Digitalization of public green spaces and generating ... · Digitalization of public green spaces and generating awareness of its bene ts By Gustav Ingre Maroun Nasr Julian Jaramillo

Digitalization of public green spaces and generating awareness

of its benefits

ByGustav IngreMaroun Nasr

Julian JaramilloShuayb Ibrahim Ali

Final Report - DH2465: Computer Science, Business and Management

1

Abstract

Stockholms stad has a vision to develop a sustainable and innovative city in Stockholms Royal Sea-port. Therefore, Stockholms Stad collaborated with the Royal Institute of Technology and assignedthe authors of this report a project to explore, research and provide solutions to the problems theyare facing. The aim of the research is to examine how digital systems can be used to digitalizethe maintenance of public green spaces and find ways to create awareness of the benefits of theimplementation. The methods used to explore the research questions and find a solution were;conducting interviews, usability test, surveys, questionnaires and a literature review. This studyresulted in a high-fidelity prototype that could be used to increase effectiveness of the maintenanceof public green spaces. However, due to the limited financial information regarding toady’s main-tenance process, it is impossible to determine whether the suggested digital maintenance system ismore cost-efficient than the existing maintenance process. Therefore, the authors recommend thatStockholms Stad implements a set of KPIs and thereafter compare the current maintenance processwith the suggested digital solution to determine its quality and cost-efficiency. The authors presenttwo strategies for creating awareness; one for decision makers and one for the general public. Thestrategy for decision makers is focused on presenting benefits in terms of numbers while the strategyfor the general public is focused on presenting facts on how digital maintenance improve the qualityof greeneries.

The authors have constructed a webpage describing the project progress. Click here to visit thewebpage and learn more about this project. Click here to view the prototype.

2

https://greenchecksystem.wordpress.com/https://www.justinmind.com/usernote/tests/44412005/44426860/44426862/index.html##/screens/64d3f17c-0e6c-400e-8970-43616be9d32f

Contents

1 Introduction 5

2 Problem Statement and delimitation 5

3 Background and previous research 63.1 Stockholms Stad and Green Open Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3.1.1 The urban development area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.1.2 Green spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.1.3 Previous research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.1.4 Stakeholders and incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.1.5 Key Performance Indicators and cost structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3.2 Product Design and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.2.1 Human-computer Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.2.2 Design Principles of HCI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.2.3 HCI Characteristics and Focal Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93.2.4 JustInMind Prototyping Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4 Methodology 94.1 Creating awareness methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104.2 Determining the functionality of the digital maintenance system . . . . . . . . . . . 10

4.2.1 The process of understanding how maintenance can be digitalized . . . . . . 104.2.2 Defining the digital system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4.3 Systematic Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124.4 Prototype development methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

4.4.1 First iteration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134.4.2 Third iteration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4.5 Financial calculation methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

5 Results 145.1 Maintenance process today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145.2 Results from Interview with Bo Österdahl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155.3 Usability testing and think-aloud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155.4 Results from think-aloud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165.5 Results from the Usability testing Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165.6 Results from the semi-structured interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175.7 Survey results: creating awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175.8 Survey results: developing the prototype . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175.9 The final prototype . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185.10 Overview of green spaces financials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195.11 Prototype hardware financials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205.12 Prototype software financial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

6 Discussion 226.1 Implications of proposing a valid and feasible solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226.2 Scoping of the digitalization process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236.3 Financial discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236.4 Implementation of KPIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3

6.5 Creating awareness of the benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256.5.1 Methods for creating awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256.5.2 Creating awareness among decision makers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256.5.3 Creating awareness among the general public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

7 Critical review of the methods 277.1 Usability testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277.2 Questionnaire and semi-structured interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277.3 Financial Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

8 Conclusion and final proposal 28

9 Reference 29

10 Appendix 3010.1 First Iteration Prototypes sketches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3010.2 Second Iteration Prototypes picture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3210.3 Third Iteration Prototypes pictures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3210.4 Usability testing tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3310.5 Picture from Usability testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3510.6 Usability testing tasks - Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

10.6.1 Time to complete each task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3610.6.2 Number of errors made . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3710.6.3 Results from the think-aloud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

10.7 Usability testing - Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3710.8 Usability testing Questionnaire - Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3810.9 Short semi-structured interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3910.10Results from awareness survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4010.11Short semi-structured interviews - results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4110.12Cost segments provided by Magnus Björkman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4210.13Transcribed Interview with Bo Österdahl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

4

1 Introduction

Stockholm Royal Seaport (SRS) is one of Europe’s most extensive urban development areas. A totalof at least 12 000 homes and 35 000 new jobs are planned to emerge as the project is finalized.[1] In2009, Stockholms Stad decided that SRS would be a sustainability-profiled area and be constructedto test the possibilities to push boundaries where possible, with the aim of becoming an example insustainable urban development. Furthermore, the development of the district is adapted to handlepossible future climate change scenarios and act as a safeguard for ecological values and biodiver-sity.[1] Back in 2018, a decision was taken by the Stockholms Stad to further echo the previous aimof the project: “ Stockholm Royal Seaport is to be a sustainable urban district and internationalmodel for urban planning”. Stockholms Stad places huge emphasis that the SRS is to be designedand developed and that the sustainability goals and requirements are continuously reviewed andupdated as knowledge, experience and research findings are presented.[2] The SRS project consistsof several initiatives and sub-projects that are currently being formed, developed and executed. Asa part of the vision to develop a sustainable and innovative city, Stockholms Stad has collaboratedwith the Royal Institute of Technology and has allocated different project areas for student groupsto explore, research provide solutions to the problems they are facing.

The project area given to this student group is related to maintenance of green spaces. This reportaims to explore how digital systems can be used to optimize the maintenance of green spaces inSRS. Furthermore, it suggests methods for creating awareness of the benefits of such a maintenancesystem and the general benefits of green spaces.

In addition to this report, the project progress can be observed on the project website. Clickhere to visit the website. Click here to view the prototype.

2 Problem Statement and delimitation

A complex and costly infrastructure of urban greenery has been established in SRS. One of theproblems that Stockholms Stad is facing is supporting the operation and management of the urbangreenery in an efficient and cost-effective way.[2] Further, they want to create awareness regardingwhat benefits it can yield. Two problems statements have been formulated related to this and willbe explored in this report based on the city’s district request:

• How can digital systems be used to optimize the maintenance of this infrastructure?

• Is it also possible to create awareness of the benefits, both for decision makers and the generalpublic?

The delimitations of this report are:

• Excluding all non-public green areas in SRS

• Budget Restrictions

The delimitation regarding non-public areas is clear and easy to follow. However, the budget re-strictions is not as clear. Stockholms Stad communicated that they demand a cost-effective solutionbut has not defined a concrete budget or any time frames for break-even. Furthermore, they areunaware of the cost structure breakdown.

5

https://greenchecksystem.wordpress.com/https://greenchecksystem.wordpress.com/https://www.justinmind.com/usernote/tests/44412005/44426860/44426862/index.html##/screens/64d3f17c-0e6c-400e-8970-43616be9d32f

3 Background and previous research

3.1 Stockholms Stad and Green Open Spaces

3.1.1 The urban development area

As previously mentioned, SRS is Stockholm’s most extensive urban development area where ecosys-tem services is one of the most central aspects for creating and developing the area in a sustainablemanner. The water and greenery of the SRS plays an essential role from a social, economic andecological perspective. With a well thought out design, the blue and green structure can fulfill morefunction, contribute to synergy effects and deliver ecosystem services. In order to create a robustgreen structure that enables multiple ecosystems services, the Stockholms Stad works within threeprinciples:[3]

• Seeing the stormwater as a resource

• Creating a multifunctional green structure

• Strengthen the distribution link between northern and southern Djurg̊arden

3.1.2 Green spaces

Green spaces are public areas that are created in public land that consist of parks, street greeneryand rain gardens. The aim is to, amongst other things, handle rainwater and dampen high tempera-ture. Dampening high temperatures has become an increasingly important aspect as summers havebecome hotter during the past few years. Further on, in the street environments there are over 20different tree species that provide shade and lower temperature. On the street, the water is led totree pits, greenery and biocarbon mixed plant soils which allows for large quantities of water to bedisposed of and simultaneously contributes to the well-being of plants.[3]

