Hackable City Cycling Engaging the Citizens of Amsterdam Around the Issue of Cycling

Amsterdam Hackable Metropolis Team – MediaLAB Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Josta Valk, Amber Ebrahim, Donna Schipper, Bernard Wittgen teamhackablemetropolis@gmail.com

ABSTRACT This project aims to develop a digital tool, which engages and empowers a public around the issue of cycling in Amsterdam. A combination of different research methods gave insights on the cycling culture in Amsterdam and the possibilities for creating a ‘hackable’ digital tool. Based on the conducted research there is made a design tool for citizens to collaborate in the redesign process of specific bottlenecks in the city.

Keywords Hackable City Making, Bikeability, Urban Planning.

1. INTRODUCTION Amsterdam is known for its cycling citizens. The bike is an essential vehicle in the city. Compared to other vehicles used in the city, the bike is cheap, quick, healthy and friendly for the environment. Every day the people of Amsterdam bike on average two million kilometers by bike (Meerjarenplan Fiets 2012-2016). The municipality of Amsterdam states the investments in facilities have dropped behind with the rapid increase of bicycle use in the city, having as consequence bulging bicycle racks and too small bicycle paths on the main roads in the center (Meerjarenplan Fiets 2012-2016). Thereby fifty-six percent of the grave road casualties are bicyclists, compared to forty-eight percent in 2000. Amsterdam already has a good road network for the bicycle, but in the city center there is not much space for the different vehicles, which endangers the road safety. Therefore in the coming years investments will be made to apply more red asphalt on the bottlenecks and other critical spots in Amsterdam. The municipality also has plans to reconstruct the busiest routes, which are redesigned so that cyclists get more space (Meerjarenplan Fiets 2012-2016). Cycling is thus an issue of a very wide concern in the city of Amsterdam, there is space for improvement and is ideal to be addressed openly by a wide public. Rotmans (2014) states we live in a unique time of being, where the city is in transition. The city is a complex mechanism, where bottom-up initiatives should be more stimulated. Furthermore urban society changes as digital media technologies increasingly shape our everyday lives. According to The Amsterdam Hackable Metropolis Research Group due to these transitions the complete process of ‘city making’ changes. This shift conflicts with traditional approaches of city planning. It is difficult for the traditional development process of the city to catch up with these new technologies, which create a dynamic, ephemeral, fast urban culture. Here the research group sees possibilities for the process they call ‘city making’. Which entails a more open, transparent and dynamic way of engagement with urban issues. The Amsterdam Hackable Metropolis Research Group is a research project who examines how citizens, design professionals and institutions can take into account the role of new, digital technologies in society and redefine their roles in a democratic ‘city making’ process (AHM Research Proposal). By taking this

into account The Amsterdam Hackable Metropolis Research Group is collaborating with MediaLAB Amsterdam to answer the research question: How can we make use of digital media to engage and empower a public around the issue of cycling in Amsterdam?

2. RELATED WORKS In this section four topics are considered and discussed in a more in-depth reading aligned with the research question.

2.1 Smart City De Waal (2014) describes a ‘smart city’ as a city crammed with sensors, software, and networks with an emphasis on efficiency. The smart city is often defined as ‘smart’, when it invests in human capital, traditional and modern communication infrastructure (transport and ICT), sustainable economic development and a high quality of life. All this is done with wise management of natural resources, through participatory action and engagement (Caragliu, Del Bo, and Nijkamp 2009). The underlying assumptions of the smart city, is that all data gathered, combined and analyzed, this will lead to a safer, more convenient, more sustainable and more efficient place to live in. This makes politicians eager to adopt new digital technologies, because they expect that the gap between citizens and governments will shrink (De Waal 2014). Supporters of the smart city point out that new technologies will lead to comfort and economic growth. Critics point out that technology will turn smart cities into closed cities, where the digital infrastructure will be managed by commercial companies, and where citizens will be consumers of the services they pay for (De Waal 2014). Another point of the smart city critics is that smart cities do not address issues of community and liveliness. We do not live in cities only because they are efficient or sustainable. So it is important to disconnect efficiency from quality of life (Sennett 2012, Hollands 2008). Smart City Development In Amsterdam, Amsterdam Smart City (ASC) forms a collaboration between different stakeholders, who share the same goal, namely the development of Amsterdam as a smart metropolis. Different initiatives are gathered within ASC, such as the Smart Citizen Kit and the Groene Grachten, and for companies, inhabitants and the municipality.The founders of the Smart Citizen Kit1 initiative state that data enables citizens to gain more control over their urban life. An objective of the concept of a smart city is connecting people with their environment to create an effective and optimized relationship between resources, technology, communities, services and events in the urban environment (smartcitizen.me). The implementation of the smart city concept will be a wide-ranging and complex process. Currently there exist a lot of small-

1 http://smartcitizen.me (10 March 2014)

scale pilots, but there is not an easy way to scale up these initiatives for wider implementation. Examples of projects with the ‘smart city’ ideal in mind can be categorized in different smart city development approaches, because there are different approaches to smart city development and different uses of technology. Some have to do with gathering and measuring of data, such as the Smart Citizen Kit with its foundation to make the collection and aggregation of environmental data open source (smartcitizen.me). Others have to do with using new media to investigate sharing practices, such as Vélib2. Others have to do with resources management, such as smart energy meters.

2.2 The Hackable City A city that supports initiatives which give citizens the possibility to contribute to the process of urban planning, is known as a ‘hackable city’. As The Mobile City (2014) describes in their introduction to Amsterdam Hackable Metropolis, ‘hackable’ means that a certain existing situation or product is changeable. It is possible to add different functions to it, to reuse it for a totally different purpose or to redesign it. [...] A ‘hackable city’ is a city that encourages the use of digital tools to facilitate non-institutionalized appropriation of their environment or social milieu, within a public interest framework. It is a city that reveals its institutional workings to its inhabitants and is open to systemic change initiated by its citizens (The Mobile City).

Figure 1. Hackable City Making Process (with reference to urban planning in the Netherlands).

2 http://en.velib.paris.fr/ (10 March 2014)

Hackable city making is defined as engaging and empowering publics to act on communal issues and resources. In this new concept of hackable city making four factors are of importance, first the citizens, second the design professionals, third institutions and finally digital technologies and new media.

Figure 2. Vendiagram City Making by Cristina Ampatzidou.

For this project there is looked into initiatives in the context of hackable cities, which are about actively redesigning existing urban environments. In the city of Stockholm there is an initiative that is executing a broader approach with the use of Minecraft3. In the game called Blockholm4, the whole landscape of the city has been copied in a Minecraft template, where buildings and infrastructure are not included. Users have the possibility to create their ideal city. The designs give architects and governments inspiring new insights about what citizens need, want and dream of. Comparing Blockholm and Minecraft a field of tension comes forth which has to be taken into account: Streetmix5 provokes reliable designs, but the options appear to be limited and may not stimulate very new ideas. In contrast to that, Blockholm eliminated all boundaries and supports users to create what comes up in their minds, which possibly will be less reliable. The aim of the prototype is to give citizens the opportunity to come up with total new ideas for refurbishments of the infrastructure, however we will also add restrictions to the design options in the tool to prevent disappointments and to enable more reliable design ideas of better use for the municipality. This will be explored in more detail in further chapters.

