We’ve been back on the road in 2025 + exciting plans ahead!

As 2025 draws to a close, we have been looking back at some of the work and ideas that shaped the year. It’s been a busy one, with projects spanning behavioural science, housing improvement, evaluation, AI, self-driving advances, digital inclusion and more — all with a focus on how neighbourhoods can work more equitably and sustainably.

New year resolutions

We began the year reflecting on behavioural change at a neighbourhood scale, thinking about how January resolutions and everyday habits might inform better local interventions. We examined the implications of the UK Government’s AI Action Plan and discussed the need for public information campaigns on climate change. Blogs, such as Ed’s piece on AI in public services, emphasised collaboration, transparency and community engagement as essential to building public confidence in new advances.

Spring saw us in the news as we revealed practical insights from our projects, including DeepSafe, where Lara highlighted how perceptions of safety shape support for autonomous vehicles. She also set out some useful guidance for local authorities and behavioural teams on designing behavioural incentives that are fair, realistic and sustainable. By early summer, we were excited to introduce the AI Readiness Index. In his explainer, Nima demonstrated why this free tool is great for councils needing to understand where AI can be applied most ethically and effectively.

To Manchester!

We were busy in the run up to Manchester’s Housing conference, stocking up on the 1,200 post-it notes we used to showcase how our Home-by-Home Plan can help councils make better use of their existing data to improve housing. Balazs, Nima and Rasheed were on the stand and found a lot of support for the work, as well as interest in DG Cities as a council-founded innovation company – thank you for having us Manchester! (Special thanks to Richer Sounds on Deansgate for helping us locate an extension cable.)

In a Housing 2025 review, Sarah reflected on some of the themes that came out of the conference, particularly around the (obvious, surely) idea of place-based approaches. The team’s arrival in Manchester was overshadowed by a huge fire in the former Hotspur Press, destroying one of the city’s early mills. It sharpened the focus on the need for reuse of existing buildings, as well as social housing retrofit, and the value of strategies to better prioritise repairs and improvement.

Beyond nudge - behavioural systems mapping

Throughout the year, our behavioural insights have highlighted the importance of moving beyond simple nudges or ad hoc interventions. Posts on behavioural systems mapping, affordable innovation and rethinking behaviour change in local government showcased methods we are using to address structural challenges and systemic barriers. We also considered the evolving AI policy landscape, both in the UK and internationally, stressing ethical design and the risks of bias, while warning of inequities in AI systems for public services. The team summed some of this up in a great presentation for AI Week.

In the latter part of the year, we shared lessons from our years of autonomous vehicle research and how to make services more inclusive, as new companies look set to arrive in the UK. Ash drove our project to explore the potential of self-driving bus services in Glasgow, which was covered by the Herald. On the buses (and trains), we also looked at the role behavioural interventions might play when it comes to loud-casting (headphone free phone use) on public transport. Ed was a reviewer at the World Design Congress at the Barbican, where he got to hear Dr Jane Goodall’s opening address - an inspiring call to action from one of the great figures we lost this year.

Damp and data

Rasheed wrote about our damp and mould prevention work supporting proactive housing maintenance through sensor data and Leanne shared the value of reflective evaluation approaches that capture the true impact of programmes. Leanne and Gabriela have been busy working on the evaluation of grant-funded programme to help VCSE’s develop their capacity to deliver wellbeing initiatives - more on that in the new year. We also celebrated our sister company, Digital Greenwich Connect being shortlisted for an INCA award for Best Public Sector/Community Project.

We ended 2025 by introducing our new government-funded neighbourhood behavioural systems mapping project, which offers a useful, novel way to understand and address digital exclusion. Last week, Ed appeared on Monocle Radio’s The Briefing to discuss this shift from placing the onus on individual decisions to understanding systemic factors and using this insight for more nuanced solutions.

Pragmatic, but optimistic

Across sectors and projects, there has been a kind of pragmatic optimism in taking modest, evidence-informed steps, guided by behavioural insight and data, to create meaningful change in challenging economic circumstances. We’ve been reflecting a lot on a decade of DG Cities too, looking back on the ‘new’, the technologies we were piloting as emerging that have since become part of a national conversation. Our role is still that of independent experts, tech agnostic but interested in the potential of new advances to make a real difference to communities.

After a bit of a rest, we’ll be ready to take on 2026, helping councils and public services make sense of emerging technologies, ensure innovations are useful and workable and can improve people’s lives. We have an exciting new project to reveal, a new bit of publishing to trial and lots more to look forward to.

Thanks for joining us in 2025, have a lovely break and we’ll see you next year!

Neighbourhood behavioural systems mapping: a new way to understand digital exclusion

Digital exclusion among older people is a systemic challenge that can’t be solved through skills training or devices alone. With funding from DSIT’s Digital Inclusion Innovation Fund, the DG Cities team is working with a consortium of councils and academic partners to test a new, neighbourhood-level approach to understanding the issue - Behavioural Systems Mapping.

By combining behavioural science and systems thinking, the project aims to uncover the local factors that shape people’s experiences. The team has already been out running workshops with local groups across the UK. The aim is to shift the focus from changing individual behaviour to redesigning systems and services to create more inclusive, responsive digital environments for older people, as Director of Research & Insights, Ed Houghton explains.

Digital exclusion is a major challenge for older people across the country. Three quarters (77%) of those without any basic digital skills are aged over 65, and 29% of older people report feeling left behind by online services (Good Things Foundation, 2025). For those who are excluded, daily life can be stressful, creating anxiety and increasing their reliance on family and friends to do tasks, stopping them feeling as able to live independently.

There’s no quick fix to tackle digital exclusion - the technology itself is just one factor. The root cause is a systemic issue arising from structural inequalities in income, education, infrastructure and policy design; people are rarely excluded by choice, but by the way society organises access to technology and services, and supports people to use them.

Local authorities, business, the third sector and the wider community all have a role to play in supporting vulnerable people to become more digitally included. The first challenge is to understand what needs to change.

At DG Cities, we believe that the way to tackle the challenge is to move from solutions that place the burden to change behaviour on those who are digitally excluded and instead create ways for the wider system to change, creating organisations and services that adapt to meet the needs of vulnerable people. To do this, we’re undertaking novel research into a new research method: behavioural systems mapping.

Where best can we create change?

Over the coming months, our team will be travelling across the country to answer a critical question: "can a behavioural systems approach help us design better, more impactful digital inclusion strategies for older people? This work is supported by government as part of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology’s (DSIT) Digital Inclusion Innovation Fund.

Digital exclusion is rarely just down to one thing. It can be the result of a complex mix of skills, trust, access and motivation factors that varies from person to person (and place to place). Behavioural Systems Mapping (BSM) is a new method that combines behavioural science with systems thinking to diagnose the root causes of exclusion in real-world settings, and then helps to define the best places in the system to apply effort and create change.

Taking into account place-based variation, we are also taking a hyper-local approach to understanding digital exclusion. Through workshops, dialogue and analysis, we’re identifying some of the more unique neighbourhood and community factors that mean some elderly people might feel excluded, whilst their neighbours two streets down feel confident, capable and connected to the online world.