Hjorthagsparken was completed forming a part of the spread zone. The park’s location, designand content strengthen the local ecosystem with a special focus on oak and amphibian relationships.It consists of local plants such as oak, meadows and moisture-loving perennials. A mollusk tun-nel under Lövängsgatan and Bobergsgatan strengthens contact and makes it easier for amphibiansto move through this part of area. The green structure is also an important part of the districtstormwater management. Large amounts of rainwater is taken care of in the humidor and ensuresthis biotope. In very heavy rainfall, water is led from Hjorthagsberget, via open ditches and humid-ity on to lower lying areas of the building to finally drain into Husarviken.[4]

A total of 50,000 m2 (which is equivalent to 7 football pitches) of new park areas has been built inSRS. Street greenery and rain gardens amount to 3,250 m2. For phase 2 of the development, newsolutions have been tested and developed as new inlet wells for street water, solutions for divertingfarm water to parkland and plant beds of biocarbon.[4]

The maintenance of public green spaces within SRS is structured in a traditional way and pro-vides sufficient maintenance to the greeneries. However, Stockholms Stad has determined that theprocess is inefficient and leaves plenty of room for optimization. They have therefore, as mentionedin the sections above, requested a digital system solution that can increase the efficiency of themaintenance process and thus make it more cost efficient.[4]

6

3.1.3 Previous research

Stockholms Stad has not shared any previous research within this field, and there is no relevantresearch be find regarding digitalizing gardening maintenance. However, Anna Bondesson (projectleader of digitalization at Exploateringskontoret) provided a summary document from a workshopheld by Exploateringskontoret. The workshop’s purpose was to evaluate the outdoor environment ofSRS. Further, the participants of the workshop discussed how the environment can be evaluated inthe future with the help of technology. That information proved to be useful and the prototype of thisproject is inspired by the information contained in the workshop results. Unfortunately, Bondessondid not allow further spreading of the workshop document, which is why it is not included in theappendix.

3.1.4 Stakeholders and incentives

There are two stakeholders related to this project. The first stakeholder is Stockholms Stad sincethey are the ones that have created the green spaces and are responsible for maintaining the publicgreen spaces. The second stakeholder related to this project is the residents of SRS, since they willbe affected by how the maintenance of green spaces in the area is performed.

Initially, a discussion about incentives with Stockholms Stad’s representative, Anna Bondesson, un-raveled what was important for Stockholms Stad and what their pain points were when it came tothese green spaces. She was clear that costs was a critical factor since Stockholms Stad has a lotto gain by keeping the costs down. Having low maintenance costs will allow Stockholms Stad toallocate capital to other projects. Thus, the residents of SRS are also interested in keeping the costsdown since that can possibly make Stockholms Stad focus on other projects in the area that needsto be executed.

Apart from keeping costs down, the next incentive of digitalized maintenance is that the qualityof the greeneries will increase. Since maintenance needs depend on irregular factors such as weatherand pollution, it is obvious that a regular maintenance schedule is not optimal. It will cause thegreeneries to receive maintenance at some points when it is not needed, and lack maintenance at somepoints when extra care is needed. Thus, implementing a digitalized system that can detect whenmaintenance is needed will increase the quality of the greeneries. Having good quality greeneriesserves several purposes apart from being aesthetic. For example, it has functions such as supportingthe pollination and reducing noises. This makes it an incentive for both Stockholms Stad and theresidents of SRS.

It is interesting to notice that the incentives and drivers are the same for Stockholms Stad andthe inhabitants of SRS, but with different focuses. Stockholm Stad is focused on the cost perspec-tive since it affects them the most. Having good quality plants can be useful due factors such as

7

pollination and a beautiful environment, but that is not the main goal for Stockholm Stad. On theother hand, the residents of SRS are heavily affected by the quality of greeneries in the area. Itmakes it a more pleasant area to live in and is therefore the main incentive for them. Costs arealso important since it enables Stockholm Stad to allocate capital to other projects, but it does notaffect the residents of SRS as much as the quality of greenery does. To summarize the incentives,both stakeholders benefit financially and qualitatively. However, Stockholm Stad clearly cares moreabout the financial aspect while the residents of SRS care more about the qualitative aspect.

In addition to the financial and quality incentives, there is also one more incentive for StockholmStad worth mentioning. SRS is portrayed as one of the most eminent areas in the world whenit comes to sustainability and modern solutions. In order to maintain this image, it might be anincentive to have modern solutions for handling the greenery. Taking the lead in such fields furtherenhances the portray of the area being outstanding which attracts attention to it.

3.1.5 Key Performance Indicators and cost structure

When conducting the initial background research for this study, key performance indicators (KPIs)and a cost structure seemed missing in regards to the maintenance of green open spaces. Manycompanies utilize KPIs to measure performance in different areas. It is a good method for visualizinge.g. changes in performance before, during and after an implementation of a project. Thus, a currentproblem with the manner of which Stockholms Stad works with public green spaces is that they havea general budget but no cost breakdown, nor do they have any KPIs regarding the performance ofthe subcontractors that are maintaining the public green spaces.[5]

3.2 Product Design and Development

3.2.1 Human-computer Interaction

Human-computer interaction (HCI) is an important field of study concerning the design of technologywith the focus on the interaction between the user (human) and computer (application, service, etc.).HCI focuses on researching ways to improve usability of computer interfaces to improve usabilityand value creation.

3.2.2 Design Principles of HCI

In process of designing user interface, the field of HCI often discuss several important principles toreach a satisfactory product:[6]

• In the primary stages of the development process, it is important to establish what the tasksthe users need to preform, the frequency the task and who the users are

• Early testing of the interface with users is essential to gather empirical measurement andfeedback to further develop and improve the product. Have several user with different levels ofprior knowledge important to ensure that the testing covers all skill levels of the user segment.

• When conducting the user testing it is important to gather quantitative data e.g. (1) time tocomplete the task(s) and (2) number of errors when executing the task(s).[6][7]

8

One of the more common methodologies used in developing a product and incorporating the HCIprinciples is by iterative design and the following steps can be followed:[8]

1. Design a high-fidelity prototype or an initial version of the product

2. Conducting usability tests and documenting results

3. Analyzing the gathered results

4. Repeating the above mentioned steps until a user-friendly interface is developed

3.2.3 HCI Characteristics and Focal Points

There are certain characteristics and focal points that need to be addressed when designing a prod-uct that are essential to a achieve a good human-computer interaction standard:[9]

• Consistent:It is important to create a product that has consistently in terms of elements,behavior and style as this enables users to seldom focus on the task instead of being distracted.

• Visibility: Being able to see what is interactive and being able to tell the differences betweenoptions is important. If this is not clear, interacting becomes a guessing game. If completingan action does respond with a visible result it creates a a sense of confusion for the user.

• Learnability: Actions and functionalities need to be intuitive. It should no be difficult tolearn how to use a function or an action process (in other words, action one should naturallead to action two etc.). This does not mean that the actions needs to be simple enough toremember but not difficult to learn and execute again.

• Feedback: Feedback is an important aspect of HCI as it communicates back results to theuser whenever an interaction occurs. This contributes to the visibility of the product andmakes it more understandable.

3.2.4 JustInMind Prototyping Tool

JustInMind is a desktop application prototyping tool that can be described as an authoring tool forboth mobile and web application prototyping. It used to create high-fidelity website and applicationwireframes. The services offers several capabilities and functionalities such as defining a diverseamount of interactions (e.g. conditional linking, calculations, simulations etc.) as well as designingcapabilities (e.g. diagramming tools, formatting, widgets etc). Furthermore, JustInMind supporthigh-fidelity simulation that can be exported and simulated on devices such as smartphones andcomputers. The purpose is to create an actual high interactive prototype that can be simulated andthereafter shown and tested. It also supports different integration with e.g Google Analytics andClicktale. Furthermore, the actual source code (consisting of HTML, CSS and JavaScript code) canbe exported and thereafter altered to the user preference.[10]

4 Methodology

This section will describe the different methods used for gathering data to this research and themethods used for designing and creating the prototype.

9

4.1 Creating awareness methodology

In order to develop a successful strategy for creating awareness, it is necessary to first understandhow aware people are at the moment and what they think of the maintenance today. Knowingthis information makes it possible to adapt the strategy according to the current awareness leveland thus make it more effective for the targets. Hence, the development of the awareness strategystarted by conducting a survey to understand the current awareness level and the perception ofthe maintenance quality today. It was an online survey conducted using Google Forms, targetingresidents of SRS. To reach the desired targets, the online survey was posted in a Facebook group forresidents of SRS. The survey also included questions regarding how the residents rate the currentmaintenance work of green spaces. Hence, the survey could also be used as input for developing thedigital maintenance system.

