Charging ahead: building resilience into EV infrastructure

For the public to make the shift to electric vehicles, people need to feel confident that the charging infrastructure is there to support them - that it is reliable, widely available and secure. Our EV Infrastructure Specialist, Ash Burton looks at some of the factors that make a resilient network.

Despite recent policy setbacks, the UK is at the midst of the electric vehicle transition, with an ever increasing number of electric cars hitting the roads. As this shift gains momentum, one critical aspect is the need for resilience in deploying electric vehicle charging infrastructure across our cities. Incorporating resilience is vital to the success of EV adoption in the UK.

The UK's electric vehicle transition

The transition to electric vehicles promises cleaner air and reduced carbon emissions. The UK government, in alignment with its net-zero emissions commitment by 2050, is promoting the widespread adoption of EVs. However, the recent delay to the ban on new diesel and petrol sales until 2035 has been somewhat disheartening for many, but it is essential that we continue to accelerate the pace of the transition in the years ahead. To support this, an extensive and resilient EV charging network is vital. 

Resilience matters

Resilience, in the context of electric vehicle charging infrastructure, refers to the network’s ability to support users and be consistently dependable. Here are some reasons why resilience is important and how we can apply it:

• Grid capacity: EV charging relies heavily on the power grid. Ensuring that charging stations can operate smartly, or with backup battery power for faster charge points, is vital to maintain charging resilience, especially during peak demand periods. Smart charging is a method of intelligently managing EV charging so it doesn’t overload or destabilise the grid. Smart charging allows network operators to optimise energy flow into EVs. Therefore, they can regulate energy intake according to peaks and lows in energy demand. This means they can provide more reliable services to their customers. To better understand perceptions of smart EV charging, the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) asked DG Cities to conduct a national survey. The study explored how consumers understand electric vehicle smart charging, and also helped provide a useful baseline for new regulations designed to support improvements in the smart charge point market. You can read more about the study here: https://www.dgcities.com/blog/smartcharging

• Cybersecurity: With EV charging becoming more digitally connected, the risk of cyberattacks increases. Resilient systems need robust cybersecurity measures to protect against data breaches and service disruptions. Charge point providers should ensure they are protecting infrastructure with appropriate security measures, whilst conducting regular security audits to ensure that components are secure and up-to-date. ETSI EN 303 645 outlines specification on Cyber Security for a list of applications that includes EV charging points.

• Accessibility and inclusivity: Resilience also means ensuring that EV charging infrastructure is accessible to all residents, including those with disabilities. BSI and Motability are doing some really great work surrounding this and have published an open-access standard for accessible electric vehicle (EV) charging. Inclusivity is essential for equitable EV adoption.

• Equitability: Charging infrastructure should also be deployed equitably, including in what might be deemed as less commercially attractive areas. This is extremely important in providing resilience, as it allows everyone to access charging in similar ways, not creating critical points with unexpected levels of demand. Councils can use their influence to spread EV charge points equitably across their areas.

• Future-proofing: Technology is constantly evolving, especially in the EV infrastructure space. Resilient systems should be scalable and designed to accommodate new technologies and increased demand. When EVCPs are deployed, one must understand how a full portfolio will be managed. A resilient separation of software and hardware layers is key, limiting the number of hardware replacement required whilst still ensuring that the system can be up-to-date and effectively operating over a long period. EVCP infrastructure is set up for 10-15 years, a period during which a lot of change is expected within the market.

• Diverse network: Having multiple charging providers in one city helps to ensure resilience, as if one network is temporarily unavailable, there would always be other charge points available. Unforeseen issues always occur, often at no fault of a provider. Recently, a charge point provider temporarily suffered a UK-wide network outage which unfortunately left customers unable to charge their vehicles using local on-street chargers. This is why it’s important to have a diverse network of charging infrastructure, and why we recommend local authorities procure more than one charging provider, to ensure that residents are never left in a tricky situation. 

‘Networks are bound to fail sometimes – and it’s ok. However, it emphasises the need for local authorities to build resilience into the deployment of infrastructure. This is why we recommend that local authorities encourage multiple providers to deploy infrastructure across an area to avoid a borough-wide blackout, and we are working on a simple way to do this.’

Ash Burton, EV Infrastructure Specialist at DG Cities.

As the UK charges forward with the electric vehicle transition, building resilience into EV charging infrastructure is vital. This ensures that EV charging services remain reliable, accessible, and secure, even in the face of unexpected challenges. By incorporating this approach into the deployment of electric vehicle charging infrastructure, cities across the UK can pave the way for a greener, more sustainable, and resilient future.

Get in touch if you would like to hear more from one of our specialists about how we are helping to build resilience into public charging networks through our strategic planning and consultancy services.

Trial blazers: widening participation in tech pilots

For our latest blog, IoT Project Manager, Sam Grounds is taking a look at the importance of trials and pilots when it comes to ensuring the effectiveness and safety of tech-driven solutions, particularly in the context of social housing. He addresses the greatest obstacle in the execution of IoT trials: effective recruitment, in particular among older adults. We need a thoughtful, personalised approach to recruiting all age groups for trials, if we are to unlock the full potential of IoT technology to improve people’s lives and address broader issues, like energy efficiency and housing standards.

IoT covers a broad spectrum of technological solutions to a wide range of problems, from tackling Bovine Respiratory Disease to scheduling jet repairs at airports across the world. But IoT also serves a less glamourous purpose, enabling access to innovation for individuals to solve problems that are smaller in size on an individual level, but put together, form some of the biggest challenges to the planet and people.

Take, for example, damp and mould across housing stock, or electricity usage of individual appliances in homes. Individually, these are small-scale interventions, but when implemented across a population, these interventions tackle big issues like fuel poverty, energy efficiency, and balancing the demand on energy systems.

As the world becomes increasingly dependent on tech-driven solutions, tech trials and studies are essential to ensure the efficiency and safety of these innovations. Much of DG Cities’ recent work in these spaces has revolved around running trials of this small scale IoT technology with tenants in social housing.

A colleague told me recently that “a project is at its most perfect during the planning phase.”

The planning phase is considered to be the purest phase of a project’s lifecycle, as during this phase the project exists purely in the realm of concepts, ideas and strategies, where outcomes and deliverables are dreamed up and the benefits to participants are never-ending. The planning phase exists before the complexities and challenges of execution start to shape the project, which got me thinking about the barriers I’ve experienced in conducting such trials. One stuck out considerably more than the rest – recruitment.

While the potential benefits delivered to residents are broad, appropriate and effective recruitment proves to be a major barrier to achieving these benefits across a whole group of participants. Returning to the previous quote, a lack of effective recruitment can prevent you from delivering all the benefits that you dreamt up in the planning phase.

One significant challenge researchers and tech companies often face is recruiting older adults into these trials. In my experience, there are thee major barriers to effectively recruiting older adults:

1. Technological Intimidation

2. Perceived Irrelevance

3. Mistrust of Technology

Technological intimidation is a primary barrier to recruiting older adults into tech trials, where many older adults grew up in an era without smartphones and IoT, the idea of agreeing to install such technology in their homes can be intimidating. During many of my conversations with residents, I hear variations on the following; “how do I know if my phone is smart?”, “my daughter is the only one with access to my emails”, “what’s an Android?” - highlighting a clear digital divide between younger and older participants. According to analysis of data by AgeUK (2021), 79% of over-75s cited a lack of IT skills as the major barrier to getting online more.

