7 kWp PV system on the roofs of Lorystraße
PV bench with storage and charging stations
PV system in the project area
Hauffgasse – 350 m2 of solar PV system

Citizen & Stakeholder Engagement Vienna

Vienna Citizen & Stakeholder Engagement

General facts

Description & main goal

Citizen and Stakeholder Engagement Process

Category
Citizen and Stakeholder Engagement
Deployment area
Vienna - Simmering
Involved actors and their role

Julia Girardi-Hoog: Project leader ST Vienna / Task leader Participation

Key-contact person
Julia Girardi-Hoog

Specific facts

Citizen engagement processes in the project area prior to ST

Local governance has a long tradition and formal structure in participation activities
Urban Renewal Office (GB* 3/11) is well established in the area and is continuously fostering participation
The Community College VHS Simmering has a long tradition in communication with local inhabitants with different social background, different age groups etc.
Project partners have established procedures of fostering means of participation. NGOs are well established with an ongoing networking

Implementation status

In which phase is the project (Planning, Implementation, Operation or Evaluation)?

Operation phase

What is the current implementation status/ what is the current activity step?

The co-creation processes are partly finished,
The last co-creation process is under preparation - The tenants of the refurbishment building Lorystraße can decide about the colour of the façade and the balconies, as well as about the design of the community space and the garden.
Concerning the engagement and information activities, a focus is put onto the target group pupils.

Is the implementation process on time or are there any derivations? Please outline any changes and reasons.

On time

Which project steps were performed since the last project reporting?

Quite a few engagement and co-creation activities took place – the e-bike testing, for deciding about the e-bike model for the public stations; a mobility survey to support the mobility projects; wishes of the inhabitants for the mobility point(s) were collected at the SIMmobil; guided walks e.g. tours were carried out in the target area; bike days took place to inform about bike topics (e.g. correct service). In addition, the SIMmobil was used to inform tenants (in public areas, during the VHS energy event, etc).

Have there been changes regarding the planned solution? Please outline any changes and reasons.

The option of including an external office for moderation wasn´t needed as there were no bigger changes (e.g. recreation of a public area). The financial resources will partly be used to push the engagement of pupils and their parents (e.g. science pool).

 

Risk and challenges

Which risks & challenges is the project currently facing?

The outcome of the co-creation process will not be well balanced if not all target groups are reached.
 


 

Which are critical or seem invincible? Please provide a detailed description

None.

Is there a need to work cooperatively on solutions for specific problems?
Not yet international.
Inside Vienna, multiple partners will give input to the engagement process (MA33 (lighting), Wien Energie (power and heat), Wr. Linien (mobility and parking)).

Do challenges affect other topics and projects? If yes, which ones and how?
Only indirect over the participation aspect. (mobility point, district heating redensification, e-bike stations, etc.)

Which previously identified risks and challenges have you managed successfully and how

The tenants of Hauffgasse were averse to the refurbishment. So particular attention was paid to discussion in smaller groups. Also Wr. Wohnen (developer) was supported with a different moderation format during the information evening.

Lessons Learned and Recommendations

Which lessons learned can be derived up to this point from the implementation process?
  • The cooperation with local clubs (also off topic) is very helpful for reaching broad target groups.
  • Engagement processes need many resources (people, money, time).
  • What could be done better in comparable future projects (what needs to be done and what needs to be prevented)
  • The cooperation with local clubs (also off topic) should be sought earlier.
  • Would you describe the project as best practice project and interesting for the WIKI? If yes, in what regard?
  • Yes, together with SIMmobil.

Would this example be a good add to the Wiki?
No

Have relevant internal recommendations / lessons from the WIKI’s best practices been used for the project development? If yes, which ones and how?
No

Is the development/ implementation of the project affected/ supported by the peer-to-peer knowledge exchange and cooperative problem solving in Smarter Together? How did the peer-to-peer process support the project?
Not yet.

Next steps & To Do ́s

Please shortly outline the next steps planned for the implementation of the project.