2.3 Community engagement In many countries we observe a transition from a top-down approach of governance, towards an emphasis on building bridges

3 Minecraft is a game about breaking and placing blocks. At first, people built structures to protect against nocturnal monsters, but as the game grew, players worked together to create wonderful, imaginative things. https://minecraft.net/ (30 June 2014). 4 http://www.blockholm.se/ (10 March 2014). 5 http://streetmix.net/ (10 March 2014).

between governments and citizens, often described as ‘community engagement’ (Vigoda 2002, Lovan et al. 2004). Tamarack, an institute of community engagement, defines the term based on their research as “the process of people working collaboratively together in building ongoing and active relationships for the purpose of applying a collective vision for the benefit of a community” (2014). Brian Head (2007) attributes this shift towards community engagement to recent international trends in governance and political economy, the improved communications technologies and the necessity to share responsibility for solving complex and interrelated issues on international, national and local level in managing social, economic, and environmental issues. Head emphasizes the importance of building effective space for citizens and all (non)-governmental organizations to participate. Nowadays these relationships between governmental and non-governmental sectors are generally mediated through organizations and institutional forums, instead of direct relations between groups of people (2007). According to Kornaat (2014) the renewed focus on interaction between government, citizens, and other stakeholders, brings to attention the eventual benefits that involving citizens in identifying problems and contributing to solutions may have. An online community mostly exists out of people that share the same idea. This could be a passion, but also a problem or issue about a certain subject. These people start interacting with each other through conversations to swap information, to learn from each other or because they enjoy each others company. Within this project, the main focus is to investigate the creation of a public, based on a common concern that will be empowered to influence this issue. In the case of Amsterdam there are several initiatives that entail community engagement for a common cause. The website verbeterdebuurt.nl6 let people post problems of city logistics on an interactive forum. The municipality of Amsterdam initiated the use of the Amsterdam CitySDK7, which enables people to make use of data of the government made open source. The City SDK is a big European project, with the goal to create a standard for open data. The City SDK project aims to help to provide better services in the city and to make this possible it works on the Open 311 Source, which is “an open communication standard for public services and local government”. Thus a technical standard that many different products and services can implement as a ‘common language’, and therefore enables co-creation between developers to create services for the public (CitySDK). Both projects are interesting examples of how citizens within a community can work together for a common cause on a local basis, but miss an aspect of collaborating actively in the city making process. They also miss the interaction among users. Both examples are about individual users interacting with a platform, not with each other. The goal of our project is to give to the citizens more voice in the city making process and give them actual tools to make a difference.

2.4 Bikeability We address bikeability as the extent to which an environment is user-friendly for bicycling. The factors that contribute to the bikeability of an environment are cycling infrastructure, available parking space, pollution, its climate and its geography. Bikeability

6 http://verbeterdebuurt.nl (10 March 2014). 7 http://www.citysdk.eu/ (10 March 2014).

also comprehends the cycling culture of a city (De Waal 2014). Amsterdam and Copenhagen are for instance considered to be ‘bikeable’ cities, because cycling is perceived as ubiquitous and for everyone. This goes beyond infrastructure alone;it also includes a social aspect together with the culture of a city. People use the bicycle for at least three different purposes according to Peter Pelzer (2010) transport, recreation and exercise. Transportation is the main purpose of cycling, commuting in particular. The bicycle plays an important role within in the transportation system and urban life all around the world. The increasing use of bicycles demands new solutions for cycling (Pelzer 2010). A bikeable city can lead to a more sustainable and efficient city. Heterogeneity and density contribute to a city where different services are located close to each other, and make it thus easier for cyclists to reach. Journey Planner8, an application released by CycleStreets, is a UK-wide system, which allows cyclists to plan routes from A to B by bike. Cyclists, for cyclists, design the application. It is possible that cyclists prefer safer routes to the quickest route; Journey Planner enables the cyclist to choose between options. The platform contains features such as bicycle rack localization, pollution rates of a route and a photomap including uploaded photos from other cyclists, for example to report problems. The app provides cyclists with valuable information, which helps to improve a more bikeable city for the citizens. Another example of a project that contributes to a more bikeable city is the Copenhagen Wheel9. MIT created a new wheel that turns a regular pedal-powered bike into an electric hybrid. A motor attached to the wheel of the bicycle, stores the energy that is generated through cycling. The motor automatically kicks in when the cyclist needs a push. Besides a motor, the Copenhagen Wheel also contains a GPS and a kit that contains CO, NO, noise, humidity and temperature sensors. Data gained from these sensors can be used to keep track of individual use but is especially insightful when the data is shared, so this can be used as a datasource for mapping conditions in the city. This product does not only lower the physical threshold of cycling, but it is still very expensive, so its not intended for everyone. With the idea of citizens able to participate in the creation of a more bikeable and liveable city there is decided to develop an ‘hackable’ city making tool, which enables the citizen to improve the cycling experience of the city.

3. CASE STUDY: FIETSERSBOND HERONTWERP This case study was conducted through the use of different methodologies. The initial research consisted of user research (3.1.1) and several expert interviews (3.1.2). These results were processed and visualized in a paper prototype (3.2). In depth interviews (3.3.1) with potential users and an expert meeting (3.3.2) to test and reflect on the paper prototype were useful to clarify the framework of the current prototype and led to the final concept (3.4) and design (3.5) of Fietsersbond Herontwerp.

8 http://www.cyclestreets.net/ (11 March 2014). 9 https://www.superpedestrian.com/ (11 March 2014).

3.1 Concept Orientation

3.1.1 User Research phase 1; field research - street interviews In order to gain a more comprehensive overview of the current status of the bikeability of Amsterdam, 17 participants, of which 10 were female and 7 were male, aged 21-80, were recruited through convenience sampling (Bryman 2012). The goal of these interviews was to create several personas to capture the different groups of cyclists in Amsterdam. The questions (see Appendix A) we formulated during this research were based on five different themes; bikeability, personality, behavior, experience and use of the bicycle. But it appeared that they were more interested in a tool to ventilate ideas for urban improvement and to co-design urban city planning around the issue of cycling. The personas (see Appendix A) that were constructed through the field research are created to clarify the target group. While doing the field research, it became clear that most people are not interested in a tool to report problems or unclear traffic situations, because they assume that the municipality already knows about unsafe situations. The interviews showed that most people who live in Amsterdam like to travel quickly through the city. Most respondents who were parents cycle d a lot through the city, but avoided the city center because of the level of business. This was also the case for the elderly, while the other cyclists didn’t seem to mind, but just wanted to travel as quickly as possible from A to B. The flow of tourists through Amsterdam has been defined as a problem by the largest group of cyclists. The personas have been described in terms of demography, biography, needs, favorite routes and pictures. The purpose of the personas is to shift the focus directly to the potential end users of a hackable city making tool so that the needs and goals of the users can be easily addressed. Five personas have been created in total: the Amsterdam cyclist, the foreigner, the student, the parent and the elderly (Appendix A). Through the seventeen interviews that have been conducted, five personas have been created. The goal of creating these personas was to create an overview of the current cycling groups within Amsterdam. These personas turned out to be too broad, more in depth research was needed to estimate the needs of the current cycling society.

