How do we move forward, together...? Smart and sustainable city plans often face a deficit of engagement from citizens. IRIS Smart Cities is working to address this and sharing insights from their work on the ground. Willem-Jan Renger of HKU and Arno Peekel of Utrecht Sustainability Institute take us through the 4 stages of citizen engagement, design systems thinking in cities, touchpoints and influencers. Discover the good, the bad and even the ugly of citizen engagement in sustainable district development!

1. Case: WP5 Lighthouse
Demonstration Utrecht
A PARADIGMATIC SHIFT
in CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT
Willem-Jan Renger (HKU) / Arno Peekel (USI/UU)
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020
research and innovation program under grant agreement No 774199

2. General introduction
Citizen engagement in
perspective
w

3. • what is your local tradition? when do you apply it?
Citizen Engagement
small
citizen
impact
substantial
citizen
impact
major
citizen
impact
autocratic
leadership
no
citizen
engagement
democratic
leadership
citizen
information
democratic
leadership
citizen
dialogue
democratic
leadership
citizen
co-creation
democratic
leadership
citizen
orchestration
IRIS AMBITION
w

4. General introduction
Citizen engagement in
the Netherlands
A

5. • Long history of involving citizens
• Common to every vision/project/approach in public
space
• Anchored in legislation and regulations
• Professions in environmental management and
stakeholdermanagement
• Procedures and protocols for stakeholder
engagement
• Market and stakeholder consultations to collect
input on area development
Prime-Minister of the Netherlands: ‘Mature democracy’
A

6. Expanding City Centre
Decades strategic urban planning
Stakeholder interaction
Research
City talks to involve citizens
Masterplan for development
Administrative agreement of the
municipality of Utrecht and stakeholders
Example: Transforming Utrecht Central Station district
A

7. Schiphol Airport
CO2 storage Barendrecht
Groningen gas production
Onshore wind
Shale gas dialogue
• Distrust citizens towards
government/science/stakeholders
• Lack of response and slow process due to long
procedures
• Lack of involvement of citizens leading to
‘feeling a victim’
• Disbalance costs/benefits: shifting loss to society
• Timing of citizen involvement is crucial but also
difficult
Few lessons from this and other examples
A

8. Citizen engagement approach in
IRIS -
Short recap
More info available in Deliverable D1.7
w

9. Citizen Engagement - four stages
Design systems thinking (notes on co-creation)
Touchpoint: passive versus active
Infuencer
WORKING DEFINITIONS
2
3
4
w

10. IRIS citizen engagement LADDER approach w

11. Iterative process of fault finding and improvement with low-risk low-cost implications
@2: DESIGN PROCESS METHODOLOGY
IDEATE
DESIGN
HKU
EMPATHISE
DEFINE
HKU
AWARENESS
DEFINE
HKU
PROTOTYPE
DESIGN
HKU
EVALUATE
DESIGN
HKU
TEST
DESIGN
HKU
ITERATE
DESIGN
HKU
DEVELOP
DEVELOP
HKU
IMPLEMENT
DEVELOP
HKU
MAINTAIN
DELIVER
HKU
UPDATE
DELIVER
HKU
SUPPORT
DELIVER
HKU
UPSCALE
DELIVER
HKU
w

12. example of traditional ‘Prince2’ or waterfall project management modelling
USER ACCEPTANCE TESTING
AND REWORK
w

13. @3: TOUCHPOINT
‘Touchpoint’: IRIS project work definitions
TOUCH
POINT
SERVICEUSER
w

14. @3: TOUCHPOINT
TOUCH
POINT
PASSIVE TOUCHPOINTS ACTIVE TOUCHPOINTS
APP
CONTROLLABLE WEB INTERFACE
CONTROLLER
BUTTONS/SCREEN
LETTERS
BROCHURES
INFO SCREENS
w

15. @4: INFLUENCERS
CITIZEN
CHILDREN
FRIENDS
LEADERS
NEIGHBOURS
examples
w

16. About our
demo area
A

17. THE CITY OF UTRECHT A

18. IRIS WP5 – Introduction Utrecht demonstration area 2
DEMONSTRATION AREA • Multi-cultural
• Low-income
• Social housing
• Low-energy profile building stock
Densily populated district in Utrecht
A

19. IRIS WP5 – Introduction Utrecht demonstration area 3
DEMONSTRATION AREA: POOR ENERGY PROFILE
A

20. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT: FROM CHALLENGE TO RESULTS
Multi-cultural district
High unemployment rate
Low-income level
High level of social housing
Low-energy profile building stock
Densily populated
Safety issues
Mismatch
Smart city
Sustainability
Energy transition
Shared mobility solutions
Solar panels
A

