Considering people, not just properties: when it comes to decarbonisation, what makes a home 'hard to treat'?

DG Cities and the Bartlett School of Architecture, UCL have teamed up on a government study to investigate hard to decarbonise housing. An estimated 10 million homes Britain are difficult to insulate or improve by conventional means. The project, commissioned by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), aims to identify these homes, define what makes a home ‘hard to treat’ or ‘hard to decarbonise’ (in the context of energy efficiency and low carbon heating), develop a practical framework to help inform policy and guidance to tackle challenging properties. Head of Research, Ed Houghton explains more…

Stretching targets but limited progress

The UK government is committed to achieving net zero carbon by 2050. To reach this target, significant sectors of the UK’s economy must undergo a considerable transformation. One major sector is the built environment. Data by the UK’s Climate Change Committee highlights that heat in buildings accounts for 468 MtCO2e or 37% of UK annual greenhouse gas emissions. If this is reduced it could deliver considerable progress towards the government’s net zero objectives. 

The challenge however isn’t a simple one – the complexity of the UK’s built environment, the diversity of housing stock and types, regional variation and history of many buildings means that ‘treatment’ for reducing emissions is not a quick fix. For the most difficult – termed “hard-to-treat” - the issues are complex, so it is important to be intentional and evidence-based in any approach to their improvement. 

What exactly is a ‘hard to treat’ or ‘hard to decarbonise’ home?

Definition matters, and this is part of the challenge we’re exploring in this work. A common industry definition describes hard-to-treat homes and properties as those which are difficult to make energy efficient through conventional improvements, such as cavity insulation, loft insulation or low-carbon heating solutions, like heat pumps. Very hard-to-treat are often rural, heritage, and off the gas grid. Estimates put the number of hard-to-treat homes in the UK at around 10 million.

But we’re also interested in understanding whether it is more useful to describe these homes as ‘hard to decarbonise’. Given targets are specifically focused on decarbonisation, academia and international policymakers are increasingly adopting this term. The terminology is broader, and reflects on the need to tackle these properties for the purposes of achieving legally binding targets. Others working in the space, perhaps focused on fuel poverty, may use a different phrase entirely, such as 'hard to heat'. Semantics, in this case, are important to consider: treatment doesn’t necessarily suggest long-term improvement, whereas approaches to decarbonisation are often sustainable and deliver impact over time.

Decarbonisation and fuel poverty

Tackling hard-to-treat homes will not only support progress towards the Government’s net-zero goals. There are also real economic, social and health benefits to improving the quality of the most difficult to improve housing stock – particularly given the ongoing cost-of-living crisis affecting people across the country. Many in hard-to-treat homes are struggling to make ends meet, with a much larger proportion than ever before entering fuel poverty.

For example, properties with uninsulated solid walls had the highest rate of fuel poverty (22.5% of households), compared to 8.0% of those with insulated solid walls.* A similar trend follows for households with uninsulated cavity walls compared to insulated cavity walls (15.0% vs 8.3%). Unsurprisingly older homes are more frequently hard-to-treat, and their residents are more likely to be in fuel poverty: 21.7% of households living in pre 1919 homes were in fuel poverty in 2020, compared to 10% of those built between 1965 and 1985; and less than 5% of those built after 2002. Therefore, tackling hard-to-treat homes, particularly among older and heritage properties, could also alleviate the issues presented by fuel poverty. 

Seeking best practice

The diversity of housing stock in the UK means there is no one-size fits all solution. This is why, through this work, we’re not only building a set of key terms and definitions that describe problems and solutions, we’re also constructing a practical framework to help decision-making in industry and across policy, with guidance for tackling challenging properties.

The efficacy of treatment approaches will of course differ considerably, by context, materials, housing archetype, resident behaviour. We know therefore that we must capture and shed a light on the effectiveness of holistic solutions, and provide depth and detail to support those exploring treatment options through the framework. We’re also keen to highlight what works, and draw on real-life examples from across industry to assess not only the challenges that hard-to-treat properties present, but the practical interventions that have been proven to work. 

