3 of 21

Executive summary

Although we sampled by level of concern (to avoid speaking to those with no knowledge of climate issues), respondents were still especially concerned, and highly knowledgeable, about climate issues.
There is a feeling that the government are not doing enough to tackle environmental issues (this echoes much previous research). Whilst respondents recognised that everyone has a role to play, there is frustration that the solutions posed centre on individuals, rather than on governmental / industrial action – which is felt to be the only thing that will make a real difference at this stage.
Respondents are keen that the government / GLA make being green the easiest choice possible – it shouldn’t require more effort to be environmentally friendly. As such, they were keen on the solutions that furthered this – e.g. simplifying the planning processes for retrofits; apps which make it easier to repair items.
That said, respondents are also keen that solutions are scaled-up where possible – so, rather than being focused on individual retrofits (although this is still important), consider how the solution could be adapted for whole streets / blocks of flats.
Solutions that involve the future generations (as well as all Londoners) in policymaking are very popular – such as the idea of youth assemblies. Londoner should be included, not only to minimise negative impacts of any new policies, but also to increase engagement with these issues.
Less popular are those solutions that are perceived to use tech ‘for the sake of it’ – VR headsets, for example, which show the impact of LTNs on an area, don’t actually do anything to empower people or change their behaviour.
It is also important to note that tech does not overcome every barrier: none of the retrofitting solutions posed, for example, overcame the issue of cost – one of the biggest obstacles to implementing retrofits – or of the retrofitting skills shortage. Although the point of this project was to explore tech-focussed solutions, it is worth remembering that tech is not an appropriate solution for everyone (e.g. older people). Similarly, a lot of the solutions posed rely on further engaging the already-engaged – as opposed to reaching the unengaged. The GLA should consider how human capital (whether this is the local council or community groups) can be used to facilitate switching behaviours amongst the less tech-savvy / engaged.

4 of 21

Objectives, sample and methodology

5 of 21

Research objectives and background context

In May 2022, the London Office of Technology and Innovation (LOTI) and the GLA Strategy and Innovation policy team ran two days of design sprints to discuss and provide solutions for four key environmental challenges facing London. The challenges were:

Retrofit London: How might we retrofit all domestic and non-domestic buildings to an average level of EPC B.?
Low Carbon Transport: How might we halve road journeys made by petrol and diesel via combined measures that can restrict polluting journeys and incentivise sustainable and active travel options?
Reducing Consumption Emissions: How might we reduce consumption emissions by two thirds, focusing on food, clothing, electronics and aviation?
Renewable Power for London: How might we secure 100% renewable energy for London’s public sector now and in the future?

The first workshop was to discover and define problems; the second to develop solutions.
Workshops were held with stakeholders (borough council officers) and experts within environmental fields. To supplement the findings from these workshops, the GLA Strategy and Innovation policy team wished to hear from Londoners, to understand their thoughts on these four challenges and potential solutions.
Talk London and the GLA’s Opinion Research team therefore ran two online focus groups in between the two workshops. The focus groups critically discussed findings from the first workshop; the outputs from these groups were then fed into the second workshop.
Following the second workshop, an online discussion was hosted on Talk London with the focus group participants. The aim of this discussion was for participants to feed back on the outcomes from the second workshop and review suggested solutions to each of the four key challenges.

6 of 21

Sample and methodology

Two 90-minute focus groups conducted on 17^th and 18^thMay 2022
Fifteen Londoners took part, all recruited via Talk London
Participants were sampled by level of concern for the environment. All participants answered ‘concerned’ or ‘very concerned’ when asked ‘To what extent are you concerned about climate issues?’
Note, the sample was therefore not representative of Londoners. We sampled this way to avoid speaking to those with no knowledge of climate issues, as this would compromise their ability to comment on solutions

Online discussion thread, live on Talk London from 27^th May to 9^th June
All participants from the focus group were invited to contribute to this thread
You can see the online discussion thread here: Using data to help tackle climate challenges | TalkLondon

Focus groups to critically discuss findings from the first workshop

🡪 Results fed into second workshop

Online discussion thread to feed back on the outcomes from the second workshop and review suggested solutions to each of the four key challenges.

7 of 21

Background: Londoners’ environmental concerns

8 of 21

In general, Londoners are very concerned about the environment*. High levels of concern are compounded by a perception that ‘not enough is being done’ by government or by industry.

Respondents were highly concerned about the environment. There is a general feeling the government – national and local – are not doing enough to combat climate change, and that we are fast reaching (or have reached) a critical situation.

There is some frustration when the GLA talk about solutions focused on individual choices – firstly, there is a perception that these wont change anything whilst the government and industry continues to operate in a destructive way; and secondly, it can look as though we are shifting the onus onto individuals, who’s carbon footprint is very small compared to industry. The government need to both by example, and make it much easier for people to be green – whether by promoting green behaviours, or discouraging non-green ones (e.g. preventing shops selling shrink-wrapped produce).

This is the problem – that all of these solutions are about educating us and asking us to make changes – and I think there needs to be less of that [and greater intervention from government].