Testing what works in the real world

Vitally, this project isn’t just about theory. It’s about rigorous, on-the-ground testing. Building on our successful pilot in Greenwich this summer, we are now taking this approach to five very different neighbourhoods across the UK. As the delivery team, we’re running research for a consortium that includes Royal Borough of Greenwich, Ealing Council, Haringey Council, Leicester City Council, North East Lincolnshire Council and we’re supported by experts at the UCL Centre for Behaviour Change.

By delivering workshops in these diverse local authorities, we will test the wider applicability of our own methods and how this new approach can be adapted to different neighbourhoods. We want to see if behavioural systems mapping can consistently help local teams understand their specific local challenges and co-design interventions that truly support residents over sixty.

Sharing the tools for change

Our goal is not just to improve strategies in these five boroughs, but to create blueprint for each neighbourhood that can be used to support communities across the UK to develop their own approaches. We believe that if this method works effectively, it should be in the hands of every local authority and community organisation tackling digital exclusion.

Over the next few months, we’ll be working hard to capture and learn with our partners and will be sharing insights as we go. At the end of the project, we’ll translate these experiences into practical tools and resources that others can use. This dissemination is an important aspect of the project. By sharing this method widely, we hope to empower communities across the country to build more effective, evidence-based digital inclusion strategies.

---

We’d like to take the opportunity to thank our partners and all the participants in our research so far for their time and insights. Follow the team on LinkedIn for the latest updates on the project.

It’s a process: recent thinking on evaluation

Our evaluation team has been busy with a range of work, from helping councils measure the impact of specific initiatives or investments to analysis of ongoing projects, ensuring that the conditions of grant funding, for example (hello, Warm Homes!) are met. This is a dynamic process. It’s not just based on data, but on people and their experiences. It demands analytical skill, but also a thoughtful approach to capturing their stories and helping communities see the benefits of participation, as Behavioural Economist, Leanne Kelly explains.

Centre for Ageing Better/Unsplash

Our evaluation projects over the last couple of years have led us to explore and analyse all kinds of interesting initiatives, places and meet some inspiring community organisers. Some of this work is ongoing through iterative approaches, as we pose and help to answer questions across the project cycle. These are ‘realist evaluations’.

By this, we mean that the same intervention won’t work the same everywhere, for everyone, or even every time. We undertake in-depth and mixed methods research to understand how context interacts with specific place-based mechanisms to realise the intended outcomes. In simple terms, how do the unique features of a place and its people affect how certain actions work to get the desired results?

These are just a few of the questions we’ve been answering to illustrate how this thinking works in practice.

How well did X decarbonisation innovation work in Y local area?

• What did it mean for different parts of the supply chain and local economy?

• Which households or community groups benefitted?

• What will drive or constrain its upscaling, wider uptake and value for money?

How well has the programme improved social connection and wellbeing in these neighbourhoods?

• Who remains at most risk of social isolation – and why?

• What is the system-level to social connection and wellbeing intervention, and how healthy is this system? (In essence, what factors help people connect and feel well and are these systems working?)

• What are the learnings and recommendations for the programme’s adaptation?

We have talked to leaders and users of community groups covering a wide range of activities, from men’s mental health meet-ups (with good food always served!) and self-expression art classes for new parents who felt isolated, to dance and drama classes for those new to the local area, including those in difficult housing situations.

Three areas have become increasingly vital in evaluation

Each of our evaluations can be categorised as process, impact and/or value for money assessments. Each has had a bespoke Theory of Change and Evaluation Framework that maps intended outcomes and impacts to indicators, measures and methods, which we co-design with our client, stakeholder and community groups.

But three method and exploration areas have become increasingly valuable in our independent evaluation roles. These areas provide our evaluation’s stakeholders and the wider community with effective ways to share more insights, to actively participate and disseminate learning and gain tangible lessons and examples that they can bring into their own activities and delivery going forward.

---

1. Systems mapping

Firstly, the role of systems. The local authority and neighbourhood-level interventions we are looking at include housing innovations, place-based decarbonisation and projects addressing health inequalities. All of these can be described as systematic problems and solutions. To assess their process (what is working and how) and their impact requires an understanding of the system in which these interventions work and have an influence.

Policy and interventions can be defined as being of a complex system due to specific characteristics. For example, those set out by the Policy Lab’s Healthy System Indicators: being interconnected (the problem they seek to solve is interlinked with other problems), non-linear (the problem is complex and won’t yield to simple cause-and-effect logic) and unpredictable (the outcome of efforts to address the problem cannot be reliably forecast).

We are looking at these interventions through different perspectives and at different levels, for example at the level of government or the supply chain of large companies to SMEs, community groups, volunteers and individual beneficiaries. We do this with:

• different systematic factors, e.g. hierarchies, the quality and quantity of connections, information flow and behavioural barriers

• varied outcomes and impacts, e.g. at individual, community, social, supply chain and governance levels.

System mapping, ongoing analysis, and assessing system health have become powerful tools in our evaluations, often explored through interactive stakeholder workshops. In our health, wellbeing and social connection work, this approach has helped uncover where trust is lacking, where communication barriers have formed and who the key local messengers could be.

It has also revealed shared purposes and responsibilities among stakeholders, highlighted where outcomes are co-designed with people with lived experience, and shown how better coordination can make information and signposting more consistent and accessible. Crucially, it underscores the vital role of VCSEs in strengthening local partnerships, fostering social connection, and supporting people to take charge of their own health and wellbeing.

2. Getting the timing right

Ensuring those with lived experience are included in the design and delivery of interventions, and in the evaluation itself, can be critical – a principle shared by many of our clients.

It’s important to capture the story and let individuals and organisations feel ownership of it. At the same time, we need to avoid overwhelming people, especially early on, when they are just starting new connections, managing their health or trying something new at home (while still understanding what their starting point looked like). To strike this balance, we consider:

• Flexible approaches to participation methods over time, where earlier input could take the form of snapshot polls, brief chats or diary entries through to later more in-depth discussion, observations or workshops. We aren’t fixed on using the same methods ‘pre’ and ‘post’ when it concerns unique individual experiences in a realist evaluation.

• Built-in moments of reflection. By deploying an iterative approach to evaluation we can return to individuals and groups at different times, allowing them to build on and update their own narratives. We look to align their evaluation participation with natural points of reflection. This might be the start of a new year, at the end of an activity term, once the individual passes a key milestone… Participants here often readily offer their own learning insights and suggestions for the programme and stakeholders. From one of our recent evaluation waves, we were able to bring together valuable learning from funding grantees for other grantees, using stories of delivery and change.

Based on our work, we have found it helpful to:

Demonstrate when your local partnerships work well to encourage collaboration in the community. Word-of-mouth testimonies and referrals can be powerful.

Reflect diverse experiences and opinion. It’s important to have a range of staff and volunteers who reflect and represent the diversity of the community you are working with.

