D2.5 Portfolio of Co-Designed Urban Services

Ref. Ares(2019)1060822 - 20/02/2019

–––

D2.5 PORTFOLIO OF CO-DESIGNED URBAN SERVICES

Date of November 2018 preparation:

Start date of the 1st January 2016 Duration: 60 months project:

Version: 0.2 Prepared by: Tom White [FCC] Francesco Marchet [FCC] Jemma Hoare [RGB] Giuseppe Salvia [PoliMi] Eugenio Morello [PoliMi] Roberto Nocerino [CdM] [Poliedra]

Caterina Benvenuto [Legambiente] Maria Elena Hugony [Teicos] Giuliana Gemini [Poliedra] Susana Marques [CML] Catarina Rolim [IST] Carolina Carli [Ceiia] Checked by: Tom White [FCC] Verified by: Francesco Marchet [FCC] Status: Final Draft Dissemination Public level:

DISCLAIMER: The content of this publication does not reflect the official opinion of the European Commission. Responsibility for the information and views expressed herein lies entirely with the authors. Reproduction or use is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Any references to products or services in this report are not to be implied as endorsement by the European Commission or the Future Cities Catapult.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...... 5

SHARING CITIES – THE STORY SO FAR ...... 5

AIM OF THIS DOCUMENT ...... 5

CONTEXT ...... 6

WHAT IS CO-DESIGN? ...... 6

WHY CO-DESIGN? ...... 7

OVERVIEW OF THE THREE CITIES ...... 9

THE REPORTS ...... 12

GREENWICH ...... 13

LISBON ...... 29

MILAN ...... 52

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 99

KEY INSIGHTS ...... 99

CONCLUSIONS ……………………………………………………………………………...... 113

LOOKING AHEAD ...... 113

APPENDICES – MILAN ...... 115

4 INTRODUCTION

SHARING CITIES – THE STORY SO FAR

Sharing Cities, the European Commission funded Horizon 2020 project, which runs from 1st Jan 2016 to 31st December 2020, entails a consortium of 35 partners from cities, industry, NGOs and academia from the UK, Italy and Portugal. Its focus is on creating replicable, commercial-scale solutions with high market potential in energy, transport, and ICT.

At its core this means aggregating the demand for these technologies across cities in Europe and more widely, replicating the technologies on a large scale through the development of the business models needed to secure financing for implementation at scale – and to replicate this technology in accordance with the needs of cities.

To do this demonstration districts in ‘lighthouse’ cities Lisbon, London, and Milan have been created: The Royal Borough of Greenwich in London, Porta Romana/Vettabbia in Milan and downtown Lisbon.

Urban digital solutions and collaboration models have been implemented around retrofit buildings, shared mobility services, smart energy management systems and smart lampposts. An urban sharing platform has also been created to collect data and make it available for further use and exploitation.

Using the services implemented in Greenwich, Milan and Lisbon and the data collected, Future Cities Catapult is now leading on the creation of replicable digital social market applications and city manager dashboards. Exploration of other potential features is ongoing.

These solutions and collaboration models are intended to be replicable, and fellow cities Bordeaux, Burgas and Warsaw will co-develop, validate, or implement these solutions and models in an attempt at replicating what’s already been done in the lighthouse cities.

AIM OF THIS DOCUMENT

This document provides a comprehensive report from each of these three lighthouse projects, from which we will create – using the learnings from each project’s successes, as well as any challenges or indeed failures – a detailed toolkit that will be made available across the Sharing Cities ecosystem to help catalyse best practice in all subsequent projects.

The following reports document just the first stage in the application of the Sharing Cities principles, and will provide a practical foundation for the ongoing development of common tools and methodologies for their implementation, as well as an evolving, learnings-based toolkit that cities worldwide can access and contribute to moving forwards.

CONTEXT

WHAT IS CO-DESIGN?

“Human Centered Design is an approach for situations with high levels of ambiguity and uncertainty, in which the only way forward is to combine creativity with analysis.” Lucy Kimble

Approaches to co-design and service innovation have been well documented in recent years; for example the Double Diamond Technique, first introduced by the Design Council in 2005, or the Lean Startup approach, developed by Eric Reis in 2008, and, more recently, the Design Sprint methodology by Jake Knapp in 2010. Well-established organisations such as IDEO and Google have been developing and fine-tuning approaches and techniques to unlock innovation in multiple sectors for many years. Each of these approaches have been shown to unlock insights in many of the challenges associated with city-wide co-creation by offering common frameworks from which to convene and align stakeholders across complex challenges.

Co-design draws from the fields of Human Centred Design and User Centred Design, whereby user’s needs and limitations are placed at the heart of a pre-defined challenge or context.

This approach ensures a ‘people-centred’ approach to the development of solutions, which in turn makes it a particularly powerful tool for advancing innovation in a city context, where the needs of citizens and organisations are varied and, frequently, seemingly at odds.

Employing a co-design approach to urban innovation can demonstrably increase engagement across all city stakeholder-groups. Effective co-creative practice does in fact very much depend upon the inclusion and close collaboration of key stakeholders, such as project teams, front line staff, back office staff, citizens, community interest groups, charities, marketeers, senior decision makers, union representatives, academics, infrastructure experts, product development and software experts, researchers and designers.

These relationships can frequently be both challenging and complex. However a carefully established co-design programme can frequently also foster enthusiastic dialogue across frequently disparate and siloed city stakeholder groups. And with patience and effective facilitation, their collective insights will make your city service profoundly more valuable, especially to citizens.

However, even though the development and evolution process of these frameworks is largely drawn from practical experience, it is worth remembering that they are still tools, and not solutions in and of themselves. As such it’s critical that they are employed diligently and with a clear understanding of both their broader purpose and how to use them effectively. It’s in these instances that they can be a powerful means to reveal profound insights, align complex stakeholder groups and move projects forward.

WHY CO-DESIGN?

Co-design unlocks a wide range of opportunities. It empowers teams and city managers to make evidence-based decisions. It makes it difficult to work based on lazy assumptions about contexts or user groups, and urges us instead to research our objectives and ideas, and to build on a solid evidence base.

The development and implementation of city services is complex. Adopting a collaborative approach to design, through service innovation methods, provides the ecosystem of stakeholders with a framework from which to navigate the process. It helps to avoid the scenario of many experts working in silos. This can create positive effects further along in your work in that it facilitates a smooth connection between service planning and service delivery. If your audience are part of the development process, they are much more likely to embrace to the outcome and promote it to others.

Behaviour change is a central theme of Sharing Cities project. Co-design (in unison with service innovation) is very well placed to understand people and behaviours, and to help stakeholders create exciting and viable alternatives in order to provide new opportunities

and establish new behaviours. Co-design helps to empower teams to experiment with new behaviours and practices.

Co-design brings stakeholders teams into the very heart of project and empowers them to reflect upon and create new alternatives futures, it helps to reveal difficulties and align partners in the development of meaningful and prosperous systems and services.

OVERVIEW OF THE THREE CITIES

ROYAL BOROUGH OF GREENWICH, LONDON

The Greenwich demonstration area is one of the most strategic locations in London. It stretches along the riverfront - from the UNESCO World Heritage Site to the Greenwich Peninsula - with an area of 516 hectares. The site combines visitor attractions (e.g. the 02 entertainment arena); a new business start-up district; existing and new residential sites; and considerable water frontage.

In defining the scope of the demonstrator area, the following factors have been taken into consideration:

• complex urban challenges linked to significant economic and population growth, where solutions are scalable and transferable • a rich and varied urban landscape, including well established residential communities and businesses alongside major new redevelopment schemes; and a significant inward and outward movement of employees and visitors • strategic assets for low-carbon transformation in the Horizon 2020 timeframe; its community; the emerging digital cluster in the Peninsula with expertise in security, data integration and visualisation; a mix of housing/retail/commercial buildings; major visitor destinations; and multimodal transport -ferries, tube, rail, bus) • key transformation projects/plans currently being implemented or scheduled for the near future (e.g. the redevelopment of the Peninsula and the transport interchange at North Greenwich; the new London City Cruise Port to be constructed at Enderby Wharf in 2017; the testing of autonomous vehicles) • existing infrastructure assets (in particular the Blackwall Tunnel, one of the capital's most used roads; emissions in the area; and the sites/venues attracting millions of visitors every year, such as the Greenwich Heritage site - the second most visited attraction in London - and the 02 Centre • the largest European entertainment arena with the most concentrated footfall in London) LISBON Lisbon's demonstration area (10km² and 100,000 inhabitants) is a strategic location, stretching from the riverfront to the centre of the city, and including the main tourist and historic districts (second place in the Best European Destination 2015 contest). It has several specific challenges, ranging from its particular geography to the historic nature of its buildings, many of which date from the 18th-19th centuries, while others are more recent (built in the 1990s). The area also has an ageing population.

For the building sector, Lisbon's south western geographic location presents great opportunities but also challenges, especially since its energy needs differ from those of other European regions. Cooling is very much in demand, therefore natural gas is used mainly for cooking and producing domestic hot water (DHW) rather than heating. The renovation status of the city's building stock has been critical due mainly to the absence of energy ordinances

up until the late 1980s, and also to the overall age of the buildings. These increased the refurbishment costs, in comparison to new constructions outside the city centre (which characterised the past decades). By now, refurbishment has moved to the forefront of priorities, and significant headway has been made in the demonstration area. The city of Lisbon has offered financial and tax incentives to support these activities.

Regarding mobility, the demonstration area has been defined by the municipality as a low emission zone, and regulations have recently been adopted to promote improvements in air quality, and the adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) and the use of public transportation by citizens. The area at issue is being crossed by thousands of people each day, either commuters or tourists visiting the historic areas.

In defining the scope of the demonstration area, the following factors were taken into consideration: ongoing projects sponsored by the municipality, such as the low emission zone (ZER); installation of urban sensors; public access WiFi; availability of resources, such as EV charging points; chart showing the solar energy potential of downtown buildings; potential to reach and engage citizens; existence of buildings and associated infrastructure owned by the municipality or by local private project partners fit for the implementation of the proposed measures; availability of infrastructure, such as public squares, where large numbers of citizens can congregate (for demonstration and engagement purposes).

MILAN The Porta Romana/Vettabbia demonstration area is under complete redevelopment. The project will connect the historic centre of the city to Milan's agricultural belt by 'stitching together' two areas that are currently geographically, economically, and socially separated.

• Porta Romana is a brownfield on a 216,614m² former railway yard in the north of the city owned by Sistemi Urbani S.p.A. Porta Romana is part of the important Railway Yards project, starting in 2018, that aims to convert the abandoned urban railway yards into new city areas. Following its recovery, this area will include a functional mix of private and social housing units; the multimodal integration of transportation systems around a new station; and a large park of 187,226m². • 100,000m² of industrial areas are being recovered for the creation of a demonstration centre through the redevelopment of lots carried out by Beni Stabili SIIQ and Sviluppo Ripamonti S.r.l. (both LEED certified) • The need to retransform the Via Ripamonti urban axis into an 'urban quality road' is highlighted in the city's sustainable urban mobility plan (SUMP).

The demonstration area is involved in important projects of urban conversion both private and public:

• OpenAgri, an innovative UIA project on periurban agriculture; Smart City Lab, the first smart city technology incubator financed with national funds (realisation foreseen by the end of 2018); EU-GUGLE, FP7 project on buildings retrofit; Fondazione Prada, a new contemporary art and cultural institution; Symbiosis project, for the demonstration centre mentioned above; Fastweb new headquarters (under construction) and the renewal of two farmsteads for co-housing purpose. The majority of the city's shared ownership residential buildings are located in this area.

• Crossed by the Vettabbia Canal, the southern area is a transition zone where urban and rural uses mix. A large park is under construction to connect the urban part to the rural area around the 12th century Chiaravalle Abbey. This area is notable for its integrated infrastructure. The Nosedo waste heat recovery plant operated by Milano Depur S.p.A. is one of the largest in Europe. This highly replicable and scalable plant meets the specifications of the city's sustainable energy action plan (SEAP). In 2014, it received Legambiente's best eco-friendly innovation award.

THE REPORTS

GREENWICH ...... 13

LISBON ...... 29

MILAN ...... 52

GREENWICH

INTRODUCTION TO CO-DESIGN ...... 14

CODESIGNED URBAN SERVICES AND ACTIONS ...... 14 Digital Social Market: Residential Demand Side Response ...... 14 eMobility demand analysis ...... 23 Electric Vehicle Lamppost Charging ...... 24 Social housing Retrofit ...... 26

LESSONS LEARNED ...... 27

INTRODUCTION TO CO-DESIGN

The Sharing Cities programme in Greenwich has employed co-design to ensure that measures are designed in a way that meets people's needs, and encourages sustainable behaviour change in electric mobility and use of heat and electricity in the home.

Greenwich's approach has relied on a number of methods: an online engagement portal Greenwich Commonplace, interviews, and workshops.

Online co-design activities were designed to address some of the challenges of offline workshops/interviews such as the number of views that can be gathered and analysed, the time taken to recruit to workshops, and the diversity of participants that typically volunteer for such activities which can last a couple of hours. As demonstrated below, it proved beneficial to reach a wide, diverse audience. However, offline workshops and interviews were also used to gain quality insights, which were valuable resource especially for co-design that focused on service journeys, as opposed to simpler design questions such as locations of measures or binary choices between option A or option B.

Co-design activities were undertaken by the Royal Borough of Greenwich and the Future Cities Catapult, supported by other Sharing Cities partners for measure specific activities, such as Kiwi Power for the Demand Side Response project.

The following section details co-design in the following areas:

• Digital Social Market: Residential Demand Side Response • eMobility demand analysis • Electric Vehicle Lamppost Charging • Social Housing retrofit

CODESIGNED URBAN SERVICES AND ACTIONS

The Sharing Cities programme has introduced co-designed services and approaches in Greenwich's demonstrator area.

As described in D2.1, initial user research was undertaken in year 1 of the programme, which resulted in a series of design considerations at an early stage of scheme planning and implementation. General challenges, ideas opportunities in the areas of energy, transport and community in the local area were discovered, which were incorporated into designs and approaches where possible.

DIGITAL SOCIAL MARKET: RESIDENTIAL DEMAND SIDE RESPONSE

Greenwich's Digital Social Market implementation is a trial of a residential demand-side response platform with Sharing Cities partner Kiwi Power as part of WP3.2 (SEMS). A co- design process has been undertaken to design and implement a service that is simple and

inviting to residents, that will foster sustained behaviour change when residents are asked to reduce their electricity use at certain times. This project is called Greenwich Energy Hero

There were a number of co-creative stages which informed the deployment of the service.

Internal alignment activities:

Following a planning phase at the beginning of 2018, in partnership with FCC, the Greenwich team convened to conduct an array of scoping activities designed to examine and better define the value of the service. This work utilised a range of tools in one short afternoon session.

Proposition Development Tool

A mapping tool used to define the service and its strategic direction in more detail. The tool encourages participants to consider their service from four core perspectives:

Proposition Definition: What is the service, its key characteristics and potential impact?

Problem Definition: What city problem (including its broader contexts) will the service resolve and what evidence is there to support this hypothesis?

Figure G1: Proposition Development

User Segments: Who are the target users of your service and what are their defining characteristics? What might your target audience be attempting to achieve?

Organisational Resources: Who are the supporting partners or organizations delivering your service and who do they rely upon?

15 Service Blueprint

Used to map or review how a service exists in time and space and through the interactions of its stakeholders. It provides a useful means to reveal gaps and opportunities in a service and enables participants to assign responsibilities and time-frames to the opportunities which emerge. Whilst used slightly prematurely in the development of our service, this tool is great means to examine your imagined end-to-end service in a macro way. It segments the service into key phases, such as: Figure G2: Service Blueprint

User Journey: the experience of the citizen navigating their way through the intended service.

Frontstage activities: The visible, user-focused aspects of your service, such as websites, apps, out-of-home advertising or one-to-one training or equipment installation.

Backstage Activities: The often intangible, but critical ‘behind-the-scenes” activities which are important to the smooth running of your service. Aspects such as service provider training, communication tools development, trouble shooting support.

Infrastructure: These are the taken-for-granted networks assets and structures that support the delivery of the service (e.g. assumes users have smart phones and broadband)

KPI Tool

Used to establish what needs to measured in a service in order to test it’s proposition. This tool provides a means to check the progress and results of the project against its original objectives. Whilst difficult to predict and define at the beginning of the delivery phase how these KPIs could be measured, It was important to build Into the beginning of design to ensure that data collection procedures were built into the service delivery.

Figure G3: KPI tool

Creative Project Brief

This tool was introduced around the time of the Spring consortium meeting. During this meeting we participated in a workshop with other lighthouse city partners to try to define common themes, challenges and opportunities that may feature across each of our DSM platforms. Despite the many uniqueness’s between our three DSM projects, there were a range of characteristics which emerged for us to discuss and explore in further detail. These themes were grouped into chronological project themes and captured in a creative

Figure G4: Creative Project Brief project brief supported by a RACI project matrix which formed the basis of our implementation strategy. The key themes to emerge from the work were as follows:

From our discussions, five distinct categories have emerged, on which to focus our attention. These are follows:

1. On-boarding – How to encourage stakeholders to participate in a city DSM? 2. Retaining – How to maintain engagement with stakeholders over time? 3. Business Models – How do we ensure that each DSM is both sustainable and replicable once the funded project comes to end? 4. Governance – How do we establish an effective Governance framework that will help both partner and follower cities operate their DSM strategies effectively? 5. Impact Assessment – Establishing the impact of our work and defining a means for it to pivot over time.

A creative project brief differs from a standard project briefing document in that it is intended to establish the perameters and outomes of the project, but without defining the exact method of execution – it aims to ‘maintain space’ for creative development, without being too prescriptive. The document is intended to provide all party’s responsible for the delivery of this DSM with a clear understanding of the aims, objectives and outputs for the months ahead. It outlines the tasks, timeframes and identifies those responsible for ensuring delivery of this programme.