3.1.2 Expert Interviews Five professionals from different fields were approached to explore different discussions and aspects of hackable city making and bikeability. The nature of these interviews was based on the expertise and field the professional is active in. The professionals that were approached vary from university professors and municipality employees to journalists. An interview was conducted with one of the founders of the web-platform Verbeter de Buurt, a platform where citizens can report issues in public environments. He advised us that within the process of designing a social product that the product has to be tangible for the people. The concept has to be as concrete as possible so that the subject becomes sharable. Second, he mentioned the existing models of gradations of participation. This will be further explored in the next section.

The next expert used to be a municipal advisor for the municipality of Amsterdam. Due to economical cuts the government is executing a plan of reorganization. There is a decentralisation going on that is causing a shift of power from the government to local municipalities. Citizens can play a key role within this new political format. He mainly shared his knowledge about the trend he sees of the shift from a top-down to a more bottom-up situation, where citizens are able to implement their local knowledge and ideas of the city within the plans of the municipality. The expert interviews also provided us with information about the current redesign process and the Knelpuntengroep, a group of members within the Fietsersbond that evaluates the plans of the DIVV (Dienst Infrastructuur Verkeer en Vervoer) and participate within the verkeerscommissie. The field research was useful to gain insights within the current cycling groups and their ideas about the bikeability of Amsterdam. The expert interviews contributed to the research about the current redesign processes of the municipality in relation to the infrastructure. Also, more insights within the current stance of the municipality towards bottom-up initiatives and the use of local knowledge was gathered, which contributed to the concept of the paper prototype, as described in the next paragraph.

3.2 Concept testing After field research and the expert interviews, the concept of redesigning the streets by citizens by executing a paper prototype test (see Figure 2 and 3) was validated. It becomes clear if potential users understand and like the concept. Second, it resulted in feedback on the functional design. This is used in the final design. Six people took part in the user test. The only requirement by selecting test persons was that they were not earlier involved in the project, so that they were not prejudiced. The given test assignment:

You cycle often along the Nieuwe Amstelbrug, en over there is a dangerous crossroad. Yesterday, you heard about a new website, where you can propose improvements for this crossroads. You are surfing to the website to try the tool. The prototype of the website lies in front of you. Please try the prototype. If you do not understand it anymore you can speak out loud what you are thinking or you can ask a question.

Figure 3. A picture of one of the screens of the paper prototype.

Figure 4. A picture of one of the paper prototype tests.

By observing and talking with the test persons, different test results appeared. First of all, people were very enthusiastic about the concept. When they saw the design screen (Figure 3), they felt eager to fulfill the assignment of redesigning the crossroads. However, this was also the moment where people became confused. It was hard to make a redesign. People did not know where to start and when their design was good enough and finished. Users did not know what kind of organization was behind the tool. They wanted to know who would use their design input and who was talking to them. Besides the functionality in the design is very important. First of all, people have to get introduced to the problem location, next the user have to be guided through the design process with extra information about how the tools can be used. Finally the user have to understand that they do not have to make a final and perfect design and that they don’t need professional knowledge about urban planning. These outcomes will be taken into account while the further development of the prototype is taking place. After the paper prototype test, more user research will take place to focus the final concept on the needs of users.

3.3 Concept development

3.3.1 User Research phase 2: in depth user interviews From the field research it appeared that some cyclists experience problems within the city, but they do not know how to solve them. Their local knowledge is not used, this leads to the avoidance of bottlenecks. The idea of collective designing derived from this idea, where cyclists can create solutions to bottlenecks in a visual way together. While developing a prototype that retains this idea, eleven in depth user interviews were conducted to find out which problems people experience while cycling in Amsterdam. The questions (see Appendix B) were based on the following thoughts: When are cyclists motivated to contribute within the development of city or what holds them back if they are not doing this? Are people already thinking about improving the city? While thinking further on the idea of hackable city making, the prototype focused on the ability of users to create and visualize their ideas of a bottleneck. The goal of the interviews and this concept was to explore the possibilities of collective ideation through a platform and to investigate the needs of the current cycling society. Nine potential users have been interviewed. An assumption has been made about what kind of people would be interested to use this kind of tool and are called ‘potential users’. Potential users are selected in two different ways. First, people who showed interest in the idea of hackable city making and the research question through asking and discussions. Second, we chose people we know ourselves to create a diverse group of participants who are interest in cycling in the context of hackable city making. Throughout the in depth interviews, we discovered that people are interested in solving problems, but only the problems that are affecting their own environment. Throughout the interviews, it turned out that a lot of cyclists already find Amsterdam a bikeable city, but sometimes they experience problems which lead to avoiding this location. Some cyclists already gave ideas about problem locations and their potential solutions, but they do not know how to implement it. Mostly they are interested in the contribution to the development of the city, but it is of importance how much time they have to invest in the use of a city making tool. This has also to do with the level of responsibility; some people do not wish to have a lot of responsibilities within the development of their city. What also came out of the interviews is that people sometimes have the idea that the government will not use their input. The in depth user interviews led to the creation of a new persona, Anne van Schinkel. This persona was based on different elements; behavior, life goals, participation within the society, motivations, and the triggers of her participation. These were the criteria that were needed to create a prototype based on the needs of the user. By looking into the results of the user interviews in the context of collective designing, the persona Anne van Schinkel was created. Her life goals, motivations and needs within a society form the basis of the creation of the first prototype.

Figure 5. Persona Anne van Schinkel.

3.3.2 Expert meeting An expert meeting is a meeting with various "experts" to seek and obtain well-grounded information about a topic. Besides giving valuable information the experts participated through consulting and advising on the idea of Fietsersbond Herontwerp. The expert meeting took place in the Medialab Amsterdam, where eight professionals were gathered. Their expertise differed from urban studies, digital media studies, intelligent environments and an expert of De Fietsersbond. The goal was to gain more insight in the possibilities of the prototype (see section 3.4) within the framework of a hackable city and to explore the different perspectives of the experts on the issue of hackable city making and bikeability. The expert meeting made it possible to take next steps in creating new features of the prototype. Most of the advice we received from the meeting lead to concrete adjustments of Fietsersbond Herontwerp, while some advice was useful for future work. Hackability The experts liked the idea of organizing new initiatives by a tool of dissolving problems or initiatives in local environment. However, with reference to the notion of hackability the experts did not agree on a clear definition of the word and questioned to which extent it can be applied. Specifically in regards to the prototype the experts had doubts if the prototype would lose its idea of hackability city making when fixed plans of the municipality are used for design. Main ideas of the experts for making a tool more hackable is by giving the citizens the possibility to report or suggest other everyday problems or ‘problem locations’ and to come up with new ideas as well. This way the gap between citizens and their municipality may shrink. With the design tool citizens are able to gain attention to local problems and create (virtual) communities around local issues. The distance between municipality and citizen will become smaller, and thereby bottom-up city making will be the result of the design tool. A good example of an idea that was implemented within the prototype are the drawings of the original plans of the municipality.