Grow people’s interest and initial momentum using a mix of approaches. Consider when ‘in-person’ works best, the use of accessible language, give event and activity reminders with group communications methods and offer easy and convenient trials of new activities.

Develop a sense of ownership and agency for beneficiaries. Consider where beneficiaries can make decisions and shape what the activity looks like, this may be as simple as selecting topics for next sessions or meeting times.

Capture stories of change. Storytelling, in careful and transparent collaboration with beneficiaries, can be a useful exercise for the individuals involved as well as demonstrating your impact.

Be adaptable! Understand what (potential) beneficiaries really need and want.

3. Demonstrate benefits

We are committed to making sure our clients understand how beneficiaries, wider stakeholders and the community can benefit from these evaluations. We have developed summary reports for stakeholders to see the evaluation’s insights and recommendations for each wave. We also run capacity building and training sessions for VCSEs, SMEs and even GP practice teams. These cover basic foundations in monitoring and evaluation, through to co-designing their own monitoring plans and strategies to measure and report impact.

This capacity building helps these groups or organisations to be more funding-ready, helping them articulate the intended outcomes and demonstrate impact.

It can also benefit those who lead programmes and interventions, as they have a base of local stakeholders who can understand how objectives can be met. People can be reflective in sharing their learning and successes, and can offer constructive ideas for what could improve local programme design or delivery.

Inviting, capturing and utilising this knowledge has been a key part of our recent evaluations – putting people and communities at the heart of evaluating the change they want to see.

---

We hope this is a useful update on our current thinking, recent lessons and some tips to help you prepare and get the most out of the evaluation process, but if you’d like to put a specific question to the team about your organisation’s evaluation needs, get in touch: [email protected].

Tackling damp and mould with data

Across the country, councils are grappling with ageing housing stock, stretched budgets and the challenge of balancing urgent repairs with long-term prevention of damp and mould. In the Royal Borough of Greenwich, a bold, data-driven approach is aiming to change the way these problems are addressed, using technology and proactive monitoring to identify risks before they escalate. Innovation & Net Zero Consultant, Rasheed Sokunbi writes about how innovation and a focus on residents’ lived experiences are helping turn the tide on a persistent challenge with very real human consequences.

A persistent challenge with a human cost

For many residents, damp and mould aren’t just property defects, but daily realities that greatly impact health, wellbeing and quality of life. In some cases, children’s bedrooms can become unusable. In others, respiratory problems worsen during the winter months. Council officers frequently hear the frustration in residents’ voices, knowing that by the time a complaint is raised, the damage, both to the home and to the occupant’s health, has already been done.

Local councils face an uphill battle: ageing housing stock, limited budgets and the need to balance urgent repairs with long term preventative strategies. The situation is further shaped by Awaab’s Law, legislation inspired by the tragic death of two year old Awaab Ishak in 2020, which will require landlords to act swiftly on reports of damp and mould. It’s a stark reminder that safe, healthy homes are a matter of life and death.

The Royal Borough of Greenwich takes a new approach

Against this backdrop, the Royal Borough of Greenwich (RBG) partnered with DG Cities to trial a proactive, data-led approach to tackling damp and mould. The aim was simple but ambitious: spot the warning signs to act before the problem takes hold.

Environmental sensors were installed in selected homes to measure key conditions (temperature and humidity) that can indicate or contribute to damp and mould growth. These sensors fed into a centralised dashboard, integrating data from multiple sources:

• Environmental sensor readings

• RBG’s housing system data (reactive repairs)

• RBG ongoing project data (capital works programme)

This allowed housing officers and surveyors to access real time, property specific information, which is a major step towards early intervention.

How the DG Cities team was key to the project’s success

DG Cities’ role went far beyond simply helping RBG choose the right technology. Together, we identified a carefully selected mix of properties for the trial, making sure different building types and resident circumstances were represented. We also helped to integrate multiple datasets so surveyors could cross-reference repairs history, structural details, and live sensor readings all in one place. Just as importantly, we worked with residents to support behaviour change — showing how everyday actions, such as ventilation and heating patterns, can make a big difference to damp and mould risk.

Being on site for the first ten installs really brought this home for me. At one property, a resident told me they had stopped reporting damp because they felt nothing ever changed. Seeing their relief when we explained how the sensors worked — and that we could now act before problems got out of hand — was a powerful reminder that behind the data are real people whose health and daily lives are directly affected.

By combining smart technology with human insight, the project went well beyond a reactive model, creating a proactive and collaborative way of managing homes.

From reactive repairs to proactive prevention

Traditionally, RBG’s process for tackling damp and mould was complaint-led, meaning action only began once the problem had already taken root. The new sensor led approach flips that on its head, shifting the focus from reacting to issues to preventing them altogether.

The pilot highlighted a number of benefits. Surveyors were able to make more informed decisions by distinguishing between damp caused by structural problems and issues linked to resident behaviours. This meant interventions could be far more targeted, leading to cost-effective repairs and smarter maintenance programmes. The sensors also created a valuable evidence base, offering hard data that could shape policy and guide investment decisions.

Perhaps most importantly, the technology offered additional protection for vulnerable residents. Officers could keep a close eye on environmental conditions and step in before mould had a chance to harm someone’s health. At the same time, the independent, time-stamped data provided stronger evidence for handling disrepair cases — useful not just for prevention, but also for formal dispute resolution.

“By having data in relation to the environmental conditions of a home, such as temperature and humidity, surveyors are able to be proactive and raise work orders without the need for a visit in many cases, which saves resources,” explains Chris Simpson, Damp, Mould and Condensation Manager at the Royal Borough of Greenwich.

One case showed just how powerful this can be. A property flagged by the dashboard as “high risk” was visited before the resident had even reported a problem. The proactive check revealed poor ventilation, which was fixed straight away thus avoiding a costly and disruptive repair later on.

---

The bigger picture

The insights from this project aren’t just about fixing individual homes. They offer a blueprint for how councils can combine technology and behaviour change to:

• Reduce long-term repair costs.

• Improve resident wellbeing.

• Comply with emerging legislation like Awaab’s Law.

• Make housing stock more sustainable in the long run.

By identifying patterns (such as entire blocks or asset groups with recurring risk factors), the council can strategically plan capital works that address root causes, rather than patching up symptoms.

Looking ahead: what are the wider implications?

This trial has demonstrated that proactive, sensor-led damp and mould management works. The next step is scaling the approach, embedding it into housing management processes, and continuing to integrate real-time data into decision-making.

With DG Cities’ expertise in urban innovation and Greenwich’s commitment to safe, healthy homes, this partnership has shown that tackling damp and mould isn’t just about repairs. It’s about creating a future where issues are prevented, not just retrospectively fixed.

Waymo’s 2026 launch is making headlines, but they won’t be the first self-driving vehicles to navigate London’s roads

With Waymo confirming plans to begin self-driving services in London in 2026, the spotlight is now on the UK’s readiness for commercial automated mobility. As we have long advocated, successful adoption isn’t just about the technology, but also public trust, understanding behaviour and how well we design the service for cities and people.