The upcoming VHS events will be on mobility (summer 17) and infrastructure (autumn 17). The effort on schools in target area will be pushed. The initiative beat the street will target the topic of active mobility/gamification in autumn.

Are there additional steps planned due to occurred challenges? Which corrective activities have been taken?

The impact of engagement events in public areas only reached a too little people and a too small target group. It was not possible to engage specific target groups (e.g. full time working people and families with migration background). The plan is to contact these target groups over the pupils. A cooperation with “science pool” was established and the content of the teaching unit was coordinated with the Smarter Together targets.

Implementation status

In which phase is the project (Planning, Implementation, Operation or Evaluation)?
Operation phase

What is the current implementation status/ what is the current activity step?
The co-creation processes are partly finished,
The last co-creation process is under preparation - The tenants of the refurbishment building Lorystraße can decide about the colour of the façade and the balconies, as well as about the design of the community space and the garden.
Concerning the engagement and information activities, a focus is put onto the target group pupils.
Currently the „beat the street“ (www.beatthestreet.me/simmering) initiative is running. The aim is to motivate people to go by foot or cycle by collecting distances by reaching boxes and chip there. The main target group are pupils which shall motivate also their family. Until now, 45.000 km were chipped.
This initiative takes place in cooperation with the mobility agency of the city of Vienna.

Is the implementation process on time or are there any derivations? Please outline any changes and reasons.
On time

Which project steps were performed since the last project reporting?
A pilot project for Wr. Wohnen took place. The tenants of Hauffgasse had the possibility to participate in the decision about the colouring of the façade. They decided that they don´t want furniture in the garden but instead they will get a stair lift. Maybe there will be the possibility for urban gardening.
They had people going through the flats and tried to ask each tenants. They reached about 70 %. This was necessary to get a broad insight into the general opinion.
At the NMS school a coordination meeting with the directorate will take place in December 2017.
The pupils were asked about their “ideal courtyard” at the SIM mobil. These wishes were partly included into the architecture. The courtyard furniture will include sports equipment, benches and green areas. The greening of the façade is examined.
The tenants of Hauffgasse decided about the e-cars for the sharing concept. Wohnbund Counsult made inquiries about their mobility behaviour and how they would use the sharing cars. Use cases were developed to find the appropriate e-cars.
Plural classes participated in the courses of the science pool. There were topics like mobility, energy and emissions.

Have there been changes regarding the planned solution? Please outline any changes and reasons.
The option of including an external office for moderation wasn´t needed as there were no bigger changes (e.g. recreation of a public area). The financial resources will partly be used to push the engagement of pupils and their parents (e.g. science pool).

 

Complete 75%

Risk and challenges

Which risks & challenges is the project currently facing?

The outcome of the co-creation process will not be well balanced if not all target groups are reached.
Although the participation process with the tenants of Hauffgasse, there is the risk that the e-car sharing will not be used sufficiently. The future activities will focus on this point.

Which are critical or seem invincible? Please provide a detailed description

None.

Is there a need to work cooperatively on solutions for specific problems?
Not yet international.
Inside Vienna, multiple partners will give input to the engagement process (MA33 (lighting), Wien Energie (power and heat), Wr. Linien (mobility and parking)).
The knowledge that was collected in the smarter together project should be commonly used by the project partners. The participation possibilities should be integrated into the daily processes. For this reason, the advantages will be made visible.

Do challenges affect other topics and projects? If yes, which ones and how?
Only indirect over the participation aspect. (mobility point, district heating redensification, e-bike stations, etc.)
 

 

Which previously identified risks and challenges have you managed successfully and how

The tenants of Hauffgasse were averse to the refurbishment. So particular attention was paid to discussion in smaller groups. Also Wr. Wohnen (developer) was supported with a different moderation format during the information evening.

Lessons Learned and Recommendations

Which lessons learned can be derived up to this point from the implementation process?

