CO-DESIGN TOOLKIT

WSP FINLAND PIA SALMI w sp .com

Urban areas and spaces 650 Streets Landscape architecture Lighting Buildings …

49 000

Pia Salmi Design Studio WSP Finland Ltd

HEAT webinar about participatory methods case study presentation W S P D ES I G N S T U D IO WSP team of 14 talented designers

Urban Design Elements Lighting Design Accessibility design Public UrbanArt Facade Graphic design design Wayfinding Bridges Strategic planning Interiors Visualization of Information Product development Product design Interaction Design Service design

wspdesignworks.com

WSP Co-DesignToolkit

WORKSHOPS MAP POLLS INTERVIEWS SEMINARS QUESTIONAIRES SITEWALKS TRAININGS

methods user storie digital poll user persona ice breakers budjeting workshop 3D games image journey map affinity collages diagram future trends service points evaluation user values matrix mind map service maps scenario generation Development of Turku area park and ride services for cars and bikes

to increase the use of public transport, biking and walking Participatory methods

Best practices in Nottingham, Ellon, LITERATERY SURVEY Cambridge ja Ipswitch / Great Britain, Strasbourg / Francesekä Geneve / Switzerland USER POLL Best park-and-ride places in the user Questionaire + Map Survey (Finnish web point of view. platform eHarava)

objectives for park-and-ride service INTERVIEWS FOR 14 CITIES development in the cities

3 SCENARIOS PLAN OF ACTIONS Consultant project group’s ideation WSP IDEAS WORKSHOP of different scenarios

Developing the scenarios together with SCENARIO WORKSHOP / STAKEHOLDERS 14 cities and their larger stake holder groups (incl. biker organisatios etc)

Setting the project goals / PARTICIPATORY PROJECT MEETINGS commenting on scenarios/ development plans 2 % 3 % 12–17v.

22 % 24 % 18–29v. 30–49v.

50–69v.

70 vuotta täyttäneet

Other User Poll 49 % 1 %

• Open for 3 weeks 26.9.–15.10.2017 Men 35 % • Answers 787 Women 64 % • Poll was advertised in the cities’ social media and web pages Map questionaire eHarava tool

Map can be zoomed in and out to mark the most suitable park-and-ride places

Users were devided in two categories based on their homecity.

Turku metropolitan area (Turku, Kaarina, Lieto, Naantali ja Raisio)

Surrounding Cities (Masku, Nousiainen, Mynämäki, Rusko, Aura, Paimio ja Sauvo) Scenario workshop / stakeholders

SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 Focus on biking If we’ll have the tram Shortest possible commute to public transport Participatory project meetings STRATEGIC ROADMAP

Decision on new Business plan tram line or super bus line Including Park-and- ride services to city planning processes.

marketing Building the infrastrucure

Developing Turku area park-and-ride as part of larger areal planning. Including Park-and- ride services to Enhancing the bike large scaletransport parking falities at the development plans main railway stations

Pilot Project to test the possibility to use local market bike parking for park-and-ride service City Center park-and-ride plans

Uusien älykkäiden ratkaisuiden hyödyntäminen

Heti toteutettavissa olevat toimenpiteet pros and cons of Participatory methods

Got lot of answers, almost 800. Easy to participate.

Questionaire and map Did not reach much users over 70 LITERATERY SURVEY questuonaire tools were easy to because the marketing was in the use for consultants and net. In this case this user group participants. was not seen critical but this must USER POLL Reward for participation was a be taken into account in other lottery where one can win a top projects. Questionaire + Map Survey (Finnish web class Finnish retrobike. platform eHarava)

Lot of exact information on Time consuming. Needed extra INTERVIEWS FOR 14 CITIES participant cities. work for single interviews if the meeting was not attended. Possibility to discuss togetherand change knowledge between Should develop a digital tool to cities. collect the interview data for face- WSP IDEAS WORKSHOP to-face interviews instead of Sharing knowledge. Parking drawing and writing manually. specialist speaker from UK Andrew Potter.  Easier to analyse All the invited did not participate. Good discussing between cities SCENARIO WORKSHOP / STAKEHOLDERS and stakeholders. The invitation should be planned well to intrest all.

Participatory methods were used Took a bit more time to prepare PARTICIPATORY PROJECT MEETINGS as meeting tools to progress the and plan the meetings. project smoothly with vivid discussions. Should develop a digital way to collect the meetings data instead of drawing and writing manually.