For almost a decade, DG Cities has been deeply engaged in research, trials and supporting policy across the UK’s automated mobility ecosystem. Our work through DeepSafe, DRisk and the Smart Mobility Living Lab (SMLL) has shown us where public sentiment is, where it must shift and how operators and policymakers can align. With Project Endeavour (and its earlier iterations on the Greenwich Peninsula) we were part of the first public trials of self-driving services on UK roads. We became established as a leading authority on public attitudes to autonomous transport and in 2023, Ed Houghton gave evidence to the UK Government’s Transport Select Committee on findings from DG Cities’ research. 

DeepSafe: bridging the perception gap through behavioural insight

Our most recent completed project, DeepSafe was a research group set up by Innovate UK to accelerate commercial deployment of self-driving vehicles by combining “sensor-real” edge-case data with public engagement and behavioural research. DG Cities led work into how self-driving services are marketed, how people interpret them and how messaging influences acceptance. Our research produced some interesting insights:

• The public systematically overestimates how safe UK roads are. In a December 2024 survey, 92% of respondents guessed the number of people killed or seriously injured (KSIs) was less than the true figure, with the average guess ~11,400 vs the official ~29,700. 

• When asked to prioritise the UK government’s transport system goals, only 37% of respondents picked “road safety” (vs 53% for affordability, 46% for equality).

• Expectations for AV safety are nonlinear. If an AV is portrayed as “slightly less safe than a competent human driver,” only ~3.7% would try it; when it matches, ~36.8% would; when it is marginally safer, ~56.5%; and at high safety margins, about 3 in 4 express willingness to adopt.

• Even modest safety gains can materially shift public acceptance. Messaging that highlights the potential of AVs to reduce KSIs by 10% yields a doubling of support when compared to AVs that do not have an effect on KSIs.

These results suggest a ‘staircase model’ of acceptance: safety needs to be clear, credible and aspirational. Not just “as good as human,” but meaningfully better. Public support can stall if the messaging fails to bridge this perceptual gap. 

““It presents a crucial opportunity for public education and awareness campaigns that address misconceptions regarding the current state of road safety in the UK and contextualise it with regard to the true potential of AVs to make our roads safer.” ”

— – Lara Suraci, Behavioural Scientist, DG Cities

The DeepSafe consortium built on an earlier successful team, DRISK which looked at ‘edge case’ scenarios. The project’s aim was to create the world’s largest library of driving situations that are unusual or unexpected, the rare events it’s hard to train a vehicle to navigate, but could be dangerous. The study also gave us a further opportunity to gauge public attitudes to the tech - we took our questions and public information stand on the road to Leeds, Wrexham, Portsmouth and more, as our film explains. 

From trial to rollout: Project Endeavour

We know that technology trials alone won’t win public support. Project Endeavour was a consortium of DG Cities, Oxbotica, TRL, Immense and others. Here, DG Cities led on service design and understanding the public’s perceptions of the technology. Our role was to bring the human experience to every technical decision. 

We used several engagement methods to explore public perceptions of autonomous vehicles. These included national surveys to assess awareness and attitudes, live public trials in Oxford, Birmingham and Greenwich where participants experienced AV rides, virtual-reality experiences to engage people remotely during COVID-19 (with VR headsets also provided for schools) and workshops with local authorities and stakeholders. Together, these activities measured changes in trust, safety perceptions and readiness for AV adoption.

Part of this meant looking to the future and anticipating how self-driving services will interact with wider systems. To support this, we developed the Mobility Assessment Framework to benchmark autonomous vehicles against other mobility modes using social, economic and environmental metrics.

An early baseline survey in 2019 captured public attitudes ahead of pilots. Looking back now, this was a rare ‘before’ snapshot against which to measure change and current attitudes to Waymo’s move. Our insights from Endeavour emphasise that rollouts must treat the public not as passive observers but as co-designers: behaviour, trust, usage incentives must be integral to service design, not an add-on. 

SMLL: building a global centre for the future of connected and autonomous mobility in Woolwich 

How do you deploy a live testbed for mobility innovation in a living, complex city? The Smart Mobility Living Lab (SMLL) is an innovative answer to that question. It’s Europe’s most advanced connected and autonomous mobility urban testbed, offering testing and development of future mobility solutions. SMLL provides a real-world environment where vehicles operating under current legislative controls and strict safety requirements on the existing road network can be subject to monitoring and data gathering. 

Our contribution to its inception spanned infrastructure, connectivity (this aspect was a precursor to our sister company, Digital Greenwich Connect), governance and trial orchestration. We led the ‘connectivity backbone’ for the testbed and understood its trade-offs, building constraints and deployment challenges. We helped find a site in London that combined operational needs with accessibility via existing public transport and future infrastructure. Because London is arguably one of the most challenging environments to make AVs work, SMLL sets a high bar: if you can operate here, you can make it work elsewhere.

““The public demands transparency from operators, particularly around safety, and when things go wrong, reporting is important. This is a general requirement for AI that is a black box.” ”

— Ed Houghton, Director of Research & Insights

What Waymo (and others) must get right in 2026

As Waymo gets ready to take to London’s roads, there are many lessons from our work.

• Don’t treat safety as a checkbox. Messaging must transparently communicate how self-driving services address and reduce risks, not just match human baseline.

• The safety case alone isn’t enough - our work shows affordability is a priority, so if access isn’t open to wider groups it won’t be seen as a viable solution by the public.

• Design around citizens, not cars. Use participatory engagement, trial pilots, feedback loops and co-design. People must feel ownership of the service for it to succeed.

• Bridge the perception gap via education and narrative. Use storytelling, real edge-case simulations and comparative framing (what human error can do) to shift mental models.

• Put connectivity and infrastructure ahead of fleet size. The vehicle is only one piece of the service. Reliable, low-latency networks, redundancy and city integration matter.

• Measure beyond rides: use multi-metric evaluation. Use frameworks to judge AV services not just on trips, but on equity, emissions, congestion and citizen benefit. 

The UK is at an inflection point for self-driving services. Waymo’s arrival would be a landmark moment, but success hinges as much on public acceptance as its technology and ability to integrate with the tangle of London’s streets and other travel priorities.

MERGE Greenwich was a part-Innovate UK funded research project looking into the feasibility of autonomous ride-sharing services in Greenwich.

DG Cities’ decade of on-the-ground trials, behavioural research and testbed building serve as a proving ground and guide. If you are in government, media, mobility, regulation or civic leadership and want smarter commentary, deeper insight, or a partner for London’s AV future, get in touch.

We’re interested to see what 2026 brings.

Biased by design: confronting AI inequities in public services

The DG Cities team is excited to be participating in Digital Leaders’ AI Week this month. Ed Houghton, Lara Suraci and Nima Karshenas will be jointly presenting on participatory approaches to AI on 23rd October [sign up details at the end!]. They’ll be examining how methods used in social research and service design can be applied to the development of AI tools to better serve the people they are intended to support. To underscore the importance of such collaboration, Behavioural Scientist, Lara Suraci sets out the risks of bias - and the path to a more proactive, inclusive approach.