Constraints within the tool Of importance is that the tool can add restrictions upon ideas of the citizens about what is possible and what is not. This is because when you have to go to the municipality every time for improvements, you slow down the participation of the citizens. The system behind the tool has to show the user restrictions beforehand about certain rules around city planning. The tool knows the rules and applies these to the designs of the citizens. For instance a bicycle path cannot be 3 meters wide.

Consultation evenings After time, a public consultation meeting will be organized where different stakeholders having different interests can co-design (collaborative design) on a smart table or tablet. The tool can thus also be used in the framework of offline meetings. Experts in the field should also be able to participate in the process. In this manner you put the different views, problems or ideas on the table. Thereby it is about managing the expectations of the people using the tool. The prototype combines experience of the citizens with the expertise of urban designers.This way the session is about brainstorming ideas and becoming a ‘social intervention’ for the neighborhood. A direct promising on an end result is not realistic and will lead to disappointment of the citizen. Therefore the municipality should harness the knowledge generated by the tool in order to inform their designs and decisions. The tool is thus

a discussion piece between different stakeholders and tries to enable a conversation among these stakeholders. When the tool is thus made manageable for consultation evenings, the tool can become a way to communicate the different ideas and interests of people and to make compromises and understand each other’s points. The idea of the smart table came up: to co-create together on a physical location on one design. Citizens and experts can work together in this process. Of course not everybody has the time or wants to go to these consultation evenings. Therefore there is decided to make use of gradations of participation, this can differ between ‘lightweight’ and ‘heavyweight participation’.

Gradations of participation: The use of the tool is divided in different gradations of participation. After the expert meeting, 5 gradations of participation were conducted. These align with the literature about ‘lightweight’ and ‘heavyweight’ participation, as discussed in 3.4 Final concept.

The user research and the expert meeting were useful to gain feedback on the paper prototype and the idea of collective designing. Elements that were implemented within this prototype were not always as logical for the potential users. The insights that derived from the expert meeting and the user research led to the development of the final concept, which will be explained in detail in the next paragraph.

3.4 Final concept As an answer on the research question, a prototype of an interactive media product has been made (Fietsersbond Herontwerp). This idea works further on the paper prototype and the result which came out of this test will be taken into account. The idea of this product is based on the needs of the potential users. The user research shows that a lot of people think Amsterdam in general is already pretty bikeable. There are problems, but this is especially the case on specific locations, bottlenecks. Besides, people prefer to participate in the development of their own local neighbourhood, instead of doing something for the whole city. Next people sometimes do not believe that governmental institutes wo not do anything with the input of citizens. Therefore it is important to make sure people believe in the product. Finally people not always have a lot of time to invest in their input. From this derived the following concept: a web application where citizens can contribute in the redesigning process of specific problem locations in their own neighbourhood. For participators it is possible to choose which location they want to work on, so they have the possibility to improve their own local neighbourhood. To make sure people believe in the product, they are constantly being updated about what is being done with their input. Because of the fact users not always have a lot of time to invest, users have the possibility to choose how much input they give. They can execute the following actions: 1) Like/Favorize a design, 2) Comment on a design, 3) Editing a design (Work further on a design), 4) Create a new design, 5) Attend consultation meeting. These five actions of participation can be linked with two dimension of behaviour associated with participation: ‘lightweight’ and ‘heavyweight participation’ (Haythornthwaite 2009). For both lightweight and heavyweight peer production ‘weight’ is used to refer to contributor commitment and engagement with the tool and each other.. The terms lightweight and heavyweight are used to refer to the two overlapping forms of organizing and participation, where weight refers to the demand on participant commitment and engagement.

Table 1. Lightweight and heavyweight participation model

LIGHTWEIGHT PARTICIPATION

HEAVYWEIGHT PARTICIPATION

Contributors who do not know each other with no expectation of a continuing relationship.

Contributors know and need to know each other, have a strong expectation of an on-going relationship with others.

Contributions of similar kind, easy to submit, not requiring advance knowledge or training, independent of other contributions.

Contributions of different kinds, requiring apprenticeship and learning, building on, and fitting with others contributions.

Controlled by a central authority that determines how contributions will be made.

Control by group consensus, determines how contributions will be made, judged, and rewarded and how individuals will be recognized for the contributions.

Contributions are lending themselves to statistical aggregation of results.

Contributions do not lend themselves for statistical aggregation of results, but require discussion and consensus.

Motivation is predicated to personal interest, but with need for attachment to a wider societal concern.

Motivation is predicated on personal interest and/or need, with attachment to a wide societal concern but also by orientation to the group and its norms, members, and network of affiliations.

Source:Budhathoki and Haythornthwaite (2012). The idea is that people who daily experience problems on specific locations while cycling in Amsterdam, exactly know what is going wrong on that location and also might have ideas on how these problems can be solved. This knowledge is very valuable (Kassenaar 2014). In the current situation, professional urban planners, who did studies in the field of street design, take care of the design of the streets. They might know what kind of solutions can be implemented, but they are not the people who experience the problems. In the concept of the prototype, their expertise will be combined with daily experience of citizens. An analysis of the current redesigning process in Amsterdam has been done, based on the Strategieplan Fietsersbond Amsterdam (Faber 2011). This led to the orange section in figure 3. The analysis is done to find a way to implement the concept of redesigning by citizens in the existing situation. The blue proces visualizes this ‘hackable city making’ process and represents the different steps that are involved in the process of redesigning the streets.

Figure 6. Stakeholder Map. De Fietsersbond10 is set as the aggregator and connects the input of the citizens with the redesigning process of the municipality. They have a strong advisory role and they meet on regular basis to give advice on the plan. The municipality decides which locations in the city of Amsterdam have to be redesigned. De Fietsersbond decides what locations are suitable for input of citizens and have to be inserted in the tool. This is an explanation of the redesign process of a location: the municipality draws a redesign proposal for a problem location. The Verkeerscommissie consist of different interest groups, including De Fietsersbond. They use knowledge about the needs of different groups of citizens to give feedback on this design proposal. De Fietsersbond is one of those interest groups. In the new situation, De Fietsersbond is involving citizens in this feedback loop. They give citizens the possibility to contribute in the redesign process via the tool Fietsersbond Herontwerp.