Over the coming weeks and months, DG Cities and UCL Bartlett School of Architecture are undertaking research to better define and map ways forward for hard-to-treat homes. We’ll be speaking to leaders across the housing and energy industries, academia and third sector to collect insights and build case studies. We want to draw out examples from across Great Britain – and are keen to chat to as many organisations and individuals as possible about the challenge, and opportunity, we all face in improving the quality of our homes.

To find out more, and to take part, visit: https://www.dgcities.com/hard-to-treat-homes

---

Data: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/annual-fuel-poverty-statistics-report-2022

What makes a self-driving vehicle feel safe? Understanding the nuances of attitudes to AI on the road

In a world where self-driven vehicles share the roads with vehicles driven by people, how do we define what is ‘safe’? And is it likely to be so different from the way we currently travel on the UK’s roads, one of the riskiest activities many of us do on a daily basis? DG Cities has been investigating the meaning of safety in the AI-driven future as part of project D-RISK. Head of Research, Ed Houghton shares some of our latest findings and analysis.

Photo: Dan Gold/Unsplash

Often the topic of science-fiction, self-driving has come a long way in a relatively short period. Many of the technologies we are using in cars today have some level of automation, such as automated braking systems, and forthcoming automated lane keeping systems (ALKS), both of which make some use of self-driving tech. But how can we know if these technologies are safe? And is it useful to compare their statistics with human driven vehicles? After all, not everyone on the road is safe.

This question of what constitutes safe is important. In order to advance safe self-driving vehicle technology, we need to develop a deeper understanding of how we define, measure, and experience safety on the roads. How we perceive safety will differ significantly from person to person. For example, an elderly person crossing a busy pelican crossing may feel it is unsafe, whilst a young-adult on an e-scooter may feel overly safe. Drivers also experience safety differently, as do their passengers, therefore it’s important we consider the individual nuances of what safety can mean.

D-Risk is a recently completed £3m programme led by drisk.ai alongside DG Cities, Claytex and Imperial College London – as a collective, we have been working towards building a driving test for self-driving technologies. We believe this is a vital piece of the puzzle towards building safer urban environments. But to do this, we needed to go back to basics to redefine what we mean by safe self-driving vehicles – and we did this by surveying the public.

We surveyed 651 members of the public, and ran six workshops across the UK to explore public attitudes to autonomous vehicle safety.

One major factor that influences our perception of safety is the environment we’re in, especially if it is unfamiliar. We asked survey respondents to describe their willingness to ride in a self-driving car in urban environment, compared to a rural one, at different times of day. We found that less than a fifth (17.6%) believe travelling in a self-driving vehicle in an urban environment, or in a rural environment (15.5%), at night would be safe. Daytime travel was rated slightly safer (urban: 24.7%, rural: 22.1%).

We also investigated views on new partial autonomy systems that take over specific tasks from the driver. Our data showed that ALKS (Automated Lane Keeping Systems) are viewed with some scepticism by the public, with only a quarter (25.2%) looking to use them in the future. Almost three fifths (59.3%) of those we surveyed would not use ALKS technologies if they were made available to them. Less than half (48.7%) do not believe that ALKS will improve road safety, whilst almost a quarter (24.6%) are yet to be convinced. 

As for what builds trust, we looked into assurance processes, such as annual software MOTs and independent software audits. Both were viewed positively by the public: there was broad agreement that the assurance processes outlined to participants would have positive impacts on perceptions of trust. The highest rated impacts were annual software MOTs (49.8% believed this would have a positive impact) and independent software audits (48.4%), illustrating the importance of assurance processes to the public.

Where to next for safe autonomy?

We found great interest in autonomy as a route to safer roads, but many we spoke to still felt there was not enough information or examples available to help overcome their concerns. This, we believe, is a vital step for those looking to deploy self-driving services – and we believe that self-driving tests, like the ones developed through D-RISK, have the potential to radically shift how people view, and trust, AI.

Read our latest report in full.

Is the transition to EVs at risk of stalling? Findings from the latest Research Community Survey

As we launch findings from our Research Community survey on attitudes to electric vehicles, Head of Research, Ed Houghton highlights the importance of understanding people’s barriers if the UK is to meet its carbon reduction targets. What can policymakers and industry do to help drive the transition? Who do our respondents expect to pay for new EV charging infrastructure? Read Ed’s analysis and download the full report below.

