new virtualities and materialities that are embodied in different styles of smart villages. The virtual and material worlds meet and assemble their intimate nature in the spatial core of smart villages. It is an adequate expression of the turn from old rural politics based in primary industries and/to the ‘politics of the rural’ based on the new relations of rurality with multiple visions [6]. In this sense, the smart idea is not only a novelty political idea of rural villages, it is a renewed concept in the academic tradition of human and rural geography [7].

Smart as the sum of virtual and material is an emerging commodity in spatial terms, with multiple definitions and practices in place [8,9] and multiple and flexible local responses: (1) responses of resistance to virtual change with variable place styles of resistance and virtual austerity, and (2) responses of predilection to virtual change with multiple local styles of predilection. These strategies of resistance and predilection do not have a permanent or rigid nature; this suggests successive faces of resistance, combined with the predilection of alternative periods of territorial instability and stability. In any case, the smart idea offers security against topographical conditions in the new topological historical period. The smart village has its context in local materials with popular and humble architecture in a creative way. If the traditional village was linked and embedded in a traditional rural environment, this does not mean that the smart village lives outside the immediate space; on the contrary, it can manage a more balanced and comprehensive integration. The smart idea imposes another rhythm in relation to the environment, and another rhythm in relations to the community. The smart and novelty villages are a new symbol of the postmodern countryside, with variable elements, (hi)stories and meanings. The smart house integrates the differences between physical structures of the house and the perceptible structures in a new materialism in traditional settlements. It also integrates on a human scale the materials in their natural state without grinding. They are new country houses that are never finished and consequently are mutable and are victims of wear and aging like the body of the inhabitant. On the other hand, the rural house admits infinite configurations of variable and primary elements. Materiality is its limited physical condition in a space and place. Thus, the house is a place for dwelling in a framework of political control.

But, as suggested by Paniagua in previous works, ‘The global nature of novelty and smart materials acquires multiple nuances in local materials. Smart and novelty villages would be elastic and malleable realities with a scalar dimension, which suggest renew social practices that aim to meet new social needs…’ [9] (p. 2). In this scenario, some European countries such as Spain are not excellent examples of change for the rural population; they are adequate examples of change in rural materials [8]. In some depopulated and peripheral rural areas, the process of new materialities and virtualities [3] is not associated with newcomers to the rural community; on the contrary, it is linked with the renovation of houses and is associated with new virtualities in the context of open rural houses and social movement without permanent occupants. The key date for research is not the number of inhabitants, it is the material recovery of rural villages in a new virtual world. The new materials suggest a flexible nature for the new virtual function. Indeed, with a lower population, smart places have more territorial potential and scalar dimension. Currently, there are many reconstituted materials in anesthetized ruralities that flourish periodically with the new pulse of urban–rural relations. The houses are arranged, raised and open, and wait under the light of the new materiality for their (new) inhabitants to return when they need their spiritual and emotional care.

In any case, there is an idea of vernacular nature of digital space for social connection which may have a more homogeneous expression according to the uniformity of the geological material, or a more diverse one associated with the different stages of the reconstruction of each core. An excellent example is the colored towns in the sierra de Ayllón of Segovia province in central Spain, with yellow towns -2- due to gneiss with quartzite schists, red towns -2- due to geological deposits of reddish clays, and black towns -3- due to the black color of the board.

It is possible to point out various micro trends: new materialism (1) standardized new rural houses with old external expression; (2) new houses in small old houses; (3) old houses with old and new elements. The new virtual materiality reveals new identities in times of change and uncertainty. The new virtual materials have a double dimension practically and functionally, with emotional details. Besides the new virtualities are elements of the landscape of power in new topological relations. In short, they are smart styles of confluence between urban (smart) and rural (new materialities), on some occasions presented as photo-materiality for the visitors.