Implementation Phase: GREENWICH CO-DESIGN ACTIVATION METER DSR DESIGN EVENT INSTALLATION LAUNCH PHASE

AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER RESIDENT Having set the framework for our FORUMS RBG / KIWI / FCC RECRUIT WC 6th August PHASE implementation journey, we continued to 15

1:1 INTERVIEWS work closely with FCC to through phases 1- FCC (9th - 20th July) 3 of our project Brief “Onboarding”, 15 “Retention” and “Business Models”. PLANNING RBG / KIWI / FCC Starting with a revist to our sketched Service Blueprint, we were able to identify key areas along the user journey in which to focus our activities. This began with a round of of user research interviews Figure G5: Co-design phases

User Research interviews

A discussion guide was developed based on previous desk research around similar initiatives as well as project research on behaviour change. 5 residents were recruited in an incentivised in-home interview to test key questions, concerns and potential barriers to the service. This included questions and short participatory activities to explore how the platform should be framed and communicated with end-users, what sort of reward system was appropriate, and how interest in the app and scheme could be held over the year long trial. An example of the insights gained as part of this process is displayed in figure 7 below.

Figure G6: User Research Insight Analysis

Figure G7: An example persona from Demand Side Response co-design in Greenwich

The project team analysed the feedback from the interviews by comparing responses to the questions and using these responses as a lens through which to critique our service approach. This work provided key insights from which to further refine our service offering as well as a starting point from which to frame our key messages. Above all, through the consultation of even a small proportion of residents, this work created an element of confidence and authenticity in progressing with the next steps of our service delivery. These insights enabled us to spend time mocking up various touchpoints to our service, based on the findings we’d captured from the interviews. We adapted our service journey to feature more detail before entering into the co-creative phase before launching, a co-design workshop.

Co-design Workshop:

The co-design workshop provided us with an ideal forum in which to conduct one further round of exploration before launching in December 2018. The purpose of the workshop was to establish the following:

Test our approach - Are we communicating the ‘right’ tools and key messages?

Building trust - helping to ensure we’re being clear in our proposition

Recruitment - opportunity to recruit early adopters

Feedback – Based on the results of the workshop, what can we change before we launch to further improve the potential impact of the service?

We had intended to run a half day session to ensure that end users were involved in the actual design development of the service instead of being limited to consulting role, however, it was difficult to recruit citizen participants for such a period of time, therefore we reduced the scope of the workshop and included a “pre-read” activity for participants to complete prior to the session.

There were 10 participants organised in three groups, in the workshop which was held at Royal Borough of Greenwich’s offices. The teams were a mix of residents, project members (as groups facilitators and scribes), and technical representatives from Kiwi Power and Hilderbrand (the technology provider who work closely with Kiwi Power).

The workshop process asked participants to contribute to a range of activities which include the following:

Pre Reading and Reflection Activity

In the days leading up to the workshop, participants were asked to read a short description of the service and asked to respond to questions about their ability to understand the proposition and its terms of reference. They were also asked to retrieve a recent electricity bill and review certain characteristics about that bill, such as ease of understanding and explanations around electricity related incentives from their current provider, intended to examine what residents currently understand about their electricity use.

Warm up Exercise

A short exercise to align participants to the challenges of the workshop session.

Service Tour

Participants were then given a tour of the service as well as key themes and attributes of the Demand Side Response approach. Before beginning this section, each participant was given two packs of different coloured sticky notes and instruction to document questions on one colour, and suggestions for improvement on the other. After the explanations, participants were given time to discuss

these themes and fix them to print outs of Figure G8: Greenwich Energy Hero Workshop the service journey we had issued to each table. At the end of this section, participants were also introduced to three different proposals for the reward feature of the service, “Personal Gain”, “Community Gain”, or a “Combination of Both”. Users were asked to reflect upon the benefits of each reward structure and vote for their preference.

20 Barriers & Causes

Each table was provided with a map of the proposed service, which displayed landmarks and touchpoints along the journey. They were also provided with a persona (taken from previous research activity in the project), which was represented by a toy figure of a person bearing a similar resemblance to that persona. The personas represented such demographic groups as parents, or the elderly, or young professionals.

Figure G9: Barriers and Causes exercise

Participants were asked to walk their persona character through the service journey on the table and discuss as a group, the potential barriers to progression or causes for complete abandonment of the service. Participants engaged in animated discussions around these themes and captured their thoughts and ideas on the maps as they progressed through the exercise.

How Might We: Following on from the mapping exercise, participants were put into pairs and asked to focus on 1-2 key themes or aspects of the service which were significant to them. The smaller teams spent time discussing and considering how they might optimise or improve that aspect of the service from the perspective the of the persona they had been working with previously. A final part of this exercise called upon participants to utilise a “How Might We” question in order to reform the area they had focused on, into an actionable question.

Service Prototypes: As a final task, each table was presented with a mock up of a touchpoint from the proposed service. In this instance, it included a mock-up of the website and social media pages, a promotional flyer and “how-to-guide” and a mock of the “App journey” being prosed. The mock-ups represented real-life prototypes intended for the support the launch and recruitment of participants into the platform. Each table was asked to critique the mockup and suggest ways to improve and refine it.

Optional Sign-up: As a final activity, participants were asked to provide feedback to the session and were offered the opportunity to formally sign up to the pilot. The group of participants, whilst incentivised, could be described as early adopters within this space and could therefore act as ambassadors for the platform if they found the service to be of use. 9 out of 10 participants signed up to the service.

We discovered that residents were mildly in favour of a rewards being donated to charities, that sustainability and supporting local causes were strong motivators, and that seeing how much electricity was saved was important.

The outcomes of this collective user research and co-design phase have enabled the project team to move progress with the final details of the service development with a great deal of confidence and alignment. Whilst the co-design interviews and co-design sessions have

presented ideas which, within the scope of this project, won’t be achievable, the results have lef to far richer, relevant and potentially impactful service delivery.

Key learnings from the co-design that were incorporated into the service design were:

• Communications need to be clearer that residents do not need to change energy provider, and the technology sits on top of the current meter • Environmental concerns are the primary motivating factor • Although participants recognised that the rewards were small, they wanted to be able to choose whether to keep their rewards, or donate them to charities on the platform. • Ways to engage with the whole family, not just the person/people who have the Energy Hero app, need to be further developed. • Most participants could easily see the benefits, and how they would implement it into their lifestyle

Online engagement

Proposals were also presented on Commonplace to allow residents to feedback on the idea- this allowed a wider group of residents who may not be able to attend a workshop to be part of the design process. Respondents were asked what they thought about the proposals, what sort of appliances they thought they could use differently, and how often they thought they could move their electricity use. See Figure G10 below.

Figure G10: Greenwich Energy Hero Commonplace

EMOBILITY DEMAND ANALYSIS

In 2016, a demand analysis of attitudes towards electric Mobility in the demonstrator area was undertaken. A paper-based questionnaire was sent to every household in the Sharing Cities/Low Emission Neighbourhood area to establish the likely level of demand from local residents and businesses for electric bikes, an electric vehicle car club (EVCC), and electric vehicle charging points (EVCP). The questionnaire asked residents the following types of questions:

• Electric Vehicle Charging Points- current electric vehicle ownership; whether an EVCP on the road would encourage purchase of an electric car; whether they would accept an EVCP on the road, regardless of whether they would be likely to use it • EVCC- current (non-electric) car club ownership; whether they would use an EVCC; whether they would accept an EVCC bay on or near their street, regardless of whether they would use it • eBikes- whether they would use an electric bike scheme in their area.

Over 700 responses were received (a high response rate compared to similar transport surveys), the summary of the findings are outlined in Table G1and Figure G11 below.

Table G1: eMobility demand analysis headline findings in Greenwich

Do you own Would an Would Are you a Would Would Would or EVCP you car club you use you you use considering encourage accept an member? an accept an an E an EV? you to buy an EVCP on EVCC? EVCC on Bike? EV? your your street? street?

Yes 11% 36% 78% 13% 41% 74% 40%

No 89% 64% 22% 87% 59% 26% 60%

Figure G11: eMobility demand mapping in Greenwich

The demand analysis indicated locations for EVCC and EVCP where usage would be high, and objections raised to removing parking bays in statutory consultation would be low.

The locations that residents suggested were cross-checked with technical feasibility requirements such as parking availability and the location of existing infrastructure. Unfortunately, a number of the preferred locations suggested by residents were not feasible.

Charging points have now been installed and the car club is up and running. All but one of the statutory consultations to remove parking spaces went through with low/no objections, and the car clubs have good usage so far. This demonstrates that co-designed urban services can lead to well-used and well-received services.

ELECTRIC VEHICLE LAMPPOST CHARGING

In 2018, further funding was secured to install electric vehicle chargers to lampposts, both in the Sharing Cities demonstrator area and across the Royal Borough. Residents were invited

to give their opinion online through Commonplace, where they could suggest locations by dropping a pin in a map, and give additional comments such as whether they are an EV owner.

Engaging with residents showed that attitudes towards electric vehicle lamppost charging were positive, and many were considering buying an electric vehicle in the near future. There were high pockets of demand in certain areas, particularly the west and east of the Borough. The most common comment tags indicated that residents thought that electric vehicle lamppost charging points were good for the local area, convenient, and had a high potential usage. Table G2 and Figure G12 below show further the results of this engagement exercise.

Table G2: Lamppost Electric Vehicle Charging Commonplace results Greenwich

Total Total Total Contributions % positive % comments % comments Visitors respondents (comments and comments from current from plan to buy agreements) EV owners EV in next year

396 90 130 99 21 47

Figure G12: Lamppost Electric vehicle charging Commonplace (Greenwich)

The suggested locations were again cross-checked with technical feasibility requirements such as parking availability, the location of existing infrastructure, and the suitability of lampposts on that street. Residents were notified on the Commonplace of the final locations that were chosen, and the criteria used in selection.

SOCIAL HOUSING RETROFIT:

New heating system

As part of the building retrofit, Ernest Dence estate will have its heating system upgraded to a Water Source Heat Pump. A co-design process was designed to decide the control solution of the heating network. The process seeks to understand how residents currently control their heat- such as using thermostats, radiator temperature valves, or opening windows, and how they would like to control their heat in a new system.

With a particular focus on new technologies- for example the acceptance of predictive or automated heating controls- the co-design process will explore what level of control residents would like over their heating, and what barriers may occur when residents need to change their behaviours and means of controlling their heat, to ensure that when the changes are made they result in a system that residents are happy with, and that enables behaviour change towards more sustainable behaviours that will maximise the efficiencies in upgrading the system.

This co-design process will include online engagement (see Figure G13 below) and a workshop with residents.

Figure G13: Greenwich Heating Commonplace

In the building retrofit programme, there were little further opportunities in Greenwich to deploy a co-design approach, as the scope of works was fixed by the energy savings needed to meet the programme requirements.

However, wherever possible an element of resident choice was deployed, to gain some of the benefits of a co-design approach that were seen in other areas of the project, such as building trust and a sense of ownership over the improvement works.

To that end, choices will be provided to residents on items such as paint colours, and once resident feedback has been collected as part of the engagement work (see Figure G14) below, opportunities to address any additional concerns raised with additional budgets will be explored, subject to of a separate procurement exercise.

Figure G14: Greenwich Estates Commonplace

LESSONS LEARNED

The Sharing Cities co-design approach has led to insights that have been applied across the programme, and have the potential to influence policy and projects across the Council.

The understanding of co-design approaches and capacity to deliver them has increased as part of the Sharing Cities programme. Learnings that are measure-specific have been outlined above, but as a whole undertaking co-design as part of Sharing Cities has shown the following:

• Co-design processes may be time-consuming at the design stage of a project, but can save time during implementation and delivery as residents are already aware of the project. This can have benefits such as objections raised in statutory consultation being lower, and take-up being higher as trust has been built with the community, and a service has been designed around their needs, with concerns being addressed or headed off.

• The value of co-design has proven by services with high take-up deployed, which we hope to demonstrate further in the Sharing Cities programme • Residents have reacted positively to co-design activities, and would like more opportunities to be involved in these sorts of design processes • Departments in the Council who work alongside the Sharing Cities team have also had positive experiences of the co-design activities deployed, and there is high potential to replicate this elsewhere • Recruitment for co-design activities, particularly workshops, can be difficult, especially to recruit a representative sample. Where possible, online engagement that takes minutes and residents can do from their own home can play a role in getting initial ideas, and incentives (e.g. vouchers) will help to recruit to workshops. • The timing of co-design activities is tricky. Co-design would ideally start before the scope of a project has been defined to allow maximum opportunities for residents to influence design, but this is difficult in projects where the scope has been defined, funded, and had target outcomes assigned. There may be a temptation to then do co- design as soon after a project has started as possible, but if the scope is defined but proposals have not yet been drawn up, it is difficult to communicate the project and what the results of the co-design exercise will look like to participants.When co-design is not feasible, other ways if involving resident choice can still gain some of the benefits of co-design, such as relationship building.

LISBON

LISBON ...... 29

INTRODUCTION TO CO-DESIGN ...... 30

CO-DESIGNED URBAN SERVICES AND ACTIONS ...... 30 Digital Social Market ...... 30 Building retrofit ...... 41 • Private Residential ...... 42 • Public Housing ...... 43 Energy Management Systems ...... 44 Mobility ...... 46 Evaluation and Monitoring ...... 49

LESSONS LEARNED ...... 50

INTRODUCTION TO CO-DESIGN

The Sharing Cities lighthouse program is a proving ground for a better, common approach to making smart cities a reality. Taking into account the program’s ambitions to promote the transformation of urban environments and, as consequence, improving its citizens’ quality of life, it is essential to consider the several stakeholders involved in this process, engaging them and giving them an active role in this transformation. As such, the Lisbon co-design activities have focused over the last years in engaging these stakeholders in the definition, implementation and impacts assessment of the measures the Sharing Cities Program is committed to pursue. Furthermore, the co-design activities will continue to be promoted throughout the program promoting behaviour change and the adoption of more sustainable behaviours, tackling issues such as citizen’s satisfaction towards the measures implemented; government and decision-makers perceptions regarding the introduction of new services and schemes in the city and its impacts on city management, policies and regulation; partners expectations and considerations; potential new stakeholders investment in the city.

Bearing this in mind, the co-design activities in Lisbon, have focused particularly on development and deployment of the Digital Social Market, engaging the citizens, business owners, partners and city representatives in several activities, that ranged from user research techniques (e.g. surveys, diary studies, interviews) to focus groups to workshops and meetings. Additionally, other co-design activities have been promoted, particularly applied to building retrofit (such as public housing), energy management systems, electric mobility, urban sharing platform, etc. Finally, and taking into consideration the potential impacts that these measures can entail for city life, co-design activities were also promoted considering the evaluation and monitoring of the measures implemented and their role in the development of a sustainable smart city. In these co-design activities, the participation of the partners has been of the upmost importance as well as of city representatives, citizens, stakeholders, etc. The activities promoted and planned for the future will be presented in the following sections along with the approaches and tools used.

CO-DESIGNED URBAN SERVICES AND ACTIONS

DIGITAL SOCIAL MARKET

The Digital Social Market (DSM) concept is a shared service model that will encourage citizen engagement through the creation and availability of new services and business models leading to meaningful behaviour change incorporating smart city initiatives. The concept of DSM was developed over the last years and took into account several stages, presented in Figure L15.

DIGITAL SOCIAL MARKET

Figure L15 – Digital Social Market co-design tools

The first step was to recruit citizens to participate in the process of DSM development. An initial questionnaire was performed to recruit participants, who were selected according with a profile matrix that considered type of transport used (private car, public, active and multimodal), energy awareness (high, medium and low), community involvement (high, medium and low) and digital use (super, high, medium, low). Both extreme and representative profiles were recruited. Of the 33 questionnaire survey responses, 11 participants (5 female and 6 male) were selected according to their profile to participate in the Diary Study.

The Diary studies enabled participants to share in a blog their everyday behaviours, preferences and perspectives through the submission of photos, quotes, etc., related with 4 themes: daily routines, transportation, energy consumption and community life. An example of one blog entry is presented in Figure L16. After the Diary Study period, 10 of the participants were then invited to participate in individual in-context interviews, to deepen and clarify their diary study contributions and to gain further knowledge on their routines, patterns, ideas, and willingness to accept future smart solutions implemented in the city and how they would respond to different incentives promoting the adoption of those solutions. Eight additional participants were recruited for the interviews covering missing profiles. A total of 18 interviews were conducted (11 female and 7 male) with an average duration of approximately 2 hours.

Figure L16 – Example of diary study entry

The information collected, enabled the creation of citizen profiles and the categorization of this information in several themes (presented in Figure L17). Additionally, the DSM concept was also based on meetings involving city representatives and project partners, in order to align the findings previously identified with the strategic priorities of the city of Lisbon and how to best build the DSM as a tool to achieve them. Besides city representatives and project partners, several stakeholders from the mobility and energy areas were also invited to participate. An example of the combined exercises can be found in Figure L18, and the final Lisbon goals identified can be seen in Figure L19.

Figure L17 – Organization of main findings from diary studies and interviews.

Figure L18 – Activity with city representatives in defining Lisbon goals.

Figure L19 – Lisbon goals identified.

Following the activities previously described, a workshop was promoted with the participation of the project partners, in which the design and functioning of the DSM, and how it could be adapted to the Lisbon reality and available resources was discussed over the course of two days. An example of an exercise promoted within this workshop is presented in Figure L20.

The main outputs of this workshop led to the first design of the DSM concept and user journey adapted to the Lisbon concept and how it could potentially work in the city.

Figure L20 – Activity promoted in Workshop with city partners to define DSM design.

With an initial DSM design and user journey created, the following activity required, once more, the participation of citizens in order to assess their willingness to adopt and use such a service, their perceptions towards the concept, challenges and expectations regarding DSM implementation in the city of Lisbon. For this, a total of 3 focus group sessions were conducted: one session in the morning with 5 participants and two in the afternoon, with 5 and 4 participants, respectively. Each session took between one and half hour to two hours. The sessions (Figure L21) were organized as follows:

• Brief presentation of the Sharing Cities showroom, where citizens could get acquainted with the projects goals and measures to be implemented in the city (15 minutes)

• Introduction (approximately 15 minutes) – Personal introductions (participants and moderator); Presentation of Sharing Cities initiatives; Small exercise: identification of practiced sustainable behaviours among participants and city needs and problems

• Body (approximately 75 minutes) – Presentation of DSM model – how does it work, how and what type of encouragement to use is needed, what would work best for the participants, who should promote it; Walkthrough the citizen experience/user journey – how would they describe it, what are the positive aspects, why would they use it

• Wrap up (approximately 15 minutes) – Thoughts on overall Sharing Cities goal of promoting sustainability and energy efficiency; Thoughts on DSM – likes, dislikes, how is it useful, who benefits from DSM, what kind of business would participants like rewards from, what are meaningful rewards for the participants.