Daniel Andraski/Pexels

For the past week, all eyes have been on Sharm El-Sheikh, as world leaders met at COP27 to find a way forward against the urgency of climate change. While the conference looked across many sectors and their challenges, a vital area is transport and mobility - specifically, the transition away from polluting carbon fuels and towards zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs). The trend towards ZEVs and electric vehicles (EVs) has been increasing for several years – and with the ongoing war in Ukraine, the pressure to move away from carbon fuel has only grown.

The big news at COP27 was that the ZEVs are very much on the agenda. Delegates agreed to launch the Accelerating To Zero Coalition, billed as a “platform for leading initiatives to work together to deliver a Paris-aligned Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) transition globally.” This new coalition aims to build on COP26’s Zero Emission Vehicles Declaration, which plans to accelerate the transition to make all new cars and vans zero-emission by 2035 in leading markets, and 2040 globally, in line with Paris Agreement climate goals.

But while these goals are critical, the path to realising them is not clear. And given the current economic and energy climate, there is considerable uncertainty as to how realistic these objectives are, when public attitudes and perceptions towards ZEVs, and EVs in particular, are still limited by concerns that electric isn’t necessarily going to be better than petrol or diesel. This is why at DG Cities, we have been investigating public attitudes to and perceptions of electric vehicles to understand what can be done to accelerate the transition towards zero emissions.

Is the UK public ready for the EV transition?

To reach these, and the UK’s own aspirational targets, there will need to be a significant shift in purchasing behaviour over the coming decade. A shift is now possible, as technology has improved considerably: battery capacity has grown and EV chargers are more effective, easier to use, and offer improved user interfaces. These changes mean that in the UK alone, EV sales have increased 160% over two years and are continuing this upward trend.

The question, however, is whether this trend will be sustainable, particularly in the current climate. This is very much driven by public attitudes and behaviour – how the public views EVs, their interest towards them, and whether they see their value. At DG Cities, we wanted to understand the attitudes and behaviours behind the current trends - and from these, assess what could be done to further drive the transition.

In 2022 we surveyed more than 400 members of the public, in order to take a deeper look at their attitudes towards EVs. Our study showed that:

• One fifth (19%) of respondents are very likely to purchase an EV in the coming 12 months – however 50% are not intending to shift. This group needs support to transition, as it is unlikely that a fifth of vehicle owners transitioning is enough.

• The major barriers to EV adoption are cost, perceived lack of charging infrastructure, and range anxiety. These issues are in line with other studies, which highlight the persistent nature of range anxiety.

• Responsibility for installing chargers is split across different stakeholders, with three-fifths (60%) thinking that it should be the responsibility of energy companies, whilst just over half (54%) think that local authorities should be responsible. Few believed that EV owners should be responsible for installing EV chargers.

Read the full report

What can be done to drive the transition?

Our results highlight that there is still untapped demand for EVs, but many of the well known attitudinal and behavioural barriers to adoption persist. Policymakers and industry must therefore collaborate to look closer at the issues, and better understand the underlying drivers of behaviour. It is clear that policies and approaches have been successful in driving early adoption: the market is growing and more vehicles are entering the market. Nevertheless, it remains to be seen if current approaches will continue to work in their current form with the significant mass of public who are interested, but are not yet ready to take the plunge.

5 ways local authorities can make the most of technology + behaviour change interventions

Behaviour change and technology programmes, conceived holistically, have the potential to improve the lives of residents, create better neighbourhoods and deliver a number of benefits for local authorities. But how do you go from an idea to sustained, positive change? Next in our #nudgemonth series, Ed Houghton draws on our experience designing and implementing this type of project to offer his top five tips.

The breadth and depth of local authorities means they have the potential to deliver transformative change across sectors, from climate to health, wellbeing and education. Not only do local authorities have the mandate and ability to work directly and in partnership with communities, they also have legitimacy and access to the levers to create change – and many are increasingly using technology and behaviour change in combination to deliver on their goals. The potential for impact is beyond compare to most other institutions; the opportunity to create to create lasting, positive change is massive.