So what is the solution here? In one of my previous blogs, I discussed the idea of categorising participants according to their level of confidence in using new tech, ranging from tech-savvy to indifferent. These categorisations enable you to design bespoke engagement plans for participants according to their tech personality. For those that are experiencing tech intimidation this might include comprehensive tech training and support, as well as offering user-friendly interfaces and clear instructions during trials. I’ve also found that support delivered over the phone is not always appropriate. Users experiencing intimidation and a lack of digital skills benefit more from in-person demonstrations where they can see first-hand how easy it can be to use apps effectively, and generates greater levels of both interest and confidence.

Perceived irrelevance is another barrier to effectively recruiting older adults into tech trials. There is a disconnect between what new tech can deliver, be it better conditions in homes, higher energy efficiency or money savings, and people’s understandings of how tech can deliver these things. To help try and solve this, it is important to map benefits in the planning phase, and create an engagement plan centred around this.

It’s crucial to strike a balance between highlighting the possible benefits and promising too much. There is nothing worse than promising the world and not delivering. Try to understand who your target demographic are and identify the differences among them, then align your engagement efforts with those interests. For example, if your product has lots of bells and whistles, get your tech-savvy participants excited about them, if your product has an easy to use interface, include that in your messaging to your less digitally confident residents.

To find out how the DG Cities team designs, delivers and evaluates tech trials, and supports synergies between industry and local government, get in touch.

References:

https://www.ageuk.org.uk/latest-press/articles/2021/nearly-two-million-over-75s-in-england-are-still-digitally-excluded--in-a-covid-19-world/

Latest Government steer on self-driving vehicles

This month, the Government published evidence on issues around the potential deployment of self-driving services in the UK. Our Head of Research and Service Design, Ed Houghton, who presented to the Transport Select Committee in March looks at how far we have come in terms of public attitudes – and where we are going next with the DeepSafe consortium.

Self-driving technology has the potential to radically change how we move around our towns and cities. It shows so much potential that the UK Government considers deployments possible by 2025. In August 2022, it stated that it intends to move forward with defining a regulatory, legislative and safety framework to make deployment a reality. Industry is waiting for these developments to enable rapid commercialisation, and as Government looks to define its place on the global stage as an AI safety superpower, it stands to reason those self-driving services – based on AI – should for the basis of this next leap forward.

When we have worked with industry on the development of safe self-driving services, we have seen how UK companies see the potential value of the technology to our neighbourhoods. Our work has always focused on bringing in under-represented public voices into the discussion about the future of our transport system – and our work with industry leaders such as Oxa and DRISK have enabled us to explore, in detail, the opportunities and challenges the public sees when they consider self-driving tech. This has given us a deep understanding of where we think development should move next.

“Societally, we place driving licences, gaining the freedom of driving, as almost a part of our identity... The vehicle becomes part of how we gain freedom. The challenge that industry faces is that you have to disconnect the vehicle, the object, from somebody’s identity.”

— Ed Houghton

One key issue we pick up on is the view that technology-based solutions are too often built without broad engagement. As researchers we know that without effective engagement with diverse audiences, new technology solutions can be severely limited in their utility to the end user. For something as potentially transformational as self-driving technology, we think the risks are too high to deliver technologies to market technologies that have not been extensively validated with the public.

That’s why, when the UK Parliament Transport Select Committee sought evidence on the evolution of safe self-driving services, we were keen to share our insights from our public engagement work. The Committee’s report, recently published, highlights the outcomes of their inquiry, and rightly showcases the challenges and opportunities facing the development of commercial services.

Our research during trials, which have included live public engagement, have shown overwhelmingly that the public considers safety a key priority, but many still lack knowledge of the reality self-driving technology, and what it might mean in practice, on the road:

• 26.8% would feel confident using an AV tomorrow if it were possible to do so. Over half would not (55.1%). The remainder are undecided (18.1%).

• 3 in 10 (29.9%) believe that self-driving vehicles will be safer than traditional vehicles, whilst 44.2% disagree. A quarter (25.9%) are undecided.

But our study showed that demonstrations can make a big difference in reassuring and shifting public opinion.

• 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.

• Trust in self-driving vehicles is low, but a large minority is yet to be persuaded: findings from our national survey show almost a third (32.5%) think self-driving vehicles will be trustworthy, whilst two in five (43.8%) do not. Almost a quarter (23.6%) are undecided.

It’s important that safety and demonstrating trust are key outcomes for future services. If industry is to drive adoption and acceptance, designers must prioritise these factors in their practice. How we can do that en-masse with the wider self-driving ecosystem? That is the topic of our new study with the DeepSafe consortium, which kicked off recently.

Through DeepSafe, we are working with experts at drisk.ai, Claytex, RF Pro, and Imperial College London to test and validate AI responses to hard-to-predict edge case scenarios, and using these to demonstrate the potential of the technology to the public. We believe this process will not only prompt engagement and discussion on the value and potential of the technology, but also surface insights that can help self-driving AI developers ensure the technology they’re developing is human-centred.

We think this will go some way to supporting some of the findings from the UK Parliament Transport Select Committee, as they rightly called for a focus on safety as a priority from government. As the report highlights, “Safety must remain the Government’s overriding priority as self-driving vehicles encounter real-world complexity.” Understanding this complexity, and engaging the public in validating self-driving AI responses to it, is exactly what the deep safe project is looking to do.   

No average thinking: bringing different perspectives into the development of self-driving vehicles

Last week, the DG Cities team was at Cenex, the annual gathering for those working in the CAM (Connected Automated Mobility) industry. For our Behavioural Scientist, Emily King, this year was her first time at the event – we asked her to write a little bit about her impressions of the self-driving vehicle sector, and how it relates to our latest project, DeepSafe…

Last week, I attended the annual Cenex-LCV conference, a two-day event hosted at the Millbrook testing ground near Milton Keynes and attended by a wide range of organisations driving forward innovation in transport, from electric vehicles to automated mobility. There was plenty to engage with, from virtual reality simulations and driving games to vehicle test-drives, and a range of talks on offer from key stakeholders in the sector.

As DG Cities, along with a consortium of partners, embarks on the DeepSafe project, which aims to increase the safety of connected autonomous vehicles (CAVs), my main aim for the event was to learn more about current issues in CAVs safety and public engagement.

An important component of ensuring CAVs are as safe as they can be is encouraging diversity in the perspectives that are considered when developing them. Cenex was a microcosm of the autonomous vehicles world, and the largely white, middle class, male attendees indicated that the sector may be limiting itself in its thinking about safety through a lack of diversity.