AI in public services: the promise and peril

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly woven into the fabric of public services, from simple tasks like creating images for a presentation or recording meetings, all the way to complex triage tools evaluating support needs. While innovations such as these undoubtedly hold enormous potential to make services more efficient, consistent and responsive, they also present a profound ethical challenge: AI, and especially large language models (LLMs), are predominantly trained on data that reflects human behaviour and thus frequently absorb and replicate societal biases and blind spots.

When used to inform decisions that affect people’s lives, as is the case in most public service contexts, these representational biases risk perpetuating inequality rather than reducing it. Currently, the communities most affected by biased tools are often those with the least ability to shape how they are developed or used. Ensuring equity, fairness and inclusivity requires a meaningful shift in how we think about ethical AI design; one that centres the voices of people with lived experience and treats them as experts in their own lives.

Where representation fails

Evidence across different AI applications shows that models often perform less accurately or equitably for historically marginalised groups.

In clinical contexts, for example, a study [Zack et al. 2024] has found that AI models trained on patient vignettes from published literature and medical education material can reinforce deeply harmful biases: GPT-4 was less likely to recommend advanced imaging for Black individuals, whereas Hispanic and Asian populations were overrepresented in stereotyped conditions like Hepatitis B and Tuberculosis and underrepresented elsewhere.

While adverse health outcomes are a particularly staggering example of the potential risk of biased AI models, the problem extends far beyond this.

AI rendering

For instance, text-to-image generators have been shown to portray Indian culture in exoticised, inaccurate ways at the expense of everyday realities [Gosh et al. 2024]; flattening rich subcultures into clichés. In another example, models tasked with generating images of disabled people fell back on narrow, negative tropes such as wheelchairs, sadness and inactivity [Mack et al. 2024]. Even seemingly neutral tools like sentiment analysis algorithms have been shown to exhibit nationality, gender, and religious biases; for instance, assigning systematically different sentiment scores to identical sentences depending on the group identity referenced [Das et al. 2024].

These examples matter for local authorities, charities, and other public sector bodies because the groups most affected are often the very people these institutions aim to support. If AI tools systematically fail to represent them fairly or reinforce stereotypes that already exist in society, they risk doing more harm than good.

The burden on users

In response to these risks, end-users are often told to simply “prompt better” – that is, to include explicit instructions against bias, to create detailed personas or to use so-called ‘chain-of-thought’ prompting to guide the model’s reasoning.

First of all, it’s important to note that efforts to correct these in-built biases through instructions alone are often unlikely to succeed: LLMs lack self-awareness, self-reflection and a stable understanding of the world that would anchor their outputs [Hastings, 2024]. Perhaps even more importantly, however, the above strategies shift the responsibility for ethical AI practices solely onto individuals; many of whom lack the AI literacy, time, or confidence to identify and correct systemic bias.

In other words, this solution is not only unrealistic but also inequitable: those most affected by biased systems are often the least empowered to challenge or change them, and we cannot have fairness and inclusivity depend on a user’s ability to correct an algorithm’s mistakes.

So, what can we do instead?

Listen to Lara, Nima and Ed discuss participatory AI this month

Rather than asking people to adapt to biased systems, we should design systems that adapt to people – and that should include all people. Crucially, ethical AI cannot be achieved through better code alone: as many researchers have emphasised, we need a sociotechnical approach that looks at relevant actors across the whole process of AI design; from those who build the tools to those who train them, and ultimately those who get to decide whether they are working as they should.

Including community voices is essential – it cannot be an afterthought, it needs to be a principle built into the early stages of design and development. Participatory and deliberative methods, such as co-design workshops or community panels, will not only improve the quality and legitimacy of AI systems but also help build public trust from the start.

Looking Ahead

AI will continue to shape the future of public services, but whether it does so equitably is up to us. Ensuring fairness cannot rest on individual users adjusting prompts or developers adding disclaimers. It requires a shift in mindset: from the post hoc mitigation of harm to the proactive inclusion of the communities most affected.

---

Don’t miss our session! Find out more and book your spot online: https://aiweek.digileaders.com/talks/participatory-approaches-to-defining-ai-ethics-enabling-the-public-to-decide-whats-right/

References

• Zack, Travis, et al. "Assessing the potential of GPT-4 to perpetuate racial and gender biases in health care: a model evaluation study." The Lancet Digital Health 6.1 (2024): e12-e22.

• Ghosh, Sourojit, et al. "Do generative AI models output harm while representing non-Western cultures: Evidence from a community-centered approach." Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. Vol. 7. 2024.

• Mack, Kelly Avery, et al. "“They only care to show us the wheelchair”: disability representation in text-to-image AI models." Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2024.

• Das, Dipto, et al. "The Colonial Impulse" of Natural Language Processing: An Audit of Bengali Sentiment Analysis Tools and Their Identity-based Biases." Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2024.

• Hastings, Janna. "Preventing harm from non-conscious bias in medical generative AI." The Lancet Digital Health 6.1 (2024): e2-e3.

What’s does Italy’s bold move on AI regulation signal?

AI is advancing faster than most governments can legislate, yet Italy has just taken a decisive step forward. As the first EU country to enact a comprehensive national AI law, Italy has laid down a marker for how technology, ethics, and law must converge. Innovation Consultant, Nima Karshenas and the DG Cities team analyse some of the recent developments and examine how they compare to current UK policy.

Italy’s new framework puts transparency, accountability and human oversight at the heart of AI adoption, while raising important questions for businesses, policy-makers and regulators across Europe and beyond.

A human-centred approach

At its core, Italy’s law emphasises that AI systems in sensitive domains, such as healthcare, education, justice and the workplace must remain under meaningful human control. Algorithms cannot be left to decide in isolation. This principle aligns with the EU’s broader AI Act, but goes further in specifying human oversight as a safeguard. For urban systems and smart cities, this means that automated decisions about traffic, energy or surveillance will need built-in transparency and human checks.

Perhaps the most striking element of the law is its criminalisation of harmful AI misuse. Deepfakes, identity theft and AI-enabled fraud will carry prison sentences of up to five years. The message is clear: AI creativity must not come at the expense of truth, safety or trust. For local authorities, civic organisations and media outlets, this raises the stakes in how AI-generated content is monitored, labelled and communicated (and potential confusion and inconsistency when it comes to oversight of global platforms).

Protecting future users

Children’s access to AI is also under the spotlight. Under-14s in Italy will now require parental consent to use AI-powered services. This introduces both a legal obligation and an ethical challenge for developers: how to design AI systems that are safe, inclusive and respectful of young users. For those working in education technology and youth engagement, Italy’s stance offers both a warning and an opportunity to lead responsibly. This is an area DG Cities has been focused on in the UK, the development of ethical, effective AI tools and services that support rather than harm or exclude the citizens they are intended to benefit.