Female, aged 31

Respondents are concerned by climate change, but think only so much can be done by individuals – real change needs to come from the top (which is currently not happening).

*Note, we sampled by level of concern for the environment (all answered, ‘concerned’ or ‘very concerned’ when asked, ‘To what extent are you concerned about climate issues?’), to avoid speaking to those with no knowledge of climate issues

We’re talking about people walking to work, whilst the government is destroying the environment by building HS2…

Male, aged 61

9 of 21

General feedback to consider

Respondents agreed with the four major challenges posed by the GLA. However, one highlighted biodiversity as a challenge not considered.

Another mentioned that working from home, whilst offices are still open, will increase energy use (as both offices and homes use energy). Is there anyway tech could be employed to network people, to share working spaces within their local area?

Although the point of this project was to explore tech-focussed solutions, it is worth remembering that tech is not an appropriate solution for everyone (e.g. older people). The GLA should consider how human capital (whether this is the local council or community groups) can be used to facilitate switching behaviours amongst the less tech-savvy.
Similarly, many of the solutions target those who are already engaged. Apps, for example, will only be downloaded by those who are already making changes, or who wish to. Further consideration is needed around reaching the ‘unengaged’.
When creating solutions based on tech, the GLA should remain mindful that tech dates. Adding functionality to smart meters, that then have to be updated in the next few years, will only contribute to waste.
Around a third of Londoners rent: if possible, the GLA should make sure that home-based solutions are appropriate for renters, or there are alternatives in place.
Respondents mentioned how the pandemic highlighted the use of real time data and how this can keep the public informed (the news reporting on the number of hospitalisations; the COVID infection rate etc.). Despite talking about climate change as an ‘emergency’, we do not treat climate issues – or related data – the same way as COVID.

Respondents would like to see data showing the extent to which London has reached its emissions limit for the year, day by day; data showing the impact of ULEZ on daily air quality etc. Respondents mentioned it would be useful to think of emissions in terms of a ‘budget’, so Londoners can understand the data by the extent to which we are over/under this budget as a city.

10 of 21

Discussing findings from the first workshop: online focus groups

11 of 21

Renewable energy

Respondents were open to the idea of a ‘green neighbourhood lottery’, whereby neighbourhoods compete to switch to renewable tariffs and reduce their energy consumption, but had questions around the practical implications of this: how would it work for renters, who may not be able to change their energy supplier, or plan on staying in the property that long? Would the street have their own bank account, and someone else would manage this (for a fee)? There were concerns this would only reach those who are already engaged with environmental issues. Similarly, the suggestion doesn’t tackle the fact that some people are not able to afford renewable power: an issue that should be reconciled first.

Interactive smart meters offering tips on how to decrease energy usage could be useful, if the individual is already engaged with their smart meter and this type of thinking – otherwise, people will just ignore this. Again, this solution doesn’t actively work to include the unengaged. Linking energy usage to money – so people could see how much they would save by changing their behaviour – would be highly incentivising. That said, respondents noted that there is a certain amount of energy that you will always have to use (for essential tasks like laundry, showering etc.) – it would be more useful if the smart meter could show you where energy was being ‘wasted’ (i.e. consumed by appliances not in use), and if there was tech that could enable you to remotely switch off anything not in use.

What else? Respondents mentioned fuel poverty cafes as an example of something that was already happening within this area, and that would work to ‘engage the unengaged’. These provide a space in the local community where energy champions can assist those who are not comfortable with tech in switching their energy provider to a renewable one. One a larger scale, respondents wanted to understand why the government is still allowing non-renewable energy suppliers to operate. Whilst this is outside the remit of the GLA, anything the GLA could do to publicly demonstrate its commitment to renewable energy would be appreciated (e.g. working with Housing Associations in London to ensure that the energy they provide to residents is renewable; ensuring public buildings use renewable energy; providing some sort of incentive to properties with higher EPC ratings…).

See appendix for information / suggestions shown to respondents

12 of 21

Decarbonising transport

There was strong support for bringing schools and young voices into discussions around low-carbon infrastructure changes – not just because these are the groups that will be affected by future policies, but because it is important to engage people with these issues.

VR headsets showing the impact of LTNs were slightly less popular – it was not that respondents thought of these as a bad idea; more that they were not seen as necessary or practical (where would people view this?). In general LTNs are not without issues – a common complaint is that they push drivers out from one street onto another – respondents asked if the headsets would show the impact of a LTN on surrounding areas as well? There was mention it would be good to demonstrate, e.g. on a website, live data mapping the pollution in car-free streets, vs. non-car free streets, thereby demonstrating the impact of LTNs.

Using data to understand travel needs and influence behaviour: Respondents highlighted that Citymapper already tells you a lot of data suggested in this approach. It might be good to combine the data from a range of apps (Google Maps; TfL), to enable an end-to-end journey and include the carbon impact of this. Respondents were interested in being able to see emissions data for walking vs. public transport vs. electronic/petrol car, to help make informed choices. Route suggestions were felt to be a good idea, but these must be appropriate – e.g. don’t direct wheelchair users onto a route with unstable terrain; don’t recommend unlit routes at night.

