Smart Users in the Smart City

(1)

Smart Users in the Smart City

Digital Construction Week // 18-19 October 2017

(2)

INTRO

(3)

INTRO

CHALLENGE CONTEXT

(4)

INTRO

CHALLENGE DEF CONTEXT • environment • mobility • economy • governance • living • People (Giffinger, 2007)

(5)

INTRO

CHALLENGE

RESPONSE DEF

(6)

INTRO

CHALLENGE RESPONSE DEF CONTEXT ISSUE SUSTAINABILITY

of the Smart City

ACCEPTABILITY

(7)

METHODOLOGY

n=43 n=68 n=14 n=56 • 4 events • 181 participants • 1 questionnaire • 2 versions

(8)

Q1

What is your gender? ☐_{female ☐male}

What is your age group?

☐18-25 ☐26-35 ☐36-45 ☐46-55 ☐56-65 ☐65+ What is your professional field?

(9)

Q1

30 70 Women Men 16 26 21 22 8 7 18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 65+ 38 24 12 Techies Public services Education Finance Communication Consultancy GENDER [%] AGE [%] PROFESSION [%]

(10)

Q2

Please rank those 6 Smart City concepts by numbering them from 1 to 6, 1 being the most important and 6 the less important in your opinion.

_ _ _ _ economy _ _ _ _ mobility

_ _ _ _ people _ _ _ _ environment _ _ _ _ governance _ _ _ _ living

(11)

0 20 40 60 NU M BE R O F PA R TI C IPA N TS CONCEPTS

Q2

9 68 17 26 21 37 13 37 27 3435 29 2526 19 3539 31 27 2226 43 37 20 52 17 37 27 23 19 49 7 49 11 20 39 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 ec o no … go ve r… en vi ro … NU M BE R O F PAR TI C IP ANT S CONCEPTS RANKING

position1 position2 position3 position4 position5 position6

high position low position

(12)

Q2

‘PEOPLE’ 9 68 17 26 21 37 13 37 27 3435 29 2526 19 3539 31 27 2226 43 37 20 52 17 37 27 23 19 49 7 49 11 20 39 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 ec o no … go ve r… en vi ro … NU M BE R O F PAR TI C IP ANT S CONCEPTS RANKING

position1 position2 position3 position4 1 2 3position54 5 6 position6

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 65+ PERCENTAGE OF PARTICIPANTS AG E

(13)

Q2

‘MOBILITY’ 9 68 17 26 21 37 13 37 27 3435 29 2526 19 3539 31 27 2226 43 37 20 52 17 37 27 23 19 49 7 49 11 20 39 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 ec o no … go ve r… en vi ro … NU M BE R O F PAR TI C IP ANT S CONCEPTS RANKING

(14)

Q2

‘LIVING’ 9 68 17 26 21 37 13 37 27 3435 29 2526 19 3539 31 27 2226 43 37 20 52 17 37 27 23 19 49 7 49 11 20 39 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 ec o no … go ve r… en vi ro … NU M BE R O F PAR TI C IP ANT S CONCEPTS RANKING

(15)

Q2

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% general public specialized public PERCENTAGE OF PARTICIPANTS TY PE O F EV EN T ‘ENVIRONMENT’ 9 68 17 26 21 37 13 37 27 3435 29 2526 19 3539 31 27 2226 43 37 20 52 17 37 27 23 19 49 7 49 11 20 39 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 ec o no … go ve r… en vi ro … NU M BE R O F PAR TI C IP ANT S CONCEPTS RANKING

(16)

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% techies public services education communication finance consultancy PERCENTAGE OF PARTICIPANTS PR O FE SS IO N A L FI EL D

Q2

‘GOVERNANCE’ 9 68 17 26 21 37 13 37 27 3435 29 2526 19 3539 31 27 2226 43 37 20 52 17 37 27 23 19 49 7 49 11 20 39 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 ec o no … go ve r… en vi ro … NU M BE R O F PAR TI C IP ANT S CONCEPTS RANKING

(17)

Q2

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% techies public services education communication finance consultancy PERCENTAGE OF PARTICIPANTS PR O FE SS IO N A L FI EL D ‘ECONOMY’ 9 68 17 26 21 37 13 37 27 3435 29 2526 19 3539 31 27 2226 43 37 20 52 17 37 27 23 19 49 7 49 11 20 39 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 ec o no … go ve r… en vi ro … NU M BE R O F PAR TI C IP ANT S CONCEPTS RANKING

(18)

In which area(s) of your daily life would you be ready / not ready at all to integrate a ‘smart’ component?

E.g. domotics, telemedicine…

Ready: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Not ready: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Q3

(19)

(20)

Q4

In your opinion, the Smart City is…

Please check only one option per line.

very rather neutral rather very

welcoming threatening

utopian realistic

innovative gadget

sustainable ephemeral

a way to a way to make

control me me creative O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

(21)

0 20 40 60 80 NU M BE R O F PA R TI C IPA N TS ADJECTIVES

Q4

67 8 89 67 13 77 32 65 78 26 17 41 11 20 65 9 69 6 9 51 2 22 5 2 16 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 NU M BE R O F PAR TI C IP ANT S ADJECTIVES CHARACTERIZATION

(22)

DISCUSSION

• Effect on the ranking

DOUBLE-SIDED QUESTIONNAIRE AND SENSITIZATION

1) People – Living – Environment 4) Mobility 5) Governance 6) Economy 1) People 2) Living 3) Mobility 4) Environment 4) Governance 5) Economy

(23)

DISCUSSION

• Effect on the characterization

DOUBLE-SIDED QUESTIONNAIRE AND SENSITIZATION

The Smart City became…

… more welcoming … more creative

… more sustainable … more realistic

(24)

CONCLUSION

• Importance of the human capital • Positive image of the Smart City

• Open-mindedness towards ‘smartness’

LIMITS

• Representativeness

• Understanding of Giffinger’s concepts

PERSPECTIVES

• Sensitization can ease Smart City perception • Quiz in the framework of an exhibition

(25)