Now, that the European cities are overcoming the recent economic challenges, they accelerate the development of major housingschemes to accommodate their growing urban population. Amsterdam for instance, sets out to construct 50,000 new homes by 2025. Parallel to this, the City Council presented a new regeneration and urban optimisationprogram in 2017, to reinforce existingneighbourhoods with relatively weak socio-economic status. If these housing policies are to maximise on opportunities, they need to anticipate the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Paris Climate Agreement, and local socio-environmental challenges, into a single cohesive, sustainable solution. Currently, literature indicates that large scale spatial developments, have a tendency to move away from social and ecological ambitions during the course of the planning process. Moreover, ambitions tend to be short term “fixes” where they could be striving for long-term systemic solutions. What is needed, are practice proven comprehensive development strategies tosecure pathways for inclusive and integrated development. Those strategies are spatial and programmatic governance arrangements. Employing a comparative analysis method, we follow and compare the redevelopment of three deprived boroughs across Amsterdam. In collaboration with communities, we are able to construct a “Design Thinking” approach for urban spatial development, using different types of arrangements. This is in reflection and collaboration with the municipality of Amsterdam and a wide variety of skilled experts. The arrangements are tested in practice, following a plan-do-check-act cycle. The research project takes an in-depth look at the Amsterdam case and presents the first set of arrangements for planning more cohesive, urban spatial development and the preliminary strategies we see emerging.
This paper explores the impact of the physical and social dimensions of the work environment on satisfaction and perceived productivity of knowledge workers in Dutch universities of applied sciences. The approach took the form of a literature review, multiple case study of six research centres using interviews and logbook analysis, and web-based survey (N = 188). Optimally facilitating knowledge production requires both space for concentration (to support internalisation of knowledge) and space for interaction (to support externalisation of knowledge). None of the work environments involved in the study adequately supported all the phases of knowledge development adequately. Cellular offices with personal desks are preferred for solo work and, whereas new workplace designs with a focus on the office as a meeting place support interaction and collaboration. Spatial layout and interaction have a stronger impact than comfort and absence of distraction. The spatial layout should support both in-depth concentration and communication, fit the internalisation/externalisation ratio of activities, and accommodate the proximity essential for collaborative knowledge development. Being able to choose is the key to success. In terms of research limitations, knowledge workers’ productivity was measured by self-assessment, but only a limited number of diaries were collected. The lessons learned can be used as inputs to decision-making processes regarding the design, implementation and management of working environments in higher education settings. Few studies have been conducted concerning the spatial preferences and needs of knowledge workers in universities of applied sciences. The results show that the physical dimension (comfort and layout) is more important for collective productivity, whereas individual productivity is more strongly influenced by the social dimension (interaction and distraction).
This paper explores the impact of the physical and social dimensions of the work environment on satisfaction and perceived productivity of knowledge workers in Dutch universities of applied sciences. The approach took the form of a literature review, multiple case study of six research centres using interviews and logbook analysis, and web-based survey (N = 188). Optimally facilitating knowledge production requires both space for concentration (to support internalisation of knowledge) and space for interaction (to support externalisation of knowledge). None of the work environments involved in the study adequately supported all the phases of knowledge development adequately. Cellular offices with personal desks are preferred for solo work and, whereas new workplace designs with a focus on the office as a meeting place support interaction and collaboration. Spatial layout and interaction have a stronger impact than comfort and absence of distraction. The spatial layout should support both in-depth concentration and communication, fit the internalisation/externalization ratio of activities, and accommodate the proximity essential for collaborative knowledge development. Being able to choose is the key to success. In terms of research limitations, knowledge workers’ productivity was measured by self-assessment, but only a limited number of diaries were collected. The lessons learned can be used as inputs to decision-making processes regarding the design, implementation and management of workingenvironments in higher education settings. Few studies have been conducted concerning the spatial preferences and needs of knowledge workers in universities of applied sciences. The results show that the physical dimension (comfort and layout) is more important for collective productivity, whereas individual productivity is more strongly influenced by the social dimension (interaction and distraction).
