Behaviour change in practice: the DG Cities team and approach

For the second week of our Nudge Month series, we’re sharing a little more about our team, our approach and recent projects. To kick off, Head of Research, Ed Houghton has written a short blog explaining who we are, what we do and how (and why) we do it. He explains the makeup of our multidisciplinary team and the value of this to a full-cycle approach, from undertaking primary research to evaluation – we don’t stop at delivery, but examine what works and where any improvements could be made, learning all the time.

 At DG Cities, our research touches on a wide range of place-related topics, from the latest in self-driving cars to digital inclusion for the most vulnerable in society. If there’s a technology and community angle, we’re interested. Whilst this is super exciting and interesting, it also poses all sorts of challenges – most significantly, how do we make sure what we do has impact and that we have the knowledge we need to make it work? This is why we are intentionally multidisciplinary. Our ability to approach a problem from different viewpoints is, I think, the secret to our success.

As a company, we combine years of experience and knowledge from our jobs and studies in all sorts of areas, from environmental science, engineering, psychology, economics and communications, to transport planning, geography and digital technology. This breadth of backgrounds allows us to take a holistic view of the problems we’re looking to tackle – and as such, means we can bring a unique perspective to the challenges our partners and clients face. This breadth is something we’ve built into our behavioural science team. We bring together both quant and qual perspectives, pairing psychology and economics disciplines. As an approach, this brings some exciting combinations of skills and approaches. Let me introduce you to our key team…

Isobel Madle is our Behavioural Scientist, and leads the design and delivery of our behaviour science projects, focusing on qualitative methodological design and analysis. Isobel has a background in psychology and communications and is passionate about helping people and places become more liveable, fairer and more sustainable. Her focus on wellbeing, and how to improve it, means she is always interested in approaches that create positive and lasting impact for communities, particularly those who are most disadvantaged. Her background in some of the UK’s biggest communications agencies gives her deep expertise in how to deliver change at pace, and work with people from diverse backgrounds via a multitude of channels and methods.

At DG Cities, Isobel is leading some of our most exciting work helping to implement new technologies which shape behaviours, including delivering an innovative waste-reduction project in a Greenwich housing estate using smart cameras and behaviour change communications. She is also developing new approaches to help people conserve energy in the home, again, using a mix of new technologies alongside “nudges” to help consumers save energy and money.

Leanne Kelly is our Economist, with a behavioural economics MSc, bringing skills in quantitative data and behavioural insights analysis. This helps to paint a picture of the significant, and interrelated, challenges our towns and cities face, and ensures we can measure impact and create a robust evidence base. Leanne’s passion for data, evaluation and wellbeing means she brings to work unique perspectives and analyses, particularly in relation to community level interventions where, in data terms, things can get ‘messy’.

As a trained economist with over a decade of experience working with local authorities, in infrastructure and urban development, Leanne takes a big picture view of the problem and ensures when we design interventions, undertake assessments and deliver evaluations our approaches are fit for purpose. This is invaluable for work with local authorities where policies and interventions must have a clear business case and demonstrate tangible (but often hard to measure) impact, and where learning through the project lifecycle is critical. 

And finally, me. As the sector lead, I help to oversee our behaviour change projects, supporting design and delivery, and enabling the team to engage through our partnerships and work with clients. As an engineer with a social science career, I’ve been driven to explore ‘what works?’ through all my projects, from evaluating mental health interventions for those working in financial services to building a network of professionals and academics to help disseminate evidence and change practice for the better. In essence, I try to find the gaps in knowledge and work out ways to plug them. Ultimately, I’m excited about meeting and working with others passionate about creating positive change through the better use of evidence and data.

As a team, we think our approach and background puts us a unique position to deliver transformative projects that can create meaningful change for residents, while offering value for clients and local authorities. We’re still growing, learning and developing; we will never finish building knowledge, as every project informs our understanding, deepens our insight. Every interaction is unique, just as no two places or communities are the same – we might draw on literature reviews and best practice in the field, but we place a high priority on primary research and getting out there, speaking to the people we are trying to support and keeping an open mind. Evaluation is also a fundamental principle of our approach; seeing what works, where we might improve things further. We’re excited about the future, and the opportunities to develop new ways to combine emerging technologies with behaviour change to improve people’s lives.

If you would like to find out more about us, our work or have a chat about your own experience, get in touch.

How do you make sure a programme aimed at changing people’s behaviour is ethical?

Next in our Nudge Month series, we are exploring the ethics of implementing behaviour change projects. What is the policy guidance and best practice in this growing field? How do we make sure we are working with people fairly and designing the right kind of measures to achieve meaningful benefits for them? Behavioural Scientist, Isobel Madle outlines the need for a considered, research-based approach – and one that doesn’t rely on demographic assumptions…

Behavioural science helps us to refine our understanding of human decision-making. This research can be extremely useful in policy-making, because these insights can be used to develop effective, low-cost public interventions in a wide range of areas, including energy, environment, health and financial services. However, as more public and private companies begin to utilise behavioural science to influence consumer or citizen decision-making, the ethics of these techniques have, rightly, come under greater scrutiny.

There are several arguments for using behavioural science in policy. Namely, behaviour change programmes are often quick, cost-effective and successful ways to promote beneficial outcomes for a population. Second, because behaviour change is a science, behaviour change techniques such as nudging lend themselves well to testing through randomised control trials, and therefore support evidence-based policy-making. It is also valuable to promote the use of evidence in developing new policies at both a government and local authority level.

However, there are several ethical challenges that arise when applying behaviour change methods to the general population.

• Because of the perceived ease and low-cost manner of behaviour change interventions, often they can be implemented quickly without consideration of the context in which behaviour change occurs, meaning it can be unsuccessful.

• Because behavioural science is a relatively new field of research and practice, so far there is no one set code of ethics for behavioural science interventions.

• A concern about nudging is that it reduces one’s rational agency. Some argue that nudges undermine rationality because they work through irrational processes. So, even if nudges are intended to promote a person’s goals and wellbeing, they fail to acknowledge the rationality of human beings.

These are extremely important issues to consider when using behavioural science. At DG Cities, we put people at the centre of all of our projects, therefore we take these ethical considerations extremely seriously.

The importance of primary research

We know that behaviour change is highly context dependent and that just because a nudge worked for one behaviour, it doesn’t mean it will work in all cases. That’s why when conducting a behaviour change project, we always conduct a thorough literature review and primary research with the population in question. We’ve found that, particularly when we’re working with low-income groups, the literature isn’t always right or relevant. For example, during a recent energy project, research suggested that energy behaviours were habitual, that is to say that generally, people do not think about their energy usage at home. On the contrary, when we conducted our own research by interviewing the local community, we found these people were extremely energy conscious and aware of how much energy they consumed and where. This meant that we could design an intervention that was tailored much more accurately to this group, rather than based on assumptions.