21. IRIS Utrecht examples
w

22. Smart Streetlighting
Illuminated pedestrian crossing
w

23. PROCESS: DESIGN THINKING APPROACH
w

24. IN THREE SESSIONS
CAPTURE
CAPTURE DEMANDS,
ISSUES DREAMS
DRAGON’S DEN DESIGN
Citizens share their stories,
dreams, problems and experiences
in the neighbourhood; these are
captured in a series of Narratives
(1 pagers)
We pitch all concepts to the citizens and offer
them the choice to pick the most relevant
solution
Technical experts, designers,
government officials team up to
ideate solutions connected to the
Narratives captured in the first
session
IDEATE SOLUTIONS
CONNECTED TO
NEIGHBOURHOOD
NARRATIVES
1 2
3
w

25. FROM CONCEPT TO LOCATION
FOURTH SESSION: SIX MONTHS LATER
LOCATIO
N
PICK THE OPTIMAL
LOCATION
4
Citizens used a map of the
neighbourhood to decide on the
optimal location for the smart street
crossing to have maximum impact
w

26. EVALUATION
GOOD BAD UGLY
proper use of design
methodology process
no continuity in participating
citizens
too few participants :
0.5% of inhabitants
active participation of
citizens
length of process disengages
citizens
NOT representative for
population
(age/background ethnic
composition)
positive atmosphere in
collaboration with emerging
feeling of trust
lack of process feedback Passive contribution; no
behaviour change
(one-off effect)
w

27. GETTING CITIZENS TO VISIT OUR TOUCHPOINT SESSIONS BASED ON INTRINSIC MOTIVATION
PASSIVE TOUCHPOINT:
‘magnet’ model
w

28. TOON SMARTMETER
FIELD EXAMPLE #2
w

29. FAILED: 70% consent on
refurbishment plan for APPARTMENT
BUILDING
CONTEXT
PLAN B:
FREE OFFER to citizens for
SMART METER and data service plan
Value: 400€
AIM: to capture baseline data on energy
consumption
w

30. DOOR TO DOOR CONTACT TO ENGAGE CITIZENS IN TOON ADOPTION
ACTIVE TOUCHPOINT
modelcontact
w

31. LOW EFFORT DESIGN
• AIM: eliminate disengagement moments per household
• Engage in conversation per individual household
• Use “Aesthethics cards’ to identify citizen emotions/feelings
(NOTE: the aesthetics card deck can be obtained @ HKU!)
email: willem-jan.renger@hku.nl
w

32. LOVE ADMIRATION DREAMINESS
RESPECT
To experience a tendency to regard
someone as worthy, good or
valuable.
It arises when a praiseworthy
character of someone conforms to
internal or external standard.
To experience an urge to be
affectionate and care for someone.
It arises when an appealing
character of someone provides a
likelihood of mutual affection or
something facilitates associations
with a loved one.
To enjoy a calm state of
introspection and thoughtfulness.
It arises when something facilitates
a stepping outside of the current
experience and leads to
associations with an experience
(either in the past or future).
To experience an urge to idolize,
honor, and be devoted to
someone.
It arises when an appealing
character of someone surpasses
one’s internal or external standard
or when something facilitates
associations with an idolized one.
To experience an urge to prize and
estimate someone for their worth or
achievement.
It arises when someone’s
praiseworthy behaviour surpasses
internal or external standard.
To experience a strong attraction to
enjoy or own something
It arises when something potentially
beneficial for personal concerns is
expected to be reachable.
To experience a sexual appeal or
appetite.
It arises when someone’s sexual
appeal corresponds to one’s
appetite or facilitates associations
with an erotic interaction.
CONDUCIVE, SUPPORTIVE
SYMPATHY KINDNESS
To experience an urge to identify
with someone’s feeling of
misfortune or distress
It arises when one recognises
that someone is suffering a
distress and is motivated to be
helpful.
To experience a tendency to
protect or contribute to the well-
being of someone.
It arises when one finds
relatedness with someone and is
motivated to be conducive to
his/her goal achievement.
ALTRUISTIC, CONDOLENT ACCEPTANT, APPRECIATIVE
INTIMATE, TENDER APPLAUDING, REGARDFUL MEDITATIVE, REFLECTIVE
LUST DESIRE WORSHIP
EROGENOUS, SEDUCTIVE ATTRACTED, WISHFUL ADULATORY, PRAISEFUL
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9
SKILLS VS CHALLENGE
RELUCTANCE
potential causes:
Daunting tasks that are too hard
to master; steep learning curve;
difficulty level too high; stuck in
repetitive recoverable loss;
play potential
high risk missions (fear of losing
assets); serious challenge; boss
level
Unmotivation
-
Look into:
FAIRNESS BALANCING
ANGER
potential causes:
Experience of injustice in game;
balancing problem; unrecoverable
loss
Personal provocation
-
CONTENT
INDIGNATION
potential causes:
Provocative subject in game;
moral values being questioned;
social boundaries being crossed
-
Look into: Look into:
FAIRNESS BALANCING
RESENTMENT
potential causes:
Undignified loss
or sudden unexpected loss;
unethical opposite play;
unfair rules; unfair rewards (too
little, too much)
-
Look into:
FAIRNESS BALANCING
HATE
potential causes:
Extreme cases of loss of
extremely valuable asset; sudden
obstruction of play; loss of
serious amount of hours invested
in play (data loss); sudden
intervention by outsiders
disruption game flow (parents!)
Antipathy
-
Look into:
CONTENT
CONTEMPT
potential causes:
Lack of respect for creators;
stupid actions of fellow players;
blocked in their play by others
(dark play)
Antipathy
-
Look into:
CONTENT
DISGUST
potential causes:
Unethical actions in game;
depictions of violence, torture or
other gross depictions in game;
too much gore in game; taboos
being broken in game.
Repulsion
-
Look into:
SKILLS VS CHALLENGE
BOREDOM
potential causes:
Lack of game control; lack of
one’s impact on progress;
repetition without aim; slow
pacing; lack of obstacles; lack of
autonomy
Unmotivation
-
Look into:
+ SKILLS VS CHALLENGE
SADNESS
potential causes:
Losing an object/character in game
with emotional value; provocative
storytelling; relatable experiences;
content issue or fairness balancing
issue
play potential
meaningful loss in game; creation
of emotional attachment
Misfortune
-
Look into:
+
Personal provocation Personal provocation1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9
POSITIVE
AESTHETICS
NEGATIVE
AESTHETICS
w