Guidelines from a well-established online survey provider, SurveyMonkey, were used to ensure thatthe survey would be qualitative and generate useful results. SurveyMonkey provides ten basic guide-lines for a successful online survey on their website that were considered when developing the surveyfor this project.[10] For example - the survey was kept short containing only the most importantquestions, leading questions were avoided and close-ended questions were prioritized. When thesurvey was finished and ready for launching, a group of students from KTH were asked to read thesurvey and provide instant oral feedback. They shared some useful thoughts and the survey wasrevised according to the feedback.

Further, thorough research on methods for raising awareness was conducted. In addition, the projectgroup had a brain storming session for coming up with new ideas and perspectives. This was laterprocessed and summarized into clear directions that Stockholm Stad can follow to raise awarenessfor its targets.

4.2 Determining the functionality of the digital maintenance system

Determining the functionalities of the digital maintenance system is an essential part of the study.For this, it was important to understand how maintenance works today and what is possible todigitalize. The following steps were completed to gather the relevant information:

1. Contacting relevant employees from Stockholms Stad to receive useful insights and documents

2. Gathering and analyzing information regarding what is covered in the maintenance contractswith the sub-contractors

3. Analyzing material that was generated in workshops at Stockholms Stad

4. Processing and analyzing answers from the online survey for residents of SRS

5. Interviewing a gardener

4.2.1 The process of understanding how maintenance can be digitalized

The first step of digitalizing the maintenance is to understand how the maintenance works andwhen it is needed. The insights gathered from Björkman and Åkerlindh contributed to this phase aswell. However, their information was not sufficient to fully understand how a digitalized system formaintenance of green spaces should be designed. Several attempts were therefore made to contactother key persons at Stockholms Stad for interviews, but most of them did not respond or did not

10

possess relevant information. The project moved forward by retrieving documentation of such infor-mation instead. Stockholms Stad provided a document containing instructions for all maintenancechores that should be executed for the green areas. The document was reviewed and all chores weresummarized to create an understanding of what maintenance work that could possibly be digital-ized. The documentation proved to be very useful, but to complement the information gatheredfrom documentation, it was decided to interview a person with gardening knowledge and experiencefrom the industry. Hence, an external interview was conducted with Bo Österdahl. Bo Österdahlis an experienced gardener that has worked with the municipality of Stockholm at several occasions.

The conducted interview was semi-structured which is a research methodology that is non-standardizedand often conducted in studies based on qualitative analysis. Most frequently, the conductor of theresearch has predetermined themes, issues or question that are aimed to be answered during theinterview. The order of the questions can be changed if so required. Furthermore, additional ques-tions or follow-up questions can be asked to further gather relevant information. This also resultsin an opportunity to explore areas not initially considered. The flexibility provided by this methodwas one of the main reasons for using semi-structured interview.

Before the interview was conducted a set of areas was determined to be covered in the interview.These areas were:

• How are green open space constructed?

• How is general maintenance conducted for green open space?

• What are the important measurements that are frequently used in green open spaces?

• How does collaboration usually work with municipalities?

• What would be valuable to digitalize?

Based on these areas, a set of question for each were created and formulated in a more open mannerallowing room for follow up questions. The interview was recorded and thereafter transcribed in theoriginal language. However, the findings were translated to English.

4.2.2 Defining the digital system

Information gathering from documentations and interviews consequently generated an understandingof how maintenance works and when it is needed. Having this knowledge, the next step of theprocess is to design the digital maintenance system. The fundamental questions to start with whendeveloping the system are:

• Who will use the system?

• What is the purpose of the system?

• What functions should be included in the system?

The initial idea was to develop a digital system where the users were employees at Stockholms Stad.Further into the project, it became clear that the maintenance is not carried out by StockholmsStad, but rather by third-party companies. It was therefore unclear how a digital system operatedby Stockholm Stad could contribute to the maintenance of green spaces. Hence, the focus switched

11

and it was decided that the users of this system should be the companies that actually handle themaintenance. In other words, the digital system will be a tool that Stockholm Stad can provide fortheir contracted maintenance companies to increase the efficiency and quality of their maintenance.Stockholm Stad has been clear that the purpose of the digitalized system is to make the maintenancemore efficient and consequently lower maintenance costs in the long-term perspective. The systemdeveloped in this project will contribute to that by monitoring the greeneries and handling partsof the maintenance automatically. The system will track KPIs from the greeneries and performmaintenance actions if needed.

To ensure that the purpose was fulfilled, it was crucial to include the right functions in the sys-tem. Information on gardening was gathered from documentation and interviews to understandthe needs of the greeneries. Processing and analyzing such information gave key insights on whatfunctions to include in the system.

4.3 Systematic Literature Review

A literature review was performed to initially generate ideas based on previous studies. The pur-pose was to better understand how to design the prototype and what areas should be digitalized.Furthermore, the purpose was also to see what areas has already been covered by precious studies.

In an article written by Durach et al., the authors present a systematic literature review method-ology which consists of 6 steps that are as following:[12]

1. ”Defining a research question”

2. ”Determining required characteristics of primary studies”

3. ”Retrieve sample of potentially relevant literature”

4. ”Select pertinent literature”

5. ”Synthesize literature”

6. ”Reporting results”

This process of conducting a systematic literature review was followed to ensure the credibility,relevance and validity of the literature. The process was applied on both Web of Science andGoogle Scholar. A set of keywords for each aspect (generating awareness, designing a user-friendlyapplication, digitalization, gardening) of this report were used to ensure a standard database. Theinitial search resulted in a large number of literature. The next step included refining and adjustingthe keywords and conjunctions to narrow the search. To narrow the search further, a set of criteriaswas added e.g. subject fields, citations, and time interval. After this process, the number of articlesthe search resulted reduced significantly and the next step was to read the abstract to determinethe relevance. Thereafter, the articles were analysed.

4.4 Prototype development methodology

Design is a central component of developing a product. It impacts the usability, usefulness, effec-tiveness and value creation tremendously. Poorly thought-out products impact the human-computerinteraction (HCI), therefore gathering information regarding the development of the product wasessential. Ideally, receiving feedback and opinions from Stockholms Stad’s sub-contractors wouldbe optimal. However, due to the limited access provided to connect with their employees, KTHstudents studying within the field of HCI were contacted in order to do testing and gather feedback.

12

4.4.1 First iteration

The first step of the design process was to analyze the results of the systematic literature review.This provided a foundation of information to create initial sketches for the design with simpleinteraction mechanisms. The information gathered from the section above was used to determinethe functionalities for the prototype.

After working on the initial sketches, a high-fidelity prototype (semi-functional) was produced usingthe application JustInMind. The inspiration of the first version came from the sketches produced inthe initial iteration.

4.4.2 Third iteration

Thereafter, came the next steps of the design process: usability testing, questionnaire and a shortsemi-structured interview. During the usability testing the first interactive prototype of the web-site was tested. The participants were people who agreed to test the product when completing thesurvey. All 8 participants were given a set of tasks to complete and simultaneously performed athink-aloud (giving instant feedback on the prototype). The feedback was instantly documented.For each tack the time taken to complete it will be measured. The number of error (number of extraclicks) carried out when completing the task in comparison to the optimal path (the least amountof clicks it requires to complete the task) will be measured. Each participant completed a shortquestionnaire directly after the completing the task, which was followed by a short semi-structuredinterview. This was done to to gather further opinions and feedback that could help improve theproduct. This step of the design process set the foundation for the third and final iteration.

13

Note: The process of having individuals not working for the Stockholms Stad sub-contractorstesting the prototype is not ideal since they are not the user group. However, considering the situa-tion (not being able to get responses from employees from the Stockholms Stad), having individualsstudying the area of HCI provided some good insights.

4.5 Financial calculation methodology

In order to evaluate the financial benefits of digitalizing the maintenance of green spaces, we re-viewed the material provided to us by Magnus Björkman and used that information as our base.The information provided to us by Björkman was however very high level. Therefore, a lot of as-sumptions were made to calculate all the cost associated with the maintenance of green spaces on amore granular level.

By combing that data from Björkman with public information about the area of Östermalm itwas possible to calculate the total green space of the district of Östermalm. By assuming an evenlydistribution of the green spaces (based on area) within the district of Östermalm, the estimatedgreen space of SRS could be calculated. The estimated yearly park maintenance for SRS could becalculated through the same method by the total annual compensation for park maintenance for thedistrict of Östermalm (10,700,000 kr/year). The averge price per product and the area that eachproduct could cover was estimated based on public information.