Overall, 17 participants were selected to participate in the sessions, however, due to schedule and availability conflicts, a total of 14 citizens were part of the focus group sessions. Of these 14 citizens, 5 participated previously in the diary studies and interviews. Participants were recruited bearing in mind that they should reflect the demographics of the demonstration area (e.g. gender, age, employment status, etc.) but divided in heterogeneous groups to ensure a good mix of ideas and perspectives. Table L1 presents the demographics and socio- economic characteristics of the selected participants and in

Table L2 participants’ digital aptitude and sustainability attitudes characterization is presented.

Table L1 - Demographics and socio-economic focus groups sample characterization

Employment Professional Family Household Participant Gender Age status activity status size 1 M 30 Employed Manager Single 4 2 F 27 Employed Manager Single 2 Session 1 3 M 43 Employed Shop owner Married 4 F 66 Employed Public servant Married 2 5 F 33 Employed Researcher Single 2 6 M 41 Employed Designer Married 3 7 M 25 Employed Project manager Single 3 Session 8 F 65 Employed Public servant Married 2 2 6 (rents a 9 M 28 Employed Phd Student Single room) Restaurant 10 F 33 Self-employed owner/manager Married 3 11 M 41 Employed Client manager Married 5 Session 12 M 28 Employed PhD Student Single 2 3 13 F 69 Retired Single 1 University 14 M 21 Student Student Single 3

Table L2 - Participants digital aptitude and sustainability attitudes characterization

Lives/wor ks in Participa Pilot district Digit Energy/Environm Community nt area (years) al ent Awareness Mobility involvement Works 1 and lives 5 Super Super Multi-modal Med Sessio 2 Works 10 Super Super Multi-modal Med n 1 3 Works >10 High Med Multi-modal Med 4 Works 12 Low Med Multi-modal Med 5 Lives 33 Med High Multi-modal High Commut er - 6 works >5 Super Med Active Med Sessio 7 Works 0.7 High High Multi-modal Med n 2 8 Works 11 Low High Active Low 9 Lives 2 Med Med Active Low 10 Lives 32 High High Private Med Works 11 and lives 12 Super Super Multi-modal Med Sessio 12 Works 3 Super Super Multi-modal Med n 3 13 Lives 10 Med High Multi-modal Med-high Works 14 and lives 21 Super High Multi-modal Low

Figure L21 – Focus groups sessions.

Based on the information collected through the three Focus Groups sessions it was possible to organize it in several categories. The following sub-sections present the main findings obtained from the participants in each of the categories:

• Dissemination and acceptance of DSM

- Considered “engine of change” and ground-breaking - Educational process to promote behaviour change – educate citizens - Schools are a good instrument to test and implement the scheme - Enables creation of synergies with city and network among its layers and participants - Share of data enabling creation of new services - Assure individualization of each participant

- Relationship between citizen and business that will be the catalyst for the success - Transparent, open to all, easy to understand and simple to join and exchange points - Connected to platforms such as social media tools - Connected to DSM from other cities to promote engagement of tourists, but maintain each DSM specific characteristics - Dissemination tools: public figure to promote the concept, social media, word of mouth, media outlets (e.g. radio, TV, magazines, journals), public transportation, monthly bills, telecommunication companies, promotion codes, flyers, awareness campaigns, publicity on Tuk Tuks. - App, supported by a website

• DSM characteristics:

- Users able to personalize and activate filters in profile - Include section offering information and tips on why and how to change behaviour - Present real impact of behaviour changes in the environment - Collect information and preferences based on users’ profile - Give notifications/information based on user profile - Periodic notifications or newsletters (new services, new causes, new business involved, etc.) - Clearly explain how to gain points, how they fluctuate over time and expiration date. - Present historic profile of points accumulated, how they were obtained, where users can use points

• Benefits for participants:

- Benefits should go beyond the measures and objectives of the project - Should be something people can relate to - Clearly receive the benefits of the points collected and redeem them in the local business of their choice - Points could be redeemed into rewards after the participant reaches a certain target within the DSM - Benefits: first necessity goods, supermarkets, monthly bill discounts, health, education, transportation, cultural events, book stores, clothes stores, companies with environmental certifications, small business with environmental causes, restaurants, ice-cream shops - Business rewards include reductions in bills, access to free cleaning services, advertisement, special parking for clients, parking extra hours, exemption or discount for using public spaces, taxes reduction, among others. - Business must be protected to some extent: offering discounts and not item offers, limiting the number of points to use in a specific period of time - Possibility of giving benefits to their employees: movie tickets, discounts neat the work place

• Causes:

- Entities involved (e.g. municipality and companies) must lead by example

- Users and citizens must see the results of their contribution to the causes - Users would like to be able to participate in the definition of the cause and be able to suggest new ones - Causes must be transparent and users must should have knowledge of all the process and see its implementation - Receive continuous information on the causes the user support - Companies should also support causes - Contribution to causes should be voluntary and changeable - Users should be given freedom to choose what they want to give to causes - Examples of causes: abandoned pets, single mothers’ associations, cleaning forests, training young people who leave schools, supporting elders, cleaning graffiti, better management of public green spaces (e.g. water waste), related with social institutions (IPSS), for instance autistic children, support the elderly and not be something citizens identify as something that is already the responsibility of the municipality.

The steps following the Focus Group sessions were to, among the partners, develop a new DSM design and outline the implementation process.

For the development of the Lisbon DSM an additional activity focused on gamification was promoted by Lisboa E-Nova. Lisboa E-Nova promotes regular thematic workshops to incentive discussion on relevant and actual themes for the sustainable development of the city of Lisbon, with the participation of municipalities, energy agencies, associations, ONGs, public entities, companies, university students, researchers, and professionals. As such, and considering the importance of gamification in citizens lives nowadays and its potential role within the DSM, a session (March 2018) with the participation of Pedro Crespo from Novabase and moderated by Diana Henriques (Lisboa E-Nova) allowed to explore several gamification mechanisms in order to create awareness among citizens and stakeholders, the advantages and disadvantages of gamification, how to implement successful gamification mechanisms and how to overcome them. For the DSM development, this event was crucial to understand the different mechanisms and how to apply them in each specific context and, more importantly, to obtain insights on citizens and stakeholders reaction to them and willingness to adopt them.

In the end, the Lisbon DSM, named Sharing Lisboa, will work as an exchange of goods and services, supported by the Sharing Lisboa APP (developed by Altice Labs), that will bring citizens together to support a common cause. In the Lisbon pilot this common cause are 3 schools, which will compete for the course of one academic year to win a final prize. Even though the DSM will be mainly promoted in the competing schools, not only the school community will be involved in it but also the surrounding community, citizens and local business shops will be incentivized to participate.

The Sharing Lisboa APP was also developed in a context of co-design using a design-thinking methodology. Within the Lisbon’ consortium, tacking in account all the feedbacks obtained by the involved community, AlticeLabs lead several sessions to collect all the uses cases and define the contents of the app. AlticeLabs designed a first wireframes that were presented and discussed by the WP2 Lisbon team, allowing to create a first functional mock-up. Every two

weeks AlticeLabs presented to the team an upgraded version of the mock-up gathering all the suggestions and ideas popup during the previous session until we felt confident to start a first beta-test phase with a selected group of beta-tester from the consortium.

Beta-tester provided continuous feedback on the APP and its content and Lisbon team meet regularly with the technical team to further discuss the app and suggest changes and improvements. After two months, when the Sharing Lisboa app was considered to be in a more mature state, the group of testers was expanded to include people outside the project to use the app. This was done in order to gather insights and feedback from people who had no knowledge on the DSM. Their inputs allowed the partners to understand if Sharing Lisboa was well targeted, if its contents were clear and simple to understand and, their insights also enabled the improvement of the final Sharing Lisboa app. This feedback-continuous approach allowed to deploy the first version of the app now available to the public, the Lisbon team work is continuously working to improve the app both in terms of contents and UX.

Since the DSM will be implemented in schools, in which several activities and awareness campaigns will be promoted among students, teachers, workers and parents through the DSM agent, it is possible to ascertain that co-design activities will continue to be implemented throughout the pilot. Besides the installation of DSM dissemination panels within the school facilities (Figure L22), the DSM agent will not only develop activities to promote adoption of sustainable behaviours, but will also be present periodically in the 3 schools with a DSM Living Lab – the DSM Kiosk (Figure L23), with the aim of supporting the community by assessing their perceptions towards the DSM, challenges in DSM usage, new ideas proposals, changes needed, etc.

Figure L22 – DSM Living Lab.

Figure L23 – DSM Living Lab.

Furthermore, activities with citizens and users of DSM will also be promoted in the future in order to evaluate the successfulness of DSM and gather insights on improvements and/or changes needed. While these activities are not yet defined, they can range from:

- Interviews - Surveys - Focus groups - workshops - Community challenges - Etc.

The results from these activities will allow assessing the enablers and barriers towards DSM adoption and, consequently, improve the DSM concept and supporting APP for future implementation in the city.

BUILDING RETROFIT

Several co-design activities were promoted and are planned to be developed in the future within the several building retrofit projects, particularly in what concerns the private and public residential buildings.

• PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL

Within the private residential activities, the necessity to develop a co-design activity with the new owners was raised to promote awareness and increase knowledge on energy consumption and the impact of retrofit measures, such as PV panels, on energy consumption. This co-design activity was promoted by Reabilita with new owners of the apartments of the one building in which retrofit measures were concluded. Given the needs and expectations that were collected with the owners, an energy management system (Figure L10) was installed in each apartment by EDP Distribuição and CNET, enabling them to control and gain knowledge not only on energy consumption patterns but also on production levels resulting from PV panels. This energy management system working at an apartment level will also potentially allow residents to change energy consumption behaviours towards more efficient practices and, therefore, reduce their bills and, consequently, environmental impact. Further activities with the new owners are planned in order to obtain insights and feedback on the impacts of this type of system in awareness and knowledge on energy consumption and energy efficiency, technologies that allow control and assessment of energy consumption, behavioural changes, comfort levels perceptions.

a) b)

Figure L24 – a) Energy Management System in tenants and b) Example of data visualization obtained from the energy management system

Furthermore, Reabilita also considers that it is important to bring the educational and professional contexts together by engaging engineering students in the development process of their several building construction works. Aiming to provide contact with reality on the job and different approaches and practices in construction, Reabilita promotes visits to its construction works (see Figure L25) for the students of the Masters degree of Civil Engineering in Instituto Superior Técnico (IST), enrolled in the construction technology discipline. Over the several visits already promoted, Reabilita have observed that students have become increasingly more interested and active in what concerns the energetic efficiency of buildings.

In 2017 visits were made to Rua Esperança do Cardal no. 11, and in 2018, visits will be promoted at the construction sites of the two works still in progress at Rua de S. Bento no. º614 and at Av. Almirante Reis n.º 246. Visits are done in small groups for better monitoring. Architect Mariana Soares guides the visit and is available to clarify any questions or doubts from the students. Next, after visiting and next consulting the project files, the students elaborate a report to present to their colleagues and teachers, in which they apply and reflect the learnings obtained during the visits.

Figure L25 – Students visiting Reabilita’s building construction sites.

• PUBLIC HOUSING

Co-design activities will be promoted in the future with the engagement of the tenants of the public housing blocks that will be requalified within the Sharing Cities program. These activities aim to increase awareness on retrofit measures to improve comfort and promote the adoption of energy efficient behaviours of the citizens:

- Collaboration with local associations and parish to engage citizens - Open sessions to all tenants on retrofit measures implemented in the building blocks and satisfaction with retrofit works performed - Promote training sessions on energy efficiency with tenants - Promote feedback sessions (individual and collective) on behavioural changes in what concerns energy consumption.

Furthermore, a survey to characterize tenants’ demographics, socio-economic profile, home appliances characterization, energy consumption patterns and needs is in development with the collaboration of the partners involved in this project. Such a survey will enable the future development of tailored-made energy efficiency feedback to promote behaviour changes. The impacts of these co-design measures will be explored in detail within the WP8 activities.

ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

Another of the projects within the Sharing Cities program is to deploy Sustainable Energy Management Systems (SEMS) aiming to improve the energy management of buildings, such as public service buildings, by promoting energy monitoring and access to detailed energy consumption data. Considering that the installation of such systems will require building managers to adapt and, potentially, change the energy management process at a building level, several activities were developed to demonstrate the benefits of such systems and to assess the needs and expectations of future operators. As such, several workshops were promoted with the participation of project partners (namely EDP Distribuição, Lisboa E-Nova, Lisbon Municipality, CEiiA, IST), decision-makers and building managers. These workshops, conducted in a relaxed environment, stimulating open discussion and sharing of ideas, enabled:

- Improvement of SEMS definition at a building level - Assessment of building manager expectations, needs and concerns regarding SEMS implementation - Assessment of decision-makers’ perceptions towards the implementation of SEMS deployment in public service buildings - Refinement of SEMS functionalities - Identification of new functionalities and characteristics - Potential impacts in energy building management

Furthermore, a visit to Town Hall took place to understand the requirements of this historical and emblematic building where SEMS will be implement.

Figure L26 - SEMS Workshops and Town Hall Visit

Within the Sharing Cities program, Lisbon will also develop a Sustainable Energy Planning System (SEPS) that will work at a city level providing information for different layers according to the type of user, that can range from, platform administrator, municipality, private users, citizens, among others. Not only building managers and decision-makers can gain from having access to information regarding energy consumption and production, since this kind of information can also have a considerable impact when shared with citizens. As such, it is crucial to promote activities demonstrating the benefits of sustainable energy management systems, of energy efficiency measures that can be applied in living contexts and of energy efficient behaviours.

In Lisbon, the Solar Festival event (promoted by the Lisbon Municipality and Lisboa E-Nova, with the support of the EDP foundation and sponsored by EDP Comercial and JULAR Madeiras) took place in May 2018 within the Sustainable Energy Week agenda. This event aimed to increase citizens’ awareness on sustainable energy efficient behaviours, engaging the citizen in the participation of several events, particularly in what concerned the sharing of information supporting consumers decision-making process, presentation of available technologies and their main applications and advantages. One of these activities, in which the Sharing Cities program was directly involved, was the Lisbon Solar House – Lisboa Casa Solar12. This house, presented in Figure L27, demonstrated to the citizens, at a real scale, the functioning of an energetically self-sustaining house. The house contained:

- Solar photovoltaic system from EDP Comercial enabling solar electricity production - Solar thermal system from BAXI, enabling water heating - Tree House by Jular, a passive thermal, ventilation and fenestration system

1 http://festivalsolarlisboa.pt/wp/2018/05/02/lisboa-casa-solar/

2 http://festivalsolarlisboa.pt/wp/2018/05/03/conferencia-lisboa-cidade-verde/

- BAXI heating pump, an active thermal comfort system - LED illumination - Groho domestic hydroponic system to grow vegetables - OMNIFLOW smart lamp - Access to e.bike sharing docking stations - Access to air quality information through QART

The engagement of the visiting citizens enabled collecting information on their perceptions of such systems and technologies available in the market, which was used in the definition of use cases to analyse within the Sharing Cities program, particularly in what concerned the sustainable energy management systems at the city level.

Figure L27 – Lisboa Solar House

For the deployment of a City level Sustainable Energy Planning System (SEPS) EDP Distribuition also promoted several meetings and workshops with partners (Lisboa E-Nova, Lisbon Municipality, Ceiia, IST), government representatives and decision-makers to further discuss and define the associated use cases, as well as to identify the system’s main goals, functionalities and data analytics requirements that the SEPS will have to provide.

MOBILITY

Among the mobility measures implemented in Lisbon, some co-design activities were implemented, mainly in what concerned the launch of the e.bike sharing scheme. Before the public launch of the e-bike sharing scheme, EMEL run a beta-test to collect feedback from potential users of both the app and the physical infrastructure (bikes and docking stations). The trial lasted 3 months during the summer of 2017 involving 1600 beta-tester, 90 bikes (2/3 electric) and 10 docking stations. The main goal of the trial was to involve the community in the development of the first bike sharing scheme of the city collecting the feedback of citizens to test the system and improve it according with their needs. EMEL created videos to explain how to use the system, encourage the safety on the road and the correct use of bikes,

especially electrics one3. Beta-testers were invited to share their opinion on the system directly through the app, by email or by Facebook.

Through the mobile app beta-tester were invited to rate with a scale of one to five hearts their experience in general, the comfort of bikes and the easiness of the system. The average rate was 4,6 hearts. The dedicated Facebook group collected more than 2300 posts and 830 active users, almost 5000 reactions – mostly likes – and more than 350 pictures shared (Figure L28).

Figure L28 – Example of posts made by users regarding their experience with the e.bike-sharing scheme.

In Figure L29 it is possible to read some of the comments EMEL received from beta-tester, with English translation.

“I liked the experience, congratulations for the initiative. E-bike with 100% battery charged without any problem to pick up, use and drop- off. I hope that usage prices will be appellative.

“Fantastic experience, to replicate soon. Easy and simple to use, as it’s required to be!

Congrats for the initiative!”

“Today I finally had the opportunity to test a bike of Bike Sharing Project. I have to admit that I was surprised with the easiness of access to the bike in the dock. The app is fantastic, easy and practical. I tried an electric bike. In conclusion: bike easy to use with great assistance in its 5 levels. The autonomy is good even if I didn’t leave the area. It climbs inclined

3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH4A1Os9PgU and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48j3NSANjyw

ramps as if they aren’t there, so, I guess it will be effective for the 7 hills city.”

Figure L29 – Example of comments made by users regarding their experience with the e.bike-sharing scheme.

With the results from the interaction with the community, EMEL improved the app to allow an easier report of problems and improved the bike to provide more solid and comfortable bike.