3.5 Design of Fietsersbond Herontwerp De Fietsersbond is chosen as the most suitable owner for this tool, because they are able to mediate to the municipality and because they already have a community of cyclists that could be a starting base audience. For the reason the design tool will be owned by De Fietsersbond, the visual style and functionality of the design tool are about the same as other products of De Fietsersbond, for example as Fietsersbond Meldpunt11 (Fig. 7).This is a website, owned by De Fietsersbond where cyclists can report problems in the field of bikeability. This consistent design ensures continuity in the toolset of De Fietsersbond. The main menu with a yellow background, is placed on top of the page. Next, the main content consist of a map with several pins which represent locations which can be redesigned. These pins have been coloured orange. The Fietsersbond Meldpunt uses red and green pins for respectively problem locations and saved problems. The colour orange has been chosen to differ from real ‘problems’ which is red in Meldpunt. The design tool has a more positive and constructive essence than only reporting problems. On the homepage users can choose which location they will redesign. Just like the flow on Fietsersbond Meldpunt, there emerges an information bar with extra information about the location on the right side of the screen, when the user selects a location.

10 http://www.fietsersbond.nl/ (27 June 2014). 11 http://meldpunt.fietsersbond.nl/ (27 June 2014).

Figure 7. Homepage of Fietsersbond Meldpunt.

Figure 8. Homepage of Fietsersbond Herontwerp. After the user selects a location, three panels are accessible on the extra information bar: a video of the current situation (Fig. 9), the redesign proposal of the municipality (Fig. 10) and the current status and planning of the project (Fig 11). This last page is the page where people can check the status of the project. People who participated in a redesign process of one of the problem locations, get notifications when something happened on this page, so that they are being updated constantly and see what is being done with their input.

Figure 9. Extra information about the problem location. Panel with video about current situation.

Figure 10. Redesign proposal of the municipality.

Figure 11. Project status and planning. Users can choose to edit a design of another user or to make a new design (Fig. 12). Users will be guided through the design process and get restrictions according to existing street design guidelines. So that users create reliable designs and will not be disappointed when the municipality will use their input to create the final designs. When the design is finished, users can add it to the database. The design is then available for De Fietsersbond and other users. Figure 13 shows a design which is already made by one of the users. On the right side of the screen, users can create a discussion. This discussion can be followed by urban planners and De Fietsersbond. Currently, the community aspect becomes more important. The redesigns of users become discussion pieces. It is possible to like and favorize a design. The favorize function is meant for users who remember elements of an existing design or look at it more in detail later. The like function is meant to collect votes on designs. The most liked design will be taken into account on the co-creation event.

Figure 12. Design screen.

Figure 13. Result page of a design which already has been made. The co creation event is an offline collaboration meeting with citizens, De Fietsersbond and urban planners of the municipality. Together these stakeholders create a final redesign on the basis of the most liked design in the online tool. A more detailed overview of the total process and the combination of the online phase and the co-creation event is shown in appendix C. Customer Journey. De Fietsersbond takes this final design as an advice to De Verkeerscommissie.

4. REFLECTION ON THE SEVEN ASPECTS OF HACKABLE CITY MAKING Hackable city making is earlier described as engaging and empowering publics to act on communal issues and resources (The Mobile City 2014). De Waal argues that the combination of urban data and social media allows for this new way of city making. Furthermore, he categorized seven aspects of hackable city making (De Waal 2014).

• Data • Visualize • Engage • Public • Imagine • Issue • Act • Scale

For this paper there is designed a prototype for ‘hackable city making’ in the context of cycling. In this part of the paper, Fietsersbond Herontwerp will be discussed upon these factors. There is a joint interdependence of these 7 aspect upon which a hackable city making tool can be developed or discussed. This means that for hackable city making the seven factors are prerequisites, which needs to be fulfilled before an other aspect may be fully covered.

Raw data means nothing on its own, it needs to be implemented to a case to make it meaningful information . Obtaining data is an essential part of the project and is gained through the use of different sources. Through applied research there is found a difficulty in successfully implementing a hackable city making tool in real life. Fietsersbond Herontwerp needs sources of the municipality and especially the design proposals of the DIVV. A requirement for launching a hackable tool, such as Fietsersbond Herontwerp, is governments opening up their data. There is a shift

needed in urban planning where the benefits are seen of the use of local knowledge in the city making process. The designs of citizens give valuable input, gained from their experience, which may be valuable to the municipality and create better facilities for the city. Another important aspect is visualizing the raw data and thus translating it into a readable visual format for the average citizen. For the concept of Fietsersbond Herontwerp visualization of data was a main theme. Currently there are platforms such as Verbeter de Buurt which gives the possibility to give feedback on the municipality with text but never with visuals. We visualize the design proposal of the DIVV in a uniform format. The difficulty is to get consistency in the drawings of the municipality, this is noticed at a meeting with the Knelpunten Groep of De Fietsersbond, diverted a lot because different urban designers use different design tools and methods. Creating a consistent design format however, will cost time and maintenance.

A successful hackable city making concept needs a public, which is interested in the issue the product denounces. A hackable city making tool without users will not work out, it is thus important to reach the crowd. Fietsersbond Herontwerp uses interesting data visualisations and the issue of biking which affects everyone in the city of Amsterdam to attract a public. The engagement of the citizen and thus users of the tool is therefore another important step. For Fietsersbond Herontwerp a campaign format is created (see Appendix D), which may be of use, but has not been tested. The aim of the campaign is to engage through play and urging action. Thereby there is created a customer journey, which shows the various steps which the participant can take. To attract different kinds of public to it, there is decided to use five grades of participation which involve different types of commitment. Therefore a communal issue will bring value to different lifes and must be clear before there can be acted upon. Thereby it is of importance to continuously engage the public and the issue needs to appeal to the citizens. Difficulties here were found in the user interviews where citizens stated they wanted to participate only when they felt being taken seriously and when there has been done something with their input or when they hear why an alternative is a better solution. Therefore clear communication between stakeholders is of importance.

A public can only be engaged when the tool has an added value for their lives, therefore the concept of imagine is important and is connected to all of the factors above. It is about originality and creating additional value. The added value of Fietsersbond Herontwerp is the promise of improved facilities especially in infrastructure. Thereby there is one design format bringing consistency and make it easier for municipality and citizens to participate.

Randomly presenting data is not of any use, only by using data in a certain issue it gets meaning. For the tool Fietsersbond Herontwerp the issue of cycling in Amsterdam is chosen. The locations to be redesigned are predetermined by the municipality. De Fietsersbond decides which locations are included in the tool. Diverse stakeholders may encounter different problems on the same location. During the design process of the tool a tension between pointing out a specific problem or keeping the problem open for the participant became clear. For Fietsersbond Herontwerp there is chosen to not define an exact problem, but let

users themselves point out the specific problems they encounter. So that an open discussion may occur, and the owner of the tool does not have direct influence on the designs.

Act is another important factor in the hackable city making process, with Fietsersbond Herontwerp there is persuaded to act on a communal issue, which is better infrastructure and transparent city making practices. The campaign of Fietsersbond Herontwerp aims to launch the tool as a conversation piece by itself among diverse stakeholders. By getting these diverse groups together there can be thought of the best possible infrastructure for everyone. At all times in the process it is of importance to continuing the involvement of the participants, which is of importance for the realisation of the project. A difficulty that occurs when considering act is that the attention of the public needs to be maintained throughout the whole process of redesigning a street. The solution can be an assigned campaign manager, who takes responsibility of the maintenance of attention. To scale a project all prerequisites above need to be fulfilled. Not every product designed for ‘hackable city making’ is able to meet all these seven aspects fully. Applied research showed difficulties in scaling the product in the changing of a mindshift which is needed for citizens and municipality to fully embrace hackable city making tools. Furthermore attracting a public is necessary for scaling a project and to create a network of active participants.