5 Results

5.1 Maintenance process today

In order to get an overview of how the maintenance is handled today, Magnus Björkman and HelenaÅkerlindh were contacted. Both contacts are employed as park engineers at Stockholms Stad andare responsible for different park areas within Stockholms Stad. Thus, they have deep knowledgeregarding how the maintenance process is structured. Björkman is responsible for the area of SRSwhile Åkerlindh is responsible for the area of Kungsholmen. Although this report is focusing onSRS, insights from other areas in Stockholm such as Kungsholmen has been of great use. Insightsfrom both park engineers have thus been combined in order to understand how the maintenanceprocess is designed today, and how it may be developed.

As of today, the maintenance of SRS is handled by third-party companies. Stockholms Stad con-tracts third-party companies using public procurement and the contract length is five years forSRS. The contract covers park maintenance (including maintenance of public green areas). Thecontracted company receives a maintenance description by Stockholms Stad, containing thoroughdescriptions on the requirements of the maintenance. For all areas of Östermalm, the total budgetfor this maintenance is approximately 10.700.000 SEK. The contracted company decides how themaintenance is to be carried out, provided that all maintenance requirements are met. Thus, thereis no guarantee that the maintenance will be conducted in the most efficient way. A digital systemcould therefore help the companies to conduct the maintenance more efficiently and consequentlyhelp Stockholms Stad to reduce their maintenance costs.

14

5.2 Results from Interview with Bo Österdahl

The interview with Österdahl provided several insights. According to Österdahl, the most demandingaspects of the maintenance of green open spaces is manuring of the soil and taking care of weed.Both are time-consuming, however manuring the soil usually occurs 2-3 times a year. Anotheraspect that is important to consider is watering of the open green spaces. Österdahl talks about asolution in Spain where they have implemented drip irrigation to water the soil in an automated andcontrolled way. Furthermore, the interview discussed the implementation of soil analysis and morespecifically measuring pH-value in order to understand when to fertilize the soil. These discussionsalso incorporated the application of an image analysis. The image analysis will enable the prototypeto better valuate the condition of for example the lawn to see if any weed has grown or if it has beeninfected by any vermin.

5.3 Usability testing and think-aloud

Eight individuals participated in the usability testing stage of the design process, which also includeda think-aloud session.

During the usability testing two things were measured: 1. Time to complete each task and 2.Number of errors when completing the task.

The average time to complete each task was:

1. Task 1: 26.13 seconds






Task 2 and 3 were the most time-consuming task, while the other tasks had relatively low time tocomplete. Also important to note is that 3 participants were not able to complete task 2 and 3.

The average errors per task was:

1. Task 1: 8.5 clicks

2. Task 2: 33 clicks





15

The average error per task was extremely high for task 2. Task 2 and 3 were relatively similar butthe number of errors made on task 3 was less due to the fact that the participants become morefamiliar with how to solve the type of task. This can also be seen by the average time decrease fromtask 2 to task 3. The number of errors for task 1 and 4 were also relatively high while task 5 and 6had the least error numbers of all task.

The full summary of the results can be found in the appendix section of the report.

5.4 Results from think-aloud

The think-aloud process of the usability testing provided some insightful information:

1. The feedback aspect of the interaction was good, certain functions needed a feedback responsewhen executing an action

2. Certain tasks (2 and 3) were difficult to complete - the learnability aspect of HCI need to berethought for some functions

3. Certain functionalities were straight foward and there is no need for improvement


5.5 Results from the Usability testing Questionnaire

The usability testing showed that:

1. A majority agreed that the website interface looked good

2. 50% agreed or strongly agreed that the navigation was easy to understand

3. A majority neither agreed or disagreed that that it was easy to find what they were lookingfor

4. A strong majority neither agreed or disagreed that the amount information provided wasadequate

5. 100% of the test participants agreed or strongly agreed that the instruction for the usabilitytest was comprehensive

6. 100% of the test participants agreed or strongly agreed that the instruction for the usabilitytest was comprehensive

7. A majority had neither agreed or disagreed that they got stuck on something

8. There was almost an even split between disagreeing, agreeing and being indifferent if thefeedback from the website was adequate when completing an action

9. 100% of the test participants agreed or strongly agreed that the layout of the website wasconsistent

10. There was an even split between agreeing and being indifferent when asked if the responsetime for an action was quick

16

11. A majority did were indifferent about if it was easy for them to understand the different aspectsof the website

12. The majority agreed or were indifferent about if the headers and text in the test was self-explanatory

5.6 Results from the semi-structured interviews

The results from the semi-structured interviews were as following:

1. Similar to the think-aloud results, the feedback aspect of the interaction needs to be improved

2. The design was simplistic and consistent

3. The website had few functionalities, which the participants enjoyed

4. More information needs to be provided in certain areas to understand the functionalities

5. Certain tasks were easier than others

6. The response time was a bit slow in the analysis tab compared to the rest of the functions onthe website


The results from the three section above created the foundation for another iteration of the proto-type, which helped in shaping the final version of the product.

5.7 Survey results: creating awareness

The survey showed that most of the residents of SRS are aware of the actions taken by StockholmsStad for the green spaces. However, 38% of the residents answered that they are unaware of it, whichis a fairly large proportion. This indicates that Stockholms Stad has managed to communicate theirefforts to the majority of the residents, but that there is still a lack of awareness among many ofthem. Further, over 90% of the residents believe that the benefits of the green spaces are worth theinvestments from Stockholms Stad, both historical and future investments. Nobody answered thatthe benefits are not worth the investments and less than 10% answered that it may be worth it. Itis also interesting to notice how almost 20% answered that they do not know if the maintenanceof green spaces is sufficient today. That shows how they are unaware of the current maintenanceprocess and are likely to be unaware of how the green spaces would benefit from a digitalized main-tenance system.

The full survey with associated answers can be observed in the appendix.

5.8 Survey results: developing the prototype

The results from the survey conducted showed that only 62% of the participants are happy withthe maintenance of the green areas. 19% of the participants also specified that the trees are notcropped sufficiently often. This gives a strong indication that there is a possibility to improve themaintenance further and justifies that measures are being taken to investigate how this can beimproved by technology. 32% of the participants believed that the greeneries are not sufficiently

17

clean. This combination of discontent regarding the greeneries motivated the decision of includingpicture analysis in the prototype. This gives a higher awareness of the state of the greeneries inorder to easier identify when they need to be acted upon.

5.9 The final prototype

The prototype that has been developed is based on a system of both hardware and software and isdeveloped using previously mentioned methods. The hardware consists of sensors that measure thehumidity and pH-value of the soil that are spread across the green areas in Norra Djurg̊ardsstaden.They are to be placed in different areas categorized from Area A to Area H. In addition to this,sprinklers are to be installed in order to automate the watering of these areas and essentially elimi-nate the need for manual labor of watering plants with the traditional hose. Digital cameras are alsoto be placed across the green areas in order to enable photographic analysis of the areas to detectdifferent needs of maintenance. This will allow the users of the software to identify the areas thatare in need of, for instance, cutting, trimming and weed removal. This will also eliminate the needof manual labor in the sense that you will not need to physically visit the different locations in orderto plan the maintenance activities that need to be executed. The prototype that has been developeddoes not include any hardware. The prototype only showcases the functionality and design of thesoftware and mimics how it would interact with the hardware.

The software is to be used by the ones responsible for the maintenance of the green areas. Inthis case it is the garden entrepreneurs contracted by Stockholm Stad. Whilst the program is ac-cessible for both Stockholm Stad and the gardeners, it is mainly built for the gardeners to use.Stockholm Stad will be able to get an overview of the status of the green areas.

The software prototype is web-based as it would be in the final product. It is developed via aprototype creating software called Justintime. It includes a landing page with a login functionality.Once you are logged in, you are greeted by a homepage that includes important information aboutcontact people of both the gardeners and Stockholm Stad representatives. The interface has 4 maintabs in the menu. These are “Watering”, “Picture Analysis”, “Soil pH-levels” and “MaintenanceHistory”.