Moreover, other stakeholders, both technical and political, were involved during the design of the bike-sharing scheme. Within the Sharing Cities Consortium, several technical meetings were held to define the design of the solution, the use cases and the interaction with the platform. At the same time, all the implementation plan and the solution was designed together with the municipality and according with the mobility strategy for the city mobility. EMEL involved also other cities, their representatives and international entities during the test phase through workshops, conferences, real-world tests and guided visits (Figure L30).

Figure L30 – Real world tests of GIRA during beta-testing phase.

For the design of the municipal car sharing, the main stakeholders were involved. CEiiA hold meetings with the municipality department in charge of the fleet to design the app under development for the drivers and municipality’ staff. First, the municipality’ needs were collected using a user-journey model and based on that workshop CEiiA created a mock-up and hold a second meeting to collect feedback. During this design phase of the app development, the Municipality of Lisbon organized a workshop with the drivers and staff that use the fleet to evaluate the willingness to shift form combustion fleet to electric one and the level of acceptance of the implementation of a shared service. Moreover, during the workshop lessons on defensive and proactive driving and on efficiency of EV charging were given followed by a practical trial sponsored by Nissan.

The following topics were addressed:

• Practical advice for daily implementation of an optimization of the autonomy of the vehicle; • Adoption of careful driving; • Advice to recover the energy in progress; • Advice to control the use of electrical equipment; • Advice to charge correctly both for normal and rapid charging • Process to follow in case of immobilization and need to tow.

With the results collected, a first version of the app was developed. The next phase, will be a test-phase in real-world environment starting in the beginning of 2019. At the same time, CEiiA designed the use cases and collected the needs of the Municipality for the development of the monitoring platform for the e-fleet.

EVALUATION AND MONITORING

Within the Sharing Cities program, it will be essential to monitor and evaluate the impacts of the measures implemented throughout the city. As such, it is essential to define how this evaluation will be performed and define the indicators that will be the basis of this analysis. As such, in Lisbon several workshops with the partners were developed in order to successfully identify them and, as a consequence, outline an evaluation strategy for the Lisbon Sharing Cities activities.

These workshops were promoted among the partners and took place in a relaxed environment, promoting the sharing of ideas, concerns and challenges regarding the future impacts assessment of the measures implemented (see Figure L31). The open discussions focused on identifying indicators in 5 themes: technical performance, impacts on attitudes and behaviours, wider systemic impacts, institutional and business consequences, economic and social implications. In each of these themes, besides identifying the evaluation targets and indicators, it was also essential to identify the data collection methods, frequency of data measurement and collection, among others. Furthermore, to evaluate some of the indicators

identified, co-design activities will need to be promoted, engaging citizens, stakeholders and decision-makers in the process.

Figure L31 – Definition of evaluation and monitoring KPI’s workshop

The definition of these indicators took into account the necessity to evaluate and monitor the impacts of the measures implemented in a long period of time and, most importantly, that several data collection techniques and sources will have to be deployed. These will require not only the engagement of the partners, but also of activities that will promote citizen engagement, decision-makers, operators and government and municipality representatives. Several activities that will be promoted in the future include the conduct of surveys to citizens (e.g. tenants of the buildings retrofitted, workers of public service buildings retrofitted, users of e.bike sharing scheme, e-car-sharing corporate system) to assess users satisfaction and awareness; interviews to operators and building managers, operators of shared mobility schemes to assess business model and institutional impacts; interviews to decision-makers and policy makers to assess impact of the measures in the development of new policies, among others.

LESSONS LEARNED

The Lisbon team has actively promoted several co-design activities within the scope of the Sharing Cities program. These activities aimed at assessing from different perspectives the perceptions, attitudes, expectations and needs of all the different stakeholders involved:

- Citizens - Government and municipal entities - Decision-makers - Program partners

Ranging from interviews, surveys and focus groups to meetings and workshops, from public events to specific actions, these co-design activities were implemented in several stages of the measures deployment stages. For the Lisbon team it was extremely rewarding to be able to take into account these several perspectives and apply them in the development of the measures in order to improve them and adapt them to the needs and expectations of the stakeholders involved. While these co-design approaches and design-thinking are very enriching, they are very time-demanding and require the use of a considerable amount of resources that some of the times, partners were not aware or prepared to. Nonetheless, the team was able to overcome these challenges and successfully take advantage of the codesigning for the implementation of measures.

Regarding the DSM development, inputs from citizens were crucial for the definition of the concept and how it could be implemented in the city of Lisbon. The partners were able to get an overview of citizens’ perceptions and expectations towards the DSM and, consequently, readjusted the concept and its implementation process, leading to the decision of involving schools and the school community in a first pilot approach. The beta-testing phase of measures gaining citizens feedback also proved to be of extreme importance contributing to the improvement of measures, such as e.bike-sharing. In what concerned building retrofit, the contact with tenants allowed to understand that some of the retrofit works performed were not misunderstood by them and that the installation of smart meters would help them to gain insights on energy consumption and production patterns, leading to the increase in their satisfaction levels. Workshops and meeting with partners in which a design-thinking approach was adopted also enabled to redefine and adjust the development of SEMS and SEPS and the identification of indicators to evaluate and monitor the impact of the measures, as well as the best methodology to do so.

Furthermore, the co-design process is not completed after a project is implemented. On the contrary, these type of activities and events are needed in a continuous way in order to assess its progress, users’ satisfaction, challenges and evaluate its impacts, among others.

MILAN

INTRODUCTION TO CO-DESIGN ...... 53

CODESIGNED URBAN SERVICES AND ACTIONS ...... 53 Novel Urban Sharing Services ...... 53 Building refurbishment ...... 70 Digital Social Market (DSM) ...... 79 Envisioning the city of the future ...... 93

LESSONS LEARNED IN MILAN ...... 97 § Urban Services ...... 97 § Building ...... 97 § DSM ...... 97 § Envisioning the city of the future ...... 98

INTRODUCTION TO CO-DESIGN

The activities of this task developed in the lighthouse city of Milan intended to develop a suite of applications regarding four main areas of the Sharing Cities project:

1. Urban sharing services (including mobility) 2. Digital Social Market 3. Building retrofit 4. Future of the city.

A co-design approach enables a user-centred method for understanding, assessing and shaping urban services. Specifically, such methods the identification of habits, preferences, patterns of behaviours and deeper levels of knowledge of those who are engaged in and will benefit from the implementation of the Sharing Cities measures and urban services.

These are citizens, workers, businesses and enterprises, organizations and institutions. Although diverse, these actors all share the interest in improving the conditions and quality of urban life, by leveraging on the contemporary innovation brought about by the sharing economy and the smart technologies.

These actors have been engaged in multiple ways according to the main objective and overall goal of the application. Tenants and householders of buildings to be retrofitted were engaged in the planning and evaluation stages of the implementation actions. Local citizens and workers contributed to define the current ways of living the area and identify triggers for change in practice. Students and professionals were engaged to envision novel ways for citizens to live the urban environment in a highly shared way.

For each of the goals above, incubator actions requiring specific tools, measures and approaches were implemented by the project partners and described in the following section. The outcome is a multifaceted picture of what sharing is and may be, or likely not, therefore overcoming the risk of an interpretation of Milan Sharing City as monolithic, homogeneous entity. The codesign task in Milan brings about the diversity which characterise the city, the citizens and the actors. Multiple are the identities and therefore the approaches and tools to make these emerge.

The main result is the development and implementation of a strategy which builds upon specificity and situatedness to create city wide change.

CODESIGNED URBAN SERVICES AND ACTIONS

NOVEL URBAN SHARING SERVICES

The task of developing novel services implies that different means and solutions (i.e. services) are requested or envisaged to accomplish urban activities, including mobility. However, the way citizens and other local actors arrange their habits is not necessarily evident and uniform. Furthermore, the innovation brought about through the strategy of sharing may not necessarily

fit with them. Therefore, the development of novel urban services requires a comprehensive understanding of how is sharing currently perceived and practiced in the demonstration area, which engages the main beneficiaries.

In the following section, the codesign tasks for development of services are described first generally and then by providing a detailed description on those for a main application, i.e. mobility.

A. CODESIGNING NOVEL URBAN SERVICES

The identification of novel urban sharing potentially relevant for people living in the Milanese project demonstration was carried out with a participatory approach. Local citizens and expert stakeholders were engaged in a multiple step process, with parallel paths (scheme in Error! R eference source not found. and summary of the activities details in Error! Reference source not found.).

Figure M32. Scheme of the project activities for novel urban services.

Table M3. Details of the fieldwork activities carried out with citizens (ca) and stakeholders (sa). Each activity is coded (e.g. ca1, sa2) for enabling referencing throughout this section.

Participan Citizens (c) Stakeholders (s) Mixed ts

Activity ca1 ca2 ca3 sa1 (series) sa2 m1 code

Objective Map Underst Assess Confront Confront Validating and

Format Works Worksh Focus Roundtable Roundtabl Mixed hop op group e

Attendees 29 18 10 37 24 NA

Date 01/201 04/2017 06/2017 02-04/2017 06/2017 Ongoing

§ PARTICIPATORY ACTIVITIES WITH CITIZENS

The set of participatory activities carried out with citizens engaged 37 people living or working in the Milanese demonstration area for the first three activities, while the last one is under refinement. A large part of them were recruited among the 478 respondents of the scoping survey (WP2.1). They participated on a voluntarily basis to at least one of the three activities set for the development of novel urban services.

Each activity aimed at achieving a specific scope and was built with a specific format. The first activity (ca1) intended to map local practices, services and initiatives that participants associate to sharing and eventually those that they desire to experience in the near future (Error! Reference source not found.). The resulting wishes (or desiderata) are reported in REF _Ref529979264 \h Error! Reference source not found., grouped according to the main theme, i.e. mobility, energy, community, food and food-waste.

Figure M33. Activity with citizens

Figure M34. Citizens' desiderata.

The second activity (ca2) intended to understand people’s routine and practices, especially those for which sharing measures emerged in the previous activity are used. For this, a workshop was arranged according to theme-based working tables facilitated by the researchers, who adopted participatory tools for accessing to participants’ knowledge, including boards and cards (Error! Reference source not found.). Error! Reference source no t found. and Error! Reference source not found. include the outcomes of the interaction of the participants with boards and cards, which reflect people’s practices and perceptions of sharing measures and initiatives.

Figure M35. Board and cards used during the second activity with citizens.

Figure M36. Example of an outcome of the interaction of the participants with boards and cards.

The third activity aimed to collect feedback on the proposal of a novel urban sharing service. The delivered concept is not an individual service as per original plan but rather a collaborative platform, which enables citizens and other local actors to gather and share assets (e.g. money, skills, time, places) for the development of a project of common interest. The concept was presented also in conferences and is described below. This activity was replicated with the stakeholders.

The fourth activity intended to unpack and trial forms of the proposed concept. In order to validate the concept, multiple opportunities for development within initiatives active in the local context was pursed through multiple format. This activity is built upon the outcomes of the previous activities and described in more detail a subsequent section below for a better comprehension.

§ ROUNDTABLES WITH STAKEHOLDERS

49 stakeholders participated at least one of the two roundtables set to collect an informed opinion on: 1) relevant dynamics underpinning or stemming from sharing urban services; 2)

the concept delivered by the researchers. The first roundtable took place as a series of four parallel sessions, each addressing one of the main practices addressed by the project; collectively.

They are professionals from different sectors and a variety of legal entities, including companies, cooperatives, associations and public administration (Error! Reference source n ot found.), which provide online or analogic services in the investigated fields.

Figure M37. Stakeholders participating to the roundtables 1 and 2.

§ WHAT WE LEARNT ABOUT SHARING IN MILAN

The roundtables with stakeholders and the first three activities with citizens enabled to identify how sharing (and related services) is currently understood and undertaken in Milan. Seven main dynamics emerged through the participatory research process and the fieldwork activities (abbreviated with initial ‘ca’ and ‘sa’ respectively, followed by the corresponding number of the activity, i.e. 1 or 2). These dynamics are summarised below.

§ 1. Sharing urban service are relatively little known

Urban sharing services are relatively numerous yet little known and used by the citizens who participated in the activities. This is particularly evident trough the comparison of the citizens’ desiderata (ca1) with a desk-based investigation of existing online platforms and offline services, which provides the desired service (Error! Reference source not found.). A n umber of initiatives desired by the participants are already set in place, although for some reasons they are not known.

Platforms for sharing information and reviews appear quite familiar to ca2 participants, especially those regarding food, eating out and cooking (including TripAdvisor, The Fork, Zomato), yet not equally appealing if regarding community and vulnerable people.

Schemes for shared bicycles and cars (e.g. BikeMi, Enjoy, Car2go) are known but not necessarily used. Such a relatively limited use of shared vehicles may be related to the ca2 participants’ preference for walking; in fact, they also expressed appreciation towards potential practices and services intended to sharing suggestions about routes for pleasant walks.

At the roundtables, the stakeholders stressed the need to increase the visibility of sharing initiatives and encourage routinized participation. Developers of initiatives enabling the collaborative production of services and peer-to-peer exchange may still need to compensate the insufficient participation of citizens and self-organized groups to run a sharing service effectively. This is the case of Socialstars,4 i.e. a depository of events with explicit social impact, which may be shared on an online platform by their users. Although conceived as a platform for peer-to-peer sharing, in the sa1 their representative revealed that a top-down approach is still needed, with platform staff members uploading information on behalf of the actual organisers of the events.

The engagement of local ‘champions’, i.e. particularly active members who may mediate with other members sustain the community, may represent a relevant mean for recruiting more people. Nevertheless, some stakeholders (sa1) experienced how more committed users may tend to be also more meticulous and less adaptable in constrained situations, therefore less aligned and supportive with such smaller organizations occasionally.

§ 2. Scepticism towards sharing and mismatch with expectations

Assumptions and presumptions on the experiences of the proposed practices and initiatives may affect the participation in sharing urban services, as emerged in particular in ca2. At the mobility table, for instance, one of the participants reported disinterest in the use of electric shared cars because of the allegedly low performance of their battery. This was assumed to be insufficient for most of journey occurrences, yet mistakenly, as pointed out by another participant.

At the food table, a participant declared to have been interested for a while in trialling social dining events arranged by peers through online platforms (especially the Italian network Gnammo5); this intention was never realised because of a perceived excess of frivolousness and narcissism of the members joining these initiatives. Nevertheless, the potential for such an experience to turn into an opportunity for cultural exchange was acknowledged by the same person, typically when travelling abroad or hosting foreigners.

In the two examples above, the participants were aware of the existence and in some cases of the dynamics of sharing services, to the extent of informing each other in the case of incorrect details, namely on the short working life of electric car batteries.

4 http://socialstars.it 5 https://gnammo.com/

Information travels and is processed in multiple ways, also generating preconceptions of its working dynamics and projecting the citizens into possibly undesirable practice situations (e.g. driving a short-lived battery car or dining with unpleasant strangers).

§ 3. The twofold perception of convenience and time-saving

Citizens appear to experience the convenience of sharing in twofold contrasting ways. Sharing may not be perceived as convenient with respect to owning, because more time may be required to accomplish the same task through shared means. The terms and conditions of sharing services may not fit with personal needs; for instance, a citizen reported that the bounding areas of use set by some car-sharing providers were not convenient for those who need to reach the outskirts (ca2).

Emerging communities of practice for food acquisition in closer contact with producers (sa1) appear disadvantageous with respect to the convenience that conventional intermediaries of food provisioning generate in urban life (e.g. supermarkets longer opening times) (ca2).

On the other hand, sharing urban services are considered convenient by some other citizens, namely using shared bikes for the ‘last mile’ journey from the closest stall to the metro station or destination (ca2). Sharing meet novel urban needs, such as mobility for vulnerable people (e.g. ladies at night or older people) (sa1). While absent from home, parcels may be collected on behalf of local residents by porters shared between multiple users or condominiums, possibly integrated in local services and shops.

§ 4. Digital means and online dynamics as either enabling or disabling

Contrasting approaches to sharing emerged among citizens also in relation to digital means of interaction. On the one hand the Internet and smartphones enable to reach geographically distributed assets and to approach also strangers with relative confidence, namely by consulting reviews provided by peers or overcome shyness in first in-person encounters.

On the other hand, digitally based dynamics disable some other interactions. The recruitment in online sharing urban services may be obstructed by both digital illiteracy and willingness to spend time online limitatedly. Digital divide is a recurrent topic of social (un-)sustainability in this field. However, initiatives for instructing digital illiterates neither necessarily meet citizens’ consensus nor achieve always the intended goal because the task may turn into an excess of effort, as stressed by participants of the community table in ca2. Conversely, more appealing appeared the chance for digitally illiterates of taking part in sharing urban initiatives through alternative devices or physical environments.

In addition, preferences for offline operating environments are relevant. Some participants of ca1 regretted the perceived overload of time spent online in daily life and the preference to experience goods and gatherings in person.

Some stakeholders agreed on the importance of keeping the digital as a means rather than as the goal of sharing urban services, namely as a proxy to connect people offline (e.g. social dining) (sa1, sa2).

§ 5. Small(er) scale preferred for sharing

Urban sharing services taking place at smaller – rather than citywide or larger – scale appeared more appealing to the citizens (ca2). For instance, accessing to (either free or pay per use) shared kitchens and spaces intended for hosting social events with relatives and friends are not particularly appealing unless they are set in the condominiums where participants live. Similarly, caregivers for older people serving multiple families of the same condominium or block, or shared cars at the same scale are preferred. Also at the ca2 table on energy and environment, citizens showed a denser participation in practices taking place on smaller scale, from the individual to the condominium ones, including energy saving behaviours, waste separation, keeping up to date, sustainable mobility (Error! Reference s ource not found.).

Figure M38. Summary of the energy and environment working table in ca2 showing denser activities in smaller scales.

Citizens’ stated preference for services which are tailored to specific communities of practice identifiable in terms of scale (i.e. people living or working in the same building or block) resonates with the potential envisaged by stakeholders (sa1) in the provision of incentives to the whole community (e.g. discounts for households of large condominiums) rather than to the more conventional approach targeting individuals.