3. Smart, Blueprint and (Rural) Spatial Equity

Young [10] suggests that the new rural digital geographies have been conditioned and affected by (1) the smart cities that have dominated the theoretical discussion and that darken the smart rural villages, and (2) by the technocratic and liberal point of views in the diffusion processes and rural implantations that have shadowed alternative, community based, indigenous and resistance processes of implantation of the smart villages. Lees, Shin and Lopez-Morales [11], from the point of view of global gentrification, point out that smart and eco-creativity are labels for a resistance to less aggressive gentrification for the right of the local people and the social justice between and inside rural communities. In the orientation of spatial equity and the regional approach, Bullard [12] writes that smart growth is the idea of promoting livable (rural) communities opposite to the classical sprawl regional development from the urban centers. The process of rural gentrification as a commodity and smart idea is an opportunity for marginal communities, for the others in the rural localities, in the context of regional new livable rural settlements. Smart growth is an element of territorial justice and promotes a positive and adequate way to rebuild new rural communities with new territorial centers, contrary to the traditional sprawl growth that promotes territorial and social inequality. Smart villages reduce the inequality and vulnerabilities of the population in all situations. Smart growth does not necessarily translate to an equitable growth [12]; it needs concrete actions in smart villages. Concrete actions are framed in styles of local governance of global virtual reality [13]. These styles of virtual governance are based in (1) cohesive forms in the rural community and the internal equity; (2) the smart strategies of resistance or predilection in the core of the community; (3) the potential of normative styles of smart villages in the regional and national scales. In this orientation, the smart villages idea promotes styles of sustainable rural development based on an integral idea of community or on certain orientations appropriate with the place, such as nature protection, health services, waste management, market development…

But a smart village not is a new paradise. Digital geography of precarity and smart austerity suggests the existence of poor and rich digital worlds in the core of smart villages. The smart world is a world with social classes, new and old social classes with different aspirations and opportunities in the digital period. The social inequality of each locality introduces differentiated modes or styles of virtuality between social groups and even individuals and a reconsideration of vulnerable geographies of rural areas. In this orientation, Matysiak and Peters [14] differentiate between smart senior towns and more cohesive and vulnerable senior towns in rural areas. But is this binary point of view open to generalization in the rural world? The smart village does not introduce equity against the community and place; it introduces equity in the adequate and favorable local social context. In this sense, it is necessary to articulate and integrate the practice of understanding and the practice of moral justice in the development of smart ideas. The digital smart villages idea is complementary to social smart villages, and the dimension of the technological possibilities of the social options chosen by each community is a possible and adequate way of smart practice and research. A normative and technological dimension of a socio-community dimension is not possible in the sustainable development of remote rural areas.

In an individual and neo humanistic point of view of smart digital, it is possible to suggest two main dimensions: material and affectivity, with permanent everyday relations and exchanges. Definitively, a close encounter in the context of affective virtual materiality is in place. The novelty politics of connectivity suggest a mobile conversation with remote others and parallel lives. The contact between social groups versus contact invisible individuals in the context of renewed affective individual virtual materiality suggests virtual natures and the existence of positive and negative encounters associated with processes of cultural de-stabilization. Parallel lives, the politics of connectivity and mobile conversation with remote others coexist in smart villages. A new rural population is smarter, and its place is the smart village. The composition and socio-economic orientation of the new smarter village depends on (1) the social context of the community, (2) the relationship between the locals, and (3) new comers and the social composition of the new comers. In definition, the rural smarter is a product of spatial, virtual and social spheres with a new territorial and relational logic. New people with new rights are based on the contingency of individual agency in place. The individual agency of smarter villages suggests a new politics of the rural. The new smarter village emerges in the context of social change of smart villages where virtual bodies operate in virtual villages at a distance. In this theoretical orientation, the smarter is an individual commodity in the transitional phase from traditional places to smart and novelty places. The last generation of smart villages are based analyzing and using data, and the idea of collecting data can improve the lives of new residents, but it can also have drawbacks in data privacy and security.

Virtual spaces interact with humans, spaces and places, as suggests Holton, Riley, Kallis [15]. In this orientation De Souza e Silva [16] point out that hybrid spaces arise when virtual communities migrate to physical spaces because of the use of mobile technologies as interfaces. The cosmopolitan in turn promote the view of geographical hybrid cultures. Hybrid spaces are conceptualized according to the interaction of three trends: connected spaces, mobile spaces and social spaces. For example, new rural spaces of co-working are a new materiality in smart rural villages. Rural communities would also be virtual communities in the context of new cyber cultures of rurality. In any case, smart communities can have processes of social reorganization between particular components that flexibly associate the imaginary place and the localized place for the subjective use of smart possibilities. For example, smart strategies have to support the rural local governments of the remote rural areas in Europe for the continued progress of internet access.