In practice, however, tech-related behaviour change is by no means a simple exercise. There are often significant barriers that can prevent these projects from working, or even getting off the ground. Lack of knowledge, lack of resources and lack of management buy-in are all common issues that can stop even the best designed intervention in its tracks. From our experience of the realities of implementing new technologies and behaviour change programmes with a local authority, we have compiled our five key lessons to help ensure a successful outcome:

1. Do your research – not only drawing on literature reviews, but speaking to real people

   There is a tendency for researchers to rely on published studies alone to build their interventions. While this is an important step, for new innovations and behavioural change programmes, it can be severely limiting. Instead, researchers should look to draw on other forms of data, in particular data taken directly from stakeholders and members of the public, to help with their design. We try to speak to the communities we are working with at every stage, but it is particularly important at the start, when a project is being designed.

2.  Plan flexibly and build in timeline and resource slack

   The reality of working with local government means that priorities and plans are often in tension. Unlike ‘lab’ work, which is structured (sometimes artificially so), the reality of local authority life means that plans need flexibility. Ongoing consultation and engagement can help to ensure that timelines are met, but projects should look to build in space for the unexpected – in our public engagement work on self-driving cars, for example, we were able to rapidly switch to virtual rather than in-person trials during the Covid-19 pandemic. Flexibility in methods can help to overcome challenging timelines, and means resources can be drawn on when they’re needed.

3. Make the most of your access to people and communities

   As well as refining the methodology, starting a dialogue with particular communities also provides significant scope for expansion and innovation. For our fly-tipping project, we have spent time meeting people on their doorsteps to test our approaches and come up with new ideas. This access is something that many organisations severely lack. Local authorities, however, benefit from well-established relationships with a range of communities, often through pre-existing networks, who are happy to help. The advantage of developing and drawing on these is in building a more inclusive, appropriate and achievable design.

4. Be pragmatic in your design and approach – don’t get distracted by perfection

   Good design quality is important, whether in selecting the right sample group, designing appropriate interventions, or testing and piloting. Sometimes, however, projects don’t make it out of the studio – they get stuck at the design phase, constantly honed and reviewed as theory while the issue they are intended to address continues. Start to pilot and learn through delivery. In the end, a project must be deliverable, and ultimately must make sure it produces data and results of the quality needed to inform a decision. Many behaviour change projects strive for perfection, when instead pragmatism and a focus on getting things ‘as good as they need to be’ can be more appropriate and useful.

5. Help stakeholders to see value and build their input into the programme at every stage

   ‘Selling’ a behaviour change programme is important at every stage. Local authority teams may be reluctant, cautious, or have little experience of this type of project in their area. Sharing case studies and stories from other projects can help to showcase the art of the possible, and also helps to validate and build your own approach. Stakeholder input should never just be at the start – it should be built in at every stage. This way, the impact of the project can be realised, and a culture of learning and evaluation can be supported to develop.

These are just some of the lessons we’ve learned along the way. We love meeting others interested in behavioural science and behaviour change interventions, and learning about what works in their areas of expertise. If you’re inspired by the above, or have your own lessons to share, get in touch!

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.

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 info@dgcities.com.

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. 

Heat pumps: serious net-zero solution or hot air? Findings from DG Cities’ latest consumer attitudes survey.

As the Queen’s Speech pledges an Energy Security Bill to deliver the transition to cheaper, cleaner energy, our Head of Research, Ed Houghton reveals the findings from our latest DG Cities Research Community Survey into heat pumps. Is the government grant enough to drive take-up?

Today, the Queen’s Speech outlined an Energy Security Bill, which would pave the way for new, low-carbon technologies and grow the consumer market for electric heat pumps. Home energy has never been more at the forefront of the public's collective consciousness. Rising energy prices have propelled the vital, but often overlooked, agenda of reducing home energy consumption from a ‘nice to do’ to a necessity. In the short term, people across the UK are having to cut their energy consumption, improve their home insulation, and shift from well-established heating habits to more planned and considered behaviour. This is no easy task. But the issue of home heating was on the agenda well before this current crisis.