Intellectual property

The law also addresses copyright and originality. Works produced with AI assistance can be protected, but only if they show genuine intellectual effort from a human creator. Meanwhile, text and data mining is restricted to non-copyrighted material or authorised scientific research. This nuance will shape how researchers, artists and businesses leverage AI for creative and analytical purposes.

To balance its strictures, Italy has announced a €1 billion investment fund to support AI, cybersecurity, and quantum technologies. The dual approach of tight regulation paired with targeted funding signals a strategic recognition that innovation and oversight must move together. For startups and SMEs, this raises a critical question: how can they stay agile and compliant while competing with global players?

Implications for cities and citizens

For cities exploring AI-driven services, Italy’s model has direct relevance. From predictive policing to autonomous transport, every deployment will now need to be tested not only for efficiency but also for legality, ethics and social trust. The law could become a catalyst for more participatory models of AI governance, where citizens are consulted and informed about how AI shapes their environments. An exciting move that puts people at the heart of innovation. I

In the following table, we break down some of the key legislative and policy differences between Italy and the UK…

What next?

Italy’s law may be the first of its kind in Europe, but it won’t be the last. Other governments will be watching closely to see how effectively it can be enforced and whether it builds public trust without stifling innovation. AI adoption in cities, businesses, and public services will be shaped not just by what technology can do, but by what society deems acceptable. Italy has drawn a line in the sand. The question now is: who will follow, and how quickly?

---

Do you want to better understand the foundations of the AI tools and models used in local government and industry? DG Cities has a free AI Readiness Index to get you started with use cases, examples and questions.

Mapping the way forward: rethinking behaviour change in local government

Earlier this summer, we shared a piece examining the government’s proposal to ‘nudge’ the public to make healthier eating choices by making fruit and nutritious snacks more prominent in retail displays than sweets and crisps. We suggested that while positive, the measures outlined didn’t tackle the underlying reasons driving people’s choices, from lack of time to poverty. Here, Behavioural Scientist, Lara Suraci explains how local authorities could apply an alternative behavioural lens to help bring about change…

From community safety to health inequalities and digital exclusion, local governments face increasingly complex social challenges. A novel approach to overcome these challenges is Behavioural Systems Mapping – a multidisciplinary method designed to reveal interactions between institutions, services, and individuals, and enable smarter, more efficient interventions that maximise impact even with tight budgets.

Behavioural science traditionally relies on so-called ‘human deficit models’: frameworks that place both the blame and the responsibility for change on the individual. While this perspective has yielded useful insights over the years, it tends to overlook the broader systemic factors at play. Human deficit models – Nudge Theory being its perhaps most famous example – fundamentally assume that behavioural issues stem from internal flaws such as an individual’s lack of knowledge, motivation, or self-control. In reality, however, actions and choices that may appear ‘irrational’ at first often turn out to be perfectly rational responses to a flawed system.

In other words, human behaviour does not happen in a vacuum – and we shouldn’t treat it as such.

This is where Behavioural Systems Mapping comes in: combining insights from behavioural science as well as systems mapping, it offers a more holistic way for local governments to understand and shape behaviour – one that recognises systemic barriers and structural inequalities, and advocates for solutions that look at the bigger picture and deliver lasting change for our communities.

From individual deficits to system insights

Behavioural Systems Mapping helps us explore individual motivations as well as the context in which behaviour happens. It asks: What structural barriers are in the way? How do policies, service design, and local infrastructure shape choices? And who holds the power to make change?

By creating a visual map of the diverse and interacting factors that shape behaviour – such as policies that constrain choice, misaligned incentives, and competing organisational priorities – Behavioural Systems Mapping shifts the focus from individual decision-making to the complex system around it. It helps uncover leverage points that often go unnoticed, like policy gaps or process roadblocks, and shows where change can really make a difference. In other words, rather than just treating symptoms at the individual level, it reveals deeper, systemic drivers of behaviour that can be targeted for more sustainable and equitable solutions; without losing sight of individual, behavioural factors.

Unlocking smarter interventions in the public sector

For local government, policy-makers, and community organisations Behavioural Systems Mapping can unlock smarter interventions. It helps reveal the complex and often conflicting ways in which different departments and services – like public health, housing, transport, and waste – interact, between one another and with members of the public. This helps identify where policies or interventions may be misaligned or unintentionally working against each other, and encourages more coherent, systems-informed approaches.

In a context of tight budgets and growing demand, it’s also a useful tool for designing interventions that are not only effective but also efficient; minimising costly trial-and-error and ensuring limited resources are directed where they’ll have the greatest impact.

Grounded in practice

Here at DG Cities, we’re currently exploring a participatory approach to Behavioural Systems Mapping by involving experts and stakeholders who deliver work for Greenwich Council on specific local issues. Rather than taking a top-down view, this approach draws on the lived experience and practical knowledge of those working on the ground. Each participant contributes a different piece of the puzzle, helping to build a more accurate, context-sensitive understanding of the behavioural system at play.

Of course, this isn’t without its challenges. With a Behavioural Systems Map, finding the balance between complexity and usability can be tricky: a map that’s too simple risks missing key dynamics, one that’s too complex can become overwhelming and hard to act on. However, by working collaboratively and iteratively, we can create maps that are both meaningful and actionable – and we’re excited to continue exploring how this approach can support more effective solutions to the complex challenges facing local government!

A new word for innovation? How about: affordable transformation for councils under pressure.

Councils today are being asked to do the near impossible. With some facing extreme financial pressures, the gap between resources and responsibilities grows wider every year. Budgets are becoming challenging to set as demand for services continues to rise. Neighbourhood problems feel more complex and the choices between what to cut and what to keep are becoming increasingly difficult.

In such a climate, ‘innovation’ can sound like a luxury. An abstract word that belongs to glossy conferences rather than the town hall. When survival and delivery are the priorities, it’s easy to let new ideas slip to the bottom of the list.

But true innovation, what we might think of as ‘affordable transformation’, is not about shiny gadgets, costly experiments or trials that go nowhere. At its best, it’s about applying fresh thinking and, where useful, the right technology, to solve real problems in ways that are practical, affordable and deeply rooted in the needs of communities. Far from being indulgent, this kind of grounded transformation is a lifeline for councils stretched to breaking point.

Addressing costly behaviours

DG Cities working with communities in Greenwich

Consider the problem of fly-tipping. For many authorities, it has become a constant drain on stretched budgets. Clearing waste again and again can cost thousands, while reinforcing the expectation that it will simply be removed.

On Greenwich’s Barnfield Estate, we took a different approach. By combining behavioural science, service design and place-based research, we uncovered the real reasons why people were dumping waste, from residents simply unsure what to do with specific items, to repeat offenders from outside the estate coming to fly-tip. By co-designing solutions with residents, and targeting IoT cameras and enforcement where it really mattered, the project reduced costs and created a cleaner, safer environment.

The lesson here is powerful: transformation doesn’t always come from technology alone. Sometimes it comes from listening, mapping the system, and designing interventions that people actually respond to. This is not innovation for its own sake.

Effective use of data

Data is another area where councils already hold untapped potential. The challenge is not gathering more, but making sense of what exists, ethically and effectively. Used well, data can shift teams from firefighting to foresight.