Best practice guidelines

As mentioned above, there is not currently one set code of ethics for behavioural science interventions. As this field is growing in popularity and use, it is a challenge for practitioners like us to balance the needs of our clients with these ethical considerations. While there isn’t one code for behaviour change interventions, there are adjacent codes for public policy, such as the Nudge FORGOOD ethics framework. This mnemonic suggests that policymakers consider fairness, openness, respect, goals, opinions, options and delegation when considering what nudges to use in their public policy. Similarly, Government Social Research (GSR) has developed an ethics checklist for social and behavioural research, to ensure research is unbiased and disseminated fairly. At DG Cities we refer to both of these checklists when developing and implementing behaviour change programmes to ensure participants are treated as fairly as possible.

Respecting people’s autonomy

A common challenge in the use of behavioural science is concern about reducing people’s agency and autonomy. Often, nudges are criticised because they take advantage of human shortcomings, like uncertainty, inaction and impatience, therefore exploiting people’s irrationality. Some argue they undermine autonomy because they influence people ‘behind their backs’. This is a really important consideration when developing behaviour change programmes.

This is another reason why it is beneficial to conduct primary research with your target population, as we did during our recent energy project. By interviewing our target population, we identified that it would be more useful to use nudges that work on both System 1 (automatic, intuitive thinking) and System 2 (rational, deliberative thinking), because our target population were already aware and thoughtful about their energy behaviours. So, we are using ‘nudge plus’ techniques, whereby we set goals with residents to reduce their energy behaviour by a certain amount each month and then provide monthly feedback, social comparisons and helpful tips to help them reach their goals. The benefit of this is that residents’ autonomy is maintained, because they are both aware of the nudges they will receive and have the choice of whether to comply with them.

Ultimately, there are ethical considerations with behaviour change programmes that we must fully understand and address when implementing them. However, with careful thought, reference to the available ethical guidelines and primary research, behavioural science can be implemented fairly and ethically to promote positive behaviour change in a population – and ultimately, to improve outcomes for this group.

Nudge Month at DG Cities!

For the whole of October, we’re going to be dedicating our Twitter, LinkedIn and blog features to our behavioural science work. We’ll be sharing insights from our projects (and some of our favourite diagrams!) and exploring some of the issues a behaviour change approach raises, from ethics and risks to the opportunities for local authorities. Head of Research, Ed Houghton leads our behaviour change practice and explains more…

Too often, we see innovation projects fail to deliver as expected because they aren’t adopted or welcomed by the people they were intended for. In smart city innovation, this is particularly common. For example, new smart lighting is installed or an e-scooter service deployed, but they have little impact, or worse, actively frustrate or even harm their target communities. Sometimes the technology may be at fault, but more often than not, it’s because people and their behaviour just haven’t been taken into account.

The best new technology interventions put people and human behaviour front and centre of their design. That is because the most sustainable change comes from choice – not through some anonymous form of implementation, or the deployment of an opaque new technology, but by encouraging people to make better choices for themselves and their community. This is where the concept of behaviour change comes in, and why we see it as vital to local authorities and communities across the UK. Using practical tools and methods developed from the worlds of economics and psychology, we use this approach to facilitate better informed, healthier and more sustained decisions and actions, and we support communities to make the most of new technologies.

Behaviour Change at DG Cities

People have always been at the heart of what we do at DG Cities. As much as we are fascinated by technology and excited by its potential benefits, we put people first, and consider technology as a facilitator and enabler of improvements, and not an end in itself. We have a wealth of experience in stakeholder engagement and user-centred design. Whether we are tackling fly-tipping on a housing estate or trialling new self-driving cars on public roads, we always start with an understanding of what change means to people – the impact of new technologies and services on their lives. For these innovations to bring positive benefits, councils need to illuminate how citizens’ lives might change as a result. Our behaviour change practice works to ensure innovation and technology projects not only meet the needs of real people, but also supports them to make better decisions.

In the years ahead, our towns and cities will be under pressure to do even more with less. Behaviour change offers a powerful, robust and practical approach to maximising impact with minimal resources. And it’s not just something to consider for new projects; established services and projects can also take advantage of fresh thinking. This is one of the core benefits of our methodology. Through evaluation, we can help to unlock hidden opportunities and enhance services that are working ok, but could work even better, through the application of behavioural science.

Understanding risks, ethics, processes and opportunities

All local authorities can make use of behavioural change interventions, but it requires expertise and experience to spend time understanding patterns of behaviour, drivers and motivators, messaging channels, designing interventions, and creating robust tools and processes to deliver projects in the real world. This is no small task and it requires a focused methodology, a keen sensitivity to risk, ethics and skill to get it right. But with the right steps and support, all local authorities can benefit from a focus on people and their behaviour, and access to the latest insights and evidence. Later this month, we’ll be introducing some of our team and the valuable quantitative and qualitative expertise they bring to behaviour change projects.

While some local authorities are already on their journey to empowering citizens by utilising behavioural science, many are still to get started. Wherever you are in the process, we’d love to help you make the most of behaviour change to meet climate targets, save public money and improve people’s lives. Discover more about our services this month and get in touch at [email protected].

IoT in practice: a case study of smart home devices in Greenwich

In February, we introduced our IoT programme and looked at some of the benefits of connected smart technologies for local authorities. For our latest blog, Project Manager, Nitika Raja explores in more detail different scenarios for use, including a ‘smarter homes’ initiative that aims to improve residents’ welfare and the management of housing in the borough.

When you hear the phrase ‘smart home device’, what comes to mind? A sophisticated gadget like an Amazon Alexa or Google Nest? Perhaps video doorbells, security cameras or smart fridges? Although the smart home market is dominated by luxury gadgets for individual households, smart home devices are increasingly popular in the public sector. 80% of social housing organisations say they are considering smart home solutions. The most popular are those that focus on tackling strategic priorities within a council, such as identifying high humidity and mould growth, reducing fuel poverty and identifying malfunctioning smoke and fire alarms. These are some of the topics we intend to address through our smart homes trial with the Royal Borough of Greenwich (RBG).