Home heating accounts for 14% of the UK’s carbon emissions. The government’s Heat and Buildings Strategy committed to greening home heating by setting targets to shift the public from largely gas-boiler based heating systems to heat pumps, an existing but underutilised technology with lower carbon emissions. Its aim is to install 600,000 heat pumps per year by 2028, and by 2035 gas boilers will be removed from the market. This marks a monumental shift in consumer purchasing and home heating behaviour.

At DG Cities, we recognise the importance of creating sustainable and liveable communities, and we believe in the potential of new technologies to do this. Heat pumps present significant potential, and as the above highlights, have received major backing from the government. But we know that if heat pumps are to become a real solution, the public must readily adopt them and be able to use them effectively. That is why we’ve looked into public opinion on heat pumps, and have investigated what needs to be done to improve the chances of a successful home heating transition.

This spring, we surveyed 500 members of the public on attitudes to heat pumps. We investigated their views on the technology, how confident and knowledgeable they feel, and their intentions to use them. The findings highlight that a significant challenge lies ahead for those looking to shift the public to heat pumps.

Awareness is moderate, but knowledge is low

Photo: DG Cities. Air source heat pump on the roof of a new energy-efficient house by 31/44 architects in London.

The public is largely in the dark about how heat pumps work, and their potential value: 82% had heard of heat pumps, but almost half (46%) only ‘knew a little’ about them. Almost 1 in 5 (15%) had heard of them but don’t know what they are.

Knowledge is key to driving purchasing behaviour, and for some, a lack of knowledge of whether a heat pump will be appropriate for their home is a major barrier. This was highlighted in our survey by a respondent who noted the challenge of installing heat pumps in different types of homes. Advice and guidance will need to be tailored to meet the needs of all consumers: “…the advice available (should be) bespoke to the type of home people live in… not generic. Some model homes in each neighbourhood would be good.”

Cost is key: and even with a government grant, it is too high for consumers

Although knowledge and awareness is low, data highlights that the biggest barrier to uptake is the perceived high cost of purchase and installation of new heating systems. At £12,000 to £15,000, the average cost of purchase and installation is considered to be too high by over half (53%) of respondents. And although the government is now offering the new Boiler Upgrade Scheme which provides up to £6000, less than half (46%) of respondents knew about the grant and the majority (60%) would not use it.

One respondent highlighted a reason why: the costs of changes that would need to be made to their home are prohibitively high: “It's not just about the cost of the pump & installation. It would require major replumbing and redecoration. Cost for my house would be £30k in all - and lead to less effective heating. I would never recoup the outlay even if I had the money available, even over a 20-year period.”

Will heat pumps hit the mainstream?

Heat pumps are simply not yet the home heating solution of choice for consumers. Whilst home heating purchases are very infrequent, policy-makers must aim to make sure that when consumers look to change their heating, heat pumps are seen as a viable alternative. Unfortunately our data highlights that this may be someway off. And despite the current cost of living crisis, 56% do not see rising gas costs as reasons to switch to a renewable home energy source. And should gas prices continue to rise 46% would still not opt for a heat pump.

We think there are several ways to improve consumer uptake which we hope will feature in this parliament’s Energy Security Bill:

• We think industry and policy makers need to improve the evidence base of public knowledge and attitudes towards heat pumps and other home heating tech so that robust solutions that overcome knowledge and behaviour barriers can be developed.

• Policy-makers should explore how to improve the Boiler Upgrade Scheme, as cost is a major barrier. This should be complemented by other policy interventions that focus on non-financial barriers. 

• It's clear that the current energy crisis isn’t enough to push the public towards net-zero lifestyles. We therefore think policy makers, researchers and industry should build a greater understanding of public willingness and capability to achieve net-zero. 

• And finally, low knowledge is prohibiting engagement with heat pump solutions, partly because consumers don’t have access to good quality information. We must therefore develop and communicate a single, trustworthy and usable source of information to help consumers make informed choices.

We think by doing this we can help to make it more likely that consumers see the potential in heat pumps, and install them in their homes. 

To find out more, check out our new report Heat Pumps: the future of home heating, or all hot air?

Is the public ready for self-driving cars?