In this theoretical context, the reactions from the rural geography show a notable thematic variety around several axes: (1) mainly, the rural farmer and its live conditions and the new agricultural conditions and possibilities. A good example is the perspective of isolation and new technologies of digital curation and the digital identities in an everyday digital agriculture [15], (2) new rural business and labor opportunities for the locals and new comers’ populations, (3) facilities and health opportunities for local communities, (4) new spaces for co-working [17] and smart senior towns [14] as an expression of new material spaces in rural smart villages. But, there is no adequate panorama of the co-production of new materialities and new virtualities in the spatial emergence of smart villages.

4. The Lost Remote Rural Areas or the Right to (Dis)Connection in De-Global Strategy

Accent is usually placed on the role of globality in the restructuring processes of global areas [11,18,19]. Smart and novelty villages are players in this new spatial dynamic, but there may also be other territorial strategies that are based on the right to disconnection in a de-global and de-growth territorial strategy that aims to promote the sustainable use of resources in place with the least exchanges with the global environment. In this context, smart villages would be a commodity in the context of the right to disconnection of the local communities, as confirmed by Paniagua [20]. Each rural community could trace its individual route in the context of the new and alternative structural changes of rural areas in the context of de-globalization. The globalization and de-global are options for rural communities in its internal dynamics. For the everyday life of rural people, the disconnection is a real possibility in the virtual world in social cohesive contexts and adequate local structures of governance. Another possibility is the selective connection in some social sectors such as health or education or in some social groups for improving the real living conditions. Indeed, it is possible as a subjective use of smart possibilities. In any case, what is relevant as the key element is not smart technologies, it is the normative procedures for their use. But, smart village implementation needs a minimum technological infrastructure—broadband internet access, communication systems, … and are variable and subjective for the needs of smart communities.

The negative impacts of the processes of globalization and normative generalization of smart technologies have been revealed [20] within the peripheral rural community, as well as the existence of resistance movements that call for the disconnection of a connection chosen in a participatory manner by the rural community. But, these de-growth processes also want to be an adequate platform to face the challenges of climate change, the promotion of renewable energy, and the revitalization of ecological agriculture or responsible tourism for the continuity of local populations. This stage of post-material countryside can be a possibility for peripheral smart rural communities that intend to drive their own destiny in all possible aspects. In this way, smart villages can be an accelerator of globalization processes or an element of selective resistance, especially for remote rural communities. For this purpose, the participation of local communities in processes that are based on the members of the community through collective and mutually shared agreements is necessary. The meaning of a smart community is subjective and always associated with the open visions of local people.

In both the global North and the global South, the smart strategy usually aims to ensure new quality jobs for urban new comers based on a more or less selective growth option [7]—an example is the long-term smart strategy of the European Union in order to build resilient rural areas for the whole of Europe—but it can also ensure a quality future for communities that decide to remain smaller in the context of de-growth as an alternative strategy for a quality future. This elective new materiality and new virtuality suggests different spatial qualities of virtuality in the long run based on the core of each rural community. It is possible to choose the smart model without economic or population growth, simply based on the daily quality of the life of the local populations. The smart villages in the global South suggest (1) a variable relationship between needs and institutions, or (2) between community politics and institutionalized policies.

From an urban point of view, Cook and Valdez [21] recently suggested the creative and affective atmospheres of smart villages. The affective atmospheres emerge from the combination of materiality, places, and heterogeneity encounters [22,23]. But, each affective atmosphere—or not—generates more acceptable and desirable smart conditions for citizens than others. The atmospheres that are associated with each place generate affective conditions between people in the form of particular stories from below. In the context of remote and unpopulated rural areas, the smart atmospheres approach can show new paths of research and action within the framework of multiple and desirable encounters that allow setting the ideal conditions to assemble in a lasting way for the people of the local rural community and new smart technologies. The stories point of view suggests multiple and popular perspectives of smart villages in the same rural community adequate to the aspirations and potential of the people. In any case, the smart atmospheres not are a stable perspective in the new material virtuality, against which are a new dimension less objective but perceptible in the day to day life of the community. By definition, they are folk music of the new conditional smarter peoples.