Our proposed smart homes trial

Smart devices were first trialled in Greenwich in the EU Horizon 2020 Sharing Cities project. In this small-scale trial, we focused on devices that could reduce costs and environmental impact, including environmental sensors, which provide insights into health hazards and air quality in homes. We showed that these sensors can be a worthwhile investment, delivering benefits to both RBG and its residents. We were then tasked by the RBG Housing team to research whether there is value in rolling out devices on a larger scale and to outline how this should be done. We summarised our findings in the Smart Home Strategy and prepared a separate decision report for a larger-scale trial. Our proposed trial involves installing environmental sensors in approximately 160 council-owned properties across Greenwich.

What do we aim to achieve by installing environmental sensors?

In the Greenwich trial, environmental sensors will alert the council to damp and mould risks early on, before they turn into expensive issues. The council spends a significant amount each year on repairs for damp and mould and we want to test whether the installation of environmental sensors can reduce this amount through a more proactive repair service. These sensors provide detailed insights that help the council assess the cause of damp and mould. The council can then implement the most suitable solution – repair works, if the issue is with the building, and potentially, behavioural nudges (e.g. prompts to open windows or use an extractor fan) if the issue is linked with resident behaviour.

We expect that environmental sensors will have a positive impact on people’s health and wellbeing by giving actionable insights into indoor air quality, damp and mould. As more households are in fuel poverty, sensors can alert the council to these properties through specific insights, like unusually low temperatures over a prolonged period. The council can then provide the necessary support, such as enrolment on RBG’s Stay Warm Stay Safe scheme, and also investigate, where appropriate, different methods of reducing energy consumption and heating bills.

Accessibility considerations

We considered how our trial can be inclusive towards tenants with different accessibility needs. The environmental sensors will transmit data to the council via LoRaWAN (low-power, wide-area network). Residents will need a mobile device with network connection to use the ‘resident app’, which displays insights from the sensors. The app includes a dashboard, recommendations on how to reduce energy usage and bills, and access to support services. We want residents to have access to this useful information, while ensuring that lack of mobile device is not a barrier to participating in our trial. For residents who are vulnerable or are not confident with technology, for example, control of the app can be given to a carer, friend or family member, with the tenant’s consent. We are looking at setting up an ‘information hub’ that displays dashboards and recommendations for households – the council can then share this information with households using alternative communication methods, such as letters and phone calls.

Addressing data privacy concerns

We will be transparent with tenants about how their data will be managed, so that they can make an informed decision on whether they want to participate in the trial. We will comply with a strict GDPR policy, which ensures that no personally identifiable information is linked to the environmental data collected, and that all analysis is performed on anonymised data.  

Understanding the wider picture

We intend to gather data from a selection of properties within an estate to get a general understanding of issues that might affect the whole estate. Building up a broader estate view from a small number of devices can also be cost effective for the trial by limiting the number of devices installed. When deciding which groups of properties to include in our trial, we focused on properties where residents could get maximum benefit, and ones which could provide the most valuable insights for the council.

Which groups of properties have we decided to include in our trial?

• Properties with existing or historic damp and mould issues
  Installing sensors in properties with existing or historic issues will deliver high value for both tenants and the council. For properties with existing issues, environmental sensors will help us determine the cause (whether it is due to tenant behaviour or problems with the building) and then swiftly take action. For properties with historic issues, sensors can provide insights on what led to damp and mould in the first instance, and how to prevent issues from re-emerging.

• Sheltered accommodation properties with heating improvements
  Two Greenwich sheltered housing schemes –are due to have heat pumps installed and refurbishment measures carried out to improve energy efficiency. We proposed installing sensors to analyse the impact of these heating improvements and to collect evidence to inform future energy efficiency projects.

• Void properties
  There are several benefits to installing devices in empty properties before they are re-let. It is the most cost-effective option, because installation of sensors can be combined with other general electrical works. It can often be the quickest option, and there is an opportunity for behaviour change and education when new residents move in to the property.

• A proportion of properties in a high-rise building
  We want to test whether we can monitor an entire building with only a small number of sensors. We hope to answer the following questions: Can installing sensors in a range of properties within a building provide an understanding of the general environmental characteristics for all residents? What is the ideal proportion of homes to be monitored to have a good understanding of the building as a whole? With RBG colleagues, we have identified a 24-storey building on an estate as a potential trial location. We propose installing sensors in properties across different storeys, with both north and south orientation, to create a picture of how temperature and damp characteristics vary within the building.

We will evaluate the success of the trial for each of these different property types, and based on our findings, will explore the possibility of scaling across the whole borough of Greenwich. This project is an exciting opportunity to bring the latest tech innovations to make a real difference to people’s everyday lives, as well as helping a council manage properties more efficiently and address issues before they become more expensive to rectify. We look forward to putting our roadmap into action and updating you on our trial as it develops!

If you are a council or social housing provider looking to harness the potential of IoT devices or other new technologies to improve the management of your housing stock and decarbonise get in touch with Head of Delivery, Balazs Csuvar to discuss how DG Cities can help.

Where to next for self-driving vehicle research?

It’s CENEX time! So when better to introduce our latest insights report into public attitudes to self-driving technology. Through our work on pioneering initiatives, such as D-Risk and Project Endeavour, DG Cities has become a leading UK authority on public engagement in the sector. Head of Research and Service Design, Ed Houghton explains more and looks at the next challenges research needs to address and some of the perceived barriers to deployment…

Adam WIlson/Unsplash

Where to next for self-driving research? And is the most difficult part still to come?

The DG Cities team has been exploring the potential of self-driving cars for several years. Our work has taken us the length and breadth of the country, where we have met different communities and explored some of the urban and rural spaces where self-driving technology could have the potential to change how people get around. Through our projects, we have also collaborated with some of the world’s leading technology developers in this exciting and complex field.

This week we’re delighted to be on the road (or train!) again, visiting the Cenex Low Carbon Vehicle Event and Cenex Connected Automated Mobility Event to share our research with the public, and to highlight where we think self-driving technologies are headed next. We’ve been trialling new ways of engagement and we’re looking forward to showcasing some of our insights from this. For example, in several of our self-driving projects, we’ve been able to deploy new techniques, such as simulation and virtual reality. This has widened our reach and enabled us to share information with a larger number of people, helping them better understand what self-driving technology is, and what it might mean for their daily lives. So, what do the public really think of self-driving services, and what could the technology mean for mobility in our towns and cities in the future?