The “Watering” tab leads to a page where you are able to get an overview of the current hu-midity levels across the different areas. The levels are an average of all the sensors in the specificarea. The process of watering is automated as the sprinklers are activated when needed in order toconstantly keep a healthy level of humidity. The user also has the option to activate the sprinklersby the push of a button. In order to avoid accidental activation of the sprinklers, the user needs tocomplete a 2-step confirmation to activate them.

The “Soil pH-levels” tab works similarly to “Watering” tab as it also shows the average pH-levelsacross the different areas. There is however no option to digitally affect the pH-levels from thesoftware.

The “Picture Analysis” tab showcases all the real time pictures of the green areas. The user hasthe ability to browse amongst the pictures from all different areas. In order to give the user under-standing, a short description of the setup has been included.

The “Maintenance History” tab shows all activities that have been conducted regarding mainte-

18

nance. In addition to the automated processes (watering) that have been logged automatically, theuser has the option to manually add manual labor activities such as weed removal, cutting of grass,cleaning and more. This will allow the user and Stockholm Stad to gather data of how much labor isneeded and will lay the basis for future analysis of the effectivity and resource allocation regardingthe maintenance of the green areas. This page also gives visual representations of what activitiesare being executed through the use of graphs and diagrams.

5.10 Overview of green spaces financials

In order to evaluate the current maintenance of green spaces from a financial perspective, data wasgathered from Magnus Björkman at Stockholms Stad. The information provided by him was ahigh-level breakdown of the cost components of the overall fixed annual remuneration for the entiredistrict of Östermalm. After reviewing the overall fixed annual remuneration for the maintenanceof the public spaces of Östermalm, all cost components associated with the green spaces were sum-marized. Furthermore, Björkman provided the total annual compensation for park maintenance inthe entire district of Östermalms in an email exchange, which was 10,700,000 kr/year.

No cost breakdown for the different districts that makes up Östermalm district was provided [13]:

• Östermalm

• Hjorthagen (contains parts of SRS)

• Gärdet (contains parts of SRS)

• Djurg̊arden

• Norra Djurg̊arden

Östermalm as a district makes up an area of 18 km2. The following is given [14]:

District Area Green space (percent) Green space area

District of Östermalm 18 km2 37 percent of the area 7 km2

The table above shows that the district of Östermalm has a total green space area of roughly 7km2. The total annual compensation for park maintenance in the entire district of Östermalms is10,700,000 kr/year. In order to understand the total annual compensation for park maintenance forSRS in relation to Östermalm, the following assumptions were made:

• How much of the total green space in the district of Östermalm does SRS cover?

• How much of the total annual compensation for park maintenance in the district of Östermalmsdoes SRS cover?

• How is the total annual compensation for park maintenance in SRS split between the differentactivities?

The first assumption can be made by assuming an even distribution of the green spaces within thedistrict of Östermalm. SRS stands for 2,36 km2 of 18 km2 (area of Östermalm) which equals 13%of the total district area [15]. By assuming an even distribution of green spaces within the districtthen SRS should account for 13% of the total green spaces within the district of Östermalm. 13%of the total green spaces (7 km2) equals a green space area of roughly 1 km2.

19

The second assumption can be made by assuming that the green spaces are equally distributedthroughout the 18 km2 in Östermalm with the same variety of vegetation. If the variety of vegeta-tion is the same then it is safe to assume that the maintenance required to maintain this vegetationshould be equally distributed. Given the assumption, the total annual compensation for park main-tenance for SRS should equal 13% of the total annual compensation for park maintenance for thedistrict of Östermalm 10,700,000 kr/year which is roughly 1,400,000kr/year.

The following cost segments (table below) were given by Björkman. Each segment represents alabour post for the maintenance of the green spaces. The information given only shows how mucheach segment costs per unit per year. It does not give a proper picture of the total cost per costsegment since the split between each cost segment is unknown. Furthermore, the breakdown belowis a high-level view of the maintenance required for a green space. A more detailed breakdown wouldhave been helpful to better understand how to prioritize the digitalization of the cost segments froma financial standpoint. Unfortunately, a further breakdown was not available. Document can befound in the appendix.

Object Unit Price (SEK)/unit/year”Brukgräsyta” m2 2.26

”Prydnadsgräsyta” m2 15.00”Sl̊atter utan uppsamling” m2 15.37

”Sl̊atteräng” m2 19.42”Annuellrabatt” m2 302.00”Bruksbuskage” m2 0.41”Klippt Häck” m2 25.50

”Klätterväxter” m2 12.00”Perenna växter” m2 12.00

”Prydnadsbuskage” m2 12.00”Surjordsplantering” m2 12.00

”Ädelrosor” m2 93.00”Formklippa träd” Each 696.00

”Arkadklippta träd” Each 696.00

5.11 Prototype hardware financials

The following labour posts are the most relevant components that should be digitalized accordingto our interview with Österdahl and are included in most of the cost segments shown above:

• Humidity

• Water

• Weed

• Fertilize (pH-level and humidity)

In order to be able to estimate the initial investment required to implement the prototype, a betterunderstanding of how the green space in SRS is divided in terms of surface is required. Accordingto the interview with Bo Österdahl there is typically 4 different surfaces that are included in a greenspace:

20

1. Lawn Area

2. Flower-bed

3. Flagstones

4. Asphalt

Based on visual observations, the green spaces in SRS (1 km2) are made up of 30% lawn area, 30%flower-bed, 20% flagstones and 20% asphalt. This translates into 0.3 km2 lawn area, 0.3 km2 flower-bed, 0.2 km2 flagstones and 0.2 km2. The prototype will monitor and track the level of humidity inthe soil, water the areas needed, recognise weed and track the PH-level in the soil to better knowwhen to fertilize. The table below will show what equipment will be needed at each surface:

Surface Humidity Water Weed Fertilize (pH-level)Asphalt Sensors Sprinklers Cameras Senors

Flower-bed Sensors Sprinklers Cameras SenorsFlagstones - - Cameras -

Asphalt - - Cameras -

In order to monitor humidity and pH-levels there will be sensors in place. Today’s sensors are ableto both monitor humidity and pH-levels at the same time. Sprinklers will also be in place to watereither the lawn or flower-bed and finally cameras will be implemented on all four surfaces in orderto analyse the image for weed. Cameras will only be placed to cover 70% of the area of lawn andflower-bed and 50% of the area of flagstone and asphalt. Further assumptions were made on thearea that each of the sensors, sprinklers and cameras cover:

Product Length (m)Width(m)

Area(m2)

Avg. Price (SEK) including in-stallation

Sensor (Humidity &pH-level)

50 50 2.500 500

Sprinklers (water) 20 20 400 1.000Cameras (weed) 50 30 1 500 1 000

Based on the assumptions above, the number of products required was calculated and the potentialtotal cost for acquiring and installing the products to cover the green space in SRS. Assuming thatStockholms Stad can achieve some sort of price advantage due to the high volumes.

21

Product Area prod-uct covers(m2)

Surfaces Area ofsurfaces(m2)

Number ofproductsrequired

Avg. Priceper prod-uct

Total costper prod-uct

Sensor(Humid-ity & pH-level)

2,500 Lawn andFlower-bed

300,000 120 500 60,000

Sprinklers(water)

400 Lawn andFlower-bed

600,000 1,500 1,000 1,500,000

Cameras(weed)

1,500 Lawn,Flower-bed,Flagstoneand Asphalt

620,000 420 1,000 420,000

Total cost - - - - - 2,000,000

Assuming a lifespan of 5 years for the products above, there will be an initial investment of 2million sek. Assuming a linear depreciation, an additional 20% per year maintenance cost should beaccounted for.

5.12 Prototype software financial

Estimating the cost of the software associated with the prototype is difficult and depends on variousvariables. Based on the functionalities that are required in this prototype the price for a finishedsoftware should land somewhere between 200,000-500,000 SEK. An additional 10-15% of softwaremaintenance should be accounted for to account for any bugs or updates that needs to be done.

The overall initial investment would therefore be somewhere between 2.2-2.5 million SEK withan additional annual maintenance cost between 440,000-500,000 SEK.

6 Discussion

6.1 Implications of proposing a valid and feasible solution

As previously discussed, two problems the Stockholms Stad are currently facing with the publicgreen spaces are:

1. Digitalization of the public green spaces

2. Generating awareness to the relevant stakeholder

Maintaining these public green spaces in Stockholm’s Royal seaport is essential to the environmentbut costly. Implementing a digitalized methods to maintain these areas could reduce the long-termcost significantly despite the initial investment cost being high. However, based on the informationavailable today it is close to impossible to concluded whether or not this solution would benefitthe Stockholms Stad from a financial perspective. The reasoning behind this conclusion is that notall aspects of maintaining the public green spaces can be digitalized with today’s technology (e.g.cutting trees) and those costs that can be reduced (e.g. watering, and optimizing scheduling forwaste management) are not documented in detail.

