User involvement in ZEN – A reflection on the user perspective in ZEN

Abstract

This memo is a reflection on the user perspective in FME ZEN. The FME Research Centre on Zero Emission Neighbourhoods in Smart Cities (ZEN) has chosen Living Labs to address user engagement and as a framework for the organisation of user involvement in pilot projects. Work on user involvement in ZEN has also been carried out outside the activities in the Living Labs, mostly on methods of user involvement, rather than testing them on end users. A brief overview is presented of selected publications in ZEN on user involvement where the "users" are not necessarily directly involved or represented. The common theme for these publications is methods for citizen participation, and challenges with stakeholder engagement in developing zero emission neighbourhoods. Key aspects to improve for increased user involvement in FME ZEN include: - Providing methods for how to include the end user perspective when the end users are not yet present - Early involvement in neighbourhood development project - Collaboration and shared vision among the stakeholders - Continuous stakeholder involvement Further, user participation in a selection of ZEN pilots is discussed: Ydalir, Evenstad, Furuset, Gløshaugen, Lø and Mære. Publications on user involvement in these pilots are presented, and additional information was acquired from interviews with researchers and partners involved in the pilots. Based on the findings from the interviews and the presented publications, the following three themes are identified for discussion: (1) The struggle of engaging the end user, (2) Enthusiastic users of the technology, and (3) Complex planning- and development processes make user involvement challenging. The “middle actors”, such as operating staff, is reported by researchers in the Living Labs as an especially interesting user group to work with, as they have intimate knowledge on both the end user and the technological infrastructure. Local initiatives driven by enthusiastic and innovative operational staff and property managers have realized a combination of technologies and the interoperability of solutions which had not been tested elsewhere before. The memo concludes that the work in ZEN has mainly been concentrated on technological solutions for environmental sustainability. These solutions are often invisible for the user, not directly impacting people's everyday lives, making them hard to relate to. When technology is presented as the major solution, the need for behaviour change is under-communicated and may seem less important, leading people to continue their usual practices, assuming technology will compensate for emissions. Research based on the data from the Living Labs shows the need for a closer link between social sustainability and technological innovation. Bridging the gap between the social and technical context has been proven difficult within the frame of FME ZEN. The nature of the FME scheme under which ZEN was filed is, by description, not a social science-related program. Initially, this topic was not given much emphasis. In retrospect, we can question whether the centre should have addressed the social aspects of sustainability to a greater degree in order to succeed with zero emission neighbourhoods. Inclusivity of perspectives from all stakeholders can enhance the robustness of research, give an understanding of social structures and processes, as well as benefit planning with observations by people closest to the phenomena in question.