§ 6. Trust as a key component

Trust is often reported as a key element by both parties and especially by citizens addressing the sharing of spaces and commodities (ca2). How to be sure that the shared goods will be lent or returned in optimal conditions? How to trust the unknown person willing to help?

Contemporary forms of sharing connect people who may not know each other, thus leading to what Schor (2014) defines the ‘stranger sharing’. This entails a higher level of perceived risk for the workshop participants (ca2) with respect to interacting with an already known person, which requires the setting of forms of ‘distributed trust’ (Botsman, 2017), namely rating systems and peer reviews.

Nevertheless, according to citizens on the one hand this type of information is not always available; on the other, trust towards peer reviewers is not granted. The approval provided by a trustworthy organization is proposed by both citizens and stakeholders participating to the fieldwork activities as a viable solution.

Such strategy emerged also within a proposal of development of shared systems for sustainable energy provision (e.g. setting a community of purchase for delocalised photovoltaic panels) (ca2). The engagement of the local municipality or a similarly renowned institution is considered useful to handle the more complex tasks in a trusted manner for the participants (e.g. admin, economic/monetary guarantees, providing installation area over the roof of public buildings). However, stakeholders at the energy table (sa1) confessed some scepticism on seeking the approval of bigger organizations, also for its marginal relevance towards a comprehensive understanding on energy efficient behaviours. Counterproductive effects may emerge, that the guarantor is not able to anticipate or limit. Accompanying guidelines and instructions about how to behave efficiently also within a community of purchase are proposed by some stakeholders as a more effective strategy.

§ 7. The uncomfortable feeling of the social debt when sharing

Both citizens and stakeholders reported that many feel often uncomfortable when something is received for free or bartered in a-synchronic way, for the perception of being in debt, in duty bound. At the sa1 on community, assets and vulnerable people, a member of the local time bank community reported the striking excess in their database of offered skilled time with respect to the requests. At the sa1 on food and food-waste, the founder of an initiative for the redistribution of produce excess from local markets shared the difficulty for some people to accept food donations, namely because of the feeling of not being sufficiently in need of food; or vice versa because this manifests the condition of being in need and risks to enforce the associated ‘stigma’.

Forms of immediate compensation seem to overcome similar situations; also social interactions may be avoided, as not always welcomed. Paying results into the preferred alternative to borrowing or asking for help for some citizens, also because they consider inappropriate to complain if the conditions of the shared items or the terms of the exchange are unsatisfactory. Some at the ca2 on community and assets reported the uneasiness of managing situations when the good shared with others has been broken or damaged during its last use. Renting instead is less popular than the other two forms, except for the case of expensive gear, namely for skiing.

§ THE CONCEPT OF A COLLABORATIVE PLATFORM FOR CITY WIDE SHARING

The concept of a multi-scale collaborative platform for developed by the researchers, which is built on the insights gained throughout the research activities. In fact, a novel urban service was supposed to be developed. Yet the dynamics and limits emerging from the previous activities (described above) led to a different strategy, i.e. enabling people to share assets as a means to achieve goals relevant for them. Such a strategy could overcome the barrier in adopting sharing services, for the sake of sharing.

The platform is a collector and connector of assets that local citizens and stakeholders (e.g. local businesses, associations, institutions) intend to share for developing a project of common interest. The project to be proposed to the local community must necessarily meet the Sharing Cities project priorities in terms of sustaining collaborative communities, local economy, and sustainable lifestyle. The working principle is aligned with strategies of crowdfunding, yet embracing a wider range of assets beyond money, including tools and goods, skills and expertise, space and building.

The interaction between interested actors may take place both online (through an online platform) and offline (through points of contacts) in order to enable people with diverse digital literacy and preferences to participate equally.

The platform is also a collector of best practices and initiatives bases on sharing.

The user journey of the submission process of the sharing project that a local actor may undertake through the online platform is represented in Error! Reference source not found. a s also shared with the citizens and stakeholders as part of the research activities ca3 and sa2 (in Italian).

The concept and the journey have been shared both with the citizens and the stakeholders in particular, to collect points of reflection and improvement. The main reflections emerged on the concept both during the discussion with the actors involved and a questionnaire specifically designed to collect feedback on paper by the participants regarded:

o the potential for the platform to enable social relationship and solidarity o the relevance of the dual online/offline dimension: the Internet as a proxy for connection to and with the territorial scale o the importance of integration a profit dimension, beyond the social one o the threat towards people's uptake due to large population heterogeneity (difficulty to converge towards shared interests) and personal priorities (bursting city life) o the necessity to plan the stages of development for the platform, namely with constrained focus at the beginning for a clear identity and mission.

§ VALIDATING THE CONCEPT OF THE PLATFORM

The concept of the platform undertook a subsequent process of idea validation with small scale onsite trials engaging multiple potential users and actors. The development of the

platform technologically falls outside of the scope of the Sharing Cities project, nor resources were planned for this.

The strategy pursued by the researchers to generate potentially relevant feedback about the concept was to simulate the working principle in suitable contexts, within real life initiatives taking place in the project demonstration area and immediate surroundings. The working principle to validate is the efficacy of enabling connections between possibly interested parties for sharing their assets to achieve a common goal.

The researchers attempted to validate this working principle with:

1. citizens, specifically those living or working in the demonstration area, through the case of a potential group of interest created by the researchers in the creation of nature- based solutions (e.g. green and blue interventions) to improve the hyper-local climate conditions; 2. local association, specifically Nocetum, for social inclusivity through the case of skill share on food production and transformation; 3. business, specifically Fastweb, a large sized enterprise in telcos, moving the headquarters in the demonstration area through the case of information sharing in the case of major life events (e.g. employees changing working environment); 4. networks of citizens, specifically a network of tenants' committees of Milanese public housing, including the building in San Bernardo street in Chiaravalle (selected by Sharing Cities for energy efficiency improvement), through the case of sharing assets (especially information, skills and goods) for common area of interest.

Except for the initiative with the local association which encountered administrative barriers for the engagement of vulnerable people in the proposed activities, the set activities enabled the validation of the potential of the platform working principle. Participants of the activities showed interest and liaised for the achievement of a common goal by sharing the resources available to them, according to their level of engagement and interest.

Furthermore, a master class in Energy and Urban Planning of the school of Architecture and Built Environment addressed potential applications of the platform in the demonstration areas by creating eight scenarios meeting the platform requirements, i.e. using sharing cities measures and creating the desired impacts.

A selection of the short description of the scenarios is reported in Appendix 3.

B. NOVEL URBAN SERVICES FOR SHARED MOBILITY

Codesign for shared mobility service has been conceived in two different ways, according to the framework and pragmatically catching the “window of opportunity”, with a strong preliminary reality check about its feasible output.

In particular:

1. For e-Bike sharing, the WP2 local team choose to open a dialogue with local citizens representatives (Municipi) in order to identify interesting aspects to be explored with them (namely: add-on and need of service coverage in the peripheral city areas) 2. For community e-car sharing, the WP2 local team caught useful insights, with extensive data collection through questionnaires, for designing some crucial aspects of the service (namely: type of vehicle and charging point location).

§ E-BIKE SHARING: CODESIGN WITH LOCAL CITIZENS REPRESENTATIVES

Brainstorming of possible themes

At the beginning of the process, in 2016, preliminary discussion has been shared between WP2 partners and technical partners, namely AMAT and ATM, involved in the mobility measures implementation, in order to identify:

1. Constrains for the localization of bike sharing stations: coherence with BikeMi expansion plan, 400/500 meters of distance between stations, underground electricity infrastructure in place; 2. Possible services to add to the BikeMI: budget and management rules represent consistent drivers to be take into account.

After this preliminary reality check with AMAT and ATM, project partners identified and discussed several issues to be potentially codesigned with local public authorities (Municipi 4 and 5) considering timing for managing the purchase, the permissions path, the technical and current administrative rules:

1. co-design optional features, like child seats, bike pump kit at the stations; 2. co-design different type of e-bike to be located as additional option, like cargo e-bikes, child bikes; 3. co-design reservation system and service for damage reporting.

Selection of themes to be shared with local PA representatives

On 31st March 2016, a local Kick-off WP2 meeting took place. Different partners and stakeholders have been involved in the meeting in order to identify and codesign possible features for improving and enhancing the current bike sharing services.

1. Among Partners: • Comune di Milano – local management • Poliedra – WP2 local leader • Politecnico di Milano DAStU – codesign local leader • ATM – responsible for bike sharing implementation • AMAT – WP3.3 local leader • Legambiente – responsible for communication activities.

2. Among Stakeholders: • Municipio Zona 4 – local representative of Zona 4 citizens • Municipio Zona 5 – local representative of Zona 5 citizens.

Two main points emerged from the discussion:

1. The not-feasibility of identify the location of bike sharing station through a codesign process. The expansion plan of bike sharing service in the city needs to follow an incremental approach and the emerged request of bike sharing stations in some points of interest (such as Chiaravalle Abbey or Rogoredo train station), collected by the Municipi, cannot be satisfied. A codesign process on bike sharing stations localization risked generating false expectation with a negative rebound effect. 2. Regarding the optional features, Municipi selected the child seat as a desired add-on for the 150 e-Bikes, as an emerged request coming from the citizen for enhancing the accessibility of bike sharing service for some users’ segment (parents and kids). ATM collected these requirements and included it into the plan for implementing the bike sharing service (7 stations and 150 e-Bikes integrated into BikeMi service).

Figure M39 Sharing Cities e-bike with child seat, available in January 2019

Beyond Sharing Cities

In parallel with Sharing Cities two events occurred that valorized the requests of citizens on bike sharing.

At the end of 2017, Milan Municipality launched two new free-floating bike sharing services, Ofo with 4.000 bikes and MoBike with 8.000 bikes. These new services allow to address to the request of enlarging the coverage of bike sharing service of the city of Milan, a request emerged during WP2 codesign process with Municipi 4 and 5.

Figure M40 Bike sharing services running in Milan in November 2018

In 2018 the Municipality launched an initiative of tactical urbanism, converting a street in a pedestrian square in Sharing Cities area, codesign this solution with a local district lab6: one of the requests raised for creating this new square was to have a bike sharing station, together with benches and ping-pong tables, and Sharing Cities team worked for installing one of the seven bike sharing stations in that location.

Figure M41 Square Angilberto II, codesigned by Milano Municipality with local district lab, and the Sharing Cities bike sharing station

§ COMMUNITY E-CAR SHARING: CODESIGN WITH POTENTIAL USERS THROUGH EXTENSIVE QUESTIONNAIRES

Extensive data collections have been conducted by Poliedra in order to get useful insights for codesign the community car sharing main features, and to support AMAT for identifying the best possible locations for the service.

6 District labs (Laboratori di Quartiere). spread all around the City of Milan, represent a point of contact between citizens and the Municipality

The survey has been conducted among 3 different types of building: “classic” condominiums, “cohousing” condominiums and university residences. Poliedra selected the “classic” condominium among those that applied to the call for energy retrofitting promoted by AMAT. Furthermore, two cohousing under construction and three university residences in the project area have been explored as possible locations for community car sharing. The questionnaires were collected by mail, with interviews, and through online survey, depending on the contexts and targets.

Table M4 “Classic” condominiums Provided Filled-in Housing units Survey submission Name/address questionnaires questionnaires Bacchiglione 21 750 750 70 Mail+interviews Piazzale Martini 14 100 100 17 Mail+interviews Via Barzoni 2 100 100 17 Mail+interviews

Table M5 “Cohousing” condominiums Provided Filled-in Housing units Survey submission Name/address questionnaires questionnaires COventidue, Corso XXII Marzo 22 57 69 35 Online 13 Online Cohousing Chiaravalle, Via Sant’Arialdo 50 6 91

Table M6 University residence Nome/indirizzo Residents Filled-in questionnaires Survey submission interviews Residenza Isonzo (Bocconi), Viale Isonzo 210 50 23 interviews Residenza Ripamonti (Unimi), Via Muzio 175 26 Attendolo detto Sforza 6 interviews Residenza Dateo (Polimi), Piazzale Dateo 90 24 5

The results have oriented the call prepared by AMAT for identifying the best site for introducing a community car sharing service. Some of the questions have been conceived, on the other hand, for having insights from potential users about the features of the community car sharing service. In particular, these questions (an d related indicators) have been included for this aim: • Reasons for not using the existing carsharing services • Car typology requested for community carsharing service • Location of charging point for the community carsharing service

Familiarity with e-cars and digital app.

3.7 Car typology requested for community carsharing service 3.8 Location of charging point for the community carsharing service Figure M42 Example of data collected for Bacchiglione 21 about question 3.7 and 3.8

BUILDING REFURBISHMENT

The codesign process for the measure of building refurbishment has been tested on 22 buildings and enabled the achievement the goal with 5 of them. Currently, the retrofit works on 3 buildings are concluded and other two are in undergoing. The three buildings where the measures are already implemented are already being exploited as a “first of its kind”. This experience is being presented to different decision makers also at a national level to facilitate its replication.

In the next section the process which enabled such achievements is presented, starting from the general description for multi property buildings (MPB) and following with the details of the applied process.

§ CO-DESIGN PROCESS FOR MULTI PROPERTY BUILDINGS IN MILAN

For this task, the codesign is based on the cooperation between technicians - engineers and architects - and owners of multi property buildings, and it aims at creating a shared solution for deep retrofit works. The objective is to minimize obstacles and barriers with clear explanations of the interventions, discussions, presentations of results with a non-technical language, to create a positive and “approval-oriented” climate inside the workgroup before the final assembly.

THE STARTING POINT FOR THE CO-DESIGN STRATEGY SET UP

How a multi property building works

CONDOMINIUM OWNERS Multi property building (MPB)

Management is entrusted to the

ADMINISTRATOR

Decisions are taken by the

CONDOMINIUM

ASSEMBLY

Who decides and how

In the decisional path of a multi-property building, the final decision depends on the Assembly. A condominium assembly is composed by all the flat owners; usually a condominium is called to a meeting twice a year, by the administrator, in order to approve the financial statement and analyse different issues, typical of a multi-property building (e.g. management of the building in terms of safety, cleaning and decorum).

The administrator calls the plenary session; at the beginning he counts the persons present and calculates the thousandths of property they represent (each apartment, based on the commercial area in square meters associated with it, corresponds to a certain number of thousandths of ownership). At least 501 thousandths are needed to validate the assembly. Then the majority has to approve the project and, of course, the cost.

The barriers considered

The decision-making system is one of the first obstacles to the retrofit works. To overcome this barrier, the new methodology tested in Milan has been based on 4 pillars: Public/private partnership for energy retrofit; Co-design process for energy measures packages definition; Financial instruments to support the financial effort of the flat owners; IoT based monitoring system of environmental conditions and energy savings.

§ THE RECRUITMENT PROCESS

A public call for the building recruitment

The primary selection process of private buildings in the district was done by a public call - launched by AMAT, the Milan Municipality Agency for Mobility, Environment and Territory.

A great fieldwork has been done by Legambiente and Teicos in order to promote the public call, organizing evening event in the district area to talk about the project, with the active participation of the other WP2 partners: Dastu, Poliedra and the Municipality of Milan.

Feasibility studies for the selection of the buildings

Out of 130, 52 buildings presented their nomination in the public call. For each nominated building, the following activities has been completed: meetings with building manager, meetings with flat owners who are more interested in energy retrofit or urban regeneration, collection of data regarding energy consumption and constructive specifications, preliminary energy audit and record of specifications such as recent refurbishment works done and registered building decays.

The approval of the participation to Sharing Cities

30 buildings were positively evaluated and recommended to participate in the Sharing Cities Project. Finally, 22 multi property buildings officially confirmed their participation in the project, approved by majority in the plenary condominium assembly.

§ THE CO-DESIGN PROCESS FOR 20 MULTI PROPERTY BUILDINGS

INTRODUCTION

The design of the overall co-design strategy, its activities and timeline was made by Politecnico di Milano-Dastu, Poliedra, Legambiente, Comune di Milano and TEICOS, supported by FCC London.

Figure M43. the set up of the co-design process for building retrofit strategy.

20 M.P. Buildings were divided into 3 groups (7-7-6) and a path of 3 workshops +1 has been envisioned for each group. TEICOS was the leader for this action.

MEETINGS WITH OWNERS

The co-design process is divided into 3 main meetings and 1 extra-meeting with flat-owners of condominiums. Meetings 1-3 were organized in the local city-hall always at the same day and time in order to make this event as a common habit for people, while the extra-meeting was held directly inside the condominiums.

Meeting 1

In Meeting 1, led by Dastu (Department of architecture and urban studies – Milan Politecnico), the concepts of retrofit and co-design were introduced.

TEICOS also explained the idea of Sharing Cities project and the importance of building energy efficiency in terms of energy reduction, comfort and economical savings. Participants of each group, made of 6 or 7 buildings, were “mixed up” in order to let them talk freely and find new visions together. They have been asked to imagine their ideal house, the challenges to improve their own houses and the entire building, and to talk about specific needs.

Between meeting 1 and 2 TEICOS has done a complete energy audit for all condominiums, 22 in total. The results were summarized and presented during workshop 2, in a way that a person without technical engineering background could understand the content. A communication specialist and a graphic expert have been involved for the creation of the tools.

Figure M44. Presentation of Energy Analysis of the buildings

Meeting 2

In Meeting 2, starting from the presentation and explanation of results of their building energy audit by use of simple graphs and images, the main objective was the development of 2 energy retrofit scenarios of each building. For this purpose, TEICOS prepared cards with the description of all possible interventions and technical solutions.

Figure M45. Interventions cards for building envelope (red), roof (green), energy system (blue)

Each card contains the description of intervention, advantage and disadvantage and the ranking assessment with maximum 3 points based on energy performance, cost, time of realization, invasiveness, maintenance and change of appearance. Therefore, people without technical engineering background can easily understand the difference between interventions and which one to choose for their purpose.

Figure M46. Photos of meeting 2, group 1 held in Municipio 4, Milan.

Intervention strategies, for different parts of the building, are illustrated in figure below. However, for each type of intervention, different strategies and materials can be applied depending on cost, time and efficiency.