As DG Cities publishes analysis from the Project Endeavour self-driving car trials, Head of Research and Service Design, Ed Houghton explores some of the key findings. With safety a key concern, he looks at the role of public engagement in the wider adoption of the technology.

One of the Endeavour fleet of cars on the road in Greenwich, London

Self-driving or autonomous cars are often cited as the next major breakthrough in mobility innovation. As a result, there is increasing political and public interest in trials of the technology and exploring the potential uses of autonomous vehicles (AVs) in our towns and cities. One of the most significant areas of interest is public attitudes – people’s perception of AVs, their hopes and fears. It’s well known that the biggest barrier to adoption and acceptance of any new technology based on AI is low trust and limited knowledge. This is why, as part of the Project Endeavour consortium, a UK government funded initiative to trial autonomous vehicles, we investigated how members of the public feel about self-driving vehicles when they get the chance to experience one for themselves.

Experiencing autonomy first-hand

Through a live trial, we explored what the public thinks of self-driving cars, and crucially, if a journey in one can grow their knowledge and even help them to trust the technology more. In 2021, Project Endeavour ran a major trial in London, which was open to the public and widely publicised. We invited people to ride in the vehicle and experience a journey on the streets of a busy city neighbourhood. Participants were able to sit in a vehicle as it operated in autonomy, while supervised by two trained personnel: a Safety Driver and an Automated Control System Operator (ACSO). Both helped to ensure the ride was safe, and also answered any questions that members of the public might have about the technology and how the car was making decisions.

We ran before and after surveys online to explore how perceptions changed over time, and conducted face-to-face interviews, along with a series of online focus groups with the public. Alongside the trial, we ran a national study of attitudes and perceptions to act as a comparison data set.

Safety is the top priority

Our data showed that the Project Endeavour trials improved perceptions of safety. Our before and after data showed a positive change for participants in their perceptions of safety – before the trial, 68.3% believed self-driving cars are safe, yet this increased to 83.6% afterwards. In our interviews, the words “cautious” and “measured” were often used by participants to describe how the vehicle behaved.  

These findings echoed our national survey, which showed that the safety case for self-driving vehicles has yet to fully convince the public. We found that three in ten (29.9%) believe that self-driving vehicles will be safer than traditional vehicles, while 44.2% disagree. A quarter (25.9%) are undecided, but it is plausible that this group is primed to be convinced through trials, for example, or through education and more information. Safety perceptions differed by age. Older people were less positive about self-driving cars and more concerned about safety.

Does the public trust self-driving vehicles?

Cities and roads are complex, and to operate in them effectively, vehicles will need to be able to make decisions rapidly and without human intervention. Trust is a therefore a critical factor that drives acceptance and adoption. Our study showed that perceptions of trust improved for those who participated in the trial: 71.3% believed that self-driving vehicles were trustworthy before the trial experience, this increased to 87.2% afterwards.

We also developed a virtual reality (VR) experience to reach a wider audience with the experience, which showed participants a 3D video of the Oxford trial. In this realistic virtual environment, participants could ‘sit in a car’ and experience the journey themselves. We then ran a post-experience survey to measure perceptions for those who participated virtually.

VR participants were positive, and whilst it was a cross-sectional “moment-in-time” survey, qualitative data highlighted the benefits of VR, including the flexibility to use it at home. We were also able to target a wider community of participants, including elderly people and those with disabilities.

During the pandemic, the team quickly developed a virtual reality driving experience to continue the trial

What’s next for AV technology?

For cities, there is great potential in autonomous vehicle technology in terms of achieving safety and accessibility benefits, and improving the sustainability of transport networks. Our trials highlight how far the technology has come, but also how much further is left to go. The public has mixed views of the future, many still see these vehicles as a novelty, even though autonomy features increasingly in driving assistance technology, such as ABS (anti-lock brake system) that features in many vehicles on the road today.  