Project Endeavour: diving deeper into public acceptance and interest in adoption

Project Endeavour was established to rapidly accelerate the development of road-ready self-driving tech, and to provide insights to policymakers, researchers and local authorities about the realities of deploying self-driving services. As part of Project Endeavour, we delivered an open trial to allow the public to experience self-driving technology, and see for themselves how it works. We invited over 120 members of the public to join the live trial in Greenwich, London. Attendees met with safety drivers and self-driving vehicle engineers to learn about the technology and took a ride on roads around the local area. We were able to do deep research with these participants, interviewing them, and conducting before and after surveys to measure their attitudes and perceptions. We also ran a national survey of more than 2,000 people that explored their views on self-driving vehicles. Together, the trial and survey research showed us:

• The majority are either undecided or are not yet comfortable using self-driving vehicles: findings from our national survey show 26.8% would feel confident using a self-driving vehicle tomorrow if it were possible to do so. Over half would not (55.1%). The remainder are undecided (18.1%).

• The safety case for self-driving vehicles has yet to fully convince the public: findings from our national survey show that three in ten (29.9%) believe that self-driving vehicles will be safer than traditional vehicles, whilst 44.2% disagree. A quarter (25.9%) are undecided.

• Live trials improved perceptions of safety by 15 percentage points: before the trial, 68.3% agreed that AVs would be safer than human driven vehicles, whilst after the trial 83.6% agreed, an improvement of 15 points.

VR: bringing the self-driving future closer to the public

A key part of our engagement work for Project Endeavour was to trial innovative and accessible methods of engagement that could enable us to reach as many participants, from as many perspectives, as possible. We trialled virtual reality (VR) as a method because it allowed us to do several things:

1. Bring to life a ride in a self-driving car, which we did by inviting people to sit and experience a journey around Oxford in the Project Endeavour vehicle.

2. Support engagement with the public through the COVID-19 pandemic, while adhering to restrictions on personal distance.

3. Create a sustainable tool that has had a life beyond the project to support broader engagement. Our VR trial reached over 2,500 households and schools nationwide, meaning many more were able to participate than could be accommodated in a physical trial.

Are we nearly there yet? Where research must go next

The technology that drives self-driving services is maturing quickly. Vehicles can now be trialled safely and successfully, and as Project Endeavour showed, they can travel through busy, complex cities and towns. However, to move forward, we now need to focus on adoption and acceptance by investigating the barriers, and exploring techniques and approaches that can support communities to build their confidence in and knowledge of self-driving services. We think that future research should look to cover the following important areas:

• Deeper public engagement into service design: a recurring theme across our research is that of emerging understanding and public expectations of how future services may be operated using self-driving technologies.

• Investment in behaviour change intervention design to tackle limited acceptance of and interest in self-driving technology: Project Endeavour highlights a significant number of ‘undecided’ participants who have yet to be convinced by self-driving technology. This group could be potentially shifted positively with the right intervention. More work is needed to understand which type of intervention would be successful in doing this.

• Increased engagement with excluded and vulnerable groups: interest and engagement in public trials and survey methods is often amongst those with access to resources, and with interest in the topic. Future service models must be developed with accessibility for excluded and vulnerable groups in mind.

• Support for additional research on capability and capacity building in local authorities around self-driving technologies and their potential impacts: local authorities need support to better understand the opportunities autonomous vehicles can offer, and the influence that deeper consideration of self-driving services can have on wider highways issues.

We’re excited to see where self-driving technologies go next. But one thing is clear: if the innovation is to become mainstream, it must be developed with the public at its centre. Without this, the technology could stall, which could be hugely damaging – not only for the industry, but also for all who could benefit from the potential advantages of its deployment.

To find out more about our work on public engagement in the self-driving field, read our latest insights report: Towards safe, accessible and trustworthy self-driving services. 

How can the latest tech and behaviour change be used to combat fly-tipping?

For our latest blog, Behavioural Scientist, Isobel Madle explains how DG Cities has been working with the Royal Borough of Greenwich to trial new ways of tackling fly-tipping on a local housing estate. By combining behavioural interventions with new technologies, the team is exploring low-cost and innovative approaches that can cut waste and improve the area for local residents.

Visit to Barnfield Estate with Councillors, council staff, the DG Cities team and local residents to talk about tackling fly-tipping and antisocial behaviour

Fly-tipping is a prolific problem across the UK. In 2020, almost half a million (485,000) incidents reached prosecution, and cost local authorities over £11.5 million pounds a year to clean up. However, this is considered to be the tip of the iceberg, when unreported incidents are included. For local authorities with already tight budgets, this is an issue they could do without.

Reducing fly-tipping is easier said than done; it’s a complex issue, with many barriers that need to be overcome. That is why the Royal Borough of Greenwich commissioned the team at DG Cities to investigate the problem, and develop an innovative approach to pilot, and eventually roll out across the borough. Our solution was to combine technology and behaviour change to reduce fly-tipping on one estate in the borough, the Barnfield Estate, where it had been identified as a particular issue. Fly-tipping is particularly bad at Barnfield due to its location behind two high streets, with easy access for local businesses. It also has multiple entry points, meaning criminal fly-tippers can easily drive on to the estate, dump waste and drive off. Some residents have also been seen fly-tipping.

During phase one of our project, we installed four Internet of Things (IoT) cameras at key locations. The cameras use motion sensor technology to enable quick identification of culprits in real time. We also designed a new process to make it easier for residents to remove their bulky waste, using QR codes. We used techniques such as systems thinking to define and visualise the fly-tipping problem for our partners at the council to help the team understand the problems on Barnfield in more detail. During the project, we have also encountered our fair share of set-backs, from competing local priorities to the theft of two cameras, which highlighted the lengths to which people will go to fly-tip.

Mapping the problem: understanding motivations and drivers

When it comes to enabling behaviour change, it’s important to assess the motivations and barriers of each group, which could explain why they come to fly-tip. From this we, as intervention designers, can understand how we can reduce it. There is no single set of circumstances. Criminals and local residents have very different motivations to fly-tip, therefore require different interventions to create sustained behaviour change. To understand these motivations, we conducted interviews with both residents, businesses and council staff. We even shadowed the caretaker of the estate to see how he collects and processes fly-tips each day. These findings were presented in a systems map to show the scale of the problem and opportunities for our interventions.

Phase one: cameras and communications

This brings us to phase one. We found that residents often fly tip because:

• They lack the space to store bulky items in their home.

• They were unaware of a bulky waste storage space on their estate.

• They were unaware that bulky waste collections were free.

• The bulky waste collection service required them to call the Greenwich council phone number and wait on hold to be directed to the right person.

To reduce these barriers, we produced a simple and quick new process for bulky waste collection. We developed a QR code that went to a short form where residents could complete their collection request. This information is emailed directly to the Barnfield caretaking team. Each resident received a colourful leaflet with the new QR code that set out the process. Already, the system is working – in one month, there has been a 300% increase in bulky waste collection requests.