Take housing asset management. By applying data intelligently, councils can anticipate where resources are needed most, extend the life of their assets, and prevent costly repairs before they happen. This isn’t about layering in unnecessary complexity, but rather giving hard-pressed staff the right information at the right time and helping them act with confidence.

And what about AI?

We know that nine out of ten councils are using AI in some form, but how many have a strategic overview of how that’s working in practice?

The hype can feel overwhelming, but the reality is that public sector AI is only useful if it is applied ethically, transparently and in service of residents. That’s why we developed our AI readiness index and run workshops to support council teams. We have developed bespoke tools, such as multilingual chatbots that help residents access services in their own language. A simple, humane solution that saves time and builds trust.

Why this matters now

When money is scarce and staff are exhausted, the temptation is to retreat from new approaches altogether. But this is precisely when transformation is most needed. Affordable, human-centred interventions can generate long-term savings, ease pressure on services and engender trust between councils and the communities they serve.

We’ve seen it firsthand. From reducing waste removal costs to helping councils electrify their fleets, from cutting energy bills to helping overstretched teams make sense of their housing data. Small changes, when grounded in real community needs, can add up to big impacts.

““DG Cities is a small but highly flexible partner: we develop strategies and business cases, run trials, engage communities, pilot technology, advise on AI, evaluate projects, and put data to use across local authority services, particularly housing. Where councils lack capacity, we are an affordable option that understands how their teams work.””

Don’t give up on better

To the councils that feel they are only just keeping their heads above water: don’t give up on transformation. Innovation isn’t a luxury and it doesn’t have to mean expensive technology or untested schemes. It can be the everyday work of making things a little smarter, a little fairer and a lot more effective.

DG Cities exists to be a flexible partner for this work: we’re a small but dedicated innovation lab with expertise in behavioural science, AI, planning, service design, engineering, evaluation and project management. Where councils don’t have in-house capacity, we step in – affordably, practically and always with compassion for the pressures you’re under.

We know these pressures are real. But so are the opportunities. Now is not the time to turn away from innovation, but to reclaim it for public good, ground it in reality and apply fresh thinking to building resilient, thriving neighbourhoods.

---

If you’re facing a challenge that feels too complex or embedded, or if you want to get more from the resources you already have, we’d love to help. Get in touch with us to discuss how affordable transformation could make the difference in your community.

LOTI blog: how behavioural systems mapping can help design smarter and fairer interventions

As technology and innovation advance at a rapid pace, digital tools are becoming ever more central to how we live, how we work and how we access services – yet many people remain excluded from the digital world and the opportunities it offers.

For local authorities across London, this presents a key challenge: how can we reshape existing structures so that communities across the city, regardless of circumstance, can take part?

Traditionally, behavioural science has tried to tackle challenges like digital inclusion by focusing on individuals; assuming that the core problem lies in a lack of awareness, skills, or motivation. While useful in some cases, this approach often fails to consider the broader context that shapes behaviour: affordability barriers, fragmented service delivery, or misaligned policy incentives.

To truly effect change, we need to look beyond individual ‘deficits’ and instead explore the systems that sustain or prevent equitable and universal inclusion. This is where Behavioural Systems Mapping comes in: a participatory method that recognises systemic barriers and structural inequalities, and advocates for solutions that look at the bigger picture.

Behavioural Scientist, Lara Suraci has written a piece for the London Office for Technology and Innovation (LOTI) on the need to shift thinking from individual deficits to system insights. Read the full piece here.

It isn’t enough to point shoppers to the apples to change the nation’s food habits

Last week, the government set out proposals to use ‘nudges’ as part of a preventative health strategy to encourage healthy eating. At DG Cities, our Behavioural Innovation practice also draws on behavioural science to tackle council challenges, from fly tipping to active travel, in collaboration with local communities. Explaining the value of a more systems-based approach to behavioural science in public policy, Director of Research & Insights, Ed Houghton examines the latest plans.

At first glance, the government’s latest proposal to encourage healthier eating habits through ‘nudges’ sounds sensible. Ministers are suggesting supermarkets promote fruit and veg through loyalty points, in-store promotions and by improving aisle and display layouts.

Helping people eat more healthily is a vital policy goal and behavioural science has much to offer in terms of finding new, effective solutions. The problem is, this idea isn’t new, or particularly effective on its own – and in many ways it could do more harm than good to the government’s aspirations for an NHS fit for the future. 

We all want to be healthier… don’t we?

Healthy communities and neighbourhoods are all part of the Government’s drive to set the foundation for a reformed NHS. It’s about taking health out into communities, and enabling other parts of the system – like supermarkets and schools – to play a role in public health, which is a sound strategy to move us towards a more preventative approach to medicine. It’s an idea that’s clearly having its time in the sun too: the NHS 2019 long-term plan prioritised integrated care and population health management, but the recent call for a “neighbourhood health service” represents an even greater gear change.

However… the problem with nudges is that they put the onus on individual choice and assume eating your five a day is just a matter of individual willpower or better information (rather than acknowledging the structural and social barriers that shape people's choices).  

Our work with public health teams and the NHS has highlighted how access to affordable, nutritious food isn’t simply about the visibility of healthy options. Lower-income families are often confronted with difficult trade-offs between cost and nutritional value – “choosing” between a 99p ready meal and a £3 punnet of blueberries is not about motivation or information, but rather cost, transport, time and the availability of fresh food close to where you live.

In this context, small nudges at the point of sale may help in the short term, but they’re unlikely to deliver the sustained dietary improvements that policy-makers hope to achieve. Evidence supports this: tactics like product placement and loyalty rewards can modestly increase the purchase of healthier items, yet these changes rarely lead to long-term shifts in diet quality or health outcomes. A bit like going to the gym – there simply aren’t short-term fixes.

 In our view, we need an approach that works across different systems, that combines behaviourally-informed initiatives with policies that address barriers to preventative medicine. For example, subsidies for fresh food, particularly in lower-income areas, could ease pressure on shoppers and retailers. Crucially, these kinds of interventions can improve access without harming viability for businesses – an important consideration if implementation is left to supermarkets themselves.

It takes a village…

Systemic approaches rely on collaboration between institutions, communities and individuals. There are lots of ways councils can help, from operational support for local produce markets to convening networks, and improving planning policy. Last year’s reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework were designed to support healthier eating by encouraging local authorities to consider health and wellbeing in planning decisions. This can mean supporting access to healthier food outlets and restricting the concentration of fast-food takeaways, particularly near schools.

We also see great potential in locally-driven, community-led food initiatives, like neighbourhood food hubs or cooking classes. In Greenwich, Food On Our Doorstep (FOOD) clubs provide good-quality food at a low cost to local communities, in partnership between the council and Family Action. A free cooking club in Thamesmead helps residents find ways to use produce. Another voluntary scheme for food businesses by Greenwich Cooperative Development Agency helps fast food outlets or cafés make simple and affordable changes.