Figure M47. Example of a Poster with 2 scenarios produced in Meeting 2

In order to better understand the needs of the participants in terms of requested performance of the materials and technologies proposed in their scenarios, we asked them to fill a questionnaire. The request was to give an order of importance on materials properties for the building envelope (sustainability, acoustic properties, insulation for winter, insulation for summer...) and the building heating plants (winter comfort, bill spares, reduction of atmospheric emissions, economical aspect of the intervention…).

Figure M48. The questionnaire on material performance

Meeting 3

Meeting 3 was aimed to converge everyone on a shared project based on cost estimation and energy performance. Before meeting 3 the chosen two scenarios were analyzed by TEICOS in detail, including energy performance and cost assessment. They were presented as posters where, at the beginning of the meeting, the cost analysis was hidden in order to better communicate with owners, and to play a sort of guessing game.

During the first stage of Meeting 3, we showed a poster of each scenario with both hidden cost and energy values in order to ask these two questions:

1) How much would you be willing to pay?

2) In terms of percentage, how much do you think your condominium energy consumption can be reduced?

Then real values were “discovered” and commented together.

Figure M49. The presentation of the 2 scenarios in meeting 3

At the end of meeting we asked them to choose one of the two scenario. Most of the time their choice was a middle way.

Figure M50. Photos of meeting 3 with building owners

Extra-meeting

The Extra-meeting was the last appointment with flat-owners before the final assembly. In order to enlarge the audience, it took place in a common area of the condominium, e.g. the entrance or the courtyard. In fact, during the third meeting we asked them suggestions on possible methods to adopt to achieve broad involvement. The chosen Scenario was presented in a poster containing all the technical and economic information summarised.

The general presentation was made by Legambiente, to take a step back for those who had not attended the three previous meetings and also to mention the important environmental aspects linked to retrofitting.

§ THE REPORTING

After each meeting, Teicos prepared a detailed report containing all the outcomes of the workshop and distributed a copy for each building owner. Often a great help was offered by the building councilor or by the door keeper. The idea was to give a hardcopy of what had been done to every owner.

§ THE DOUBLE PROCESS The technical design process had to go in parallel with the co-design process. The scheme tries to represent the complexity of this “double-process” in terms of numbers of meetings and parallel design activities.

DIGITAL SOCIAL MARKET (DSM)

Premise

The Digital Social Market (DSM) has been conceived since the beginning as an ecosystem built putting together a variety of stakeholders in a win-win situation with the common objective of providing a better and more sustainable urban living environment.

Figure M51. The DSM stakeholder ecosystem. Source: Future Cities Catapult, 2018

The main area the DSM focuses on, in order to deliver a more liveable city and long-lasting effects, is human behaviour or, in other words, the simple and daily activities a citizen performs. On particular, the liaison with Sharing Cities is established when these activities imply the use of Sharing Cities urban services, like e-bike sharing, e-car sharing, home energy provision.

The main trigger the DSM uses to achieve such result is gamification. An intense research on Gamification has been performed during the inspirational phase of the DSM design, both desk- based and on context, with people, as the following paragraphs explain.

Desk research on gamification and rewarding applications

In a nutshell, gamification can be defined as a design process that applies play, fun and user experience elements to different applications/services in non-gaming contexts. Since gamification is a relatively new area, many of the current approaches focus on the gaming elements. Concentrating just on these elements would be wrong as a large aspect of gamification is linked to psychological issues. Often concepts from cultural psychology are thus incorporated into games to influence consumers’ behaviours and alter particular behaviour patterns in areas such as healthcare and education. One goal of gamification is to

influence users’ behaviours. It shares some similarities with persuasive technologies, that are designed to influence users’ behaviours without forcing the change. Behaviour change is the process in which an undesired behaviour is abandoned in favour of a better one and there are some methods and theories to assist in changing individual or community behaviours. Moreover, it has been proven that online behavioural change methods are successful in influencing users’ behaviours. Nevertheless, in order to influence behaviours, we need to understand how behaviours are created and what affects them. This includes behavioural change methods (interventions to affect an individual) as well as cultural and social influences. Why Gamification? Motivation is an important factor to consider while designing game dynamics, particularly because it drives human habits. Several studies investigating motivation and behaviour have been carried out throughout history, and we have a number of theories that explain how motivation affects behaviour. Through the use of game design elements, it is possible for instance to foster peoples’ motivation towards activities that go from the reorganization of neighbourhoods, Civic Media Platforms to the mapping of noise pollution levels. In addition to facilitating and motivating people’s participation, such processes promote loyalty or a prolonged engagement, seeking to insert users/players in surrounding dynamics, in addition to highlighting the significant character and real impact on society of their contribution. Crowdsourcing has revealed that, contrary to conventional wisdom, humans do not always behave in predictably self-interested patterns. People are driven to contribute for a complex web of motivations, including a desire to create something from which the larger community would benefit as well as the sheer joy of practicing a craft at which they excel.

A case-study analysis has been initially performed, fed by two major open situations: a workshop with the representatives of Municipal departments and a round table following a conference organized by Poliedra.

Workshop with Municipality Departments representatives

The major driver of this analysis has been the outcome of a Workshop, hosted by the Municipality of Milan and involving a number of municipal representatives of the several departments who were asked to report citizens’ perception towards the introduction of gamification and rewarding mechanisms into the public domain (e.g. water and waste management, public transport, tourism and events).

Of the many applications tested and analysed only a narrow number has distinguished themselves for having applied effective aspects of user interaction and interesting features potentially applicable in the design of the Digital Social Market.

The objective of this comparison was to detect:

• the most common functionalities among existing or successful applications; • the presence of game mechanics used to achieve specific objectives linked to environmental sustainability; • the different use cases the user can interact with within the platform; • user-friendliness and the learning curve required for full and informed operation by the user.

A small number of the complete set of applications that has been analysed is provided in the following table.

Table M7: four of the eighteen applications that were benchmarked within our desk review on gamification apps.

An application that aims to make everyday habits iRecycle is the premiere application for finding more sustainable by encouraging efficient local, convenient recycling opportunities for resource use. JouleBug was created to make users on the go or at home. iRecycle provides sustainable living social, fun, and simple. With access to more than 1,500,000 ways to recycle permission, this app can connect to its users’ over 350 materials. utility accounts and present their resource and money savings. The iRecycle app provides a great resource for customers who are looking for up-to-date Users can compete with their friends through information about recycling and sustainability Facebook and Twitter, and they are awarded points correlated to their actions’ impact on money and the environment. Another plus to some friendly competition is that friends will be reducing waste and energy bills.

ORA X is an app for smartphones that simplifies Citibility is the application (currently available communication between families and educational only in the city of Monza) through which local institutions and connects the parents of children non-profit associations can make their projects in the same class to help them in case of known and receive funding through local problems with accompanying and picking up businesses. children at school, easily, quickly and intelligently. Through the digital platform, shopkeepers who The App was created as a real support for families choose to join the project can support the cause with children from 3 to 13 years and provides of one of the non-profit associations and launch valuable information and difficult to find related to a marketing campaign to fund ongoing projects the world of education. and allow people to choose which charity to support with their conscious shopping.

Citizens start the donation by going to the shops that support a project and logging their normal purchases on the application quickly, simply by framing the QR code they find on the display near the cash desk.

Behavioural Change roundtable

Another important open moment along the design process was the event named “Behavioral Change and environmental sustainability: innovation, tools and technologies”, organized by Poliedra on the 17th of May 2018. Inspired by the several interventions of leading partners in the field and following the outcomes of the roundtable, a number of individual dynamics in the domain of behavioural change has been outlined:

Personal goals: this dynamic provides a system for introducing individual goal-setting that can be shared and highlighted in the user's status. Often associated with challenges, which provide a reason to continue participating and motivate users to achieve results in the form of trophies or achievements to be unlocked.

Reward-driven: point collection is a very powerful mechanic because it stimulates people. Even if there is no real value associated with the points, users continue to accumulate them and can also be divided into different categories, so as to induce different types of interactions or particular behaviours. The points can then be exchanged with rewards that convey to the user the feeling of profitably investing time and energy, giving the idea of earning something.

Competing with others: The basic implementation of rankings provides a method for splitting and ordering user performance. A more careful realization can ignite the spirit of competition of each one, favouring the interest and increasing the time that a user spends in the game. The system can include multiple rankings (even one for each different activity), monitoring each aspect so that anyone can compare their skills with those of other users. Competition is closely related to the aspiration to become the best within one's circle of friends and acquaintances.

Collaborating with others: in contrast, the need to stimulate greater cohesion within a community may require a mechanism in which cooperation with other individuals, known or unknown, is necessary to achieve common goals or to solve problems or challenges. Social game dynamics are more commonly exploited by end users who have relatively more experience with the gamified applications. Whether it involves working with others to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome or optimizing one's own performance relative to other players, cooperative game dynamics typically require more commitment from end users and tend to operate on a longer-term basis as compared to individual game dynamics.

Membership/Exclusivity: The presence of virtual statuses can increase the interest of players who can access dedicated levels or features that can enhance their own identity inside the community. The underlying structure can still be based on points that each earns to pass level, ensuring access to new content and new possibilities.

Drawing Scenarios

The non-mutually exclusive triggers derived from the previously described open moments have been the base on which three scenarios have been designed. A brief description for each of them is provided, together with lessons learnt, “Pros” and “Cons”.

Scenario 1: an app that enables users to earn points for their sustainable actions that are certified by third-party providers.

Figure M52. how the DSM may work within Scenario 1.

The contents are professionally generated and centralized in order to guarantee coherence and scientific relevance.

The game dynamics could be related to personal improvements and behavioural change with the possibility to exchange points for rewards in real-life. Competitive or cooperative mechanics like challenges may be used to stimulate vitality or cohesion inside the community.

Pros

• the certified actions ensure greater overall trust for both users and sponsors • the selection of the rewarded behaviours is supported by the reliability of the promoting entity • less need to manage the community and to monitor contents.

Cons

• need to be in contact with and involve potential data providers. • greater complexity in data management. • privacy and data protection related issues.

Scenario 2: an app that enables users to earn points for their self-reported sustainable actions.

Figure M53: how the DSM may work within Scenario 2

The contents are user-generated in order to stimulate users to share best practices and new ideas. The game dynamics could be related to personal improvements and behavioural change with the possibility to exchange points for rewards in real-life thus the lack of a mean to certify the truthfulness of the actions declared could act as a deterrent to sponsors.

Pros:

• greater engagement for more active users and network effect • crowdsourced source increases and diversifies the available contents • simpler and more user-friendly technological infrastructure.

Cons:

• less trustability and appeal for sponsors • less potential for the development of challenges and competition between users • overall description of the task objective, plan, specific activities and main results.

Scenario 3: an app that enables users to earn points for their sustainable actions verified by sensors built into their personal devices.

Figure M54. How the DSM may work within Scenario 3.

The contents are professionally generated and centralized in order to guarantee coherence, scientific relevance and adherence to technological feasibility.

Pros:

• the certification of actions ensures greater overall trust for both users and sponsors. • direct measurements through built-in device sensors without need to rely on external data.

Cons:

• the type of sensors available in the most widespread devices limits the domain and the nature of measurable actions • the need to use internal device sensors increases the technological complexity required to develop the app

Figure M55. Scenario mapping. Axis relate to the expected impact of a Scenario versus the effort needed to design and implement it

From the comparative analysis of the selected platforms and clusters of functionalities that were identified, an evaluation was made of the solution that could better respond to the objectives of the Sharing Cities project while confronting the necessary effort constraints.

An impact-effort matrix correlates the potential impact of the different scenarios identified with the effort required to implement them. The result shows a greater impact, although with a higher need for effort for SCENARIO 1. From these preliminary assumptions, the design team started to design the possible cases of use of DSM related to this scenario.

A mockup of the DSM was then designed. Some screens are displayed below. For a full navigation across the mockup, visit this link: mockup of the DSM.

Figure M56. The screens by which a user can add a certified action performed to earn credits, from the DSM mockup.

Usability Test

The logical conclusion of the design phase of the Digital Social Market app was envisioned as a moment of assessment of the observations and assumptions elaborated in the design research phase and of the production of the wireframe and prototype of the app.

Usability tests let the design and development teams identify problems before they are coded. The earlier issues are identified and fixed, the less expensive the fixes will be in terms of both staff time and possible impact to the schedule.

During a usability test, the design team can generally:

• Learn if participants are able to complete specified tasks successfully. • Identify how long it takes to complete specified tasks. • Find out how satisfied participants are with your Web site or other product.

• Identify changes required to improve user performance and satisfaction. • Analyze the performance to see if it meets your usability objectives.

The opportunity of running a Usability test gave the chance to foresee a collection of information before and after the test itself to broaden the research on the potential users and take advantage of their willingness during the test to ask for some specific feedback or preferences on characteristics and features of the future app under evaluation and discussion between the design team, the development team and Poliedra.

Selection of participants and stats

In order to have a better representation of the potential pool of users of the Digital Social Market (DSM), an adhesion survey form was realized in which – together with the willingness to take part in the test on July 11 2018 - some questions were presented to profile the potential tester.

In addition to some basic demographic data - gender, age and occupation - collected to ensure a selection of participants that could reflect as much as possible a representative sample of the city of Milan, qualitative information about the area of residence or work was collected, with particular attention to the demonstration area of the Sharing Cities project (Porta Romana - Vettabbia); the frequency with which digital services are used to manage daily tasks; the occurrence of changes in some behaviours/habits in domains of environmental sustainability of interest to the DSM; the participation, in the past, in gamification initiatives related to environmental sustainability.

The invitation e-mail with the link to the adhesion form (google form) was sent to the mailing lists of the Sharing Cities project and shared in their list of contacts by some important project partners in the Milan area. A total of 21 pre-adhesion applications were received and a selection of 12 participants was then made in order to better manage the live testing phase.

Some stats are displayed in the following, taken from users’ answers to the application form.

Figure M57. Age and gender of participants.

Figure M58. Job and living/work place of participants.

Figure M59. Attitude towards daily sustainable actions and rewarding initiatives.

How the test was run: “Missions and Heatmaps”

The usability test of the Digital Social Market app prototype was carried out with the aim of verifying some assumptions that emerged during the design phase but also to ensure that the main features of the app were quickly accessible and that the user experience was immediate enough to allow every user to understand its use and basic structure. In order to analyse these aspects, it was agreed with the team to use a digital tool that could identify information on the tester's behaviour on the individual screens, the time required to carry out one of the proposed tasks and the number and specific position of errors committed during the test.

The selected testers had no previous information about the app's existence, goals, and features. For this reason, before the usability test began, some free time was given to try the interactive prototype previously developed by the design team on the Marvellapp online prototyping platform. This brief learning curve allowed the testers to have a first overall impression of the DSM and the sections that make up its main structure.

After each tester felt they had completed this first phase of discovery, the usability test prepared by the design team started on the Maze.design online platform.

A number of “Missions” have been prepared, namely:

1. create your profile: you have learned about the existence of the Digital Social Market and you want to sign up to the platform;

2. log your first sustainable action: you have just completed a bike sharing route and you want to log it and earn points. 3. are you more or less sustainable than your friends? Find out where you arestanding in relation to your friends. 4. Already entitled to redeem prizes? Check the rewards showcase and find out which one you can already get with your points. 5. I recall that a few months ago... View your activities from the far 4th of February 2018. 6. Do you accept the challenge? Accept the "Mission of the Month" proposed to the community of the Digital Social Market. 7. Yes, life is a quiz. Take the quiz "Unexpected objects that can turn into compost” 8. What is going on in the city? Find out more about the "Sustainable Energy Week" in Milan. 9. Get inspired by friends. Find out what friends' latest activities have been on the Digital Social Market.

An example of a “Mission” asked to be completed is provided.

Figure M60. The "Mission" titled "Log your first sustainable action”.

The objective of this (second) mission was to verify the experience of logging a route in bike sharing.

The correct sequence to complete the mission successfully foresaw the selection of the button Log your first sustainable action (1); the selection within the section dedicated to mobility actions of the card "I used the bikesharing (2); and log the information collecting card on the action (3).

Figure M61. The heatmap showing users' interactions with the app.

• Since there was practically no possibility of making mistakes, the first task had a positive success from all the testers. • The second task had the majority of participants clicking on the correct card recommended by the Mission. The button interface and section architecture would seem to have been easy for everyone to interpret. • In the third task there were some interface elements that could distract the testers from the target set by the Mission - click on the button at the bottom "Log" - being an interactive prototype the text input fields were not usable and many testers still tried to use them. For usability test purposes, these behaviors will not be considered as errors.

The outcomes of the “Mission” activity of the test were collected to feed the final design of the mockup and to start implementation.

How the test was run: “Feelings towards the applications”

The second activity presented to the testers consisted in collecting some qualitative assessments on certain features of the app and allowing them to express some personal preferences on the functionalities that could be implemented in the future on the Digital Social Market.

Although aware that the amount of information just received had not been able to settle and the answers to these questions were in part influenced by possible enthusiasms of the moment or frustrations for the difficulties encountered during the usability test, the design team decided to collect these impressions and choices to assume a possible trend of interest in some features of the app and consequently foresee an order of priority for the eventual development and implementation.

The sample of 9 testers does not have the ambition to be representative of the prospective community of the Digital Social Market and, in several of the proposed options, there was not a choice clear enough to be able to determine with certainty which features are of greater interest to some users than to others. Nevertheless, the design team and the development team will build on the findings and try to implement them if possible in the later stages of the project.

Qualitative assesment of the DSM Lessons learned

The most preferred domains participants would like to be in the DSM are “Sustainable Mobility” and “Energy Saving”.

This is in line with what actuall will be present in the DSM, in terms of quantitative data: the usage of Bike Sharing and comfort data deriving from sensors distributed within apartments belonging to the Sharing Cities refurbished building set.

Challenges mechanism seems to be slightly more preferred than daily reporting. The DSM will encorporate the chance to accept vertical Challenges. This also targets the users’ retaining objective.

Both quizzes/surveys and news/events raise the interest of testers. Tips and guides are the less preferred: the interest towards “how to” is probably depending and influenced on what a user finds more suitable for him/her, though.

The most preferred term of comparison of personal results is “friends”: the more close is the circle, the more sensible is the comparison.

The activity log section seems not to warm users’ expectations: they probably do not find any particular value in logging whilst aggregation is already a indicator of what has been performed.