Would this example be a good add to the Wiki?
No

Have relevant internal recommendations / lessons from the WIKI’s best practices been used for the project development?
If yes, which ones and how?
No

Is the development/ implementation of the project affected/ supported by the peer-to-peer knowledge exchange and cooperative problem solving in Smarter Together? How did the peer-to-peer process support the project?
Not yet.

During an informal exchange at the smarter together meeting in Venice, Italy an interesting concept for Vienna came up. Short term before the school starts there is a driving restriction in front of the schools.

The other way round, Venice bought a bus and adapted it, similar to the SIM mobil.

Which lessons learned can be derived up to this point from the implementation process?
The cooperation with local clubs (also off topic) is very helpful for reaching broad target groups.
Engagement processes need many resources (people, money, time).

The information evening at Lorystraße was highly frequented (also from working people) because it tackled their own needs.

Project specific events seldom reach a high frequency. It´s better to connect them to existing formats (e.g. “Gehkaffe” from the mobility agency or Walking star from the GB*.

Informations have to be “real” meaning e.g. onsite or something to try out like e-cars or e-bikes. Also the “Gretzlrad” is well used because they can try it out.

Gamification works well, also in a public area and over generations.

Changes produce fear and defence but they also move people which increases the engagement. Through a good moderation and carefully selected measures (no forum discussions but working topic specific in smaller groups) resistances can be dissolved. This makes people active and the willingness to participate is bigger.

A better understanding between developers and tenants is crucial especially in new development areas.

Would you describe the project as best practice project and interesting for the WIKI? If yes, in what regard?
Yes, together with SIMmobil.

What could be done better in comparable future projects (what needs to be done and what needs to be prevented)?

The cooperation with local clubs (also off topic) should be sought earlier.

The increased use of gamification.

Next steps & To Do ́s

The impact of engagement events in public areas only reached a too little people and a too small target group. It was not possible to engage specific target groups (e.g. full time working people and families with migration background). The plan is to contact these target groups over the pupils. A cooperation with “science pool” was established and the content of the teaching unit was coordinated with the Smarter Together targets.

Also beat the street widens the target group that can be reached (e.g. family members).

Implementation status

In which phase is the project (Planning, Implementation, Operation or Evaluation)?
Operation phase
What is the current implementation status/ what is the current activity step?
The co-creation processes are partly finished,
The last co-creation process is under preparation - The tenants of the refurbishment building Lorystraße can decide about the colour of the façade and the balconies, as well as about the design of the community space and the garden.
Concerning the engagement and information activities, a focus is put onto the target group pupils.

Currently the „beat the street“ (www.beatthestreet.me/simmering) initiative is running. The aim is to motivate people to go by foot or cycle by collecting distances by reaching boxes and chip there. The main target group are pupils which shall motivate also their family. Until now, 45.000 km were chipped.
This initiative takes place in cooperation with the mobility agency of the city of Vienna.

At the end of beat the street 80.000 km were covered by 6125 active users. The interest of the population was very high. The demand for a return of beat the street is very high – many requests from the inhabitants.
Is the implementation process on time or are there any derivations? Please outline any changes and reasons.
On time
Which project steps were performed since the last project reporting?
A pilot project for Wr. Wohnen took place. The tenants of Hauffgasse had the possibility to participate in the decision about the colouring of the façade. They decided that they don´t want furniture in the garden but instead they will get a stair lift. Maybe there will be the possibility for urban gardening.
They had people going through the flats and tried to ask each tenants. They reached about 70 %. This was necessary to get a broad insight into the general opinion.

At the NMS school a coordination meeting with the directorate will take place in December 2017.
The pupils were asked about their “ideal courtyard” at the SIM mobil. These wishes were partly included into the architecture. The courtyard furniture will include sports equipment, benches and green areas. The greening of the façade is examined.

The tenants of Hauffgasse decided about the e-cars for the sharing concept. Wohnbund Counsult made inquiries about their mobility behaviour and how they would use the sharing cars. Use cases were developed to find the appropriate e-cars.

Plural classes participated in the courses of the science pool. There were topics like mobility, energy and emissions.