Safety in the automotive sector has historically centred on the needs of “the average man”. For example, until 2015, safety tests such as the seatbelt test were performed on 50th-percentile male crash test dummies, leaving dangerous data gaps on the impact of crashes on those with female anatomy. Further, findings from a 2021 study that analysed ten years of personal injury collision data from Great Britain show that pedestrians of non-white ethnicity and individuals living in deprived areas are more likely to be injured in a collision on the roads.

So, the crucial question is: how can the CAV sector prevent similar biases in safety processes for autonomous vehicles? The answer seems to lie in involving a wide range of potential users throughout the development of these vehicles.

There are different needs and experiences to be considered for different groups of transport users. Existing research suggests that safety perceptions can differ based on factors such as gender, for example – recent CCAV trials demonstrated that women tended to have higher ‘focus’ and ‘stress’ levels initially when trialling self-driving vehicles compared to men.

It is particularly important to consider the needs of those expected to benefit most from CAV technologies, for example people with reduced mobility who may currently have limited transport options available to them, as well as those from marginalised groups who are regularly overlooked in service design and who currently face significant barriers accessing transit.

As well as seeking diversity in user perspectives, it’s also vital to encourage a more diverse workforce in the sector – this is crucial amongst those making key decisions on the future of CAVs. Women are currently under-represented within the automotive sector, at all levels (Automotive Council UK, 2022), as well as more widely in the STEM industries (Engineering UK, 2022). Showcasing a diverse set of applications for careers in the CAV sector, including their relevance to topics like climate change, a more equitable society, and safety could be crucial in inspiring those from outside the sector to explore this as a career option.

As the CAV industry undergoes significant transformation, ensuring safety for all requires us to welcome a broader range of perspectives. By involving a more diverse group of users and professionals, we can create a safer and more inclusive future for autonomous vehicles.

Global warming, local action: best practice in neighbourhood decarbonisation

Tackling the causes of climate change requires decisive action and political leadership at a global scale, but it also relies on collective change by individuals, supported by local initiatives. Last year, DG Cities worked on a project with the Local Government Association to understand the range of neighbourhood approaches to decarbonisation. Head of Research and Service Design, Ed Houghton revisits some of the case studies.

Three-quarters of the way through 2023, its clear that this has been a record-breaking year for the climate, for all the wrong reasons. July was the hottest month on record: temperatures in China hit a high of 52.2 °C, while in the US, the city of Phoenix experienced an astonishing 31 days of temperatures at or above 43.3°C, smashing the 18-day record set in 1974. In the southern hemisphere, where winter replenishes vital Antarctic Sea ice, this June saw ice cover 4.5 million square miles of ocean around the continent, nearly a million square miles less than the average from over 40 years of observations. In Greece, Canada and China, some of the worst wildfires in living memory have ravaged communities, displacing people and damaging local diversity and wildlife.

While the UK escaped record-breaking heat, this June was still the hottest in the country since records began. And in the UK, like much of the globe, climate change isn’t only increasing the likelihood of extreme heat events – this July was also one of the wettest on record. The unpredictability of weather and climate is set to continue. Its is therefore critical that we not only limit harmful emissions, but also start to build resilience in our infrastructure and communities to adapt to our changing climate.

How does this start at a local level?

Adapting to tackle climate change, and supporting communities in learning and developing new approaches, is one strategy to mitigate its future impacts. Towards the end of last year, DG Cities worked with the Local Government Association (LGA) to undertake a deep dive into local decarbonisation strategies to understand how approaches are being designed and delivered across key themes. These included housing and energy decarbonisation, transport, and service delivery. We wanted to understand some of the best practices of leaders in the field, as well as to draw out some key lessons to help ensure others across the network can build and develop their own successful projects in the future.

We cast our net wide to explore approaches from across the UK, looking at rural and urban communities, making sure we drew from a range of projects that reflect the diversity of approaches and challenges local authorities are experiencing. The studies captured examples of real projects delivering tangible change, and we think, reflect a real richness of insights that help to showcase some of the work underway to tackle climate change.

One important strand of our work at DG Cities is neighbourhood decarbonisation: bringing together an understanding of a council’s assets with the social value proposition of retrofit, and aligning the different steps needed to improve an area. The team has been reflecting on examples from our LGA project that really stood out, and there are a couple that we think demonstrate how action in this area is delivering tangible differences to communities.

---

“As with many projects, initially uptake was slow from private properties. So Leeds prioritised retrofitting the 40 council houses to show the improvement and to start conversations. This created a snowball effect, whereby private landlords and homeowners began to want the works too. ”

— Leeds City Council, case study

Leeds City Council: the Neighbourhood Retrofit Programme

One major challenge for local authorities is how to retrofit social housing to meet the target of EPC C minimum, and to do this in a systematic and evidence-based way. The team at Leeds City Council developed a Priority Neighbourhoods approach, in which they drew on a set of key performance indicators to help identify where retrofit interventions should be targeted. But it wasn’t only at the identification stage where this played out – the team also directed their resources to transform communities through focused action, channelling funding, such as ECO and regional funding, to create a big impact over a short period. By doing so, the team was able to reduce the costs of regeneration work, and create campaigns in local areas to build buy-in and demonstrate impact.

---

Hampshire County Council: the Greening Campaign

Community engagement and support was a common theme across the case studies we developed. Those we spoke with reflected on the value that community participation brings to the design and delivery of projects – and to helping to ensure success. One example of this was the Hampshire County Council programme, delivered in partnership with the Greening Campaign. Through targeted support, intervention design with community members, and simple, repeatable activities, the group leveraged community interest to deliver projects that tackled real issues for local residents. These included improving recycling rates, supporting local wildlife and highlighting the value of home retrofit to homeowners. Through this work, Hampshire County Council has been able to trial new approaches to building community participation through behaviour change programmes – it is now at the stage of seeking further funding to grow these activities and create lasting impact.

It will take real leadership, innovation, and collaboration to navigate the universal challenges of climate change, however they present locally. But through our research, it was encouraging to reflect that all of this and more is already happening in local authorities, that at a community level, things are already changing across the UK.  

Read more of the case studies here.

With changes in tech, policy and procurement, the challenge of parking keeps moving

For our latest piece, we’re looking at the issue of parking – its planning, integration, associated technologies and new LGIU research into how it is managed and the services procured by different local authorities. Next year, the government is due to roll out the National Parking Platform, which will change the way councils deliver parking. We look at some of the issues, and the role of technology and behaviour change programmes in ensuring its success.

The 2.4 by 4.8 metre grid of the standard parking space is a contentious piece of land. Increasingly, many people are questioning why a large proportion of our towns and cities should be dominated by the storage of private cars. An alternative lobby is demanding more convenience for drivers and larger parking spaces to reflect the growing size of vehicles. Parking factors in a range of policies, from net zero, health and road safety to transport, EV charging and regeneration – and councils have the difficult job of adjudicating on these demands and planning for residents’ future needs. 

Recent research by the Local Government Information Unit (LGIU) gave some useful insights into the different approaches adopted by local authorities when it comes to the management of parking services, with each area’s parking strategy (or absence of) as unique as the region they cover. A number of councils have introduced progressive models to help deliver on wider environmental targets, including emissions-based charging – the Royal Borough of Greenwich introduced this policy for its on-street permits in July. Other councils struggle to balance competing demands of attracting visitors to declining high streets while reducing congestion and anti-social parking, and promoting active and sustainable travel. 