Similarly, the Heal-D programme, founded in 2016 by Prof Louise Goff of the University of Leicester, aims to target type 2 diabetes in black African and Caribbean adults by sharing knowledge on how to cook popular dishes in more healthy ways. Evidence shows that these methods are more powerful because they’re built with the people they’re intended to support. These kinds of initiatives respect people’s autonomy and choice, build trust and reflect the realities of the way we all live. Models such as ‘boosts’ and ‘self-nudges’, which help individuals develop long-term skills and strategies, offer promising alternatives to top-down loyalty schemes.

Rethinking blame

Just as important is the way we talk about food. Public messaging that emphasises ‘better’ choices can unintentionally put the blame on individuals, when in fact many supposedly ‘poor’ food decisions are rational responses to systemic barriers like time poverty or a lack of affordable options. Framing food as a collective issue can help to shift the narrative from personal responsibility to what can be done as a community. And in a changing climate this will only become more important as the food system is increasingly fraught by disruption and instability: producers, distributors and wholesalers will all need to work more closely to help ensure healthy food is our plates.

This means being more thoughtful about how we define ‘healthy’ food too. Oversimplified labels, like apple = good, crisps = bad don’t always reflect the complexities of nutrition and can alienate people with diverse needs, including those with eating disorders. A balanced diet looks different for everyone, and we should support a broader understanding of nutrition, grounded in evidence.

We think there’s huge potential in more systemic approaches to policy design and intervention delivery that can help people make more informed decisions. Delivered effectively, they can help change systems and make a long-term difference to people’s lives. By working across sectors, listening to and acting on community needs and focusing on access and affordability as much as choice, we can design food environments that genuinely support health and wellbeing for all.

---

If you’re interested to find out more about our Behavioural Innovation work, read on here - or if you’re a council team, why not request one of our great free workshops for more specific insights. 

Housing 2025: ‘place’, data and devolution

This week, some of the DG Cities team is in Manchester for Housing 2025, one of the biggest events in the UK’s housing calendar. If you're attending and haven’t found us yet, come and see our data wall and asset management demo in the exhibition hall. Head of Communications, Sarah Simpkin, fresh from sticking up 1,200 post-it notes, writes about some of the highlights so far.

What happens when you get what you want?

That was the question facing a room full of council leaders, housing associations, trusts and house-builders, who had just landed a £39 billion ten-year affordable housing investment in the government’s spending review. It’s fair to say that the mood was pretty upbeat.

Let’s not be too hasty though… any optimism was tempered by caution. In the first panel I caught on new construction, a key question was whether the ambition to deliver 1.5 million new homes, accelerating to 300,000 per year, might then compromise build and design quality or environmental standards. The conversation also turned to scaling the infrastructure needed to support such rapid growth, from schools, GPs and transport to high streets - and even two new reservoirs to sustain development, in the case of Cambridgeshire.

A lot of talk was of planning, sites and building at scale, but our arrival in Manchester was overshadowed by a huge fire in the former Hotspur Press, destroying one of the city’s early mills, which had been due for redevelopment as a tower for student accommodation. With the smoke visible across the city, and surrounded by Manchester’s many former industrial to residential conversions, it sharpened the focus on the need for reuse too, as well as social housing retrofit, and the value of strategies to better prioritise repairs and improvement.

Collaboration: the week’s defining theme 

Mayoral question time

One standout event was Mayoral Question Time, chaired by Guardian journalist Gaby Hinsliff, which brought together a cross-party group of new and established mayors from across the North and Midlands. The session emphasised the value of peer-led networks and the importance of collective influence to unlock devolved powers. “Is there a mayoral WhatsApp group?” someone asked. There is, it turns out. “Wait, there is?” came the surprised reply from one panellist, which got a laugh. 

Their message was that mayors are uniquely positioned to cut through departmental silos to enable integrated approaches that respond to local needs. Richard Parker, Mayor of the West Midlands Combined Authority, highlighted an example from Solihull, where to expand access to jobs, they identified a need to better align the bus timetable with shift patterns.

At the same time, criticism was levelled at the government’s Green Book methodology for evaluating funding. The approach was seen as poorly suited to rural and less populous regions. As Kim McGuinness, Mayor of the North East Combined Authority, bluntly put it: “Rip the thing up.”

Other panels covered issues around safety, accessibility, the impact of regulation and tackling damp and mould. Shaun Flook, Assistant Director for Housing Needs and Tenancy at the Royal Borough of Greenwich, contributed to an important session on temporary housing and the importance of investment in homelessness prevention. In a similar model of cross-boundary collaboration, the London Councils’ Housing Directors group met to discuss some of the distinct housing pressures faced by boroughs.

Place-based solutions

A session with Eamonn Boylan, Chief Executive of Homes England, echoed the wider call for individual approaches to housing, recognising that what works in Tower Hamlets may not work in Tyneside. Several times, the panel emphasised the need for ‘place-based’ solutions, which seemed very much the mot du jour. It makes you wonder a little if anyone is advocating for the alternative - presumably inappropriate top-down housing policy with no consideration of local needs or supporting services.

It's fair to say that all deeply agree on the need for local nuance, but the challenge is delivering nuance at scale and pace. Understanding what makes an area unique, capturing residents’ views beyond tick-box questionnaires, mapping complex interconnected systems – this is where data (and potentially AI) comes in. From tree plotting surveys to customer payment platforms, data is becoming central to how councils understand local circumstances and make strategic investments.

Rasheed Sokunbi and Balazs Csuvar on the stand in Manchester

DG Cities’ presence at Housing UK is rooted in this very challenge: helping councils make sense of data and translate its insights into action. These services are designed with and for local government teams, enabling smarter prioritisation of works, planning and investment at the local level. It’s interesting to note that although the team happens to be at the Housing conference with a housing tool, it’s a flexible methodology designed to work across council sectors.

By a council-founded innovation consultancy, for local (and often central) government

The exhibition floor has been busy with product showcases, with dancing gorillas outside, various raffles and mini golf, but there have been useful discussions around resident engagement and data-driven decision-making. Perhaps the most interesting feedback from visitors has been the response to DG Cities as an innovation consultancy set up by a council - not something a lot of people realised. It was great to be able to show the value of an independent innovation lab to other councils looking to trial affordable, effective tech-enabled or behavioural solutions.

As the first day wound down, a final session on pet-friendly housing reminded us of the breadth of issues that matter to residents. It highlighted the need to challenge the expected narratives with actual data - for example, tenant pet ownership has been shown to correlate with less demand for repairs to properties, not more. I was intrigued by the range of pets (dogs, yes, but also chickens…) and in a wider sense, how it showed the broad, inclusive thinking needed to build homes that will truly work for everyone.

It’s not over yet!

There’s still much to look forward to in the programme, in particular a panel at 11 am on Thursday featuring Jamie Carswell, Director of Housing and Safer Communities at the Royal Borough of Greenwich. The panel, chaired by Pete Apps, will be bringing some of these data, social and technical themes together to look at improving housing management. Find out more, and details of where to find us, here.