33. DESIGN SKETCH PARADIGM SHIFT CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT
FIRST LETTER
APPOINTMENT
FOR INSTALLER
HOUSE VISIT 1 HOUSE VISIT 2url -> NAW
Yvette -
DOOR2DOOR
(1)
(2)
FIRST LETTER
laptop/NAW
FORM
FLYER
BEHIND
ONLINE
ACTIVATION
APPOINTMENT
INSTALLER
EMAIL ADDRESS
FOR USE IN IRIS
GOODIE BAG
SCRIPT (IRIS)
PROCESS
INFORMATION
EVALUATION USAGE
TOON
TOON
INTRODUCTION
anouk
TOON flyer
22-11
29-11
6 - 9 - 13 - 20 - 23 - 30 december
INSTALLING
DATES
2 - 3 - 6- 10
januari
“No Plan Survives Contact With The Enemy”
Field Marshal Karl Bernhard von Moltke
A
w

34. EVALUATION
GOOD BAD UGLY
detailed social map of the
building
proper use of design
methodology process
no power plugs @ installment
detailed overview of yes/no
and why / why not per
household
active personalised
CONVERSATION
with citizens
hired installer; not from TOON
provider
identifying potential
change agents
increased building of trust Installing took far too much time
eliminating disengagement
points in acceptance process
too labour intensive
40% conversion versus 3% just
letter
w

35. SECOND ITERATION
AIM: ELIMINATE THE BAD ELEMENTS FROM FIRST ATTEMPT
> support for after care with cheaper solution
> uncoupling of installment from house visit
> elimination of second house visit
> improved manual and support material
w

36. RETROFITTING
APARTMENT BUILDINGS
Common approach of housing corporation Bo-Ex worked fine
for years
Last years more time needed for interaction with tenants
Leading to a.o. discontent and delay in schedule
FIELD EXAMPLE #3
A

37. Same approach: different outcome
Tactics prepilot ‘Livingstonelaan III’ Tactics ‘Columbuslaan III’
Outcome Result: enough consent among tenants to retrofit building Result: not enough consent among tenants to retrofit building
Language Communication in Dutch Communication in Dutch
Type of meeting Two plenary informative meetings with Bo-Ex presenting retrofit
plans
Two plenary informative meetings with Bo-Ex presenting retrofit plans
Role of tenant committee Small role tenant committee in engaging other tenants Small role tenant committee in engaging other tenants
Chairman of meetings Bo-Ex is chairman of meetings with tenants committee Bo-Ex is chairman of meetings with tenants committee
Agreement document No Project Agreement Document with tenants committee A Cooperation Agreement Document with tenants committee
Communication material Bundling of loose information in multomap as information to
residents
Bundling of loose information in multomap as information to residents
Collective/individual
approach
No individual information provision Individual house visits to provide information on retrofit plan
No individual information on impact on personal level No individual information on impact on personal level
Direct/indirect contact
points
Direct contact points with tenants Direct contact points with tenants
Showcase A starkly model house to show the activities / changes A furnished model house to show the activities /changes, just before the
consent measurement
A