The main conclusion from LGIU’s report, however, is a shared lack of awareness within councils of the potential impact of changes in the sector, in particular the National Parking Platform (NPP), which the government is due to roll out nationally next year. This will open up the market for phone parking payment providers, allowing them to effectively ‘plug in’ to each area, thus creating greater integration in systems across the UK and, it is hoped, a better experience for users. And as services evolve, the car parking payment systems could harness the potential of data to deliver more, from local information to other council services. 

Parking and emerging tech

When it comes to technology and transport, the adage is true – the only constant is change. In 2021, DG Cities’ Head of Smart Mobility, Kim Smith wrote a piece on the evolution of the car park, which looked at some of the forces driving change: the trend from car ownership to usership, the shift to electric vehicles and the growing popularity of the idea of mobility as a service.

Bold Tendencies, Peckham; a multi-storey car park repurposed as a venue for arts, a bar, workspace and events

In her piece, Kim looked at some of the proposals to repurpose multi-storey car parks for new uses, from skateparks to small business hubs, and highlighted the challenge of planning for changing technologies, transport choices and demographic needs. As she wrote: “While car-free – zero or minimal car parking spaces – may not be appropriate in year one, when a development is completed, in say, 15 years’ time, private vehicle ownership may be an obsolete concept.” This long-range, flexible approach to transport planning was the basis for our Mobility Assessment Framework, a tool we developed for local authorities and private developers to anticipate and plan for trends in mobility; a way to account for new services that have yet to become a reality on our streets. 

Planning for parking as part of a wider mobility strategy

We bring the principles of this framework to our own projects. Parking intersects with a number of areas of DG Cities’ work, from strategic planning, anticipating and integrating emerging tech, to consumer engagement and evaluation. Some of our recent projects in Greenwich have involved the development of  mobility hubs, both on the Council’s estates and for the private sector. These combine parking, EV charging, and micro-mobility solutions, such as bikes and e-scooters. The purpose of these is to encourage low-carbon travel alternatives, and in terms of space, to do ‘more with less.’

Our national projects have included strategies for the provision of electric vehicle charging, particularly in rural areas, where space can also be hard to find. Here, we have looked creatively at the puzzle of car storage and electrification, and we have worked with partners to map where the infrastructure can best support demand. These projects have been based on a clear understanding of needs, and collaboration with residents, businesses and councils to propose solutions that will be effective in the long-term. 

How do we help?

“... we are an innovation partner for councils that don’t have the resources or expertise in-house to make the most of new technologies or services that could benefit their residents”

— Kim Smith, Head of Smart Mobility

In essence, we are an innovation partner for councils that don’t have the resources or expertise in-house to make the most of new technologies or services that could benefit their residents and businesses, whether that’s in parking or energy reduction in the home. Our understanding of different areas of tech, and our behavioural science expertise, help us identify and map the steps needed to bring the public on board with any new innovation.

As Kim explains, “We have a lot of experience of trials when it comes to different technologies. We know what the technology is there to do, but human behaviour can be harder to predict. With our clients, we can be frank about which pilots worked, why that was the case, what happened when tech met people, and what they can learn from that to improve their areas and increase the chances of success.” 

If you would like to find out more about our work with local authorities, get in touch.

Welcome Rasheed, our Net Zero Specialist!

As is becoming a DG Cities’ tradition, when a new member of the team joins, we invite them to say hello on our blog and talk a little bit about their background and experience. We’re delighted to welcome our new Net Zero Specialist, Rasheed Sokunbi, who has already been getting stuck into a major decarbonisation project here in Greenwich.

I’m excited to have recently joined the team at DG Cities as a Net Zero Specialist – and to be part of a company that’s doing important work to help organisations and communities address some of the urgent environmental, social and economic challenges we face.

So far, I am enjoying the variety of the new role – it allows me to work on a range of different projects, all of which impact the residents in my local borough of Greenwich and help to make it a better place to live and work. My background in sales is already proving useful, as it helps me interact and build a rapport with people from all backgrounds. It’s important that the residents that take part in an energy trial, for example, understand and feel confident in the process – and a key part of our role is talking to them, helping them make the most of the benefits from a new technology or innovation.

My first role was working for one of UK’s largest housing associations as an energy advisor. This is where I gained exposure to district and communal heating systems, which is an area DG Cities has been working in with commercial partners. I then moved on to a sustainable energy consulting firm, where I managed several retrofit meter exchange projects and advised clients on measures to improve energy efficiency and save on costs. I’m currently working with the DG Cities team on a decarbonisation strategy with the Royal Borough of Greenwich, designed to help the council meet net zero targets by 2030.

Within a few weeks of joining, I was lucky to be able to attend an event run by the Social Housing Retrofit Accelerator (SHRA), where I learned about more of the issues around retrofit and some of the steps a council or housing association should take. At the event, I had the opportunity to meet and talk to a range of people within the industry and from local authorities and councils to understand some of the day-to-day challenges. It was inspiring to see so many people working together to make a positive impact on the environment.  

I’m looking forward to seeing these projects evolve and the opportunity to continue making a positive impact in my community. It’s good to be able to bring my own unique skills and background to the DG Cities team, where there is so much collective knowledge and experience across sectors and disciplines. Most of all, I look forward to working with all my colleagues, who are passionate about a shared goal – a more sustainable future.

Our tech + behaviour approach to reducing energy use

We have been running a trial in Greenwich to see how a new generation of energy monitors could help council tenants reduce their energy use, and develop greater awareness of their devices and energy consumption in the home. Our Economist, Leanne Kelly is part of the team delivering the project and also volunteered to take part. For our latest piece, she tells us how she’s finding living with the technology…

Now we’re several months into our Smart Energy Device trial, it seems like a good time to reflect on progress and how it’s going against our predictions. Plus, I have been testing the device in my own home as part of our project plan. Has this been helpful in shaping participant engagement – and in better understanding my own energy use habits?

The objective was to install and test the value of smart electricity monitors for residents in council-owned homes. We wanted to see how residents would benefit from greater visibility of their electricity use, coupled with support and advice provided through an online energy community. There are three main elements to the user experience:

• The smart device’s phone app: push notifications raise awareness of usage and encourage participants to test and learn from its different features.

• The Energy Community: a WhatsApp group enables participants to share their experience and ask questions, and allows our team to test nudges and set challenges.

• User surveys: participants provided insights on their current knowledge, views and confidence in energy management, and set broad goals for the trial –  a very useful baseline.

Progress so far

A key area of success has been in highlighting ‘always on’ energy consumption, which, beyond fridge-freezers and critical home equipment, reflects the so-called ‘vampire load’ – the electricity drain from appliances plugged in or on stand-by, but not in use.