5. CONCLUSION The aim of this research was to explore a digital tool, which engages and empowers a public around the issue of cycling in Amsterdam. The city is in transition, urban society changes as digital media technologies increasingly shape our everyday lives. Due to this transitions traditional approaches of city planning fall behind with new technologies, which create a dynamic, ephemeral, fast urban culture. This may be an opportunity for a new process called ‘city making’ (The Mobile City 2014), where there is a focus on an open, transparent and dynamic way of engagement with urban issues. The results from the applied research process gave insights in the requirements for hackable city making. The user research shows that a lot of people think Amsterdam in general is already pretty bikeable. There are problems, but this is especially the case on specific locations, bottlenecks. Besides, people prefer to participate in the development of their own local neighbourhood, instead of doing something for the whole city. Next, people sometimes do not believe that governmental institutes will not do anything with the input of citizens. Therefore it is important to make sure people believe in the product. Thereby people not always have a lot of time to invest in their input. Furthermore Fietsersbond Herontwerp encourages an bottom-up approach and combines expert knowledge with citizen experience. People reacted enthusiastically on this concept but had their concerns. These related to the main problem we occurred during the process, namely the mindshift all stakeholders involved need, to make hackable city making a success and able to scale among governments and cities. This is a reciprocal situation; citizens have to be continuously involved and engaged and must act upon these new common responsibility and governments have to be willing to open up their data.

6. FUTURE WORK The hackable city making concept can be implemented in a broader perspective. Fietsersbond Herontwerp can be scaled globally among cities where there is the need for improvement of city infrastructure. Everywhere the expertise of the urban planners can be combined with the experience of citizens who encounter problems along the way but also opportunities for redesign. Furthermore the tool can be developed further to the point where citizens may come up with neighborhood initiatives such as the creation of an urban garden, or a new playground. A hackable city making tool may can connect citizens on communal issues, therefore becomes a discussion piece for the neighborhood. Local initiatives may benefit from this convenient connection with the municipality and other decision makers. And for municipalities they get insights in citizens needs, they also might know where the problems are and can propose the issues they find urgent. However, hackable city making is still in an early stage. To develop this concept, a mindshift for citizens is required, they have to be open to collaboration and believe in the idea. On the other hand, municipalities have to adapt their working processes, make it more transparent.They have to work open, for example make their plans for redesigning accessible for everyone and accept citizen participation in the development of the redesigns.

7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The AHM team of the MediaLAB Amsterdam would like to thank their commissioner The Amsterdam Hackable Metropolis Research Groups consisting of The Mobile City Foundation, One Architecture and CIRCA of the University of Amsterdam. A multidisciplinary team of students from the MediaLAB collaborated with experts of diverse fields of studies and want to thank them for sharing their knowledge. Furthermore we worked closely together with our assigner Martijn de Waal and embedded researcher Cristina Ampatzidou and want to thank them for the nice meetings, valuable input and patience. Also many thanks to the MediaLAB for this opportunity and valuable experience. And last but not least we would like to thank our project manager Margreet Riphagen for her everlasting support.

8. REFERENCES

Ampatzidou, Cristina. Amsterdam Hackable Metropolis: Research Proposal. February 7, 2014. Amsterdam.nl. 2012. Gemeente Amsterdam. April 25, 2014. <http://www.amsterdam.nl/gemeente /organisatie-diensten/ivv/divv-organisatie/werken-we-divv/>.

Amsterdam Smart City. March 10, 2014. <http://amsterdamsmartcity.com/projects#themes>.

Brannen, Paul. “On Campaigning as an Effective Tool to Encourage Wider Support for a Cause.” Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 1.1. 1995.

Bryman, A. Social research methods. Oxford University Press, 2012.

Budhathoki, Nama R, and Caroline Haythornthwaite. “Motivation for Open Collaboration: Crowd and Community Models and the

Case of OpenStreetMap.” American Behavioral Scientist. 57.5 (2012): 548-575.

Caragliu, Andrea, Chiara Del Bo, Peter Nijkamp. Smart Cities in Europe. Proceedings of the 3rd Central European Conference on Regional Science (CERS), 2009: VU University Amsterdam, 2009. 45-59. CitySDK. 2014. March 10, 2014. <http://www.citysdk.eu/>.

De Waal, Martijn. The City as Interface: How New Media Are Changing the City. Rotterdam: nai010 publishers, 2014.

De Waal, Martijn. “Athens Hackable Metropolis”. The Mobile City. Athens, May 5, 2014. <http://www.slideshare.net/euro2000/140505-hackable-city-athens>.

Faber, Gerrit. "Strategieplan Fietsersbond Amsterdam." Strategieplan Fietsersbond Amsterdam 2011-2015 Inhoud (2011): n. pag.Fietsersbond Amsterdam. Fietsersbond. Web. <https://fietsersbondamsterdam.nl/_media/2011/strategieplan_fietsersbond_amsterdam_2011-2015-extern.pdf>. Fietsberaad.nl. 2007. CROW-Fietsberaad. April 25, 2014. <http://www.fietsberaad.nl/index.cfm?lang=nl&repository=Leidraad+Centrale+Verkeerscommissie+Amsterdam>. Gemeente Amsterdam. Dienst Infrastructuur Verkeer en Vervoer. Meerjarenplan Fiets 2012-2016. Amsterdam: 2012. Haythornthwaite, Caroline. Crowds and Communities: Light and Heavyweight Models of Peer Production. Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: IEEE, 2009.

Head, Brian W. "Community engagement: participation on whose terms?."Australian Journal of Political Science 42.3 (2007): 441-454.

Hollands, Robert G. “Will the Real Smart City Please Stand Up?” City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action. 12.3 (2008): 303-320. Huizing, Hiddo, Anton van Hoorn en Arjan Harbers. Big Data, Different City. March 10, 2014. 23 – 5. <http://www.platform31.nl/uploads/media_item/media_item/19/24/BigData_Different_City-1392029508.pfd>.

Kornaat, Nina. “Community Building: van online dialoog naar offline actie.” Frankwatching. March 7, 2013. May 7, 2014. <http://www.frankwatching.com/archive/2013/03/07/community-building-van- online-dialoog-naar-offline-actie/>.

Pelzer, Peter. Bicycling as a Way of Life: A Comparative Case Study of Bicycle Culture in Portland, OR and Amsterdam. 7th Cycling and Society Symposium, September. Oxford, 2010. <http://www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/events/100906/css-pelzer-paper.pdf>.

Rotmans, Jan. De Stad In Transitie. Reading. Zuiderkerk, Amsterdam. February 13, 2014.

Sennett, Richard. “No One Likes a City That’s Too Smart.” The Guardian. December 4, 2012.