22

6.2 Scoping of the digitalization process

The process of assessing which activities to digitalize started off by brainstorming within the groupwhich activities that even could be digitalized. Not all activities can be digitalized to begin with, forexample cutting trees, removing weeds, cutting the grass etc. Thereafter, it became clear that theheavy labour activates should not be the focus of the prototype. However, after further discussionswithin the group, we realized that the prototype could help facilitate the more recurring labouractivities such as watering, weeds etc. In order to test our hypothesis, we questioned Österdahlabout the potential digitalizations areas that we were thinking of. The interview strengthened ourhypothesis and gave us further areas to investigate such as measuring pH-level and humidity. Tofurther strengthen the hypothesis and get more feedback we ran our potential digitalization areasby Stockholm Stad and performed a survey to get feedback from the residents of SRS. The feedbackhelped us understand what was feasible and what would bring value to the stakeholders. Finally welanded at the current prototype that has been discusses in this paper.

6.3 Financial discussion

The financial information provided to us by Stockholm Stad was limited and only gave us an overviewof the cost associated with maintenance of green spaces. We were only provided with the total costof the maintenance of green spaces for the entire district of Östermalm and not a specific one forSRS. The financial information that was provided for the district of Östermalm did not show howmuch was allocated to each labor activity such as watering and removing weeds etc. or how muchwas allocated to maintain each surface for example lawn and flower-bed etc. Therefore, a lot ofassumptions were made in order to get a picture of the cost associated with the maintenance ofgreen spaces in SRS.

We arrived at a total initial investment cost of roughly 2.3 million SEK and an annual mainte-nance cost of roughly 450,000 SEK. It is important to highlight that this number is based on a lotof assumptions that are explained in the result section. Due to the various assumptions made, webelieve that the initial investment cost may be too high. However, we do believe that there aresome cost savings that can be realized through the implementation of the prototype. It is difficultto estimate what these cost savings may be since the prototype will mostly be used to facilitate thework for the contractors and not replace them. Therefore, the cost savings that can be realized willheavily depend on the negotiation of the new procurement. Nonetheless, further analysis will needto be done to understand how much cost savings can be realized if Stockholms Stad were to adoptthe prototype.

Our hypothesis is that our prototype can and will facilitate the work for the contractors. StockholmsStad according to our calculations invest today roughly 1.4 million SEK per year through procure-ment to maintenance green spaces in SRS. As previously mentioned the prototype will not replacethe contractors so there will still need to be a procurement cost associated with the prototype. Wehave estimated a lifespan of 5 years for the hardware. In order to fully benefit from the advantagesof the prototype the entire investment would need to be made directly the first year. However, theinitial investment can be seen as a 5 year investment with an annual investment of around 460,000SEK/year. From a financial perspective, it is unclear yet if this is a financially good investment. Ifthe prototype can result in cost savings of minimum 460,000 SEK/year then this could be a goodinvestment. Given that the total yearly cost to maintain green spaces in SRS today is roughly 1.4million SEK, the cost savings would then need to be roughly 33% of the total cost. How likely itis that the prototype will save roughly one third in cost is hard to estimate but does at first glance

23

seem quite unlikely.

Lastly in the financial analysis of the prototype we looked at the annual maintenance costs associ-ated with implementing the prototype. We assumed a linear depreciation of 20% for the hardwareand a yearly maintenance fee of 10-15% for the software. These are rough assumptions but in ouropinion justified. The hardware will be torn down and therefore will need to be replaced in order forthe prototype to fully function. The software will undoubtedly encounter some bugs and updatesthat will need to be amended.

6.4 Implementation of KPIs

Maintaining these public green spaces in Stockholm’s Royal seaport is essential to the environmentbut costly. Implementing digitalized methods to maintain these areas could reduce the long-termcost significantly despite the initial investment cost being high. However, based on the informationavailable today it is close to impossible to conclude whether or not this solution would benefit theStockholms Stad from a financial perspective. The reasoning behind this conclusion is that notall aspects of maintaining the public green spaces can be digitalized with today’s technology (e.g.cutting trees) and those costs that can be reduced (e.g. watering, and optimizing scheduling forwaste management) are not documented in detail.

In order to understand to what extent the prototype can facilitate the contractors some relevantKPIs need to be put in place. These KPIs will help to quantify the effect that the prototype willhave. Neither contractors or Stockholms Stad have any KPIs in place today. Contractors wouldneed to implement the following KPIs in advance to have some data for comparison. We believethat the following KPIs would be relevant for assessing the value addition of the prototype:

1. The ratio between the inspection off a green space and the inspection leading to actions suchas:

(a) Watering

(b) Removing weeds

(c) Removing trash

(d) Check the humidity in the soil

(e) Check the pH-level of the soil

2. How frequently do the sub-contractors water the green open spaces in an area?

(a) How many hours does it take to water an area?

(b) What is the cost of this?

(c) What the humidity levels during the time of watering?

3. How frequently does the sub-contractors clean an area from waste?

(a) How many hours does it take to clean an area?

(b) What is the cost of?

4. The life quality of the vegetation

5. Water consumption

24

By implementing these KPIs the benefits of the prototype will become more transparent for bothkey stakeholders, Stockholms Stad and the contractors. The contractors can use these KPIs in orderto evaluate how to better preform the maintenance required and to optimize their working style.Furthermore, Stockholm Stad can use these KPIs to get a better understanding of how the prototypeis making the maintenance more efficient for the contractors and use these KPIs as the foundation forwhen they need to reevaluate the procurement to better structure the contract. By using the KPIswhen restructuring the procurement, Stockholm Stad will be in a better position to renegotiate theterms and conditions of the procurement to realize the cost savings that the prototype may create.Evaluating the prototype through multiple KPIs at the same time might yield further data points.The quality of the vegetation can be measured through the following processes:

1. Root growth and development.

2. Shoot growth

3. Microbial build up in the rhizosphere: It indicates whether the soil and plant are compatible.

4. Nutrient concentration of the plants

6.5 Creating awareness of the benefits

In addition to developing a digital maintenance system for green spaces, this project also aims tocreate awareness of the benefits of green spaces and digital maintenance.

6.5.1 Methods for creating awareness

Stockholms Stad wants to create awareness of benefits among decision makers and the general public.Since they have different focuses and therefore care for different types of benefits, the strategy forcreating awareness is divided into two parts: one part for the decision makers and one part for thegeneral public.

6.5.2 Creating awareness among decision makers

Decision makers in this context are people who control the maintenance of green spaces in some way.It could be indirectly by affecting the budget for the maintenance, or directly by controlling exactlyhow the maintenance is conducted. Therefore, it could for example be politicians or employees atStockholms Stad. Since the majority of this group do not live in SRS, they are not directly affectedby the maintenance in this area. Thus, the main benefits that this group is looking for in this contextare related to costs and efficiency in carrying out the maintenance. In order to raise their awarenessof the benefits of green spaces and digital maintenance, these types of benefits should therefore bein focus. The most concrete and clear way of showing this is to present numbers on how the greenspaces contribute to the area and how beneficial a digital system would be.

It is a challenge to reach out to decision makers since they are not directly connected to the SRS. Webelieve that the most effective way for Stockholms Stad is to continue with executing projects likethis one and sharing the results. For example, presenting cost calculations such as the one providedin this report might be useful for creating awareness of the benefits. Unfortunately, the lack of in-formation prevented us from finding concrete benefits related to cost-efficiency. However, executingsimilar projects and ensuring that enough information is provided can result in more accurate costcomparisons.

25

6.5.3 Creating awareness among the general public

The general public with interest in the maintenance of green spaces in SRS are the residents of SRSor people who are connected to SRS in other ways (e.g. by working in the area). This group caresless for costs and how the maintenance is conducted. Rather, they are more interested in whatpractical benefits green spaces can offer and how a digital maintenance system can increase thequality of the greeneries. It is therefore appropriate to focus on creating awareness of these benefitsfor this group.

We believe that raising awareness among the general public consists of two parts: spreading informa-tion and engaging the people. Spreading information makes the people understand what StockholmsStad wants to communicate. Engaging people makes them committed which can inspire more peopleand make them interested in the cause, which consequently causes more people to become aware.