38. • Despite the same approach the retrofitting of
‘Columbuslaan III’ could not proceed.
• Lack of enough consent rate (legally obliged)
• Time to evaluate and change tactics
Change of tactics
A

39. Biggest issue: obtain support of tenants
37IRIS WP5 – Transition Track 1 – Utrecht
Measures to change tactics (iterative process)
• Improved communication
• Communication in different languages
• More moments of contact with the tenants
• Better collaboration with a delegation of the tenants (committee)
• Better start-up with the committee and a Project Agreement Document
• Independent chairman who leads the meetings
• Better understanding of the plans amongst tenants
• Individual house visits by an independent consultant
• Individual energy saving calculations
• Decouple IRIS activities from the refurbishment (if possible)
• Implementation of the HEMS Eneco Toon® in anticipation of the refurbishments
• Pre-selection of involved tenants
• Involvement of children
• Lessons about the refurbishments at the primary schools in Kanaleneiland-Zuid
Good story
Positive vibe
Trust
A

41. Same approach: different outcome A
Tactics ‘Columbuslaan III’ Tactics ‘Alexander de Grotelaan II & III’
Outcome Result: not enough consent among tenants to retrofit building Result not yet known. Consent measurement planned in June 2020
Language Communication in Dutch Communication in different languages (Dutch, English, Turkish, Arabic)
Type of meeting Two plenary informative meetings with Bo-Ex presenting retrofit plans Several contact moments with tenants, plenary and smaller porch meetings
Role of tenant
committee
Small role tenant committee in engaging other tenants More responsibility tenant committee in communicating retrofit plans to other
tenants
Chairman of
meetings
Bo-Ex is chairman of meetings with tenants committee Independent chairman leading meetings with tenants committee and Bo-Ex
Agreement
document
A Cooperation Agreement Document with tenants committee A Cooperation and Project Agreement Document with tenants committee
Communication
material
Bundling of loose information in multomap as information to residents Newly produced brochure with coherent information on retrofit plans
Collective/individual
approach
Individual house visits to provide information on retrofit plan Individual house visits to provide information on retrofit plans, also with
translators
No individual information on impact on personal level Individual energy calculations showing ‘energy situation’ before and after
retrofit activities
Direct/indirect
contact points
Direct contact points with tenants Direct contact points with tenants plus indirect contact through children of
primary schools by giving lessons on sustainability
Showcase A furnished model house to show the activities /changes, just before the
consent measurement
A furnished model house to show the activities /changes, from the beginning
of the design process

42. • Lessons at primary schools
• Use of same persons (Yvette and Rianne) for
continuity in approach
• ‘Duursamen’ Bord game
• XR-experience
• Energy advice with use of TOON-data.
Lots of more examples
early prototype
A

43. CHANGE OF PARADIGM
COMMON PITFALLS
IN CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT
w

44. example of traditional ‘Prince2’ or waterfall project management modelling
USER ACCEPTANCE TESTING
AND REWORK
w

45. DELAYS
COSTS
CANCELLATION
decision making
preparation without
INITIAL citizen input
mismatch!!
PUBLIC CITIZEN
MEETING
prepared decision
passive
TOUCHPOINT
little room for
change
formal language
perception of
arrogance
PASSIVECITIZEN ENGAGEMENT
w
RESISTANCE
ANGER
DISTRUST

46. EVALUATION
GOOD BAD UGLY
relatively low effort
in production
often poor representation of
entire target audience
negative emotions as a
result
efficient in place and time extreme presence in the
positive and the negative
(strong supporters vs strong
opponents)
dissatisfaction and
disengagement
limited possibilities for citizens
to influence / change /
modification of the
plans/decisions
increasing distance
citizen - government
w

47. HOUSE VISITS
preparing
decision
active
TOUCHPOINTS
realistic sphere of
influence
design citizen
journey of
acceptance
AUTONOMY
(Deci & Ryan)
RESISTANCE
ANGER
DISTRUST
listening to citizens
ACTIVECITIZEN ENGAGEMENT
UNDERSTANDING
ACCEPTATION
BEGINNING OF
TRUST
MODIFIED
DECISION
ITERATIVE PROCESS!!
w
DELAY
CANCELLATION
COSTS

48. CONCLUSION / VALUE OF NEW APPROACH
PARADIGMATIC SHIFT from PASSIVE to ACTIVE means:
✓ more labour intensive
✓far more qualitative data
✓ higher impact (in one of the most difficult environments)
✓ rebuilding trust (using empathic design) CITIZEN-GOVERNMENT
✓ no absolute guarantee for engagement
✓ no absolute guarantee for behaviour change
w