Citizen Engagement and Co-creation

SHIFFT WP2

Fionnguala Sherry-Brennan

Thomas Hoppe

Anatol Itten

Why co-creation with sustainable heating?

• Heating is a fundamental aspect of the human

need for shelter in temperate climates

•The sustainable heating transition is complex and

involves disruptive change

• Co-creation provides space for citizens,

politicians, and stakeholders to manage change

• Co-creation offers the potential for unravelling

supply and demand challenges of sustainable heat

Challenges for sustainable heating

• Variable heat demand in buildings

• Climate, building fabric, occupancy, behaviour

• Wider issues

• Health, comfort, cost, convenience, hospitality

• Compared to gas, new heating technologies are

perceived to have no, or limited, additional

benefits

• High up-front costs, complex and fragmented

heat markets, considerable path dependencies

Why co-creation?

• Residents and homeowners can be difficult to reach

• Limited reach of government policies in homes

• Research on the active involvement of citizens and

stakeholders in the work of governments has

become widespread

• Better understanding of what heating means to

communities and stakeholders

Definitions of co-creation

•Co-creation has evolved as the goal to include

citizens in decision-making has increased

•Different terms are used to express different

concepts which vary on the role of citizens and

organisations

•Co-creation is citizens and professionals sharing

power and responsibility to work together in

equal, reciprocal, and caring relationships

•Based on trust; not about persuasion

Defining the vocabulary

Citizens in co-creation

•In co-creation citizens take over tasks

traditionally delegated to organisations

•Citizens are considered as a valuable

and critical partners in projects

•Working together means:

• focusing on outcomes

• exploring how sharing power and

responsibility can help technology

development

Understanding context

•Co-creation acknowledges the connection between society, technology and culture

•Provides a means of exploring shared responsibilities for change

•Aim to understand the priorities of those involved which means a greater focus on topics needing attention, and increasing the likelihood of solutions being adopted

Risks in co-creation

1. The Expectations Gap

• Different agendas and definitions inform expectations. These need to be discussed openly.

2. Power

• Power is shifted in terms of resources and/or knowledge.

• Unequal shifts in power risks disempowering citizens and stakeholders

3. Values

• What do different groups value?

Limits in co-creation

•Validity – weighing perspectives.

• What do we mean when we say that a fact or opinion is valid?

• Multiple and different perspectives arise through co-creation

• Role of stakeholders is to stay objective

•Pragmatism – what’s practical?

• Organisations have limited capacity for co-creation

• What is ‘good enough’ to be acceptable?

• What compromises have to be made?

Co-creation guidelines

•Level of application: Individual, collective, shared solutions; project, policy

•Process: Joint fact-finding, co-initiating, co-designing, management

•Community: Exploring co-benefits, community building, responsibilities

•Methods: Storytelling, customer journeys, online tools, visualisations

•Evaluation: Impact, embedding

Sustainable heating technologiesTechnology Level and site/location Actors Implications

Heat pumps

Solar thermal

Geothermal

Biogas, biomass

Insulation

Individual (home and building

owners)

Co-designing customer journeys

Private homeowners

Local businesses

Electricians

Local media

• Increasing trust in novel

technical solutions

• Voluntary installation may

complement, not replace,

existing system → sub-

optimal system

Shared storage

Electric or pump solutions

Shared (owners and tenants)

Co-writing feasibility studies

Investors

Developers

Housing contractors

• Complex model of actors

and aligning interests

District heating networks Collective (urban, city,

neighbourhood)

Co-initiating thematic workshops

Energy utilities

Local politicians

Distribution system

operator

• Freedom of choice

reduced if there is a

mandatory connection

requirement

Monitoring and evaluation

•Co-creation is not a one-size-fits-all approach. An iterative approach is needed

•Monitoring and evaluation are ongoing aspects of co-creation

•Some or all of the parties involved participate in designing, doing, and interpreting evaluation

◦ Interviews with stakeholders to find out how they feel about the process and their involvement

◦ High-level snapshot of what’s happening and compare it to objectives

Evaluating co-creatively

Asking questions in three areas:

1. Experience• How are participants liking the overall

experience?

2. Motivation• What motivates people to participate?

3. Suggestions for improvement• What kinds of improvements would they

prefer if they were to participate again?

• Was the setting ok or would something else be preferable?

In conclusion …

• Integrating visions and promoting equity between citizens and authorities means co-creation must start early in projects

• A just distribution of co-benefits is required

• Creates opportunities for stakeholders to build trust with citizens, letting them define what is important to them

• Effective co-creation must strike a balance between enabling heat transitions and minimisingany negative side-effects