This looked to be an easy win for a group of participants with differing levels of app engagement and knowledge. The device’s AI would continue to learn and identify individual appliances, which can make the device even more useful, but the ‘always on’ usage was there to reduce overall energy use. We ensured participants understood what this category was composed of, and encouraged them to walk around their homes to see how their live consumption (in-app) changes as they switch appliances on and off. We then set the group a three-week challenge: can they reduce this? We also used a reference group from the USA (their Always On percentage) and mid-way feedback to activate a sense of competition, social norm and group focus.

““I have been saving energy, it’s amazing. We all take [energy use] for granted until you can see how much you are wasting””

— Resident, trial participant

““Behaviour change - I now ensure that electrical devices are on only when in use. No more on stand-by. Hoping to achieve my monthly target.” ”

— Resident, trial participant

This challenge saw electricity use somewhat decrease for the group overall compared to the weeks prior, with some households showing a much higher reduction. However, it didn’t work for all, and there was less of a reduction in the ‘always on’ shares than we had initially hoped. A lesson is that a nudge like this for a small group of people may reach individuals at different times – some may have other priorities that week, some may be on holiday, others may need a boost to their interest that week. It's clear that the timing of these nudges, and convenience, is key. A ‘Nudge Plus’[1] approach may have been even more useful in engaging individuals at a good time for them, and giving space for them to consider and reflect around such a challenge.

Other information, nudges and challenge campaigns have included:

• App-based nudges: Here, we asked people what their device has found, or what they have found interesting or surprising, focused on specific app features each time, such as ‘How to...’ and ‘Why don’t you try?’

• Advice shares: To support the technology, we provided accompanying energy saving tips for an appliance or behaviour that was raised in the Community Group chat: ‘Did You Know…’

We have found the level of engagement in the Energy Community WhatsApp, four months since inception, pretty encouraging. Analysis shows that participants are opening the app on average twice a week. There has also been a downward trend of electricity consumption per home, which was a key project outcome in the Theory of Change. This will be subject to further analysis for significance and with control variables.

How has my experience with the device compared to the wider trial?

Installation was completed smoothly, in that my electricity use was ready to be viewed immediately. I was opening the app a lot in the first few weeks, exploring what the device was quickly learning itself. This was typically after work (when various appliances might be switched on) and before leaving home to see if any appliances were in stand-by mode. I have had the chance to test how our advice and recommendations could work for the group, for example, what happens and how does it look if we use the ‘live consumption’ feature and turn appliances on? And could we get notifications about weekly goals?

Now, I am motivated to open the app when I receive a notification about a new appliance or one turning on – my app usage has dropped and is now closer to the group’s average. This helped us recognise the value of selecting which notifications are on and when (avoiding information overload and using novelty to promote engagement) and carrying this through into our approach to campaigns and messaging.

Like other participants, I’m really keen to see other complicated appliances identified separately by the device, like washing machines. Particularly in a cost-of-living crisis, there is real value for residents to know what a load of washing consumes and is estimated to cost. I am still checking what might be plugged in – the app is my ‘quick check’, and I’m still keen to see my consumption below the average device user and at the lower end of my own range. In my household’s experience, the app makes that really easy and pretty fun to do this.

Next up, we’re looking forward to having conversations with participants on their own journeys. Alongside the analysis and feedback so far, this will help us tailor approaches to wider roll-out and identify the best ways to support residents, given their current knowledge and tech confidence. So far, we’re seeing some benefits of a combined tech + behaviour approach, giving support and advice to encourage wider energy efficiency literacy, helping people tell their standard kWhs from their vampire load!

If you’d like to know more about how we deliver pilot projects, work with tech companies or local authorities, get in touch.

---

[1] Banerjee, S., & John, P. (2021). Nudge plus: Incorporating reflection into behavioural public policy. Behavioural Public Policy, 1-16. doi:10.1017/bpp.2021.6

Research in practice with students from Imperial College London

The nature of working on projects at the forefront of innovations in tech means we often team up with researchers and academics, as well as industry partners. Our relationship with Imperial College London has developed over the years, and recently we were delighted to support a team of students with a live brief to help them develop a project with real-world implications. Our IoT Project Manager, Sam Grounds supervised the group and explains more.

Sam and the Imperial student team

As part of DG Cities’ ongoing relationship with Imperial College London, I supervised a group of Electrical and Electronic Engineering students for their end of year summer project. The purpose of these partnerships is to give the students real-life case studies to work and experiment with, as well as embellishing existing DG Cities projects with outside perspectives and expertise.

The group chose to work on one of our IoT projects, which is aimed at using technology to improve people’s understanding of energy usage in their home. We gave the students an overview and a set of research questions to answer, keeping them broad to encourage a creative approach. Their work was fantastic, and gave our DG Cities team some interesting new insights.

One of their most useful suggestions was to categorise users based on their assumed ‘energy behaviours’, ranging from ‘tech savvy’ to ‘indifferent’. One of the challenges within this project can be identifying the most effective messaging to use to communicate with people with different levels of motivation. By identifying these characteristics early on, it would be possible to communicate with different residents in ways that suit them best, driving greater levels of engagement and ensuring users can get the most out of the technology. The students developed a methodology to identify these personalities through surveys and data analysis, which could inform engagement strategies for future projects.

At DG Cities, we have a wide variety of interests and expertise across our team, and staff are always encouraged and able to make meaningful contributions to our work. By extending this line of thinking to academic institutions, we are able to not only extend our network, but we are exposed to increasingly fresh and innovative ideas.

Working with the students on this project was such a valuable process for me to be a part of as a project manager. Running a project, it’s all too easy to get bogged down in problem-solving and the challenges faced along the way. Introducing the project to a new set of people allowed me to reflect on where we were to date, and identify not only the successes, but to gain a new perspective on the challenges and encourage learning. It benefits both parties; for students entering the final stages of their university education, the prospect of joining the world of work can be daunting, but partnerships such as these provide valuable insights into real life projects, and allow them to contribute meaningfully to outcomes. I’m excited to see where our future collaborations take us!

Here's what they had to say about the project and our collaboration… 

Tanya Chopra

When initially presented with the various project briefs, I was immediately drawn to the “Nudging Energy Trial” proposed by DG Cities, due to my interest in the machine learning and energy sectors, alongside the potential positive impacts the project could help have on the community. “Reduce your energy usage” is something we always hear; however, this project has provided an opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of energy usage trends and general misconceptions. I always thought I made an effort to reduce my usage, however having undertaken this project it has made me more conscious of various factors that can affect our usage levels.

Due to us each having varying background experience, we were able to support one another effectively and allocate roles between us to help achieve the best results. In our initial group meeting, we talked about our skill sets and interests, and from there we assigned roles and divided into subgroups. This helped us in playing to each other’s strengths, and to ensure everyone was content with the roles they had been allocated to.

One of the challenges I did not initially expect to face was how complex it can be trying to categorise users into distinct groups based on their energy usage levels, as there are often several factors that come into play, which result in a change in behaviour between different times of day.

Miguel Bragança

At first, the limitless aspect of our problem seemed a bit intimidating. But as we navigated through it, it turned into an unexpected blessing. It gave us the freedom to tweak and adjust our project's direction. It empowered us to venture down paths that we felt were both meaningful and fascinating.