An effective way of reaching out with information to a broad public today is social media. Itoffers the opportunity to connect with a large audience while being highly cost-effective. It is there-fore a suitable method for creating awareness among the general public. Stockholms Stad can createaccounts on platforms such as Instagram and Facebook, focused on communicating the benefitsof green spaces and digital maintenance. For example, posts including the efforts carried out byStockholms Stad and information about the results can raise the followers’ awareness. Further,communicating changes and developments in the area can engage residents to take part and givefeedback on the efforts. The images provided below are examples of informational posts StockholmsStad can share on their social media accounts.

Another tool for reaching out to the residents is the news media. Information distributors suchas the local newspaper may post articles containing similar information to the social media posts.A similar effect may also be achieved by creating a website containing this information and updateson new green area projects. The general public may then visit the website to inform themselves onwhat is going on in the area and what benefits it will yield.

26

Although information spreading through online platforms and media is effective due to the largeaudience, it might not be as convincing as face-to-face encounters. Hence, Stockholms Stad couldhost information events in the SRS to inform the general public. Apart from sharing the desiredinformation at these events, Stockholm Stad can also engage the visitors by including activities orcompetitions in the information events. For example, visitors may be offered quiz walks where theyget to see the greeneries in SRS, answer questions about it and have a chance to win a small prize.Such engagement actions will attract attention to the events and consequently create awareness formore people. Furthermore, engagement actions are not limited to physical information events only.Social media accounts are also appropriate platforms for engagement activities. Competitions andlotteries for the followers to participate in are possible suitable activities. To exemplify, StockholmsStad can post quizzes on benefits of green spaces or other information that they want to spread.

7 Critical review of the methods

This section will review the methods used in this study in a critical manner.

7.1 Usability testing

The usability test is an important method used in this study to test one of the first iterations ofthe prototype. The results helped a lot in shaping the final version of the product. However, afew aspects could have been improved. Some of the task were more complicated and therefore,more detailed instruction could have been provided. The point is to try and complete a task andnot understand it. Furthermore, the complicated tasks were placed in the middle of the task listinstead of in the end. If these task were place in the end, the participants would have had time tofamiliarize themselves with the website before attempting the more complicated tasks. Somethingthat was discussed before but that is worth mentioning again, is that the participants were studentsstudying HCI which means they have knowledge about developing a product however, they were notend-user. A more optimal situation would have been if the actual end-users could have tested theproduct so we could correctly adapt the product to them.

Furthermore, the measuring of the time taken to complete the tasks and the error counting wasdone manually. Therefore, it is essential to take the human-error factor into consideration whenanalyzing the results.

7.2 Questionnaire and semi-structured interviews

The questionnaire and semi-structured interview gave insightful results that also helped in developingthe product. Something worthy to note is that the results are subjective and from a group that isless diverse in terms of educational background (another group might have performed differently).However, since it was not possible to get the actual user group to test the product, a decision wasmade to ask people with knowledge about designing products to participate and provide neededfeedback.

7.3 Financial Calculation

The method used in the financial calculations were based on a lot of assumptions, due to thelimited information given to us. Given that we only got high level cost figured we needed to makeassumptions in order to arrive at low level cost segment figures. Due to the fact that there were

27

assumptions made, our figures are not representative of the reality. A better method would havebeen to receive a more granular cost data from Stockholms Stad. However, this was not possiblesince Stockholms Stad did not have that data. Another possibility would have been to reach outto another municipal for cost data but that would still have required us to make assumptions sinceStockholm Stad is not comparable in size to any other municipal.

8 Conclusion and final proposal

Developing and implementing a digital tool as the one developed in this study comes with high initialinvestment cost and substantial yearly cost. Furthermore, the cost structure of the maintenance workcurrently being done is not documented. This makes it difficult to compare the current solution withthe one developed in this report in terms of costs. Hence, it is not possible to determine whetherthe solution provided in this report is more cost-efficient than the existing maintenance solution.Furthermore, how much the digital tool improves efficiency is hard to determine without conductinga ”trail run” of the solution. Therefore, the recommendation that can presented is to first developKPIs in order to track and measure the following data:

1. How frequently do the sub-contractors water the green open spaces in e.g. Area X?

(a) How many hours does it take to water e.g. Area X?

(b) What is the cost of this?

(c) What the humidity levels during the time of watering?

2. How frequently does the sub-contractors clean e.g. Area X from waste?

(a) How many hours does it take to clean?

(b) What is the cost?

After gathering this information, a smaller implementation of the solution can be conducted on atest area (Area X). The results from implementing the solution can thereafter be tracked using thesame KPIs as mentioned above. If the digital system works as expected, this would lead to thesub-contractors optimizing their maintenance schedules since they will know exactly when mainte-nance is needed. Further, the watering maintenance is done automatically. Now, a comparison canbe made comparing the KPI values before and after the implementation of the digital maintenancesystem.

In summary, the proposed solution is to first track KPIs regarding the maintenance being donetoday. Thereafter, Stockholms Stad can implement the solution to a smaller area and track thesame KPIs to ultimately compare the two solutions to determine if digitalizing the gardening pro-cess is more cost efficient in the long-term perspective.

Further, the suggested solution for creating awareness is split into two strategies; one for deci-sion makers and one for the general public. The decision makers should be provided with numberson how beneficial the digital system could be in terms of effectiveness and cost-efficiency (when thesystem has been tested and generated KPIs). The general public should be presented facts on howit can increase the quality of the greeneries and how that consequently is beneficial for the area ofSRS. This should be done by informing the general public and striving to engage them.

28

9 Reference

1. Olsson, Malin. “Vision Norra Djurg̊ardsstaden.” Tengbom, https://tengbom.se/projekt/vision-norra-djurgardsstaden/.

2. Ottosson, Martin. “Norra Djurg̊ardsstaden.” Vaxer.stockholm, 13 Dec. 2019, https://vaxer.stockholm/omraden/norra-djurgardsstaden/.

3. C/O City. “I Norra Djurg̊ardsstaden F̊ar Naturen Göra Jobbet.” C/O City, https://www.cocity.se/vagledningar-och-exempel/i-norra-djurgardsstaden-far-naturen-gora-jobbet/.

4. Stockholms Stad. Norra Djurg̊ardsstaden H̊allbarhetsredovisning 2018. Stockholms Stad,2018, https://vaxer.stockholm/globalassets/omraden/-stadsutvecklingsomraden/ostermalm-norra-

djurgardsstaden/hallbar-stadsutveckling/resultat-2018/hallbarhetsredovisning 2018 20190708.pdf.

5. Parmenter, David. “Key Performance Indicators: Developing, Implementing, and Using Win-ning KPIs.” Google Books, Google, https://books.google.se/books?hl=enlr=id=bKkxBwAAQBAJoi=fndpg=PA101dq= How +to+Develop+Effective +KPIots=cY 1i1m4exsig=eIyMVoKJ1btI15560Jsrm7gVoF8rediresc=yv=onepageq=How+to+Develop+Effective+KPIf=false.

6. Preece, Jenny. Human-Computer Interaction. Addison-Wesley, 1995.

7. Nielsen, J. “Iterative User-Interface Design.” Computer, vol. 26, no. 11, 1993, pp. 32–41.,doi:10.1109/2.241424.

8. Grudin, Jonathan (1992). ”Utility and usability: research issues and development contexts”.Interacting with Computers. 4 (2): 209–217. doi:10.1016/0953-5438(92)90005-z.

9. Paternò, Fabio, and Annelise Mark Pejtersen. “Human-Computer Interaction Symposium.”Google Books, Google, https://books.google.se/books?id=MucDo44MJtMCpg=PA86lpg=PA86dq=HCI+learnability,+feedback,+consistency source=blots=SEudypM8vLsig=ACfU3U3031u2d Zw8u P6y9PZbYAhJ4 S7ghl=ensa=Xved=2ahUKEwia27mbsrnmAhUnxqYKHVIXBU0Q6AEwD3oECAsQAQv= onepageq=HCI learnability, feedback, consistencyf=false.