However, Project Endeavour has demonstrated the importance of trials and user research for understanding the public’s perceptions and views. For another of our projects, D-Risk we went out and spoke to members of the public about their ‘edge case’ driving experiences and gained a unique insight into how people feel about self-driving technology in different parts of the country. Both of these exercises demonstrate the value of engagement – in the design of new services and technologies, the public have a vital role to play. Without building trust and understanding, future technologies could suffer as they may not reflect the needs and preferences of their users – ultimately, the public will influence the wider adoption of any innovation. Deep research exploring AVs, with a focus on safety, is also critical as it will play a central role in shifting people’s views and enabling the development of evidence-based policy – and ultimately, encouraging public acceptance of a technology with huge potential. 

Why behaviour change must be front and centre at COP26

In the second of our ‘Countdown to COP26’ series, Head of Research and Service Design, Ed Houghton highlights the importance of behaviour change in delivering on the promises made at COP26…

With COP26 fast approaching, a lot of attention will be on world leaders to make firm commitments on reducing emissions to limit the effects of climate change. And whilst many announcements will centre on the benefits of new technologies, such as electric vehicles on our roads, or heat pumps in our homes, many observers might not recognise that the key component in delivering all of these is public behaviour. Whilst behaviour may be implicit in climate change conversations, to create real action, COP26 must make explicit the important role behaviour change will play in the journey to reducing carbon emissions.

The value of behaviour change interventions in reducing emissions is clear. Work published by the UK’s Climate Change Committee highlights that 62% of the UK’s net-zero goals have a behaviour component. This means that it’s not simply a case of “build it and they will come” – the logic can’t be “install electric vehicle charge points and they’ll be used.” The knowledge, motivations and behaviours of the public also play a critical role. To create lasting change, world leaders will need to support the public to shed old, damaging behaviours, and adopt new, more sustainable ones.

The case for action is increasingly apparent. This summer, record-breaking floods in China’s Shanxi province displaced nearly two million people. Across the Mediterranean, record-breaking summer heatwaves caused numerous wildfires. These events are signalling that climate change is already underway, and these examples will no doubt be part of the conversation at this week’s summit. But too often, these events are seen as separate or disconnected from the day-to-day lives of citizens. This is one challenge that policy makers and civic leaders will need to overcome.

Persuading individuals that their actions can make a difference

Although many Britons now say they are concerned about climate change, many feel powerless to make a difference. This is a huge challenge. To shift public behaviour, we must look at what the public can do, and show them that their actions really can make a difference. This is why the conversations at COP26 must permeate far beyond the “four walls” of Glasgow’s SEC and make clear what actions key institutions, such as local authorities and big business can take.

One important outcome must be that climate change is framed as a long-game, but it consists of short- and medium-term actions – we should focus on future gains over short-term pain. Doing this can be hard: thinking about sustainability as longer-term time horizons can make meaningful action harder to visualise and deliver on.  As the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted, people often live in the immediate, and in crises find it difficult to look further ahead. As the climate crisis unfolds, this will become even more difficult, which is why action is needed today.

For local authorities, their attention will be on what the UK government commits to, and the extent to which their own strategies and priorities can be aligned to meet these targets. As major institutions, local authorities have the insights and access to communities that can make a real difference. They must play a central role in leading their communities towards adopting the best net-zero behaviours.

What this looks like in practice will differ according to the context and people’s needs. For example, the behaviour barriers to improving recycling rates will be different to the barriers to improving uptake of electric vehicles. Another positive outcome of COP26 will be leadership as to where to focus effort and where to invest resources.

Evidence-based behavioural change

Finally, if climate action is to result from COP26, leaders must make use of real evidence showing what works and doesn’t work in tackling climate change through behaviour change interventions. There is a wealth of evidence, including work by the Behavioural Insights Team, that highlights the behavioural nudges that can lead to real world changes – whether they’re nudges to help the uptake of electric vehicles, through to communications campaigns to improve recycling rates. Evidence of what works is out there, and at COP26, leaders should look to highlight what works today as well as make bold and ambitious statements about the future.

It is clear that COP26 comes at a crucial point and will rightly demand the world’s attention. World leaders have a unique opportunity to define collective action for the benefit of the climate – and define what collective responsibility looks like for nations and communities across the world. But to make collective action a reality, leaders must make clear the important role individuals play, and the potential they have to positively influence the way our climate is adapting around us.