We always had this clear idea to create a product that combined qualitative data - from surveys - with quantitative information powered by Machine Learning. But, we hadn't quite expected the level of iteration and the numerous changes in direction we'd make throughout the project. Progress wasn't a straight line; there were times when some of our work didn't find its way into the final product at all.

But here's the thing - facing and overcoming these challenges played a huge role in our overall satisfaction with the final product. It was the journey, with all its ups and downs, that made the destination truly worthwhile. 

Derek Ang

Balazs and Sam gave us lots of freedom to do what we wanted, so the project started off as an open problem. Eager to define the objectives and start work quickly, I stepped up as project lead. I was lucky to have talented and supportive teammates for a randomly assigned team. We concluded that we would require roles in data modelling, public outreach, and design. The team filled up the roles based on their interests and delivered exceptional results.

It was challenging to package our solution to meet the academic expectations laid out by our supervisor. Throughout the project, we encountered many real-life obstacles, such as uncertainty and incomplete data. To progress, we had to rely on educated guesses and assumptions, which presented difficulties in documenting and explaining our decisions.

We were able to strike a balance between the academic and DG Cities’ expectations by maintaining clear communication with both parties throughout the project. It was very useful to hear Balazs and Sam’s perspectives during our weekly meetings. They guided us in the right direction and provided lots of on-the-ground context for our solution. They also offered us the wonderful opportunity to present our project to a wider audience, from whom we received valuable feedback.

Yuhe Zhang

From the first time reading the project title of ‘Nudging Energy Trial’, I immediately sensed its widespread social relevance as energy topics always capture public interest. To perform data analysis in this project, we were not only applying cutting-edge machine learning algorithms on ideal datasets but also thinking ourselves as members of the community, empathizing with residents, and contemplating feasible ways to collectively build a sustainable living environment. The diversity within our team has revealed countless possibilities to me. In addition to the complementary strengths of our team members, we are receptive to viewpoints presented by the DG Cities team from a corporate perspective. The continuous refinement of our project's concept is also attributed to our positive communication between both parties. As we actively engaged in project research and conducted in-depth investigations, we consistently encountered challenges and overcame difficulties, further solidifying my belief that we can leverage our academic knowledge to provide practical solutions for societal issues.

Patrica Acha Zemora

Learning about the challenges of working with residents drastically changed my view on community engagement. The diversity and complexity of community perspectives, along with varying participation levels and the difficulty in reaching residents, added layers of complexity I hadn't initially anticipated. Initially, I assumed it was a straightforward process of seeking feedback and analysing responses. However, gathering useful data was much more difficult than I anticipated!

This experience reshaped our approach. We realised the need to craft concise yet comprehensive survey questions that would keep participants engaged without overwhelming them. We had to strike a balance - we wanted to gather substantial data to craft well-informed solutions, but we also had to respect the time and energy of our respondents. Overly lengthy and open-ended surveys often deterred them from participating.

Upon gathering and analysing the data, we managed to broadly divide the population into different segments. It was fascinating to see our data team use this information in their approach to create tailored solutions!

Elodie Delort

Since the project deliverables required a variety of skills in very different domains, it was nice to be able to assign each of our responsibilities based on our individual skills and interests. As I personally do not have much knowledge in Machine Learning or AI, I thoroughly enjoyed being able to contribute with the more creative side through the leaflet and poster. The entire project was really helpful in giving us insight on how real-world company projects would work with the combination of many people from different backgrounds and interests. We were able to all show off our personal skills on the tasks that we each worked on whilst simultaneously learning about how other people approach the same type of tasks.

---

From all at DG Cities, thanks to the Imperial student team for the insights, hard work and passion they brought to this project – and our very best wishes for their future studies.

Pride month: inclusive urbanism

For Pride this year, we are taking an urban perspective. The team has been talking about neighbourhoods that have become safe spaces and centres for LGBTQIA+ communities – how and why they came about, their evolution and importance today. And, as we’re DG Cities, the role technology might play in making them even safer, greener and more enjoyable, and the importance of an inclusive approach to the development of all cities and tech.

Pedestrian crossing in Trafalgar Square, London/Geograph

In cities around the world, gay districts serve as safe spaces; beacons of recognition, solidarity, and celebration for LGBTQIA+ communities. In some places, they might take the form of a green space, a couple of venues or a small stretch of a high street, in others it can be an entire neighbourhood.

One of the most famous of these in the UK is Manchester’s Gay Village, which is focused around Canal Street, a row of redbrick former mills and warehouses by the Rochdale Canal. The area has evolved over the past century, from one industry to another – from a centre of the cloth trade, to decline, and then re-emergence as a destination for nightlife. This process began in the 1980s and early ‘90s, with a handful of pubs and bars, such as The Rembrandt. Manto, another early venue, was developed in an old warehouse, its glass frontage then a radical expression of transparency and pride. Thanks to the affordability of these post-industrial spaces, and with hard work, community activism and support from the city council, a critical mass of bars and clubs emerged to cement the area’s growth.

Today, Canal Street contributes to the city in many different ways – socially, culturally, and in attracting talent, businesses, and investment. There is also a direct economic gain in drawing in visitors – Manchester Pride’s report suggests that the event regularly generates in excess of £30 million in accommodation, dining, transportation, shopping, and other related expenses. Then there is job creation in the hospitality and entertainment sector, and significant revenue generation for charities.

Canal Street isn’t alone. Similar quarters have grown in cities across the world, from New York’s East Village to Chueca in Madrid. Many of these places have their roots in historical contexts, often originating in marginalised neighbourhoods, cruising spots or areas with available, affordable space. These districts create vital space for free expression, without fear of discrimination, and for community building, activism and support.

The problem with success

However, the popularity of well-established quarters like Manchester’s Gay Village, London’s Old Compton Street, Brighton’s Kemptown and Birmingham’s Hurst Street can create its own problems. Like artists’ studios, the gay village can popularise and then catalyse the gentrification of an area. As these neighbourhoods are more cared for and become the place to go for a night out, development follows – and the luxury residential and late-night economies aren’t always compatible.

Mike Wolf, writer of one piece in a series on the history of Canal Street, warned of some of the risks associated with popularity, such as the power wielded by brewery chains, where independent businesses had previously thrived. But ultimately, as he put it: “We didn't need planning policy to protect our queer heritage. It is unstoppable.” Still, protecting these spaces is vital in preserving the legacy, culture, and identity they represent. This doesn’t just mean safeguarding the physical spaces, but ensuring anti-discrimination policies, and promoting LGBTQIA+ visibility and representation in planning decisions.

Homophobia, biphobia and transphobia haven’t gone away, and Walking and Cycling Index data shows that LGBTQ+ people feel less safe in their neighbourhoods. Still, there is a view that younger generations don’t express the same need for these dedicated spaces or support as those who came out in a more hostile era, particularly pre-1967. According to Stonewall’s 2018 report, a third of LGBT people (35%) say they never attend LGBT-specific venues or events. And while some said Pride was a highlight of the year, others surveyed resent being pigeonholed: “I don't understand why there is the use of the word community. It does not and has not ever felt like being in a community.”