Further steps

At the moment, the Beta version of the DSM is under implementation. The launch is foreseen for December 2018 – January 2019. The biggest effort is now on onboarding the stakeholders’ ecosystems: Citizens, Challenge Hosts and Rewarding Parnter.

An internal co-design Workshop, led by Future Cities Catapult and hosted by Poliedra has been run on the 27th and 28th of September 2018. This helped to better outline the stakeholders’ interactions with the DSM, specifically around onboarding and retaining phases.

Stemming from this, Poliedra has been jointly working with FCC to define and deliver the expected physical and digital assets to support onboarding and retaining.

Moreover, links with local Challenge Host (e.g. Cascina Cuccagna) and Rewarding Partners (e.g. Conferesercenti) have been established. Both will ensure a first broad communication of the DSM, in order to onboard a reasonable number of users and rewarders to start.

ENVISIONING THE CITY OF THE FUTURE

This task intended to collect and provide inspirations for future developments of the sharing cities, where technological measures are implemented to make cities more liveable. To this end a set of urban planning led activities were carried out, in particular:

1. an international seminar paired with a workshop 2. an international design competition.

These are described below.

§ THE MOBIANCE SEMINAR AND WORKSHOP

The Mobiance 3 international event held in Milan expands the previous editions (held in Nantes 2013 and 2015) based on the relationship between Mobile and Ambiances, i.e. the impacts of mobile tools on urban design. The aim of the 2017 edition was to study the relationship between the sharing society paradigm, new mobile technologies and how these are changing the way we interact and design cities. The event was intended as an opportunity for exploring novel ideas and for envisioning future urban scenarios for the facilitation and development of the sharing society in cities. Addressed questions included:

• How will the sharing society and economy approaches transform urban ambiances? • Which new forms of interaction and communication will be produced in urban space? • Will this modality lead to an augmented city experience? • What are the impacts on urban daily practices and on urban design production? • What technical and political issues arise from the multiplication of data sharing and people feedback and interactions on urban issues?

The event was constituted of a seminar and a workshop. The seminar introduced the main topics on the future trends of the materialization and digitalization of the sharing society paradigm in urban space; afterwards, during an intensive collaborative workshop, participants explored these topics and were asked to envision and depict future urban and social scenarios. To push the exploration beyond the current technical limits, participants were encouraged to take into account multi-sensory interaction (light, sound, haptics, vibration, odour, and so on), a multi-disciplinary approach and sharing modalities and no technical limitations.

Researchers and professionals together with 20 students (in architecture, urban planning, engineering, design and marketing) from both Milan and Nantes collaborated to identify future sharing city scenarios. The outcomes include strategies for sustainable mobility and smart information, shared building and mobile living units, smart interactive artefacts for urban comfort, urban places for social cohesion.

§ THE INTERNATIONAL DESIGN COMPETITION

The international competition invited students, graduates and professionals to imagine and design possible scenarios of the city of the future, starting from the values that the “sharing society” is promoting: How will smart and sharing cities look like in the future? How are these changes going to impact on people’s lives in cities?

More specifically, the aim of the competition was to envision and design scenarios to shape the sharing society and the public space of the future, with particular attention to the street environment applied to the Sharing Cities demonstration area. The goal of the competition was to make the invisible visible: to imagine, represent and communicate smart and sharing topics through scenarios describing the city of the future and its activities, with attention to new forms of social interaction linked to shared spaces and services, necessarily including the Sharing Cities Measures.

The full call is available at the following website: http://www.labsimurb.polimi.it/ENV2017/Contest_Envisioning_2017_ENG.pdf

A number of projects were submitted and assessed through a double step process. For more details about the submitted project see Appendix 4. Submission had to include a number of specific outcomes, including panoramic views of the proposal. These were used to engaged attendees of the awarding ceremony in an immersive experience of the city of the future (Error! Reference source not found.).

The jury made of experts in diverse fields assessed the submitted proposal according to a given set of criteria, which included:

• The ability of imagining, representing and communicating the scenarios of the sharing city of the future • Aesthetic quality of the representation: clarity and experience given by the immersive panoramas and by the video • Making the “invisible” measures of the sharing city and sharing society “visible” even by representing the social aspects of the place • Level of innovation of the proposed solutions.

All the projects admitted to the second phase of evaluation were displayed in the hall of the School of Architecture, Urban Planning and Construction Engineering of the Polytechnic University of Milan in June 2017 (Error! Reference source not found.).

The most innovative projects were awarded by an international jury with professional software for architecture and urban planning, together with annual subscriptions to charging stations for electric vehicles.

Figure M62. (On the left) Part of the exhibition of the proposals submitted to the design contest and (on the right) visitors of the awarding event experiencing virtually.

Figure M63. Pictures taken from submitted proposals to the envisioning contest.

LESSONS LEARNED IN MILAN

Diverse and multiple are the lessons learned through the development and application of the codesign process in the four main areas of the Sharing Cities projects. These are summarised below.

§ URBAN SERVICES

• Sharing urban service are relatively little known even if they are abundant locally • Citizens may feel scepticism towards sharing and experience mismatch with expectations • Sharing is characterised by a twofold perception of convenience and time-saving • Digital means and online dynamics may not necessarily be enablers, but rather a barrier for sharing • Small(er) scale is often preferred for sharing, namely at building level • Trust is a key component for the uptake in urban sharing services and measures to enable this have to be developed • Sharing may trigger an uncomfortable feeling of social debt • Not all the measures to be implemented (e.g. ebike location) may be delivered through a codesign approach namely because of normative aspects that citizens may ignore

§ BUILDING

• People interested in energy retrofit usually have a good cultural level • People choose to make energy retrofit not for its economical convenience, but because they believe in it • It is very important to involve the largest number of people to work with, and to be sure that the information reach all the building owners • The communication aspect is very important: a comprehensible language helps in better understanding the opportunities offered by the energy retrofit works • The timing is fundamental: not too much form one meeting to the other, but not too tight to give time to assimilate the new concepts and spread out the results of the meeting. • The collaboration public/private is important to have the trust of people • The direct contact with people is the only way to catch the exact situation of each building and, if necessary, to modify the strategy • Every condominium is a small world with its specification. A correct strategy has to be tailored as much as possible on the building.

§ DSM

• Point collection typical of rewarding scenarios is a very powerful mechanic because it stimulates people.

• Competing and collaborating with others are two apparently contrasting yet complementary ways to keep people engaged in DSM. • Usability test enables also to foresee potential users. • User tests based on provided missions are useful for the final design.

§ ENVISIONING THE CITY OF THE FUTURE

• Onsite creative initiatives engaging professionals and students as peers enabled the production of novel strategies for the city of the future. • The contest represents a tools for exploring novel ways to envisage the future sharing cities also in unimagined ways.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

THE BENEFITS OF CO-DESIGN AND SERVICE INNOVATION

Running alonside the valuable work carried out individually by the partners in the three lighthouse cities, Future Cities Catapult engaged closely with each in a hands-on advisory role. This ensured that not only were we able to provide insights that helped unlock solutions and new approaches, but also that learnings in each city were captured along the way and shared between the three cities. This was, in its way, an extraplolation of the co-creation principle across the three cities involved.

The subsequent feedback to Future Cities’ research analysis overwhelmingly supports the value of co-creative activities such as those in the Sharing Cities programme through a clear demonstration of the positive impact they have had on the effective delivery of services at city- scale.

As part of this deliverable, Future Cities Catapult has captured and categorised a series of key insights around the development and deployment of Co-Design activities in the lighthouse cities – we will explore these in much greater detail as part of the practical process we have developed to support the development of shared city services, and which can be found in D2.6.

UNLOCKING THE POTENTIAL OF CO-DESIGN

There are many notable impacts of adopting a co-design approach in the development of strategic city services. In this section we detail some of these impacts from the perspective of each Lighthouse city.

GREENWICH

1. Digital co-design with online engagement platforms such as “Commonplace” have proven to be effective tools in disseminating new ideas and propositions to wide audiences in order to capture sentiment and feedback from end-users at scale.

This tool sparked engagement with large numbers of citizens in the Sharing Cities demonstrator area and captured important data around the viability of the team’s hypothesis and project goals. This early validation enabled the team to cross reference its citizen feedback with technical feasibility before finalising its implementation strategy.

This approach has demonstrated impact in the form of applying citizen engagement over digital channels to raise awareness of potential urban developments. This early engagement has in turn reduced the number of objections to such projects by bringing

people along through part of the process. It also helped foster a sense of inclusion and collaboration.

2. For scenarios that aim to tackle more complex issues around such themes as energy reduction or behaviour change – both key themes of Greenwich’s Digital Social Market – a deeper method of co-design exploration was required.

In developing Greenwich’s Demand Side Response implementation strategy, the local team used an array of tools to navigate instances where they encountered levels of choice or ambiguity in the development of their service. User research techniques, service journey mapping and co-design workshops with citizens all provided the team with the confidence they were delivering a genuinely authentic and engaging service that residents would embrace.

These tools, applied in sequence and in collaboration with Greenwich residents, helped refine the service offering and strengthen the connections between citizens, council teams and technical partners. This work helped us remain on course in both technical delivery and recruitment targets. Whilst these tools have taken time to implement, and this work is ongoing, the adoption of this approach has enhanced our final market offering.

“Engaging with residents showed that attitudes towards electric vehicle lamppost charging were positive, and many were considering buying an electric vehicle in the near future.” (see page 25)

“This work provided key insights from which to further refine our service offering as well as a starting point from which to frame our key messages. Above all, through the consultation of even a small proportion of residents, this work created an element of confidence and authenticity in progressing with the next steps of our service delivery.” (see page 19)

LISBON

1. The co-design approach developed in Lisbon allowed the Sharing Cities team to build a rich set of citizen profiles which were categorised and used to shape the proposition of their DSM. This work helped to define the parameters of their platform, especially in relation to the priorities of the city of Lisbon and its extended strategic partners.

Ultimately, this preliminary work was instrumental in establishing the local project goals (Figure L5, page 33), from which the entire platform has evolved. This upfront investment in co-design enabled the next steps in development to be far more succinct and sequenced, thus improving the quality of the final outcome. This work continued forwards enabling the team to obtain sign-up from multiple city levels as well as strategic partners, which triggered a workshop where the first tangible proposal for “Sharing Lisboa” emerged.

100

The impact of this co-design approach can be seen in the optimisation of the co-design approach, the concept which was developed, and the speed at which it was iterated towards development.

2. Following the conceptualisation of Lisbon’s DSM, the team conducted additional workshops with local citizen stakeholders. The team conducted walkthroughs of their Service Journey Map (a technique developed from their previous research activities) in order to explore and understand how citizens might respond to their platform. This approach revealed a range of insights that were grouped into the following categories:

• Dissemination and acceptance of DSM • DSM Characteristics • Benefits for participants

As well as revealing many of the key messages from which to promote the platform during its launch, each of these categories revealed a range of significant insights. These insights – which in all likelihood would have been impossible to develop, much less validate, in isolation – went on to strengthen the next link in the chain towards implementation.

This work went on to inform a further focus-group around the theme of gamification which, again, became a pivotal theme in the Sharing Lisboa platform. The outcomes of this measure are key examples of the potential impact of a joined up approach to co-design. Each stage of the process reinforced the quality of the next, which resulted in a far more effective outcome.

3. As with many co-design strategies, it’s crucial to contextualise your concept when testing it with end-users. In the case of both the SEMS (Sustainable Energy Management Systems) and Mobility measures explored by the Lisbon team, public trials and demonstrations were instrumental in gaining key data in relation to the effectiveness of the service proposition.

In the case of SEMS, an installation was created at the Lisboa Casa Solar festival and allowed people to interact with a range of sustainability linked technologies around energy production. The feedback from this work was used to create the subsequent use case for this measure at a city level.

In the case of Mobility, a project partner conducted a 3 month trial with 1600 citizens, 90 bikes and 10 docking stations. The team used social media to capture responses from early adopter groups engaging in the study. This experiment gained a significant response through the generation of data and stories of people’s experiences.

A range of key advantages have stemmed from this approach, enabling stakeholders and project partners to:

• Test their hardware and software in operational conditions • Better understand their user’s needs and perceptions • Validate and test their means of communication and key messaging

101

• Build awareness around the platform in a semi-contained fashion • Learn from mistakes and iterate their proposition before scaling it.

"The information collected, enabled the creation of citizen profiles and the categorization of this information in several themes (presented in Figure L17). Additionally, the DSM concept was also based on meetings involving city representatives and project partners, in order to align the findings previously identified with the strategic priorities of the city of Lisbon and how to best build the DSM as a tool to achieve them.” (see page 32)

“Through the mobile app beta-tester were invited to rate with a scale of one to five hearts their experience in general, the comfort of bikes and the easiness of the system. The average rate was 4,6 hearts. The dedicated Facebook group collected more than 2300 posts and 830 active users, almost 5000 reactions – mostly likes – and more than 350 pictures shared” (see page 46)

MILAN

1. It appears that in the case of Building Retrofit that co-design has stimulated a growing appetite for decision makers at city and national levels to adopt the approaches developed within the Sharing Cities programme. Co-design, as an approach, appears to be the unique ingredient in unlocking barriers to scale, particularly in such an important sector.

The co-design process utilised by the team was extremely successful in exploring and testing retrofit opportunities with 22 buildings which has led to extensive refurbishment works with 5 of them. Co-design in this context has provided the tools required for a “first of its of kind” collaboration between a broad mix of stakeholders.

2. As described above, co-design, has helped to connect, understand and align a complex ecosystem of stakeholders. Again, in relation to Building Retrofit, city officials, building managers, engineers and residents often speak very different languages. The methods and tools introduced by the Sharing Cities team have introduced a neutral territory and common language to align and interlink multiple perspectives in pursuit of the programme goals.

Co-design has unlocked potential barriers and provided project stakeholders with a tangible ‘vision of the future’ through props and methods such as intervention cards, expert-facilitation, graphic and data visualisation, which have helped residents and decision makers weigh up the strategic benefits and costs of different possible scenarios as well as to understand their role and identity in a project such as this.

3. A similar scenario can be observed in the development of Milan’s Digital Social Market. The adoption of a service-based approach to co-design, where the citizen is placed at the centre of the service has helped to enhance the effectiveness and quality of the platform ahead of its launch.

An approach which has included group reviewing activities, desk research, comparative analysis, usability testing, impact-effort matrices, wire-framing, ideational

102

techniques, wire-framing and data visualisation has enabled city decision makers to switch their thinking between macro and micro scenarios, to prioritise and validate decision-making based on evidence.

This has helped to grow confidence both inside and outside of the core delivery team, through which they have created a far more effective strategy for recruiting citizens, challenge hosts and rewarding partners into the platform. This approach has helped project stakeholders to visualise their next strategic move, before having to invest heavily without evidence of success.

"Between meeting 1 and 2 TEICOS has done a complete energy audit for all condominiums, 22 in total. The results were summarized and presented during workshop 2, in a way that a person without technical engineering background could understand the content. A communication specialist and a graphic expert have been involved for the creation of the tools.” (see page 72)

" The codesign process for the measure of building refurbishment has been tested on 22 buildings and enabled the achievement the goal with 5 of them. Currently, the retrofit works on 3 buildings are concluded and other two are in undergoing. The three buildings where the measures are already implemented are already being exploited as a “first of its kind”. This experience is being presented to different decision makers also at a national level to facilitate its replication.” (see page 69)

"Moreover, links with local Challenge Host (e.g. Cascina Cuccagna) and Rewarding Partners (e.g. ConfEsercenti) have been established. Both will ensure a first broad communication of the DSM, in order to onboard a reasonable number of users and rewarders to start.” (see page 91)

KEY INSIGHTS

The following insights have captured from interviews with key stakeholders and local project leads in each of the lighthouse cities. The interviews sought to establish participant views around different aspects of Co-design, including development, interpretations and definitions of Co-design, successes and challenges, and outcomes. The insights have been grouped into the following sections.

1. Developing your Project approach 2. Developing your Co-design approach 3. Your Platform 4. Stakeholders 5. Communication 6. City Barriers 7. Definitions of Sharing

103

DEVELOPING YOUR PROJECT APPROACH

As with any large-scale project, it is crucial to establish a structure or framework before starting your journey to implementation. The need to spend time developing an effective approach was a key insight shared by each city partner in delivering their measures locally. The following considerations were identified as particularly helpful at this stage of the project:

• Start at the end In order to effectively identify the best entry point for your project, it is well worth defining the outcomes you hope to see and the new reality you are trying to create. These are questions you will explore in detail throughout your co-design process, but it’s never too early to begin this work. It’s also useful to consider your metrics for success from the outset. You may need to initiate base-line data research in order to be able to measure the efficacy of your service – this can be difficult to do retrospectively.

“Know your city issues – and if you don’t, find out. Everything hinges on this. Your services must respond to these challenges” Lisbon Project Partner

• Explore your context before defining your project Both contrasting and complementing the previous point, one should prepare for unexpected twists and turns along the way, no matter how thorough your efforts to scope, design and implement your project plan. The beauty of co-creative processes is that they are designed to help you embrace this uncertainty. Nonetheless, a frequent characteristic of large-scale urban projects is that such ‘deviation’, no matter how informed by clear user research, can be unsettling for project partners with more fixed ideas about the project’s direction of travel.

For this reason, it’s well worth conducting a round of user research prior to setting fixed project goals that may prove challenging to pivot or adjust at a later stage. Conducting user research before the project is even defined may seem counter intuitive, but it will ensure your project hypothesis has a solid evidence base and this will in turn foster far better alignment between project teams, partners and end users from the outset.

“It is advisable to do co-design at the beginning to see how broad that space is. It also brings you in touch with the end user. One of the biggest things with cities is that it needs to create ownership, benefit, customise it. Without this you’re in danger of creating a white elephant.” London Project Partner

• Manage expectations (including your own) The development of effective co-creative urban services is a huge undertaking. It’s important to keep perspective on what can be changed or responded to within the scope of a single project. It’s also important to acknowledge that you are unlikely to

104

change everything in one go. Whether it be bike sharing or energy reduction, start with small steps, establish proof-of-concept and build an evidence base from there.