Smith et al. [24] emphasizes the smart territories approach in the global South, which is based on the capacity of marginalized communities to build their own smart future through participation and co-creation that includes local knowledge. The main problem is the gap between the identification of needs and desires of local and native populations and the possibilities of implementation in poor places and vulnerable communities. Closing the gap is a priority in the various and parallel micro processes of smart implementation in the global South. In short, it is necessary to give an adequate answer to how multiple marginal and poor communities can help themselves with new smart technologies. Many academic writings describe the smart phenomenon diffusely, which makes its specific application difficult. In this line, Bielska at al. [25] points out the gap between the definitions of smart villages and the weak, confusing or non-existent procedures for implementing the idea in territorial practice. Glaeser, Kourtit and Nijkamp [26] use the expression ‘Shared spaces in smart places’ to define the gap between information and communication technologies and the community in place, which can materialize in spatial practices through three paths: (1) the management of local communities, (2) the renewal of the land use policy at the sub-regional level, and (3) finally, the new types of territorial and local governance.

In short, it is possible to outline an itinerary of the smart villages for the lost and other rural communities based on the smart design itself by the rural communities and adapt it to their potential and development possibilities, but also to the desires for growth and connection with the global world or the resistance and defense against connectivity. The right to de-connection is a relevant idea in the context of de-growth and de-global local and community strategies. The Quality Virtuality includes the right to disconnect or selective connection. The material and virtual core of smart is porous, adaptive and flexible in its spatial nature. The new virtualities can emerge under multiple faces of renew materiality. The practices of sociotechnical and spatial imageries in smart places are flexible and multilayered.

As previously stated, a weakness of the smart concept pointed out by various authors [24,25,26] is the gap between the idea and its possibilities of practical expression. In other words, the smart idea would have a porous and open character, but this weakness, pointed out in recent specialized literature, can also be a hidden strength since it allows an interpretation from below, from the inhabitants of rural communities, for its practice and local application both in the context of globalization as well as in the context of desired de-globalization. In this orientation, the so-called ‘politics of improvisation’ for Kumar [27] are notably useful, which make it possible to specify the limits in place of the general recommendations of technocratic experts in favor of the skills and contextual knowledge of the place for development or not of smart rural politics mainly in the Global South [28]. These new geographies of improvisation integrate technologies into the daily life of communities, together with social, political and material life, with a differentiated Virtual Quality but closely linked to the place. Rural community improvisation is a malleable but remarkably operational concept in resource-constrained communities where smart governance practices are scalable and flexible. The multiple and variable individual or organized local capacities suggest a non-normative integration of the smart idea, especially in the global South, in favor of the precarity politics of smart villages with low social and economic resources, associated with a first level of implementation of smart idea. Situated with the smart idea in this context is the fact that it is possible to deploy smart technology with available local resources. The new virtual and the new material are an amalgam that expresses itself with multiple qualities of virtualities in the global North and South, but always puts vulnerable people and communities in the foreground. In any case, it should be noted that digital access is highly variable between large geographical areas, and there are spaces in Southeast Asia, Central Asia and Africa with notable technological deficits.

5. Conclusions

This text argues that new materiality and virtual realities come together in the process of the social and spatial conformation of smart villages that are expressed and imagined in place through stories of new smarter people and the histories of villages. The encounters between new material and new virtual villages generate variable and multiple new qualities of virtuality in rural areas. The practical and political expression of the new materiality and the renewed rural vitalities are the smart and novelty villages around the world [29]. Smart villages are an expression of novelty in rural scenarios with multiple interpretations. In this sense, the smart idea is a new rural commodity on the way that separates its normative scientific and technological argumentation from territorial and social practice. It is possible to explore two paths, (1) the path of community predilection for the smart idea and (2) the path of community resistance to its local implementation, together with variables and multiple intermediate scenarios. But, there is no adequate panorama of the co-production of new materialities and new virtualities in the spatial emergence of smart villages. The smart idea is not independent of the idea of (rural) nature; it is a new approximation. The open community is a digital rural community, while the closed community is a transitional rural community.