With this in mind, is the purpose of LGBTQIA+ neighbourhoods changing? They are still seen primarily as a hub for nightlife, because that is how many evolved, but anyone programming, designing or shaping the city should have the aim of making every place, every public space, building and venue as safe and welcoming as the local ‘gay village’. Most importantly, inclusion can’t be designed ‘for’ but ‘with’ – it demands meaningful engagement, representation in development, and consideration of needs beyond bars and stereotypes: social spaces, retail, bookshops, for example, galleries, community venues, nurseries and supported living facilities.

Does technology have a role?

As an innovation agency, we are interested in some of the possible roles of emerging tech, and examples: apps that narrate local gay history walks, such as WYQS in West Yorkshire, digital art installations, the use of street furniture and wayfinding to increase visibility, as with Trafalgar Square’s traffic lights. There have been Pride transport takeovers, such as Amsterdam’s rainbow EV chargers and Avanti’s Pride train, and we have looked at ensuring diverse voices can be heard in the development of future mobility, like self-driving cars. Because these neighbourhoods are a focus for community and celebration, they can also be a focus for hate crime. Here, along with the potential uses of smart lighting and IoT cameras in crime prevention and evidence gathering, charity Stonewall has developed an app, Zoteria, to make reporting incidents more straightforward. Important to note that while we are looking at the role of technology to create safer spaces in the UK, some organisations around the world seek to use such devices to enforce discriminatory laws.

Then there is the role of data, the backbone of much of this new technology, which is guiding decision-making at a local and national level. For too long though, this data has excluded lesbian, gay, bi and trans people. For the first time, the 2021 census included an optional question on sexual orientation, opening up opportunities for more inclusive places and services. But in the context of big data, bias in the development of AI systems is a growing concern. As these systems are created by humans, the responses can inadvertently reflect prejudices in the information used to train them. This can result in biased outcomes that disproportionately affect specific communities. To address this, it is crucial to ensure diverse representation and inclusion at every stage in the process: the development of ethical guidelines that explicitly address issues of discrimination, supported by engagement, analysis of the data sets, and evaluation of the impact of AI systems on communities. And when it comes to the commercialisation of new technology or mobility services, to build trust, we need to see diversity represented in its promotion.

So this year, instead of turning our logo rainbow again, we want to continue this discussion, to celebrate our team, enjoy Pride month and reaffirm our commitment to inclusivity in all of our projects. And rather than end this on a pitch, we’ll recommend instead a couple of books we like for further reading: an award-winning compendium of Queer Spaces by Adam Nathanial Furman and Joshua Mardell, published last year, which looks at everything from the Museum of Transology to the use of raves in Brazil as a means to occupy and explore the city, and The Gentrification of the Mind, Sarah Schulman’s memoir of displacement in New York’s Lower East Side.

A behavioural science perspective on consumer barriers to self-driving tech

Last week, we welcomed our new Behavioural Scientist, Emily King to the team. No sooner had she said hello than she was off downriver to Woolwich to a workshop Ed Houghton was chairing at the Smart Mobility Living Lab. The subject was consumer barriers to the adoption of CAV (Connected and Autonomous Vehicles). We’ll be a hearing a little more about Emily’s background and experience so far in another piece soon, but first, she breaks down the different factors at play in the application of the COM-B behavioural model to a self-driving future…

In my first week as the new Behavioural Scientist at DG cities, I was fortunate to attend an event on the consumer barriers to commercialisation of connected autonomous vehicles (CAVs) at the Smart Mobility Living Lab (SMLL). The event was attended by a range of industry professionals, researchers, and policymakers and explored the user perspective of self-driving technologies.

The opening presentation for the event highlighted that public trust and acceptance of self-driving technologies need to be in place before CAVs can be commercialised. Public acceptance of CAVs is currently low, as evidenced by findings from project Endeavour that only a quarter of the UK public (27%) would be comfortable using autonomous vehicles tomorrow if it was possible to do so.

Commercialisation is a behavioural challenge

This indicates that commercialisation of CAVs is a primarily behavioural challenge: how can people be encouraged to accept and ultimately to use self-driving technologies? It is clear from the discussions at the event that behavioural science has a crucial role to play in shaping how we communicate with the public about CAVs, and how to design self-driving services in a way that will be accepted by the public.

A key stage in any behavioural science research project is to identify the specific barriers and drivers to the behaviour of interest. In this instance, identifying the barriers to using CAVs amongst different potential user groups is the first step in understanding why this hesitancy to use autonomous vehicles exists. This provides a useful starting point to exploring how policymakers and industry can encourage engagement with this emerging technology and ensure that it works for society.  

Discussions at the SMLL event shed light on some potential barriers to consumer adoption of connected autonomous vehicles, which can be summarised through the lens of the COM-B model.

A recap of the COM-B model

The COM-B model is a well-established behaviour change framework which suggests that for an individual’s motivation to engage in a behaviour to translate into actual behaviour change, they need to have both the capability and the opportunity to engage in the behaviour. [1]

Examining the potential underlying capability, opportunity and motivational factors can help to highlight how best to build perceptions of safety and trust, to achieve public acceptance and the opportunity for commercialisation of CAVs.

Capability factors

Capability means that an individual has the knowledge, skills, and abilities required to engage in a behaviour. 

The SMLL event highlighted a need to continue educating the public about autonomous vehicles, including building knowledge of how the technology works and what the potential benefits of using self-driving vehicles might look like.

Educating about how the technology works and the specifics of existing safety measures is important to help to build perceptions of safety and trust in AVs, which in turn can increase acceptance. One successful method for educating people about AV technology is via conducting trials in person or via virtual reality, which allow individuals to experience riding in a self-driving vehicle first-hand. Discussions at the SMLL event highlighted positive examples of trial participants perceiving AV technology as much safer once they had the opportunity to experience it for themselves.

There are numerous potential benefits of AVs, from improving mobility options for disabled people through to decarbonising the transport system. For autonomous vehicles to be accepted, it is vital that the public are also clearly educated on these specific benefits and how using CAVs can help to achieve them. Individuals tend to (either consciously or unconsciously) weigh up the potential costs and benefits before deciding how to behave, meaning that for people to decide to use CAVs that any perceived costs such as reduced feelings of safety or anxiety about AI need to be outweighed by the perceived benefits.

“Individuals tend to (either consciously or unconsciously) weigh up the potential costs and benefits before deciding how to behave, meaning that for people to decide to use CAVs that any perceived costs, such as reduced feelings of safety or anxiety about AI need to be outweighed by the perceived benefits.”

Opportunity factors

Opportunity factors are the external factors which make a behaviour possible. Opportunity factors encompass all aspects of the CAVs technology and service offer which might influence whether people are willing or able to use them.

The workshop included discussions about the specific use cases and opportunities within the user journey where CAVs could play a useful role. For example, introducing self-driving services in rural areas where there are currently limited transport options could provide more benefit than in major city centres.