“Every single measure (e.g. car sharing, bike sharing, energy reduction), is a universe – be cautious and focused in what you choose to work on” Milan Project Partner

• Stakeholder engagement: Citizens can have different understandings and expectations as to what is achievable in a city or co-design context. In order to maintain their engagement with your project, it is important to set expectations by being honest and transparent about what city services can and cannot be redefined – it’s much harder to re-gain stakeholder enthusiasm if it’s lost due to over-promising and subsequent disappointment, the negative impact of which can grow as the project progresses.

• Time management: Time is a precious, and absolutely critical, commodity in the development of successful urban services. Making the case for effective co-design can often be a tough sell within resource-stretched organisations. But for a product or service to be properly developed, it is critical to build in time (and budget) for continued citizen engagement (pre and post deployment). Cutting corners by imposing timing constraints in product development can lead to fast-tracked or even overlooked stakeholder-co-design and testing, and risk jeopardising the entire project.

It is therefore crucial to ensure project sponsors express the fundamental value of proper resourcing to co-creative practice and that this value is presented in tangible ways.

“Co-design processes may take a while – but you’ll have a far more compelling project, and crucially, you’ll have alignment of the key stakeholders needed to deliver it… ultimately, you’ll save time and have a better product” Sharing Cities Project Partners, Lisbon and Milan

DEVELOPING YOUR CO-DESIGN APPROACH

Co-design is a complex endeavour and the more you can map out before you get started, the more successful your project is likely to be. Key things to bear in mind include:

• Timing and Delivery

Good quality research and ideation require an investment of time, which can put pressure on project deadlines if not planned correctly at the outset. However, its benefits tend to outweigh its costs, through the delivery of effective and relevant city services.

105

Whilst tempting to try and deliver everything yourself, or as part of an internal team, the reality is that the project will place significant demands on resource – moreso than can simply be ‘absorbed’. Engaing with professionals and/or trusted third parties with the specialist skills or insights you might require to develop your proposition from the start will help ensure you shape and deliver an engaging co-design strategy.

A ‘neutral’ third-party actor in this role can also help mitigate potential political/ trust/ownership issues that may exist within your municipal ecosystem.

• Embracing Research Tools

There are a wealth of methods – use cases, focus groups, sprints, surveys, community consultation tools, interviews, desk research, ideation tools and UX testing – that can be deployed to explore and help teams understand contexts through people’s experiences in the development of new services. These tools will need to be adapted depending on your focus – while there are patterns that can be optimised, there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach to co-designing city-services.

Knowing which tool to deploy and when can be key to the quality of insights that you will gather. In one interview a researcher from Milan explained the difference in value between surveys and workshops: “We reached out to the local area and got almost 500 responses from a survey – but through this we missed the finer details of what people feel about sharing. Workshops are better at making time to reflect and consider”.

It is essential that each of your research tools is connected to the bigger picture and that everyone is committed to the research process, even if they do not entirely understand it.

Research and Development – a few key points to remember:

The following points will be explored in greater detail in D2.6, but are worth briefly considering here in the context of these learnings:

• Don’t compete by accident – do your research, discover what’s already out there, ensure your contribution is both needed and wanted. • Acknowledge the bugs – it won’t be perfect, nothing is, but accommodate the understanding that bugs themselves often highlight where ongoing research and development should focus • Create prototypes to test, iterate and improve your service. • GDPR: only take the information you need – complex sign up processes expose you to greater privacy responsibilities and liabilities – how much of the information you capture at this stage if actually critical to delivery of the scope of work? If it’s not needed, don’t capture it.

• Engagement and an Open Mind

Depending on the scale of your project you will likely be attempting to recruit research participants for repeated consultations. It is important that wherever possible you make

106

your interactions engaging and inspiring – don’t over complicate your sessions or let them run on too long.

Give real focus to facilitating good discussions and encouraging your participants to discover insights for themselves – despite what they may say, people don’t like to be told the answers to everything! If you let people connect the dots for themselves, your work is much more likely to gain traction once implemented. If you are running multiple co-design sessions with the same research participants, ensure you maintain their sense of involvement with comprehensive communications – share photos, provide regular updates, and showcase their involvement across all channels.

“If a co-design experience is overly complicated, it won’t work, people lose interest” Project Partner London

Furthermore, when developing co-design activities around shared city services, particularly where it relates to behaviour change, it’s critical to keep in mind that we are all human, and as such bring our own values into our decision making processes. This will quite naturally impact on how participants do or don’t embrace the ‘new’. As such, it is incredibly valuable to recognise any spectrum of values across your stakeholder ecosystem, and ensure space is made for those values to be expressed and heard even-handedly.

This open-minded approach to co-design can ensure a greater receptivity to change over the course of your programme, so be sure to consider how you use language in your sessions, and how challenges and solutions are framed – our so called “soft skills” in co-design facilitation.

• Co-Design or Participatory Design?

Be clear about the level of involvement you are seeking from your stakeholders. Do you want participatory design or co-design? They are different, and will lead to different outcomes – but our research makes clear that the two are sometimes confused.

Co-design can be described as the convening of stakeholders to research and develop solutions to respond to a particular context in a collaborative way. In this scenario, stakeholders are integral to the entire process.

In contrast participatory design, whilst certainly an aspect of co-design, focuses on the consultation of focus groups in which to test an idea, not to create it. Participatory consultation is certainly quicker than co-design in the short term, but, is far from a fully inclusive approach.

However, it’s worth bearing in mind that a co-design approach doesn’t necessitate the involvement of citizens in every decision around the implementation of city services. It is however this assumption that informs an apparent reticence amongst city management organisations to undertake co-design programmes – the perception is that including citizens in co-design processes complicates the delivery of city services.

107

And whilst this may be true in some cases, the evidence suggests that the inclusion of end-users and citizen stakeholders almost always ensure the delivery of more effective services, as well as improving the quality of those services and saving money in the longer term.

YOUR PLATFORM

You should also give detailed thought to your co-design platform and how you envision it operating in practice. Key considerations here are:

• City Services – Online vs Offline

One oft-cited observation from a number of the project partners was that to optimise the outputs of collaboration, it was best to strike a balance between face-to-face physical collaboration and digital or online engagement – and that it wasn’t a simple case of one or the other.

“Digital platforms are great when they actually support physical relationships” Project Partner, Lisbon

It was also noted however, that many 21st century urban services are necessarily created with face-to-face community contact in mind, and there was frequently some work to be done here to build trust and commitment to that kind of engagement.

In these instances a charter for all stakeholders (and particularly citizen users) to adhere to as part of the terms and conditions of joining your service can resolve these uncertainties. There are also examples of shared platforms which are facilitated by community managers who are there to promote new features and content but, crucially, also to help moderate community interactions and thereby ensure people behave and communicate respectfully.

• Keep up to date with the world!

As you develop and implement your service, be sure you keep up to date with relevant real-world developments, and to share those developments with your stakeholders.

If your platform relies upon a dedicated set of users (e.g. a digital social market) it is important to maintain a through flow of new content. Maintaining user engagement is challenging enough in an already saturated market of digital platforms, so it’s critical you maintain your user-group’s interest.

This can be achieved by the inclusion of new features and services within your platform, whilst also aspiring to further integration services (such as public transport ticketing or broader coverage).

You should also make sure you view your service with a measure of critical rigour, as there can be negative side effects in city services which, when unregulated, become problematic at scale. AirBNB and Uber, for example, are often cited as emergent services which have impacted negatively across cities on a global scale.

108

STAKEHOLDERS

Stakeholders are a fundamental feature within any city service, be they internal sponsors, project partners or citizen users of your platform. In this instance we have divided stakeholders into two groups: ‘Citizens’ represent the end users, whilst ‘Consortia’ represent internal and external project partners such as colleagues or businesses. We have collated below some insights relevant to the engagement and participation of both these groups.

“Having government, industry, and citizen representatives in a room allows you to put individual agendas on the table from the very beginning. It takes time, but it’s worth it” Project Partner, Milan

Stakeholders: Citizens

• Citizen stakeholder recruitment: don’t underestimate the importance and difficulty of recruiting representative stakeholder samples. It can be difficult to maintain the same group throughout your research programme (particularly if it has multiple interactions through something like a sprint). Once recruited, it is important to maximise their input and value across the rest of your project community. The recruitment of champions within your citizen teams will help convey a sense of authenticity a city-team or private sector representative might struggle to communicate. This in turn will help keep citizen participants onboard for the entire process.

“You need to know your audience - this is a key feature in deploying successful city services.” Project Partner, London

• Fear of the unknown: as mentioned earlier, common insight from our interviews was the perceived aversion to co-design on behalf of city managers due to the prevailing sense that including citizens throughout an entire co-creative process would be time consuming and may set unattainable expectations – “When citizens have contributed their time to talk about a measure (such as mobility), they expect to see results quickly.” – and as such whilst tempting to avoid including citizens in your programme, this will in fact diminish the likelihood of full success.

Stakeholders: Consortia

• Team dynamics: with complex stakeholders, often spread out geographically, it can take time to galvanise a team and establish strong working relationships. Investing time up front in ensuring people are aligned and working confidently as a team is invaluable to successful delivery of your project. • Differing agendas: in large project teams it’s important to acknowledge differing agendas between teams within a co-design process. Technical teams and delivery teams often have different priorities and varying workflows. It’s important to try identify these and align differing positions as soon as possible. Left unresolved, variations in opinion can have consequences in relation to time and team success, which can in turn have a detrimental knock on effect on your wider stakeholder groups.

109

Additionally, effective co-design can in fact change opinions and attitudes within your core team just as much as your external stakeholder groups. Wherever possible be sure to include your internal team at external co-design sessions. Whilst time- consuming, it will help ensure transformation is happening at the same time throughout the entire project team.

COMMUNICATION

To ensure broad engagement with any project it’s always absolutely critical that everyone involved understands its value and relevance to them. As such, it’s critical that your communication speaks the language of those participating. This might seem obvious, but it’s something that is frequently overlooked.

• Communicating the value

Make your message is relevant to your audience. Whilst you may care about environment issues such as congestion or city taxes, that doesn’t necessarily mean that your users feel as passionately as you. So, wherever possible, try to avoid using statistics or jargonistic terms (e.g. Co2 emissions or kilowatt hours). If everyday users don’t understand these terms or their context you may well lose they attention and engagement.

“You only get one chance at making a first impression around a new service. This is hard to get right when you're still developing a service as you don’t always know what the value is, or how best to articulate it.” Project Partner, London

In more complicated scenarios, the issue of misinformation can arise. An example of this was discovered by our partners in Milan where one citizen co-design participant innacurately reported to “know that the battery performance of shared electric vehicles is significantly limited and insufficient for most journeys.” When shared with other potential users, this kind of misinformation can quickly spread and has the potential to derail perceptions of your service.

It’s also good practice to minimise the sense of compromise across the design of your service. If one of your aims is to move a user group from one habit to a newly defined shared action, the way you frame your proposition should make the new alternative more appealing. Successful services in the long term depend on successfully redefining a comfortable normal for your chosen audience.

Finally, make it easy for users to recommend your platform to others. Peer-to-peer endorsement is always far more powerful than paid advertising. Of course, in order for you user group to want to endorse your service you must create a service worthy of endorsement. Users can initially be extremely cynical to new platforms, particularly those that include digital interfaces or apps. Churn rates are high in digital markets and “digital fatigue” is high – therefore, if users grow weary of services, they are quick to abandon them. Ensure your service is always refreshed and as current as possible.

110

• In partnership with the city

Do also capitalise on the fact that your project is ‘coming from the city’. Even in instances where the municipality is perhaps unpopular, it will nonetheless give your work further credibility in the eyes of your stakeholders.

Being part of the city allows you access to people who can support with events and community outreach. Host pilot community events in your service demonstrator areas and encourage the public to test your service through prototypes and help validate your work. Depending on the theme of your service, host ‘energy weeks’, or ‘mobility weeks’, and look for partners with complementary themes to team up with and support the development of your service. Don’t hold back from meeting and engaging with your users and use these events to capture feedback and recruit participants for further research

“In Lisbon, especially with the DSM, users were more confident when proposed the project as a municipal venture” Lisbon Project Partner

CITY BARRIERS

There will of course always be barriers to introducing new services in cities and whilst it would be possible to explore these challenges to the granular detail, most fall into the two following general areas :

• Old for new: invariably it won’t be possible to respond to everyone’s unique need and sentiment across a city context. Introducing something new often means removing or adapting something old, which is not always received without a degree of reticence or trepidation. Difficult discussions and compromises are often required to help people transition from one approach to another. This can require and, more importantly, deserves time and patience from the city. “If you want to build something new in a city, you have to take something old (such as parking spaces in exchange for bike storage) – people may have an issue with this” Project Partner, Milan

• Infrastructure and challenges: city services are often extremely interconnected and reliant on other systems. When considering development and implementation it’s worth thinking about your service in relation to others taking place now and in the future.

For example, an increase in bike sharing capability may require more bike lanes to avoid injury or fatality. Your chosen service may receive negative attention for reasons beyond your control if not factored in during development.

Internal buy-in and approval can be an equally arduous challenge. There may be many planning, compliance and legal approvals to be obtained during the course of your project. These approvals can add wildly differing time-scales to your project course, which in turn can strain resources.

111

“Infrastructural processes can be long, we had to align eleven separate departments for one of our measures to progress” Project Partner, Lisbon

DEFINITIONS OF SHARING

On the surface, sharing may seem like a commonly understood practice. However when applied at city scale, ‘sharing’ can take on different meanings and representations depending on the perspective of the stakeholder.

What does ‘sharing’ mean?

These different approaches and considerations to ‘sharing’ should be tackled early on in your co-design process. Avoiding it can lead to confusion around its meaning in the context of your project.

Data is good example of how misconceptions can lead to obstructions in the delivery of city services. Private partners may be unwilling to share certain data in a truly open fashion from a strategic perspective. Cities may be prevented from sharing certain data sets for political or GDPR reasons. Citizens often welcome the concept of sharing, unless it requires them to part with personal data in exchange for access to a service. Although sharing is likely to be a familiar concept with each of these stakeholders, when it comes to the actual act of sharing, it can cause tension or obstacles in the deployment of a service.

It’s therefore fundamental that each partner understands what they’re signing up to and what it may involve. Transparency and trust are central to project delivery and uptake.

Are we really good at sharing?

As a society, our collective ability and appetite for sharing (particularly in city services) can a be informed by our socio-economic position. Digital shared services (particularly those which rely upon smart devices) often exclude the elderly or unemployed through digital illiteracy and cost. As revealed by the Milanese team, sharing can sometimes have unintended rebound affects such as feelings of indebtedness, or a view of sharing which may run counter to our social aspirations around ownership. This was also shown by partners in Portugal:

“They (Citizens) like the idea of owning a car… it’s a social status, it’s a benefit that people are not always willing to give up” Project Partner Lisbon

In order to mitigate potential issues around sharing, be it in relation to the service itself, or the sharing of data, intellectual property etc., it’s worth confronting these questions at the beginning of your co-design process. Explore them through a workshop, questionnaire or interview. Include all of your stakeholders, particularly your citizen participant group – the end users of your service.

“To put everyone on the same page, include a session on perceptions of shared services, it will help to avoid assumptions and help you to understand how each shareholder understands sharing” Project Partner, Lisbon

112

CONCLUSIONS

Perhaps the most significant learning from this phase of the Sharing Cities projects is in fact a pragmatic one, and it is this: it is clearly demonstrable that the success of any specific undertaken measure / service – whether it be smart lamp-posts, electric vehicle charging points, electric mobility solutions – is significantly catalysed and enhanced when undertaken with a conscious, synergistic approach to developing a digital infrastructural ecosystem into which it will be launched which such as, for example, the Digital Social Market.

It is of course possible to look at measures, and to undertake developmental work on them, in isolation from their ecosystem. But in all cases those measures would reach a stage of integration, and that work always proved more complicated and resource-heavy when approached sequentially to work on the measure rather than run concurrently and holistically alongiside development of the measure.

This key conclusion was demonstrated in practice across the three partner cities in the following ways:

• Whilst not a conscious decision at the outset, as the co-design activities evolved within the Sharing Cities programme, it became clear that developing the measure in isolation from the platform upon which it was to be delivered, or if they are implemented in sequence, there was a notable risk of disconnect or fracture in the chain. • As such, the importance of entwining discussions around the city measures and the digital social market (and their corresponding digital platforms, e.g. apps and interfaces) from the very beginning emerged organically as a central theme across all the projects. • This in turn demonstrated the value – arguably even the essential nature – of approaching co-design with the entire digital ecosystem in mind. Not only does this ensure the viability of the measure itself, but it is also integral to ensuring the evolutionary and iterative function of the ecosystem itself, whereby it can continue to develop and grow in response to the ever-expanding list of demands and requirements it will need to meet over time. • Furthermore, integrating the micro and macro considerations of any project in this way also ensures the measure can be packaged into a scalable, marketable service. This approach, as well as deploying a critical 360-degree view on the project and its environment, also bakes a more considered, deliverable and indeed measurable end- to-end value into shared urban services.

LOOKING AHEAD

A key challenge of developing the digital social market is ensuring that its overriding strategy is applied to the specific local contexts of the cities. All three lighthouse cities have adopted the digital social market and are bringing it to life in different ways. This is a real success. The

113

methods applied by Future Cities Catapult and its partners in understanding and responding to the challenges have given the project a solid foundation, making replication easier.

The rigorous process – discovery, research, analysis, development, testing, iteration and collaboration – demonstrates the value of design thinking in urban innovation. It has created a package for other cities to use as a template when devising their own solutions. This will be invaluable when other cities come to replicate Sharing Cities over the next two years of the project.

More immediately, the development of the Sharing Cities Toolkit (D2.6 - A process to support creation of urban services in follower/scale-up cities) based on the key insights outlined above will create a practical resource for cities to use as they embark on their own Co-design and Service Innovation projects.

114

APPENDICES – MILAN

Appendix 1. Outcomes of the second citizen activity

115

116

117

118

Appendix 2. The sharing collaborative platform

119

120

Appendix 3. Scenarios for Sharing City

121

122

123

Appendix 4. Projects submitted to the envisioning contest

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136