In order to provide an incremental view on how the evaluation process has been defined and organized in the three cities considering the advent of the COVID emergency during the execution of CO3 project.
Pilot recap and updates considering COVID-19
Context: Like any other European country, Greece has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic since February 2020 and a series of restrictive measures aimed to contrast and limit the diffusion of the virus have been taken. However, the restriction measures in Greece started to be mitigated in May 2021.
Scenarios and engagement plans: two scenarios for Athens pilot have been proposed:
- “Grocery on Hold”, referring to the social distribution of quality food excess. It takes place at flea markets located in 2 Athenian neighbourhoods – in Patisia and Kolonaki – with the involvement of customers, producers of the products that own benches in the market, and the services beneficiaries (namely, citizens with social and financial needs).
- “Empty Buildings”, referring to the open debate on the potential re-usability of empty buildings, through the mapping of empty buildings of the city by citizens, and the proposition of potential uses with the active involvement of municipal employees of the urban planning agency
The COVID emergency affected to a minimum extent the operation of the flea markets: less producers with benches per flea market, each flea market was actually divided in two sub-markets in the same locality to tackle social distancing of producers and customers. In general though since the flea market continued to operate we were able to start the pilot.
Most importantly, the COVID emergency induced obstacles in the continuation of the activities based on group meetings, namely the preparatory activities and the engagement plans for Athens Pilot 2 which was based on a board game session.
Nonetheless the main strategy and activities for the implementation of the two scenarios have not changed, but the timeline of execution is extended. Consequently, the preparatory phase was prolonged and the actual pilot execution started with a time-shift, mainly for the second scenario.
Scenario 1 – Grocery on holds
Athens scenario 1 main hypothesis and sub hypothesis
| Content | Focus | Technology |
| The capabilities afforded by CO3 Wallet Application and Coopbox can help create and maintain a service where citizens contribute to groceries provision to citizens in need. | Main | blockchain |
| Citizens will be eager to contribute economically to the on-hold food provision service (Hesitation, Purpose, Trust to the service) | Citizen | blockchain |
| Producer will be positive on selling products through the on-hold food provision service | Producer | blockchain |
| Citizen in need are willing to shop with tokens through the on-hold food provision service | Beneficiary | blockchain |
| Users will accept to use the CO3 Wallet Application | Technology | blockchain |
| The service will be feasible to sustain within the greek legal and accounting framework | Conditions | blockchain |
| The service will be adopted by municipality | Public Authorities | blockchain |
| The service will be adopted by commoners | Commoners | blockchain |
Athens scenario 1 disruptive hypothesis
Content | Current | Focus |
Citizens/donors will more be eager to contribute economically to the on-hold food provision service | Contribute with material to foodbanks from social initiatives (e.g. Allos Anthropos, Mirmigi, Steps) | Citizen |
Citizens in need prefer to be able to shop with tokens than get groceries from foodbank | They get groceries from KYADA and Social Initiatives (e.g. theCupboard, Mimigi) | Beneficiary |
Producers are more eager to conceptate the digital tokens from the wallet than the paper food stamps | The Prefecture of Attica and the Union of Sellers provided paper stamps to buy groceries in flea market | Producers |
The city prefers to support the co-produced food provision by citizens than run services supported by private company donors | KYADA food provision is mostly funded by private company donations | Public Authorities |
Scenario 2 – Empty Buildings
Athens scenario 2 main hypothesis and sub hypothesis
Content | Focus | Technology |
The capabilities afforded by CO3 AR app and FL could engage citizens to participate in collaboratory urban planning | Main | AR & First Life |
Serious gaming, gamification and AR can make it challenging/interesting for citizens to participate in the service | Citizen | gamification |
Educate citizens about the management of urban space and processes about it | Citizen |
|
AR and LF are inclusive for broad population | Technology | AR & Liquid Feedback |
The service could create a discourse about the city between citizens and public authorities | All | Liquid Feedback |
Discourse created from the service is fruitful for the public authorities (added value, realistic) | Public Authorities | Liquid Feedback |
Proposals from the service are adopted by the municipality | Public Authorities |
|
Both citizen and PA through service they get a better understanding of the urban environment | All |
|
AR will help map items in the urban environment / FL help visualization | Technology | AR |
The asynchrony of discussion in Liquid Feedback will help citizens and public authorities to express ideas and make decisions | Technology | Liquid Feedback |
Athens scenario 2 disruptive hypothesis
Content | Current | Focus |
Citizen will map their needs in the city through AR + FL | Technical agency of the city does research on what is needed | All |
Participatory workshop with FL and LF are used to deliberate upon proposals by citizens | The city makes a network and invites groups for discussions or there is an online form for citizens’ feedback | All |
Evaluation actions
Scenario 1 – Grocery on holds
Twelve evaluation actions have been defined for the Grocery on holds scenario. Three of them can be evaluated through the analysis of CO3 platform / pilot specific data. The others are the results of data collected through the interaction with relevant stakeholders in workshops, interviews/questionnaires and focus groups. Usage data can mainly contribute to the evaluation of economic factors. Workshops, focus groups and interviews can be used to collect additional qualitative feedbacks from end-users about the usefulness of the CO3 application.Two actions are addressed to gain relevant information about the legal implications while the others are focused on the socio-cultural sphere in addition to the economic one.
Athens scenario 1 evaluation actions
Content | Type | Factor |
Volume of tokens raised | Usage Data [W1] | Economic |
Ask citizens why they donated (or why not) | Short Interviews & Questionnaire | Sociocultural |
Volume of tokens consumed | Usage Data [W2] | Economic |
Number of Producers | Pilot specific data[1] | Economic |
Ask producer why they participated (or why not) | Short Interviews & Questionnaire | Sociocultural |
Legal barriers to producer participation | Legal Report | Legal |
Ask beneficiaries if they are positive on using tokens | Short Interviews > Questionnaire | Sociocultural |
Technology Acceptance of Wallet | UTAUT Survey | All |
Is the service feasible with Legal/Accounting framework | Legal Report | Legal |
Opinion of municipality officials | Experts Interview | All |
Opinion of commoners | Focus Group/Workshop | All |
Producers asked to compare with food stamps | Short Interviews > Questionnaire | Economic, Sociocultural |
[1] it is a pilot specific data not collected by the app, but known by the pilot manager
Scenario 2 – Empty Buildings
Thirteen evaluation actions have been defined for the Empty Buildings scenario. The majority of the actions address sociocultural aspects and three of them can be evaluated through the quantitative analysis of usage data. The specificity of this case is related to the fact that two evaluation actions refer to the board game that has been conceived in order to make an “off-line” test of the scenario. Moreover, while usage data can be used to evaluate mainly socio-cultural factors, data collected through workshops, focus groups and interviews can be used to collect additional qualitative feedback from end-users about the usefulness of the CO3 application. In this case one evaluation action is addressed to evaluate the solution from a legal perspective.
Athens scenario 2 evaluation actions
Content | Type | Factor |
Items mapped (How many? Which type?) | Usage Data [FL.2, FL.3, FL4] | Sociocultural |
Badges earned by participants | Usage Data [G1] | Sociocultural |
How many proposals and comments on LF | Usage Data [LF.1, LF.2] | Sociocultural |