For criminal fly-tippers, we have taken an enforcement-based approach. Criminal fly-tippers generally dump large amounts of commercial waste, which can include entire kitchens, construction waste and cooking oil. This has physical and psychological health impacts on residents, as well as being detrimental to the local environment.

We partnered with iDefigo and Vodafone to install IoT cameras in fly-tipping hotspots on the estate. The benefit of these cameras is that they have motion detection, meaning they only switch on when they detect movement in an area. The cameras then notify enforcement team members via an app, so that they can watch the fly-tip in real time and save the evidence. This saves a huge amount of time and resources, as the enforcement team no longer need to look through reams of CCTV. They are also better for data privacy: a short retention period protects the identities and privacy of local residents, whilst still catching criminals in the act. In fact, they have clearly rattled the fly-tippers, as two of the cameras were stolen within weeks of installation. This was also caught on tape and has been shared with the appropriate authorities.

Phase two: outreach and physical nudges

In the coming months, we will be installing phase two of the intervention, which includes a social media campaign and physical intervention. The aim is to see which behaviour change approaches generate the most impact and are preferred by local residents. We can then discuss the potential applicability of the approach for other areas where fly-tipping is an issue.

DG Cities has a dedicated behavioural science team, who work with local authorities to explore how behavioural change interventions can help to improve the lives of residents, reduce energy and save councils money. We are working across a range of projects, from improving how people recycle waste or consume energy at home, to supporting active travel and new approaches to electric vehicle infrastructure. Our team includes experts in research, behavioural science, behavioural economics and specialists in project management and the latest technological solutions. Follow us on Twitter to find out about the next phase of our Greenwich project, or get in touch if you are a local authority looking to find a new way to meet your net-zero targets or tackle a challenge in your area.

Could you go for a month without your car?

For the start of August, our communications lead, Sarah Simpkin shares a personal piece about her attempt to go car-free for July, and the insights that gave into the value of some of DG Cities’ projects, particularly when it comes to supporting the shift to electric vehicles in the countryside…

View of London from Blythe Hill Fields on a bike

Earlier this year, environmental charity, We Are Possible set a new challenge, Going Car Free 2022. They invited people to sign up to ditch their car for the month of July. The aim was to change participants’ behaviours by breaking the habit of driving – to give them a reason to try an alternative, even if just temporarily. I signed my family up. Given that we only used our car once in June, how hard could it be? Looking back at the month, there were a few surprises – and some new insights into the value of DG Cities’ work.

The first challenge: a wedding

The month started with a family wedding. The ceremony was in a registry office, a little over five miles from our home in south London, and the afternoon reception was in a local museum. We expected this to be one of the biggest challenges: transporting ourselves and our seven-year-old son on a hot summer’s day in our finery on bikes. But while it took a little more preparation than usual – packing a pannier the night before with snacks, locks, a change of outfit, and planning a safe route to the ceremony, reception and home again – there were benefits. We were able to incorporate a section of the car-free Waterlink Way cycle trail, a new playground, a picnic and take a breath to enjoy the view of London from the top of Blythe Hill Fields.

Our wheels for the month

For the rest of the month, we travelled everywhere by bike, train or bus. We didn’t avoid any events or change our plans. We both cycled to work, we walked our son to school, we took the train around London and we walked to the shops, ordering bulky items for delivery. The truth is, we didn’t really do anything we wouldn’t usually have done – we’re very lucky to live in an area with the services we need nearby and good public transport. We all have bikes, we are able to ride them – and we enjoy it. But then came the heatwave. The record-breaking temperatures a reminder of the urgency of the need to decarbonise and the importance of taking action as individuals.

The second challenge: the heatwave

On the hottest days of July, when London recorded 40°C for the first time, we worked from home. But there was a journey of three miles we had to take with our son. Not going wasn’t an option. Our trains were cancelled, as railways struggled to cope with high temperatures on the tracks and equipment. I read that Network Rail had planned a number of measures in advance of the heat to try to mitigate some of these impacts – maintenance teams had started painting rails white to try to reduce their temperature by 5°C to 10°C, and expansion gaps are routinely incorporated to reduce the chance of tracks buckling. Still, there was severe disruption, which lasted into the following days. We couldn’t cycle in the intense heat, there was no direct bus. And so reluctantly, we gave in – we drove. Our son was furious and demanded we do a fully car-free August to make up for it. We were disappointed too.

How might behaviours change with the climate?

Our decision to drive is just one example of an unvirtuous cycle of emissions. As the impacts of higher temperatures are more acutely felt, people’s behaviours are also likely to change – one of our neighbours talked about buying an air-conditioning unit for the first time. We all used more water than usual. We drove, we plugged in a fan. As energy demand spiked, coal-fired power stations were used to help meet grid capacity demand and avoid blackouts. But more helpfully, we also found new ways to keep cool without electricity, from using sheets to create a buffer between windows and blinds to DIY evaporative cooling techniques. A friend collected the wastewater from his shower and sink to irrigate his vegetable patch, another worked with frozen peas under their armpits.

What if there is no alternative?

Another aspect of the July challenge is talking to others about going car-free, understanding their barriers, and perhaps even persuading them to give it a try for a short time. As I mentioned, it’s easy to choose not to drive when there is a choice to make. I discussed this with friends and family, including my parents, who live in a small village with a population just over 300, almost unchanged since I left more than two decades ago. The village is five miles from the nearest town or any larger village with shops, pharmacy and doctors’ surgery. It is served by an hourly bus during the day, but the stop is on a fast A-road on the periphery of the village, half a mile from their door. A wooden bus shelter is the only sign that a post-bus used to pass through the village itself, although the ‘hopper’ service was discontinued years ago. Due to their mobility needs, active travel is not an option. For them, car-free means isolation.

Of course, the reasons why people drive are more complex than basic needs, and the picture is different across the UK. That’s why the key focus of many decarbonisation efforts in rural areas is, understandably, in supporting the transition to electric vehicles. However, in my parents’ case, their village sometimes struggles with mobile reception, let alone any EV charging infrastructure. That’s why DG Cities work growing electric mobility in rural areas is so vital. One aspect of this is identifying gaps in provision. Working with Field Dynamics, the team developed a data visualisation tool to identify areas which are, for different reasons, not attracting public charge point investment.

The factors influencing uptake are political as well as economic. As our research shows, there is a clear link between a local authority having an EV strategy and rates of EV ownership. Right now, DG Cities and Field Dynamics are looking at places, like my parents’ village, to see how they can support local authorities in developing and implementing their strategy to meet zero-carbon targets. To learn a little more about this, here’s a film we produced to explain our approach.

