We have really enjoyed shining a spotlight on behavioural science at DG Cities this month, and showcasing some of the potential benefits of a technology + behaviour change approach when it comes to improving people’s lives. Here’s a quick recap of some of our highlights.

We began October with a look at the fundamentals of a behaviour change intervention, starting by understanding cognitive bias and where the opportunities to challenge different steps in our decision-making processes might lie. This raised the important question of ethics, which Isobel Madle discussed in her blog. She highlighted the value of working in close collaboration with the people a project is intended to benefit: ensuring that any programme is done ‘with’ and not ‘to’ communities, and balancing research from a literature review, which may not relate to the issues and attitudes of a particular group, with direct experience.

In week two, Ed Houghton introduced the DG Cities team and approach, and shared five ways that local authorities can make the most of technology + behaviour change programmes. We drew on our fly-tipping project in Greenwich as a case study for a holistic IoT tech and behaviour change initiative. Throughout the month, we have also been sharing projects and case studies that we like: 2-minute litter picks on Norfolk beaches, using AI to support safer school streets, a film of one man’s attempts to outsmart his smart health device, examples of watching eyes imagery to deter theft, vandalism or fly-tipping and pictures of babies designed to encourage more caring behaviour.

In week three, we were delighted to have two very special guest pieces: an interview with leading behavioural scientist and developer of Nudge+ theory, Sanchayan Banerjee, and a blog by Sam Nutt of the London Office of Technology and Innovation on some of the great work London councils are doing to include residents in the decision-making process for even the most technical data policy. We explored some of the opportunities to positively influence travel behaviours, and for this, our economist, Leanne Kelly explained some of the circumstances that can be conducive to encouraging change. On the theme of mobility, we drew on the insight we gained through our extensive public engagement around attitudes to autonomous vehicles to highlight our recommendation for behavioural change intervention to address the significant percentage that are not against self-driving cars, but are yet to be persuaded.

Finally, last week, Leanne looked at how to make change stick. We revisited a piece by Sarah Simpkin, who did the car-free challenge back in July, to see what the longer-term impact of that month had been. And as we got closer to Halloween, we peered into what can happen when nudge goes wrong. For this, Isobel explained the need to guard against phenomena like ‘spillover effect’, where people can feel that, because they’ve done something ‘good’, they can then do something ‘bad’ to compensate, which ultimately results in zero behavioural impact. A cautionary tale, which reinforces the value of our people-centred approach.

Thanks to our fantastic collaborators, our behaviour change team at DG Cities and you, for joining us. If you’re interested in any of the themes or projects we’ve raised, we’d love you to get in touch. And keep an eye on our Twitter and LinkedIn pages for more insights into our work this autumn, as we look at electrification, autonomous vehicles and carbon audits.