Self-driving services also need to be designed so that they are usable for the groups which need them most. As those with disabilities and reduced mobility are a key group expected to benefit from self-driving services, it is vital that they are included in conversations to ensure that CAV technologies are meeting their needs and ensuring they have sufficient opportunity to use CAV services. If these groups are unable to access CAV services in the first place, then this potential benefit of the technology cannot be realised.

Motivation factors

Even when capability and opportunity factors are in place, this does not guarantee that people will be motivated to engage with CAVs.

Motivation is also dependent on factors such as values and emotional states, which can differ vastly between individuals and even within the same individual depending on their current circumstances.

Understanding these more subjective, emotional aspects of CAV acceptance was mentioned at the SMLL event as a necessity going forward. This is an area where behavioural science research can play a useful role. Existing research in the field suggests that acceptance of autonomous vehicles is influenced by an individual’s levels of innovativeness (a general willingness to try new things) and general anxiety about technology, as well as levels of hedonic motivation (valuing enjoyment and sensation seeking) and utilitarian motivation (valuing rationality and effectiveness). These findings point to some potential options for increasing consumers’ motivation to engage with AV technologies, which link to discussions at the SMLL event. [2]

Hedonic motivation was the greatest predictor of intentions to use AVs overall, suggesting that making vehicles fun to use could be a route to increasing adoption of the technology. Workshop discussions at the event highlighted some ideas for increasing the ‘fun’ element of AVs such as giving vehicles faces to ‘anthropomorphise’ them, or including customisable elements so that they could be personalised.

“Hedonic motivation was the greatest predictor of intentions to use AVs overall, suggesting that making electric vehicles fun to use could be a route to increasing adoption of the technology.”

— Emily King, Behavioural Scientist

Meanwhile utilitarian motivation was found to be a predictor of intention to use AVs amongst innovative consumers only. This suggests it is important to educate more innovative consumers on the specific benefits of AV services. For those who are technologically anxious, there is a need to address broader concerns about AI before addressing specific concerns about CAVs.

It is important to note that these are hypotheses based on discussions from the event and existing research in this area. Much more extensive research is needed to identify the full range of behavioural barriers and drivers to build a full understanding of how to support acceptance and use of CAVs.

Read more of our research into self-driving services and consumer trends.

---

[1] West, R., & Michie, S. (2020). A brief introduction to the COM-B Model of behaviour and the PRIME Theory of motivation [v1]. Qeios.

[2] Keszey, T. (2020). Behavioural intention to use autonomous vehicles: Systematic review and empirical extension. Transportation research part C: emerging technologies, 119, 102732.

EV charging: what if I live in a flat with limited parking?

One of the great features of the DG Cities team is our mix of public and private sector experience, and the insight this gives us into the realities of implementing technological solutions in housing estates, particularly when it comes to transport. Our Head of Smart Mobility, Kim Smith has been leading transport strategy and delivery for more than 25 years. Here, she draws on this knowledge and the latest analysis to consider different perspectives on a key challenge for EVs: what if I don’t have anywhere to charge one?

We know that transport emissions represent a major hurdle in the move to a zero-carbon future. We know that part of the government’s strategy to address this is to set an end date for the production of diesel and petrol driven vehicles. The uptake of new electric vehicles is growing rapidly, so we can also assume the second-hand market in EVs will also blossom over the next five years or so. We are at the point where EVs are no longer just for early adopters and there is mainstream take-up, but this means that the practicalities for many consumers are coming into sharper focus. One of the key issues: where do I charge it?

If you have your own dedicated parking space where you can charge your new EV, whether at home or work, then certainly, unless you’re heading off on a trip or covering exceptionally long distances, how and where to charge is relatively straightforward. However, work we have done at DG Cities shows that a high proportion of us don’t have off-street parking. Important to note, our research tells us this isn’t just a city problem – it is equally evident in both urban and rural areas. Figures vary by location, but around a quarter to a third of households don’t have a space at home to charge off-road.

“...do we really need to cover our footways with charge points? Is that not simply an evolution of the car-dominated planning policies of the 60s and 70s?”

— Kim Smith, Head of Smart Mobility

Is the solution to fill our streets with EV infrastructure?

There are planning and accessibility issues when it comes to infrastructure on the street: do we really need to cover our footways with charge points for those of us who need to rely on public charging? Is that not simply an evolution of the car-dominated planning policies of the 60s and 70s?

It’s an interesting thought, as we transition away from fossil fuels and the experience of popping to a garage to top up our tank, how our lifestyles and the places we live will adapt to this change. As proponents of the technology, how can we help to ensure that not having a dedicated charger and the associated range anxiety isn’t seen as a deal breaker? One way is to look at the data…

We don’t always drive as far as we think

Battery technology is moving ahead, and vehicle range is increasing, certainly with the more expensive EV options. In theory at least, range anxiety should be decreasing. Additionally, most of us drive far fewer miles than we imagine. Work done recently by our friends at Field Dynamics, looking at data on 140 million records from annual MOT tests over the last four years, shows that, on average, mileage is dropping: pre-Covid average annual mileage has fallen year-on-year since 2019, to 5,506 miles per year for 2021. There are outliers – high and low mileage drivers – however, when broken down further, 57% of vehicles travel less than 100 miles per week, 87% of vehicles travelled less than 200 miles per week.

The anomaly tends to be in the growing market of vans, where higher mileage, combined with (currently) less range, means multiple charges per week are needed. We also need to consider those who are either buying less expensive vehicles with more limited range, or second-hand vehicles whose older battery technology may require more frequent topping up.

What if you live in a flat with no parking?

For residents of flats, especially older blocks, where parking may not have been a consideration for early planners or developers, traditional parking pressure is already a concern. Garage blocks are often used for storage rather than vehicles. The lack of – or in some instances, lack of knowledge about – an accessible, affordable and efficient public charging network is a huge consumer issue and barrier to EV uptake.

As part of our work aiding the transition for council residents, DG Cities is working with colleagues in the Royal Borough of Greenwich to look at charging needs in housing estates. These are often a mixture of high- and low-rise buildings with limited parking. The approach must be holistic, and this project forms part of a wider piece of work looking at Mobility Hubs on estates, and how councils can offer residents a mix of sustainable transport options (watch this space for more news!) However, to ensure tenants and leaseholders in council properties are prepared for the transition to EVs and not left behind, public charge point provision in or close to the estate is being looked at as a priority.

As with all things, the solutions we are seeing are complex, influenced by continually evolving shifts in behaviour and attitudes as much as technology. Consumer confidence comes with education and experience adapting to EVs. This confidence comes from the provision and placement of an appropriate smart public charging infrastructure at a level sufficient to meet demand. But this infrastructure shouldn’t needlessly clutter the environment with more street furniture that prioritises private vehicle owners and harks back to the ‘car is king’ ethos of previous planning regimes. This is the balance that DG Cities is working to strike, in designing and implementing successful strategies that work for everyone that uses our roads and pavements, whether on foot or wheels.

If you are a local authority or land owner looking to identify where to prioritise EV charging infrastructure, watch our film and get in touch to learn how we can help. You can also read insights from our government-commissioned survey into smart EV charging, and a snapshot of some of the data we gathered on the link between a council’s EV strategy and overall take-up.