What next?

Car-free July made us question why we have a car at all - just as when we bought it, its main purpose is to visit family outside London. When it reaches the end of its life, we will look at alternatives, whether that is an electric car or short-term leasing and car club for occasional use. We also considered some new micromobility solutions for the first time, like e-bikes and e-scooters, which like many in DG Cities’ survey, I had always been sceptical of. While the We Are Possible challenge didn’t force us to radically change our habits – and we failed it – it has inspired our son to hold us to account on the journeys we take. And he can be quite persuasive.

Welcome to Leanne, our new Economist!

As has become tradition when we welcome a new member of the team, we invite them to share a few thoughts on our blog. And we have a new Economist! Over to Leanne Kelly to explain her journey here, her unique mix of socio-economic planning and impact evaluation expertise, and the projects she’s getting started with…

Leanne Kelly, Economist

I’m thrilled to have joined the DG Cities team as an Economist, with a behavioural economics slant, and glad to share a few words about my first few weeks.

Firstly, I am so pleased to say what an incredibly warm, open and ideas-driven team it is. It’s clear that collaboration matters, both internally and externally, as testified by the fantastic range of expert, academic, local government and private sector partnerships that DG Cities has developed. Whilst the term ‘dynamic’ is often used, I can genuinely say I am part of a company where no two people have the same career paths or qualifications, but a shared purpose, care and passion for people and improving places sings across the team.

Joining a new organisation gives you a chance to reflect, and to perhaps find a nice overarching narrative that pieces together what has come before and led you to where you are now. My story weaves together my education in economics and local economic development, my early work experience shadowing town centre managers in South West London, and a very enjoyable ten years in infrastructure consultancies, working on a range of multi-disciplinary projects, from needs assessment and business cases for places across the UK to urban economic plans with towns in Kenya. And finally, my part-time return to education to complete a behavioural economics MSc, which was incredibly rewarding.

The headline for me is that I have been so fortunate in my experiences so far, for all I have learnt along the way, and for some brilliant mentors and colleagues. Experiences that I hope help me to consider challenges and solutions for DG Cities’ projects in the broadest sense. Questions like, what makes a place work well for people, and where and why does this differ? What will improve people’s journeys to work, and does this differ for their leisure time? How can we better understand barriers in the uptake of home-based technologies? And, what might be the unintended consequences of accelerating a particular city trend?

“I’m excited to be bringing a quantitative focus to the team. It will help us better understand the challenges of urban innovation, the potential effects of any intervention and, vitally, allow us to openly evaluate impacts – including those that were unexpected. This insight will enable us to explore, in even greater depth, what works, why and where.”

— Leanne Kelly

At DG Cities, I’m excited to bring my experience in socio-economic planning, impact assessment, project appraisal and evaluation to our projects. My work involves drawing together local data and insights to design effective approaches, and to ensure that the impact of interventions can be monitored and refined with a greater openness. I’m keen to draw in the important developments in infrastructure, place and wellbeing evidence and measurement, to help appropriately incorporate behavioural insights, and inform on the socio-economic drivers, uncertainties, inequalities and effects that matter. To bring this knowledge framework to every project, whether we’re talking electric vehicles, digital use cases, high streets or micro-mobility.

In each of my first weeks, I have been fortunate to attend exciting workshops and events where I have met talented and generous folk – and inevitably, made a library of notes! I attended a Wellbeing Valuation workshop led by the What Works Centre, which was framed by both the Green Book – Treasury guidance for officials and analysts who work on business cases and appraisals – and excellent real-world examples. As well as building confidence in robustly considering wellbeing, it brought into focus work from my Masters, where my dissertation looked at travel to work changes through Covid-19 and subjective wellbeing.

I joined DG Cities’ D-Risk deliberative workshop at Imperial College, where members of the public shared their views and ideas for self-driving vehicle safety. It was fascinating to capture participants’ opinion journeys and to hear their stories and hypotheticals. Week three saw me attend the Behavioural Public Policy annual conference hosted by the LSE, with discussions drawing out the future of nudge and inspiring talks on behavioural environmental economics. This emphasised some really useful points for DG Cities’ own projects, including supportive interventions for household energy consumption, and led to fascinating chats with ‘vegan as the default’ snacks in the London sunshine afterwards. And finally, last week, I was at the Smart Mobility Living Lab in Stratford, discussing safety, capacity, sustainability and cost in balancing mobility, where user perceptions and inclusion were central. DG Cities helped to found and has been part of the SMLL community for a number of years, and I was grateful to have had the chance to see what it’s all about.

Joining one of the D-Risk deliberative workshops discussing autonomous vehicle safety

Looking ahead for my role here, I’ve been reflecting on the intersecting challenges ahead. I’m proud to be part of a team with such a strong legacy of understanding where communities and individuals are on emerging issues, and prioritising their needs, views and agency in change-making.

We are working on purposeful projects, which can make a difference to people’s qualify of life and their environments. For example, we are looking at what helps a neighbourhood to thrive and how we can use data from the ground to build interventions with residents. We are looking at the critical energy nexus of consumption-cost-sustainability, both at the hyper-local level to support residents, and with partners to test the feasibility of heat pump deployment. Plus, we are continuing to ask our research community about these pressing issues and future trends, which will certainly be a discussion for a future blog. I am excited about this next chapter and our projects, and look forward to making new connections and sharing more on these topics.

How to make self-driving cars safe: three takeaways from our recent workshops

Over the last couple of weeks, the D-Risk team has been running public workshops across the country to get a better understanding of how people feel about safety when it comes to self-driving cars. Here, Head of Research and Service Design, Ed Houghton and Project Manager, Nitika Raja share some of the initial findings, and explain the value of deliberative methods and local perspectives when it comes to drawing out valuable new insights…

Nitika Raja and Ed Houghton lead a session at Imperial College London

Road safety is an issue that affects us all. Whether you’re a keen cyclist, driver or prefer to get about by foot, we all get around our towns and cities via roads, which are often busy and have to accommodate many different users trying to get from A to B. For many, particularly the elderly or those with young children, simply using the road can be frightening.

Self-driving cars are often cited as a potential solution to increasing road safety. In theory, self-driving cars are more predictable, less prone to human error, and have the added benefit of being constantly connected to one another and their environment. This means that travel in busy city centres could be more coordinated and efficient. But whilst there is a lot of potential, they are very much still in testing - and that means we have limited knowledge of what a safe self-driving future might look like.