Tamarack. “Our Growing Understanding of Community Engagement.” <http://tamarackcommunity.ca/downloads/home/ce_report.pdf>. March 10, 2014. The Mobile City. Martijn de Waal, and Michiel de Lange.2014. The Amsterdam Hackable Metropolis Research Group. February 10, 2014. <http://www.themobilecity.nl/amsterdam-hackable-metropolis/>.

Wahlgren, Lina. Studies on bikeability in a Metropolitan Area Using the Active Commuting Route Environment Scale. (ACRES). March 11, 2014. 24-25. <http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:439638/FULLTEXT01.pdf>.

APPENDIX A: FIELD RESEARCH

Used Questionnaire

0. Introduction Wij zijn bezig met een project om het fietsen in Amsterdam te verbeteren. Op dit moment willen we weten wat voor een verschillende soorten fietsers er zijn.

• Als je vragen niet wil beantwoorden, hoeft dat niet.

• Er zijn geen goede of foute antwoorden.

• Als je een vraag niet begrijpt, kun je om uitleg vragen.

0.1 Waar kom je vandaan?

0.2 Waar ga je naartoe?

1. Persoonlijk Doel: geïnterviewde op zijn of haar gemak stellen.

1.1 Wat is je leeftijd?

Hoe ziet de week van de geinterviewde eruit?

1.2 Wat voor werk doe je?

Is dit een bijbaan? Ja / nee

1.3 Wat voor studie doe je?

1.4 Wat doe je in je vrije tijd?

1.5 Woon je alleen met je gezin /vrienden?

2. Fiets

2.1 Wat voor fiets heeft de persoon? (zelf invullen, er even over praten)

2.2 Waarom heb je voor deze fiets gekozen?

3. Fietsgebruik

3.1 Hoe lang fiets je per dag?

3.2 Hoeveel fietsritjes maak je per dag?

3.3 Naar welke plaatsen (werk/school/boodschappen/vrienden/etc.) ga je vaak met de fiets? (DOORVRAGEN)

3.4 Teken op deze kaart de route die je het meest fietst. (doel: de persoon aan zijn of haar route laten denken voor vraag 5.3)

Laat bij deze vraag de geinterviewde op de kaarten op de volgende pagina zijn of haar route tekenen

3.5 Welk vervoersmiddel gebruik je het meest?

FIETS

3.6a Waarom is je fiets WEL je primaire vervoersmiddel?

3.7a Wat zijn voor jou redenen om in een bepaalde situatie niet met de fiets te gaan

NIET FIETS

3.6a Waarom is je fiets NIET je primaire vervoersmiddel?

3.7b Wanneer kies je om wel met de fiets te gaan?

` 4. Fietsgedrag

4.1 Wat is jouw fietsgedrag in het verkeer? Houd je jezelf aan de regels?

4.2 Doe je wel eens iets anders tijdens het fietsen?

4.3 Gebruik je wel eens een kaart / navigatie applicatie / tracking applicatie?

4.3 Waar let je op als je je fiets parkeert?

5. Fietsbeleving

5.1 Hoe ervaar je fietsen in Amsterdam?

5.2 Wanneer is een fietstocht voor jou geslaagd?

5.3 Welke problemen kom je tegen tijdens het fietsen in Amsterdam?

5.4 Ga je ook wel eens recreatief fietsen?

6. Overige opmerkingen

 

APPENDIX B: IN DEPTH USER INTERVIEWS

Used Question list 9. 0. Introductie Doel: de deelnemer op zijn gemak stellen en hem of haar zich laten voorstellen. Introductietekst:

‘Fijn dat je met ons interview wilt meewerken, bedankt. Wij zijn bezig met een project over de bikeability van Amsterdam. De bikeability van een stad staat eigenlijk gelijk aan de mate waarin een stad gebruiksvriendelijk is voor fietsers. Op dit moment houden wij interviews met fietsers in Amsterdam om erachter te komen wat zij als belangrijke problemen zien in de fiets infrastructuur van de stad en hoe zij dit zouden willen verbeteren. Er zijn geen goede of foute antwoorden. Het gaat puur om hoe jij de stad ervaart.’

Vragen Zou je jezelf kort willen voorstellen? Dit is belangrijk om erachter te komen wat voor een soort mensen welke ideeën hebben.

0.1 Leeftijd ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………… 0.2 Werk/ student/type

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 0.3 Wat zijn de wekelijkse bezigheden?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

10. 1. Welke probleem zijn het meest vervelend en komen het meest voor ? Doel: Inzicht krijgen in welke probleem fietsers het meest ervaren en welke problemen zij als het meest vervelend

ervaren. ‘Wij willen er onder andere achter komen welke problemen mensen ervaren tijdens het fietsen in Amsterdam. Zou je in dit formulier willen invullen in hoeverre je bepaalde situaties ervaart als problemen tijdens het fietsen in Amsterdam?’ <Toon op laptop het volgende formulier> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1mOETd9E7rMml4jsYB2zAZWMpDHBviOrY_fp-a9eD0Jk/viewform 2. Welke problemen ervaren mensen op bepaalde locaties? Doel: Inzicht krijgen in welke problemen mensen het belangrijkst vinden en waar ze het liefst

verbetering in zouden zien. ‘Je hebt nu aangegeven welke problemen je ervaart. De volgende vragen gaan over jouw fietsroute en de problemen die je daar het allerbelangrijkst vindt.’ Vragen:

1.1 Welke route fiets je het meest? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………… 1.2 Op welk moment van de dag fiets je deze route meestal? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………….

1.3 Op welke plaatsen op deze route ervaar je problemen? <laat de deelnemer dit aangeven op de kaart>…………………………………………………………………………………

1.4 Welke problemen ervaar je op deze locaties? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………

Geef voorbeelden: 1. Het fietspad is hier te smal 2. Er is te weinig ruimte om te wachten bij het stoplicht 3. Andere weggebruikers snijden me af 4. etc.

1.5 Beschrijf de situatie waarin het probleem zich voordoet van begin tot eind.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………

1.6 Indien nog niet duidelijk: waarom is dit een probleem? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

10.1 1. Welke probleem zijn het meest vervelend en komen het meest voor ? Doel: Inzicht krijgen in welke probleem fietsers het meest ervaren en welke problemen zij als het meest vervelend

ervaren. 1b. Geeft bij de volgende situaties in hoeverre je deze situatie zelf als een probleem ervaart tijdens het fietsen in Amsterdam. 1 = ervaar ik niet als een probleem 5 = ervaar ik als een groot probleem

1 (geen probleem)

2 3 4 5 (groot probleem)

Ik weet niet welk wegdeel voor mij bestemd is.

Er is niet gestrooid op een fietspad.

Weesfietsen en fietswrakken tasten het straatbeeld aan.

Er is een paaltje verkeerd geplaatst.

Een stoplicht staat te kort op groen.

Het fietspad houdt plotseling op.

Er staan onnodig veel stoplichten binnen een bepaald gebied.