10. https://www.justinmind.com/

11. https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/survey-guidelines/

12. Durach, C. F., Kembro, J., Wieland, A. (2017). A new paradigm for systematic literaturereviews in supply chain management.Journal of Supply Chain Management, 53(4), 67-85.(2017)

13. “Östermalms Stadsdelsomr̊ade.” Östermalms Stadsdelsomr̊ade, 1 Mar. 2018, https://vaxer.stockholm/omraden/ostermalms-stadsdelsomrade/

14. Göransson, Anders, and Jesper Wallen. “De Gröna Ytorna Krymper – Över 60 Procent Be-byggelse P̊a Östermalm.” Mitt i Östermalm, 23 May 2019, https://mitti.se/nyheter/krymper-bebyggelse-ostermalm/?omrade=ostermalm

15. “Stockholms Nya Entré Fr̊an Sjösidan.” Stockholms Hamnar, 11 Sept. 2018, https://www.stockholmshamnar.se/om-oss/nyheter/2018/stockholms-nya-entre-fran-sjosidan/

29

10 Appendix

10.1 First Iteration Prototypes sketches

Below are the first iteration sketches for the prototype:

30

10.2 Second Iteration Prototypes picture

Below is a picture of the second iteration of the prototype:

10.3 Third Iteration Prototypes pictures

Below are the third and final iteration picture for the final version of the prototype:

32

10.4 Usability testing tasks

The individuals that participated in the usability testing stage were asked to complete 6 tasks. Eachparticipant was given the following instructions before the usability test:

33

Background information: We are conducting a study to digitalize garden maintenance for theStockholms Stad. We have developed a high fidelity prototype with certain functionalities based onour findings.

Instructions: We could like you to complete the task listed below. To access the website pleaseopen google chrome on the computer you have been provided with and enter the following the URL:https://www.justinmind.com/usernote/tests/44412005/44426860/44426862/index.html/screens/fb220478-a284-4a54-af32-b5c5585271cc

This is also a think-aloud session, therefore we encourage you to communicate any thoughts you havewhile completing the task. Also, communicate when you have started the next task and when you feelthat you have completed it. We will be sitting next to you during the time period, in silence, observingand documenting your thoughts and how well you completed each task.

Task to be completed:

1. Are there any areas that are in need of watering? If, so please water these area.

2. Which areas are in need of waste cleaning?

3. Which areas are in need of weed removal?

4. Is there any area with to high pH-levels?

5. Refresh the data of the pH-levels in the soil.

6. Refresh the Water humidity levels.

34

10.5 Picture from Usability testing

This picture below are from the usability testing sessions

35

10.6 Usability testing tasks - Results

10.6.1 Time to complete each task

Time to complete each task by the participants (in seconds)Participant number Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4 Task 5 Task 61 30 67 45 20 11 102 20 78 23 16 8 83 21 150 49 33 17 244 34 Not completed Not completed 21 14 105 50 Not completed Not completed 34 21 186 14 120 97 23 7 67 19 54 37 18 20 148 21 Not completed Not completed 17 11 10Average time 26,125 93,8 50,2 22,75 13,625 12,5Standard Deviation 11,56 39,99 27,99 7,01 5,29 5,93

36

10.6.2 Number of errors made

By error it is meant the amount extra clicks taken to complete each task in comparison to theoptimal path.

Number of errors per task measured in number of ”wrong” clicksParticipant number Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4 Task 5 Task 61 3 24 15 5 3 02 6 34 24 7 4 23 8 43 12 33 1 04 11 - - 17 5 15 19 - - 24 6 16 11 43 19 9 0 07 8 21 13 6 3 08 2 - - 21 3 1Average errors 8,5 33 16,6 15.25 3,13 0.67Standard Deviation 5.37 10.32 4.93 10.18 1.96 0.74

10.6.3 Results from the think-aloud

When completing the tasks, each participants were asked to communicate there thought which weredocumented. A summary of the results are illustrated in the table below:

General comments for each Task by the participantsParticipant number General CommentsTask 1 ”Finding the water tab was easy/straight forward”

”Okay I think I finished the task, but I’m not sure if its water the area””Nothing is happenings when I press the water area button”

Task 2 ”I have not clue were to begin””It is a bit difficult to know how to check the waste level without testing allthe buttons.””The responsiveness is a bit slow”

Task 3 ”This is similar as the previous task, I don’t really know were to start ””After completing the previous task this one was pretty easy, it’s basicallythe same.”

Task 4 ”This one was pretty straight forward”Task 5 ”This one was also rather easy, probably the easiest task”

”It would be nice to have the refresh button on the actual page you are onand not on the menu bar””I liked that the refresh button was on the menu bar since it can be used onall pages”

Task 6 ”Nothing to add on the task, it was exactly the same as task 5 but I just hadto switch tab”

10.7 Usability testing - Questionnaire

After completing the tasks of the usability testing each individual was asked to complete question-naire regarding the task and the website. The questionnaire looked as following:

37

Thank you for participating in this usability testing session and completing all the task.We would like to to answer a few questions regarding the product and your experience using it.Statement Strongly

DisagreeDisagree Neutral Agree Strongly

AgreeThe website interface lookedgoodNavigation was easyIt went quick to find what Iwas looking forThe amount of informationwas adequateThe instruction for complet-ing the usability tests wascomprehensiveThe instructions for thetasks were understandableI was stuck sometimesFeedback from the websitewas adequate when complet-ing an actionThe layout of whole websitewas consistentThe response time after exe-cuting an action was quickUnderstanding the differentaspects of the website waseasyHeaders and text were self-explanatory

10.8 Usability testing Questionnaire - Results

The results from the questionnaire completed by each participants after completing the usabilitytest are summarized in the table below (the numbers in each cell represents the number of peoplethat filled in each alternative):

38

Thank you for participating in this usability testing session and completing all the tasks.We would like you to answer a few questions regarding the product and your experience using it.Statement Strongly

DisagreeDisagree Neutral Agree Strongly

AgreeThe website interface lookedgood

- - 2 4 2

Navigation was easy - - 4 3 1It went quick to find what Iwas looking for

- - 6 2 -

The amount of informationwas adequate

- 1 7 - -

The instruction for takingthe usability tests was com-prehensive

- - - 6 2

The instructions for thetasks were understandable

- - - 3 5

I was stuck sometimes 1 1 5 1Feedback from the websitewas adequate when complet-ing an action

- 3 3 2

The layout of whole websitewas consistent

- - - 4 4

The response time after exe-cuting an action was quick

- - 4 4

Understanding the differentaspects of the website waseasy

- - 5 3 -

Headers and text were self-explanatory

- 1 4 3 -

10.9 Short semi-structured interviews

After completing the questionnaire a short 5-10 minute semi-structured interview was conductedwith all participants. The following questions were asked:

1. What was your overall experience of the website?

2. What worked well when completing the tasks?

3. What did not work well when completing the task?

4. Is there anything you would like to be improved?

5. Were any of the tasks easy to complete?

6. Were any of the tasks hard to complete?

7. Is there another comments or thoughts you would like to share with us?

The results was documented by one of the interviewers.

39

10.10 Results from awareness survey

40

10.11 Short semi-structured interviews - results

General comments from each Task by the participantsQuestion General Comments1 ”The website had a very simplistic design”

”The website had a clean and simple design””It was very consistent in terms of layout and colours””I liked that it had few functions”

2 ”The response time of pressing tabs was quick””The naming and header were clear””Somethings, like refreshing the data was straight forward””There was not to many functions, which made testing my forward a bit eas-ier”

3 ”Some tasks were easy to understand, while task 2 and 3 were not as straightforward””There was a too little information in the picture analysis tab to be able toeasily complete task 2 and 3””The feedback of the watering button was for example unclear. It made it bitdifficult to know if the task was complete or not”

4 ”I bit more information on each tab would be nice to be able to understandwhat is possible or how to do certain things””The feedback when doing something was generally good but not consistent,for example the watering button”

5 ”Tasks 1, 4, 5 and 6 were easy to complete.””Task 5 and 6 were the easier to complete since the everything was straightforward and simple to find on the website”

6 ”Tasks 2 and 3 were definitely the hardest to complete. You had to test yourway forward until you found the correct way to solve the task””I did not really understand task 2 and 3. Because of that I could not com-plete them””It wasn’t clear enough how to solve task 2 and 3 on the website. None ofthe tabs or their name gave a clear indication on how to solve the thosetasks”

7 ”Overall, the website was good, and well designed.”” To complete the task some more information are needed to be added””Add some more feedback interaction, e.g. when pressing the water area but-ton to make things more clear”The respons

Documents

Digitalization of public green spaces and generating ... · Digitalization of public green spaces and generating awareness of its bene ts By Gustav Ingre Maroun Nasr Julian Jaramillo