Sketches exploring the idea of autonomous vehicles

We decided to open up the discussion to the public to understand a bit more about the potential of self-driving cars to make our roads safer. As part of our work on D-Risk we’ve been running a national survey, and several workshops across the country to explore in detail people’s attitudes to and perceptions of self-driving technology. We wanted to make the experience as interesting, informative and open as possible, so we made use of a deliberative methodology, which is ideal for this type of work, as it aims to build consensus on a particularly sticky topic. The idea of deliberation is all about sharing, listening and learning by making use of data, evidence and expert opinion. We invited self-driving safety topic experts to speak and led a facilitated discussion afterwards, introduced the concept through comparisons to existing automated technology – such as in aeroplanes, lifts and escalators – and gave participants the opportunity to be creative and design their own vehicle. 

We ran these workshops in Southampton, Nottingham and London with members of the public. The discussions illustrated why it’s so vital to get out there to listen and understand local differences. For example, we asked participants to reflect on the modes of transport they typically use and how safe they feel. Something that stood out from this exercise was the extent to which the surrounding environment impacts people’s responses. The workshops were in places with very different infrastructure and transport links. Southampton participants predominantly used cars and bikes, and spoke about the challenges of travelling on the city’s narrow roads. Meanwhile, London participants spoke at length about public transport and many mentioned how they avoid driving in the city whenever they can help it. It was interesting to see how these experiences then shaped participants’ views on self-driving technology. Other factors, such as age and background, also played an important role in people’s perceptions. We were fortunate to speak to a broad demographic who were enthusiastic, engaged and readily shared their views. 

Here’s what they thought:

• Road safety is a big challenge - and one which tech could improve

  Again and again, perceptions of worsening road safety came up in our workshops. Changing road layout, increasing use of e-scooters, and drunk driving were all cited by participants. Many feel confident driving, but are worried about the behaviour of others. However, many of those we spoke to could see the value of technology like automated braking systems, automated lane-keeping systems and some (but not all) wanted to see more done to make tech that can help improve driving safety more widely available.

• Self-driving cars are a long-way off, but the safety case is compelling

  When we introduced self-driving cars as a way to reduce human error, many of our participants were keen to learn more. For those with mobility issues, self-driving cars presented a good option - others were less convinced. We also talked a lot about the kind of features that the public might expect in self-driving cars. Access to video data from cameras, location data, and voice controls were all of interest to participants. 

• Safety and trust go hand-in-hand

  We also introduced the concept of a shared self-driving car, which is operated by a service provider. This was of particular interest to the group, and highlighted the financial and environmental value of no longer owning and running a vehicle. But there were concerns over how personal data and self-driving systems could be managed to make sure individuals feel secure and safe. Many highlighted significant mistrust in “big business”, and also noted that at present trust in the government is low. However, the option of an independent body to oversee the testing and day-to-day operation of self-driving service companies was of real interest to many who participated.

In our survey, we have been noticing some interesting trends, such as the language people use to describe the technology. We asked respondents to share three words that come to mind when they hear the phrase ‘self-driving’ and their language expresses the clear divide in opinion: the words ‘safe’ ‘control’, ‘unnecessary’ and ‘dangerous’ all appear frequently. When we asked the same question in our deliberative workshops, we heard an equally broad range of responses. Issues with the overhead projector reminded us that technology can let us down at the best of times – one participant had this in mind when they wrote ‘unreliable’. Other participants were more trusting in self-driving technology and shared words like ‘optimistic’, ‘enabling’ and ‘convenient’. 

Overall, the workshops were a great success. Participants shared positive feedback and we collected some fascinating insights into how people perceive self-driving technology. Over the coming weeks we’ll be exploring the data in more detail and pulling out key findings for a new report as part of the D-Risk project. Whilst there are many findings still to discover, one thing is clear - the public is keen to play a role in deciding if and how self-driving technology features in their towns and cities.

In the meantime, if you would like to get involved, our survey is still open for you to share your thoughts on self-driving vehicle safety.

DG Cities data insights: what influences electric vehicle uptake?

We gather some interesting data here at DG Cities. For this short blog, we thought it would be useful to share insights from our research into the factors influencing electric vehicle take-up across the UK. Here, our Head of Delivery, Balazs Csuvar explains some of the numbers and the value of a local authority’s EV strategy in supporting the transition…

While the sector is growing rapidly, overall take up of electric vehicles in the UK is still quite low. In this blog, we wanted to explore where EVs have been picked up, the factors influencing uptake and how quickly they will become the dominant vehicle type across the UK.

Of all registered vehicles in the UK today, ~1.9% are electric or plug-in hybrid. These ~750,000 vehicles are not equally distributed across the country, with the majority of local authorities having less than 1% EVs. By comparison, in Norway, 16.9% of all vehicles are electric (23% including plug-in hybrids). 

Early EV adoption has tended to occur in wealthier areas. Disposable household income is an important factor in defining where electric vehicles have been purchased - data shows a clear correlation between GDHI (gross disposable household income) and EV uptake, as seen in the chart below.

Income, however, is not the only factor. Available EV charging infrastructure also plays a huge role in supporting the transition, with a clear correlation between EV uptake and available charging points per person. The availability of infrastructure helps to build confidence. The data and our experience shows that local authorities can get ahead and help people make the switch to EVs by creating a reliable and accessible charging infrastructure for their residents, visitors and businesses.

This chart below illustrates whether or not councils have an EV strategy. It’s not surprising to see that the majority of local authorities with a large number of charging points do have a strategy, either at a county or local level. As the data shows, developing a strategy to support the transition is possibly the best way to kickstart any council activities in this field.

How can we expect this number to change over time?

The number of vehicles registered in the UK annually is approximately 2 million post-pandemic, and close to or over 3 million pre-pandemic. The number of new registered vehicles was 2.2 million in 2021, so for this analysis we will assume that this volume will remain constant over the coming years. The total number of vehicles in the UK was 39.5 million, so we can also assume this will remain relatively constant over the coming decade, as it has been for the last five years, assuming that older vehicles remain as second hand vehicles, and every year the same number of vehicles come off the road as are added.

In 2021, 5% of all newly registered vehicles were plug-in hybrids and 10% were electric. This number is slowly but steadily increasing. In May 2022, for instance, electric vehicles were 12.4% and plug-ins 5.9%. We can project a relatively steady increase of this ratio before reaching 100% by 2030. There will still be non-EVs registered after 2030 as HGVs, for example, will not yet be electric, but in comparison to the total number of vehicles, we can use this as a good enough approximation.

