Citizen Engagement and Co-creation SHIFFT WP2 Fionnguala Sherry-Brennan Thomas Hoppe Anatol Itten
Citizen Engagement and Co-creation
SHIFFT WP2
Fionnguala Sherry-Brennan
Thomas Hoppe
Anatol Itten
Why co-creation with sustainable heating?
• Heating is a fundamental aspect of the human
need for shelter in temperate climates
•The sustainable heating transition is complex and
involves disruptive change
• Co-creation provides space for citizens,
politicians, and stakeholders to manage change
• Co-creation offers the potential for unravelling
supply and demand challenges of sustainable heat
Challenges for sustainable heating
• Variable heat demand in buildings
• Climate, building fabric, occupancy, behaviour
• Wider issues
• Health, comfort, cost, convenience, hospitality
• Compared to gas, new heating technologies are
perceived to have no, or limited, additional
benefits
• High up-front costs, complex and fragmented
heat markets, considerable path dependencies
Why co-creation?
• Residents and homeowners can be difficult to reach
• Limited reach of government policies in homes
• Research on the active involvement of citizens and
stakeholders in the work of governments has
become widespread
• Better understanding of what heating means to
communities and stakeholders
Definitions of co-creation
•Co-creation has evolved as the goal to include
citizens in decision-making has increased
•Different terms are used to express different
concepts which vary on the role of citizens and
organisations
•Co-creation is citizens and professionals sharing
power and responsibility to work together in
equal, reciprocal, and caring relationships
•Based on trust; not about persuasion
Defining the vocabulary
Citizens in co-creation
•In co-creation citizens take over tasks
traditionally delegated to organisations
•Citizens are considered as a valuable
and critical partners in projects
•Working together means:
• focusing on outcomes
• exploring how sharing power and
responsibility can help technology
development
Understanding context
•Co-creation acknowledges the connection between society, technology and culture
•Provides a means of exploring shared responsibilities for change
•Aim to understand the priorities of those involved which means a greater focus on topics needing attention, and increasing the likelihood of solutions being adopted
Risks in co-creation
1. The Expectations Gap
• Different agendas and definitions inform expectations. These need to be discussed openly.
2. Power
• Power is shifted in terms of resources and/or knowledge.
• Unequal shifts in power risks disempowering citizens and stakeholders
3. Values
• What do different groups value?
Limits in co-creation
•Validity – weighing perspectives.
• What do we mean when we say that a fact or opinion is valid?
• Multiple and different perspectives arise through co-creation
• Role of stakeholders is to stay objective
•Pragmatism – what’s practical?
• Organisations have limited capacity for co-creation
• What is ‘good enough’ to be acceptable?
• What compromises have to be made?
Co-creation guidelines
•Level of application: Individual, collective, shared solutions; project, policy
•Process: Joint fact-finding, co-initiating, co-designing, management
•Community: Exploring co-benefits, community building, responsibilities
•Methods: Storytelling, customer journeys, online tools, visualisations
•Evaluation: Impact, embedding
Sustainable heating technologiesTechnology Level and site/location Actors Implications
Heat pumps
Solar thermal
Geothermal
Biogas, biomass
Insulation
Individual (home and building
owners)
Co-designing customer journeys
Private homeowners
Local businesses
Electricians
Local media
• Increasing trust in novel
technical solutions
• Voluntary installation may
complement, not replace,
existing system → sub-
optimal system
Shared storage
Electric or pump solutions
Shared (owners and tenants)
Co-writing feasibility studies
Investors
Developers
Housing contractors
• Complex model of actors
and aligning interests
District heating networks Collective (urban, city,
neighbourhood)
Co-initiating thematic workshops
Energy utilities
Local politicians
Distribution system
operator
• Freedom of choice
reduced if there is a
mandatory connection
requirement
Monitoring and evaluation
•Co-creation is not a one-size-fits-all approach. An iterative approach is needed
•Monitoring and evaluation are ongoing aspects of co-creation
•Some or all of the parties involved participate in designing, doing, and interpreting evaluation
◦ Interviews with stakeholders to find out how they feel about the process and their involvement
◦ High-level snapshot of what’s happening and compare it to objectives
Evaluating co-creatively
Asking questions in three areas:
1. Experience• How are participants liking the overall
experience?
2. Motivation• What motivates people to participate?
3. Suggestions for improvement• What kinds of improvements would they
prefer if they were to participate again?
• Was the setting ok or would something else be preferable?
In conclusion …
• Integrating visions and promoting equity between citizens and authorities means co-creation must start early in projects
• A just distribution of co-benefits is required
• Creates opportunities for stakeholders to build trust with citizens, letting them define what is important to them
• Effective co-creation must strike a balance between enabling heat transitions and minimisingany negative side-effects