Due to winter, the activities were limited.
Have there been changes regarding the planned solution? Please outline any changes and reasons.
The option of including an external office for moderation wasn´t needed as there were no bigger changes (e.g. recreation of a public area). The financial resources will partly be used to push the engagement of pupils and their parents (e.g. science pool).

 

Complete 70%

Risk and challenges

Which risks & challenges is the project currently facing?

The outcome of the co-creation process will not be well balanced if not all target groups are reached.

Although the participation process with the tenants of Hauffgasse, there is the risk that the e-car sharing will not be used sufficiently. The future activities will focus on this point.

Which are critical or seem invincible? Please provide a detailed description

None.
Is there a need to work cooperatively on solutions for specific problems?
Not yet international.
Inside Vienna, multiple partners will give input to the engagement process (MA33 (lighting), Wien Energie (power and heat), Wr. Linien (mobility and parking)).

The knowledge that was collected in the smarter together project should be commonly used by the project partners. The participation possibilities should be integrated into the daily processes. For this reason, the advantages will be made visible.

Do challenges affect other topics and projects? If yes, which ones and how?
Only indirect over the participation aspect. (mobility point, district heating redensification, e-bike stations, etc.)

Which previously identified risks and challenges have you managed successfully and how

The tenants of Hauffgasse were averse to the refurbishment. So particular attention was paid to discussion in smaller groups. Also Wr. Wohnen (developer) was supported with a different moderation format during the information evening.

 

Lessons Learned and Recommendations

Which lessons learned can be derived up to this point from the implementation process?

Would this example be a good add to the Wiki?

No

Have relevant internal recommendations / lessons from the WIKI’s best practices been used for the project development?
If yes, which ones and how?

No

Is the development/ implementation of the project affected/ supported by the peer-to-peer knowledge exchange and cooperative problem solving in Smarter Together? How did the peer-to-peer process support the project?

Not yet.

During an informal exchange at the smarter together meeting in Venice, Italy an interesting concept for Vienna came up. Short term before the school starts there is a driving restriction in front of the schools.

The other way round, Venice bought a bus and adapted it, similar to the SIM mobil.

Munich wants to start something similar to beat the street.

Which lessons learned can be derived up to this point from the implementation process?

The cooperation with local clubs (also off topic) is very helpful for reaching broad target groups.
Engagement processes need many resources (people, money, time).

The information evening at Lorystraße was highly frequented (also from working people) because it tackled their own needs.

Project specific events seldom reach a high frequency. It´s better to connect them to existing formats (e.g. “Gehkaffe” from the mobility agency or Walking star from the GB*.

Informations have to be “real” meaning e.g. onsite or something to try out like e-cars or e-bikes. Also the “Gretzlrad” is well used because they can try it out.

Gamification works well, also in a public area and over generations.

Changes produce fear and defence but they also move people which increases the engagement. Through a good moderation and carefully selected measures (no forum discussions but working topic specific in smaller groups) resistances can be dissolved. This makes people active and the willingness to participate is bigger.

A better understanding between developers and tenants is crucial especially in new development areas.

Especially persons with low income (e.g. refugees, single moms) are very open and thankful for energy saving tips. Other persons are rather hard to motivate.

The active group of the e-car sharing in Hauffgasse results in pride of the system. They assume responsibility for the cars and their role. They actively recruit new users for the sharing system. By the introduction of this group, the new technology is accepted in a better way which among others results in a positive impact on the economic efficiency.

Would you describe the project as best practice project and interesting for the WIKI? If yes, in what regard?
Yes, together with SIMmobil.

 

What could be done better in comparable future projects (what needs to be done and what needs to be prevented)?

The cooperation with local clubs (also off topic) should be sought earlier.

The increased use of gamification.

Next steps & To Do ́s

Beat the street should return this year. Currently there is a financing gap of 20.000€.