The idea and practice of smart villages must be placed in its own territorial setting. In principle, smart growth is spatially healthier than sprawl regional development. In this context, smart territorial growth is a component of environmental and spatial justice by allowing more equitable access to the entire rural population to new facilities and technologies. Smart villages also hide social stratification in rural communities. Do smart technologies benefit all people equally, poor or rich, in a close rural community? In any case, with adequate participative integration in the rural community, they constitute an element of social cohesion. The smart idea in its territorial practice need precise social strategies to equilibrate implantation for the benefit of all social groups in the local community. It is not possible to have a smart strategy for new comers; on the contrary, the initial focus is the local and traditional rural community. The utility, the solidity and the delight (space and vision) are the new reflections of an integrating smart architecture in the rural environment. They start from memory and from the new virtual rural economy. The new materialism has an intimate communication with the new people and a new meaning for the professional service class.

In rural communities, there are people with emotions and ideas who have an affective vision of a smart idea and practice. The new smarter also show the orientation of the social context of the smart villages where they operate as virtual bodies [30]. Rural geography has had a variable academic response to the idea and the smart phenomenon, especially around the community and the farmer, but there has not been an integrating vision of the co-production of new materialities and new virtualities in the territorial and community emergence of smart villages.

Usually, the smart villages phenomenon is an example of the consequences of globalization in remote rural areas, but it can also be a component of the processes of resistance to digital connection in scenarios of de-growth and de-global strategies. In this ideological and argumentative orientation, the smart idea would have value in the context of the capacities and desires of peripheral and remote rural communities in the global north and poor rural communities in the global south. The practice of the smart village’s idea can be an element of the selective speed of each rural community to join the globalization process according to the wishes expressed through local participatory processes. In this way, the gap between the smart idea and its practice would not be a handicap; on the contrary, it would constitute an element that would allow multiple processes of improvisation and local adaptation in accordance with community politics and in the face of neoliberal regulatory processes [31]. Warf [32] criticizes the indiscriminate use of new communication technologies and vindicates, in a certain way, the face-to-face relationship. The technology needs an appropriate combination in place with local traditionalism in the form of an acceptable process of implementation of smart ideas in each rural space in the framework of the possibilities of the first or second generation of smart villages.

All these changes and novelties in rural policy through the smart idea suggest a modification of the scientific policy for rural areas based on trust networks science—new rurality and a notable change in the perspective of the scientific process as a process of participation with the others from peripheral, remote and unpopulated rural communities. The new relations of rurality with variable perspectives point out a new academic vision and institutionalized science in its approach to rural areas. In this perspective, the qualitative methodologies that integrate the researcher in the place of the daily life of the people investigated allow a causal knowledge of the object of the research and favor an integration of the scientific system in rural areas. In the smart village’s context, qualitative social scientists have the opportunity to inquire about the most favorable ways to integrate the smart idea or concept in the diverse conditions of each rural community. Besides, the new materialities suggest new emotional relations among the people and in the rural community. The new virtuality is an expression of individual desires and, also, weaknesses. The smart ideas and practices can contain contradictions between smart from above and smart from below. The ways of difference in the virtual sense are linked with the scale and intensity of disconnection. The smart villages by design [33] without previous old materiality express territorially exclusive Quality Virtualities.

By definition, the smart village idea suggests multiple dimensions of research in the social sciences but open the opportunity for academics to integrate new rural ideas and concepts into the lives of rural peoples in different and creative ways. The gap between smart ideas, rural people and rural researchers needs operative and not speculative routes of research based on cooperative and participatory actions and practices. The smart open the possibility of a real articulation of people at distance and an adequate scalar relation of (rural) territories, but need concrete and flexible spectral contexts of articulation in remote rural populations, with the possibility of living in place against the connection and the idea of permanent growth. The de-growth strategy, the de-global movement and that against connectivity are possible and are adequate scenarios for the smart practices around the global south and north. The framework of a ‘pacific rim’ as a spatial and social expression of the new sensibilities of global flows in the process of globalization and urbanization in rural areas is based on the interactions of particular spaces of flows and spaces of places [34].

Our main recommendation is the place possibilities of smart villages in contrasting territorial scenarios, affected by processes of decline and marginality in different geographic scales [35,36,37,38,39,40]. Besides the smart concept, there is a need for an adequate understanding in the local social context under the principles of equity between structures, personalities, community and the right to decide, and also on the possibilities and dimensions of the smart idea [41]. Finally, the smart and novelty need to recover the sense of concept of ‘lifeworlds of place’ as the modern disciplinary history of place with different styles and creative configurations [42] and the ‘antroposcenic’ as the new morphological configuration in the smart place [43].