The methodology should be a uniform approach that also is flexible enough to accommodate all combinations that make up the different solutions in 6 OPs. For KPIs A and B this required the use of sub-KPIs to differentiate the effects of each (individual and combination of) implemented solutions and prevent double counting of results. This approach also helped to ensure that all 6 OPs use a common way and scope to calculate the various results. Consequently, this allowed the project to capture the results per OP and the total project in one ‘measurement results’ template. The template is used in both the individual OP reports and the ‘KPI Results: Baseline & Final results’ report where all results are accumulated; each instance providing a clear overview of what is achieved. This report outlines the details of the methodology used and applied. It is not just meant to provide a clarification of the results of the project, but is also meant to allow others who are embarking on adopting similar solutions for the purpose of CO2 reduction, becoming more energy autonomous or avoid grid stress or investments to learn about and possibly use the same methodology.
Purpose: This study examined the effects of a giant (4×3 m) exercising board game intervention on ambulatory physical activity (PA) and a broader array of physical and psychological outcomes among nursing home residents. Materials and methods: A quasi-experimental longitudinal study was carried out in two comparable nursing homes. Ten participants (aged 82.5±6.3 and comprising 6 women) meeting the inclusion criteria took part in the 1-month intervention in one nursing home, whereas 11 participants (aged 89.9±3.1 with 8 women) were assigned to the control group in the other nursing home. The giant exercising board game required participants to per-form strength, flexibility, balance and endurance activities. The assistance provided by an exercising specialist decreased gradually during the intervention in an autonomy-oriented approach based on the self-determination theory. The following were assessed at baseline, after the intervention and after a follow-up period of 3 months: PA (steps/day and energy expenditure/day with ActiGraph), cognitive status (mini mental state examination), quality of life (EuroQol 5-dimensions), motivation for PA (Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire-2), gait and balance (Tinetti and Short Physical Performance Battery), functional mobility (timed up and go), and the muscular isometric strength of the lower limb muscles. Results and conclusion: In the intervention group, PA increased from 2,921 steps/day at baseline to 3,358 steps/day after the intervention (+14.9%, P=0.04) and 4,083 steps/day (+39.8%, P=0.03) after 3 months. Energy expenditure/day also increased after the intervention (+110 kcal/day, +6.3%, P=0.01) and after 3 months (+219 kcal/day, +12.3%, P=0.02). Quality of life (P<0.05), balance and gait (P<0.05), and strength of the ankle (P<0.05) were also improved after 3 months. Such improvements were not observed in the control group. The preliminary results are promising but further investigation is required to confirm and evaluate the long-term effectiveness of PA interventions in nursing homes.
This report is intended to collect, present, and evaluate the various solutions applied in individual operational pilots for their (upscaling and transnational transfer) potential, in terms of opportunities and barriers, over the short and long(er)-term. This is done by identifying the main characteristics of the solutions and sites and the relevant influencing factors at different local (dimension) contexts.The analysis provides insights in barriers but also opportunities and conditions for success across four main dimensions that make up the local context landscape. We consider two main roll-out scenarios:1. Upscaling within the boundaries of the country where the operational pilot (OP) took place2. Transnational Transfer relates to the potential for transferring a (V4)ES solution to any of the other three (project) countriesThere are several aspects within the four main dimensions that are cross-cutting for all four countries, either because EU legislation lies at its roots, or because market conditions are fairly similar for certain influencing factors in those dimension.Ultimately, both Smart Charging and V2X market are still in their relevant infancies. The solutions applied in various SEEV4-City pilots are relatively straightforward and simple in ‘smartness’. This helps the potential for adoption but may not always be the optimal solution yet. The Peak shaving or load/demand shifting solutions are viable options to reduce costs for different stakeholders in the (electricity) supply chain. The market is likely to mature and become much smarter in coming 5 – 10 years. This also includes the evolvement (or spin-offs) of the solutions applied in SEEV4-_City as well. At least in the coming (approximately) 5 years Smart Charging appears to have the better financial business case and potential for large scale roll-out with less (impactful) bottlenecks, but looking at longer term V2X holds its potential to play a significant role in the energy transition.A common denominator as primary barriers relates to existing regulation, standards readiness and limited market availability of either hardware or service offerings.