Design possibilities in the public space will be communicated via the SIM mobil – e.g. information about “tree discs”, the possibility to do gardening on the soil area around public trees

In different schools in the target area, courses on mobility and energy of the future will take place for free. The pupils will work out projects on these topics and later on (in October), there will be a joint science party where these projects will be presented.

There will be no more events in the adult education centre (VHS) due to low numbers of participants, but more activities directly with clubs (e.g. the clubs explicitly asked for “energy café” events where the participants receive information on energy efficiency and energy saving potential in their homes).

Are there additional steps planned due to occurred challenges? Which corrective activities have been taken?

The impact of engagement events in public areas only reached a too little people and a too small target group. It was not possible to engage specific target groups (e.g. full time working people and families with migration background). The plan is to contact these target groups over the pupils. A cooperation with “science pool” was established and the content of the teaching unit was coordinated with the Smarter Together targets.

Also beat the street widens the target group that can be reached (e.g. family members).

 

Implementation status

Evaluation.

 

What is the current implementation status/ what is the current activity step?
The Lab (SIMmobil) is off grid. Ad hoc request of stakeholders, students are dealt with on an individual base.

 

Is the implementation process on time or are there any derivations? Please outline any changes and reasons.
On time.

 

Which project steps were performed since the last project reporting?
The SIM mobil  was used for different information events until End of 2018. 

 

Have there been changes regarding the planned solution? Please outline any changes and reasons.
n/a.

 

Complete 100%

Risk and challenges

Which risks & challenges is the project currently facing?

n/a.

 

Is there a need to work cooperatively on solutions for specific problems? 
No

 

Do challenges affect other topics and projects? If yes, which ones and how?
Additional ideas will be collected.

Which are critical or seem invincible? Please provide a detailed description

None.

Which previously identified risks and challenges have you managed successfully and how

See above.
 

Lessons Learned and Recommendations

Which lessons learned can be derived up to this point from the implementation process?
  • It is very important to be on-site and offer information in public areas also during events. People pass by an become curious.
  • Give aways are helpful to attract attention especially from the youth.
  • The tool SIM mobil is very suitable for heterogeneous areas 
  • Different target groups can be reached at different locations (pupils in front of the school, working people in front of the grocery or at a bus station with bigger intervals) of the SIM mobil. 
  • It is important to stay longer at each location because the activation of the people works best when they pass by. 
  • The free bike check worked well due to its monetary value. 
  • Because the SIM mobil is standing in public areas it fits well for talking about the improvement of public areas.
  • The Grätzlrad attracts the attention due to its physical presence.

 


Would this example be a good add to the Wiki?
The practical experience from the local urban renewal office (Gebietsbetreuung – GB*) was very helpful.
ICEC Project – Information on experiences on urban living labs from other EU projects

 

Have relevant internal recommendations / lessons from the WIKI’s best practices been used for the project development? 
If yes, which ones and how?
No

 

Is the development/ implementation of the project affected/ supported by the peer-to-peer knowledge exchange and cooperative problem solving in Smarter Together? How did the peer-to-peer process support the project? 
Cooperation on national level with the urban renewable office. No peer-to-peer exchange on international level.

 

Would you describe the project as best practice project and interesting for the WIKI? If yes, in what regard?
Yes, together with the connected “urban living lab _ engagement” project.

 

What could be done better in comparable future projects (what needs to be done and what needs to be prevented)?
  • The cooperation with existing local institutions should be sought very early so they can be integrated into the design phase and on this way the identification with such a lab (SIMmobil) and the project as a whole is increased.
  • The use of participatory tools (e.g. e-rad and e-stepper for generating energy) should be increased but it is important to use tools which are very solid/ for which high quality respectively long usability can be guaranteed.
Next steps & To Do ́s

Knowlege transfer to the follow up project implemented by the City of Vienna called WieNeu+. 
Ensuring knowledge transfer within the project partners.

 


Are there additional steps planned due to occurred challenges? Which corrective activities have been taken?
Focus Young Researchers added to the scientific monitoring and evaluation tasks providing a local anchoring of the project and inclusion of additional research institutions.