In the coming decades, a substantial number of electric vehicle (EV) chargers need to be installed. The Dutch Climate Accord, accordingly, urges for preparation of regional-scale spatial programs with focus on transport infrastructure for three major metropolitan regions among them Amsterdam Metropolitan Area (AMA). Spatial allocation of EV chargers could be approached at two different spatial scales. At the metropolitan scale, given the inter-regional flow of cars, the EV chargers of one neighbourhood could serve visitors from other neighbourhoods during days. At the neighbourhood scale, EV chargers need to be allocated as close as possible to electricity substations, and within a walkable distance from the final destination of EV drivers during days and nights, i.e. amenities, jobs, and dwellings. This study aims to bridge the gap in the previous studies, that is dealing with only of the two scales, by conducting a two-phase study on EV infrastructure. At the first phase of the study, the necessary number of new EV chargers in 353 4-digit postcodes of AMA will be calculated. On the basis of the findings of the Phase 1, as a case study, EV chargers will be allocated at the candidate street parking locations in the Amsterdam West borough. The methods of the study are Mixed-integer nonlinear programming, accessibility and street pattern analysis. The study will be conducted on the basis of data of regional scale travel behaviour survey and the location of dwellings, existing chargers, jobs, amenities, and electricity substations.
Management policy for protected species is currently often based on literature reviews and expert judgement, even though it requires tailor-made species knowledge on a local level. While wildlife management should preferably be evidence based, tailor-made field data is seldom used in current practices, because it is hardly available, difficult to collect and expensive. Recent development of digital technology is changing the field of wildlife management with “more, better, faster and cheaper” ways of data collection. Especially automated collection of field data with different types of sensors is promising, whereas miniaturization and low cost mass-production increase availability and use of these sensors. For collection of field data about predator-prey interactions, there is a need to develop wireless sensor networks that automatically identify different species in a community, while they record their spatially explicit data and their behaviour. Therefore, we will put together a consortium of partners that will develop a EU LIFE programme proposal, with the focus to develop a sensor network necessary to automatically monitor multiple species (i.e., species communities) for species conservation management. The consortium will consist of Van Hall Larenstein, Sovon Dutch Centre for Field Ornithology, the Dutch Mammal Society, Sensing Clues and DIKW intelligence. It will bring together a strong mix of expert knowledge on applied species conservation and wildlife management, ecological field research, wildlife intelligence, and handling and analysis of big data. This project matches the Top sector High-tech Systems & Materials, and revolves around 4 distinct phases: selection of potential consortium partners, exploration of the problem, working towards a common action perspective and writing a EU LIFE programme proposal. We will use knowledge co-creation techniques to explore the first three project phases.
Cycling booms in many Dutch cities. While smart cycling innovations promise to increase cycling’s modal share in the (peri-)urban transport system even further, little is understood of their impact or cost and benefit. The “Smart Cycling Futures (SCF)” program investigates how smart cycling innovations ─ including ICT-enabled cycling innovations, infrastructures, and social innovations like new business models ─ contribute to more resilient and liveable Dutch urban regions. Cycling innovations benefit urban regions in terms of accessibility, equality, health, liveability, and decreasing CO2-emissions when socially well embedded. To facilitate a transition to a sustainable future that respond to pressing issues, the SCF research project runs urban living labs in close collaboration with key stakeholders to develop transdisciplinary insights in the conditions needed for upscaling smart-cycling initiatives. Each living lab involving real-world experiments responds to the urgent challenges that urban regions and their stakeholders face today. The proposed research sub-programs focus on institutional dynamics, entrepreneurial strategies, governance and the socio-spatial conditions for smart cycling. Going beyond analysis, we also assess the economic, social, and spatial impacts of cycling on urban regions. The research program brings together four Dutch regions through academic institutions (three general and one applied-science universities); governmental authorities (urban and regional); and market players (innovative entrepreneurs). Together, they answer practice-based questions in a transdisciplinary and problem-oriented fashion. Research in the four regions generates both region-specific and universally applicable findings. Finally, SCF uses its strong research-practice network around cycling to co-create the research and run an outreach program.