These projections still mean that we need to wait until 2034/35 for over half of all UK vehicles to be electric. But there is cause for cautious optimism - we shouldn’t let the scale of the challenge deter efforts to develop and implement the strategies we need. This timeline suggests that there is sufficient time and need to develop strategies to support EV infrastructure deployment, consider future rollout of technologies within the sector and the changing role a local authority will play over the coming years. 

If you would like to know more about how we help local authorities, developers and other clients define, implement and evaluate their strategies for EV infrastructure, get in touch!

We have moved!

But not too far – just around the corner. We have packed up our boxes, laptops and three (almost) dead plants and relocated to Bureau, a coworking space in North Greenwich’s Design District.

Bureau, Design District by HNNA

DG Cities has been based on the Greenwich Peninsula since 2015, when we were founded by the Royal Borough of Greenwich as an independent consultancy. Our first home was in Mitre Passage, just south of The O2, in one of the early office developments by the river. From there, we have moved around a little as the team has grown and our needs have evolved. We have witnessed the area’s transformation. We watched (and heard!) the Design District being built outside our window, before moving into one of its early buildings, the Institute for Creativity and Technology. Even though some of the final phases are still under construction, the district has already established itself as a unique place, with a great community of creatives, researchers, businesses, students and visitors. It’s testament to this energy that the new workspaces have gone from zero to more than 75% occupancy in a relatively short space of time.

We have also played a part in the Peninsula’s role as a place for experimentation. Just along the river to the west is Morden Wharf, a new neighbourhood of homes, offices, leisure spaces and a waterfront park currently under construction. In 2019, its developers, U + I commissioned us to future-cast the lifestyle and technological changes that were likely to impact on its development, with a particular focus on mobility. Since then, as an outcome of our work on Endeavour, the UK’s first public self-driving car trial, we created the Mobility Assessment Framework. This tool gives local authorities and developers an auditable evidence base to plan ahead for transport and mobility needs, decades from a project’s inception. In 2018, we were also involved in the design and implementation of a future mobility hub for BP close to The O2 – the first of its kind in the UK, it combined EV charging with ‘last mile’ transport options and useful local services.

Bureau

Bureau is designed to support new ways of working and promote collaboration, within and between companies. The distinctive white-rippled building is designed by HNNA with interiors by Roz Barr Architects. The two come together in a very clever workplace, which offers a variety of spaces – and recognises that a meeting room doesn’t have to be a 12-seat windowless box. It can be a padded, soundproof nook for a video call, a terraced lounge, a kitchen bench, a red salon or a studio. Or it can be a 12-person box when you need it, but with a window, integrated technology and a great rug. Right now, this approach suits our flexible, hybrid team. On any given day, you might find some of us on site doing research for a project, speaking at an industry event, working from home or in the test lab of a consortium partner. But for those that do want to come in, there’s a great studio space, which is ideal for collaboration, but also a good place to concentrate on a piece of work.

So far, the team has given the lunches top marks and everyone has appreciated the dog-friendly policy. Thank you to the Bureau team who have made us feel very welcome (and helped us get in and out while we get the hang of the doors). We’re looking forward to getting to know some of our new neighbours soon. In honour of the move, here’s a short film we just made to introduce what we do, how we do it and, when it comes to introducing new technologies, systems or services, why we think our people-first approach is important.

Our new address: Studio 11, Bureau, 13 Soames Walk, London SE10 0AX

A bit late, but hello DG Cities!

When someone joins the team, it’s become traditional for them to write a welcome blog explaining their background and the projects they are looking forward to starting. In October last year, I began working part-time with DG Cities on their communications – seven months on, I have found a moment to post something. It’s been a busy time, learning about electric bin lorries, behaviour change interventions, dark fibre, EV charging in the countryside, how driverless cars make sense of rare events, like fighting squirrels and Scotch mist, IoT, and more practically, finding the best cycle route to the Design District in Greenwich… Sarah Simpkin

Early morning cycle through the Royal Naval College, Greenwich

My background is in art and then architecture. I managed written communications for architects, Foster + Partners for almost eight years and still freelance for other design studios and publishers. My experience has often been in explaining the concept end of large-scale urban visions, the design of the buildings and public spaces, whether it’s a proposal for a new cultural district or estuary airport. What interested me about DG Cities was coming to the same subject from a different perspective – people. While architecture is a response to people’s needs, it seemed radical to prioritise asking people what those needs might be. But that is the essence of what the company does; exploring innovations critically, finding their value, gauging public perceptions and developing a strategy for use.

Everything is framed by the challenges of decarbonisation, social equity and inclusion. It’s been interesting to see the reality of implementing the detail of overarching government policy in the messy complexity of cities, tiny villages, existing housing stock, transport and energy networks, and diverse public opinion. But the team never seems daunted by difficult things. They work very collaboratively and bring a mix of private and public sector experience in different fields, like local government leadership, planning, economics, behavioural science and engineering.

“They find creative solutions to do more with less, to extract the greatest possible value from the smallest investment, squeezing every drop of efficiency from existing systems and making places work better for people.”

— Sarah Simpkin

When I first joined, with no public sector experience, there was an occasional language barrier: I wasn’t fluent in acronyms, purdah, consortium partners or the various panels and boards. I’m still not sure I am. But I appreciate their skill in understanding the nitty gritty of how government agencies and local authorities work – it’s something DG Cities brings to their own projects, but I have also seen how they act as the glue between private and public bodies. And not so unlike good architects, they find creative solutions to do more with less, to extract the greatest possible value from the smallest investment, squeezing every drop of efficiency from existing systems and making places work better for people. It is an embedded approach, a way of thinking, which comes through in every strategy or piece of work.

Another change has been the shift in my focus. While I have always tended to take responsibility for writing, at DG Cities, I have been able to share the load; I took over from a talented writer and inherited an impressive bunch of colleagues, happy to quickly compose an engaging comment on the latest heat pump policy or expectations of COP26. This has given me freedom to explore different ways of communicating what we do, in new formats. Keep an eye out for our next feature film, where Kim faces off the challenge of finding space for EV chargers in a small market town.

I’ve been tempted to recommend DG Cities to some of my architecture clients. “Do you have any real evidence from local engagement to back up that approach?” “Did you know there’s a tool to factor in the transport modes people in that development might need a few decades down the line?” It has helped me develop a more nuanced understanding of the different influences that shape the built environment. And it’s keeping me fit – I enjoy Mondays in Greenwich, the cycle there along the C10, past the Royal Naval College and up to the peninsula and a croissant in SelgasCano’s wonderful yellow canteen.

There is so much collective knowledge and experience within the team, these blogs are a great way to regularly share insights from our projects and life at DG Cities, so if there are any topics you’d like to know more about, or ‘ask our experts’ queries, get in touch!