Fietspad of gedeelte van fietspad is te smal.

Er ontbreekt een (fiets)verkeersbord.

Geul van tramspoor is gevaarlijk bij oversteken.

Een helling is te steil om te fietsen.

De fietsenstalling is te duur.

Een boomwortel zorgt voor hobbel in het fietspad.

Ik word onnodig gedwongen om over te steken.

Het putdeksel ligt te diep in het wegdek.

Straatverlichting ontbreekt.

Haaientanden ontbreken.

Ik weet niet welk stoplicht voor mij bedoeld is.

Op locatie x mis ik een stoplicht.

Weesfietsen/fietswrakken staan in de weg.

Asociaal gedrag van scooterrijders op het fietspad.

Overvolle fietsenrekken

Asociaal gedrag fietsers op het fietspad

Er staan auto’s geparkeerd op fietsstrook.

Ik heb last van fietsende spookrijders.

Een object ontneemt mij het zicht op een plaats waar overzicht erg belangrijk is.

Ik weet niet of ik voorrang moet krijgen of verlenen.

Geparkeerde auto's vertrekken zonder op te letten.

Ik ervaar hinder doordat verkeer uit verschillende richtingen tegelijkertijd groen krijgt.

11. 3. Huidige gedachtes over verbetering van de stad (op het gebied van fietsen). Doel: Inzicht krijgen in huidige ideeën van mensen t.o.v. stadsverbetering gerelateerd aan fietsen.

Vragen:

2.1 Denk je wel eens na over iets wat je zou willen verbeteren aan de infrastructuur of logistiek in de stad? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………… Antwoord is ja: ga naar 2.2 Antwoord is nee: vraag door! Is de persoon dan helemaal tevreden met de stad?

antwoord is JA

2.2 Heb je ook wel eens specifiek nagedacht over het verbeteren van de fietsinfrastructuur? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

2.2 Wat zou je dan willen verbeteren? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2.3 Hoe denk je dat dit verbeterd kan worden? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………… 2.4 Spreek je wel eens met andere Amsterdammers over de verbetering van de stad? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………… 4. Huidige gedrag in actief meewerken aan verbetering van de stad Doel: Inzicht krijgen in het gedrag van mensen wat betreft het werkelijk ondernemen van actie. Wat doen mensen

om de stad te verbeteren? Vragen:

3.1 Ben je op een of andere manier actief bezig met het verbeteren van de stad en het laten horen van deze ideeën? Ga je bijvoorbeeld wel eens naar een inspraakavond van de gemeente of werk je bij een buurthuis? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………… Indien antwoord is ja: ga naar 3.2 Indien antwoord is nee: ga naar 3.5

antwoord op 3.1 is JA 3.2 Op welke manier doe je dat?

Geef voorbeelden: ideeënbus, applicatie, verbeterdebuurt etc.? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………

3.3 Wat is je motivatie om dit te doen? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

3.3 Hoe weet je van deze mogelijkheid? Hoe ben je hier terecht gekomen?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

3.4 Wat vond je ervan om dat te doen? Heb je iets gemerkt van wat de gemeente of andere organisatie met je idee is gaan

doen?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

antwoord op 3.1 is NEE

● omdat ik niet het idee heb dat er iets met mijn input/ideeën wordt gedaan ● omdat ik de problemen niet ‘echt’ problemen vind -> een naar antwoord… ● omdat ik er te weinig tijd voor heb ● omdat ik denk dat ik de enigste ben met dit idee

3.5 Je hebt aangegeven dat je wel eens nadenkt over het verbeteren van de stad Amsterdam of de

infrastructuur op het gebied van fietsen en ideeën hebt voor verbetering, maar hier niks mee doet. Wat zijn de belemmeringen die je tegenkomt om niet actief bezig te zijn met het verbeteren van de stad? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………

3.6 Heb je het idee dat er faciliteiten zijn voor burgers van Amsterdam om hun ideeën over de verbeteringen voor de stad te laten horen? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………… 4. Potentiële motivatie actief meewerken aan verbetering van de stad Doel: Erachter komen op welke manier mensen actief mee zouden willen werken aan de verbetering van een

bepaalde locatie

4.1 Wat zouden voor jou motivaties zijn om wel actief mee te werken aan de verbetering van de stad?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

4.2 Ben je van plan je in de toekomst actief bezig te houden met de verbetering van de stad?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………… 5. Terugkoppeling Scale fietsproblemen Doel: Erachter komen waar de problemen plaatsvinden die de gebruiker heeft aangekaart in de scale van

problemen. Welke problemen gaf hij of zij een 4 of 5? Zijn deze problemen genoemd in vraag 3? Zo niet: vraag waar deze problemen zich voordoen.

5.1 Probleem + locatie …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………… 6. Afsluiting Doel: Bedanken en terugkoppeling Contact: Naam: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… E-mail: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

 

 

 

APPENDIX C. CUSTOMER JOURNEY

APPENDIX D. CAMPAIGN What is meant with campaigning? The concept by the dictionary is defined as ‘a series of coordinated activities, designed to achieve a social, political or economic goal’. For the campaign designed for the ‘ideation tool’ campaigned on a request for raising awareness of the product and action. Different forms are possible and can be combined. Campaigning can be highly effective for a cause. When an organization runs a successful campaign, associated publicity will give good change on increased public support (Brannen 1995). Many changes are political, economical and social in nature. It does help give people a ‘stake’ in the work of the organization, and thereby campaigning can also add the sense of ownership and involvement. Especially when you notice after some weeks that through pressure the ideas become reality. This sense of achievement motivates, because it can also be seen as your achievement. The time given, adds to the involvement, and if successes are achieved, it empowers supporters (Brannen 1995). There can also be thought of the best time of the year to start the campaign. We can look into cause-related events or days as opportunity to launch the product and make the product known to a large public

Campaign Materials

Online Possibilities Making users part of an organization campaign, it is important to develop simple campaign actions for supporters to undertake. The ideal campaign action is the one that supporters can undertake in their daily practices, therefore is important to make the campaign actions simple. Here can be thought of social media, the like and share button, integrated on the platform ‘Ideation Tool’.

• Social Media: Share, Like, Tweet (Twitter, Facebook etc.)

• Banners on other websites

Offline Possibilities • Bicycle or municipality/governmental relevant events or happenings: those people are already interested • Campaign with posters with statement: pictures, big colorful posters: attracts attention from people driving or walking by • Post signs, stickers, and hand out flyers around universities, local businesses, public libraries: small flyers to pass out to people • Information flyers to post on cork boards or town message boards in community centers and public spaces • Recruit speakers who can speak at schools, mass media, community centers, and ‘real stories are powerful’

o Mass media is an option such as local newspapers or magazines. AT5, TV N-H. There can also be thought about campaigns on ‘bigger scale’

• Promote the ideation table at consultation meetings (Governments and community centers) • Interactive installation (like in front of the HvA) with ‘counter’ • Chalking on infrastructure (guerilla action), Reaction can be filmed and spread on social media

Advent Event (Consultation Meeting)

• All participators get an email invitation