What else? Building on the first point, how can more people be engaged with low-carbon infrastructure changes? Think of things like working with faith groups to reach different groups of people. Consider how real time data can be employed to motivate people by demonstrating how changes make a difference: a webpage showing daily / monthly changes in air pollution levels would be a tangible way of illustrating the impact of initiatives like ULEZ, for example, or live data on cycle highways showing you how many people are using that route. Respondents were keen on car clubs: how could data be employed to make it easier for people to share cars (based on the assumption people will drive less if they are paying per mile)?

See appendix for information / suggestions shown to respondents

13 of 21

One World Living

Participants were positive about the idea of a traffic light system when purchasing electronic products, enabling them to understand the impact of their choices on the environment (and moderate their behaviour accordingly). It would be good to extend this to clothes too. This traffic light system could include the carbon footprint of products/clothing, the plastics involved in their production, the impact of production on biodiversity etc.

Repair hubs were considered a good idea too. Respondents suggested that local businesses could be incentivised to offer repairs: for example, local sewing shops could be paid by the council to offer free clothes mending. It would also be good to provide information on where to take electronic items, such as laptops, so they can be recycled or stripped for parts.

What else? Several respondents were concerned about the impact of fast fashion on the environment; especially given consumption is being advertised as a lifestyle to young people, and there are no ‘environmental disclaimers’ that these companies have to put on their products. Whilst legislation would not be possible, anything the GLA could do within this area would be gratefully received. Similarly, several raised the issues of plastic packaging: returnable deposits for sustainable packaging were considered a good idea. Finally, respondents suggested data / apps could be used to make it easier for Londoners to find and buy locally produced products (including food).

See appendix for information / suggestions shown to respondents

14 of 21

Retrofitting

In terms of prioritising neighbourhoods for retrofit, respondents felt it would make the most sense to first concentrate resources in neighbourhoods with the highest concentration of low EPC scores.

Engaging Londoners with retrofitting: Respondents also highlighted that there are already a huge number of resources about retrofitting available – rather than creating anything new, the GLA should focus on getting this information out to people (superhomes,org.uk; heatgeek.com; the Great Homes Group are putting together a map of all trusted retrofitting suppliers in the UK). Tech could be used to bring people together – so networking Londoners who generate their own electricity with those who wish to buy electricity; enabling streets to club together for retrofits (e.g. buying one day of a builder’s time; buying materials in bulk). It would also be good to provide people with proactive information at the point of contact: for example, when people receive their energy category certificate, it should tell you how to improve your categorisation (and link this up with information on retrofits and on government subsidies).

What else? None of the solutions posed here overcame the cost barrier – which is a, if not the, major issue for the majority. It is important to be realistic about the limits of technology – for many, the major barriers to retrofitting are cost and tenure / infrastructure of your house (is it suitable to retrofit? What kinds of retrofit?): the GLA needs to consider how, if at all, tech can overcome these obstacles. Retrofits are also limited by the skills gap – what can the GLA do to overcome the lack of builders who can undertake this sort of work? Can data be used to train Londoners in basic retrofits? Again, the GLA should consider how to bring in the unengaged, potentially using other Londoners to do this – one respondents suggested providing local energy champions with thermal leak detectors which they can then use in local properties to demonstrate to residents where they are losing heat, and discuss with them the benefits of retrofitting. Another said that Londoners who have had successful retrofits could be asked to share their stories / open their homes to more sceptical neighbours – for example, explaining how their heat pump works; what this has saved them on their bills etc.

See appendix for information / suggestions shown to respondents

15 of 21

Discussing solutions from the second workshop: Talk London discussion thread

16 of 21

Retrofitting�Solution 1: Automatic planning for home retrofits �Solution 2: Home upgrade prize draw

Solution 1: This was received positively – it is seen as a ‘no-brainer’, to make the planning process for retrofits as easy as possible. One respondent mentioned that Ecofurb already offer a free home plan builder. As with any digital tools, the website must be as simple as possible to use.

Solution 2: This was not seen as practical: a prize draw does not allow you to target those properties most in need first. The solution is small scale: it focuses on retrofits for single properties instead of considering how whole streets / blocks of flats might be retrofitted. A prize draw may be viewed as ‘flippant’ and not an appropriate solution to a serious issue.

What else? Both solutions do not provide a way around the cost of retrofits; nor do they provide any cost-benefit information (to what extent will retrofits save money on energy bills). The focus is on individuals – to increase impact, consider: how can the solutions be scaled up to incorporate blocks of flats or whole streets? How can housing associations encourage retrofitting in their properties?

Retrofitting solution 2 – a prize draw seems too random to me. Can you view heatmaps of areas that use the most energy or areas that have the most amount of heat loss in the winter? Then proactively target those areas.

Male, aged 31

17 of 21

Renewable power �Solution 1: City-wide group procurement of energy and retrofit items by Londoners �Solution 2: Smart meter data as an open data source �Solution 3: Simplifying the process for solar panels on blocks of flats

Solution 1: Participants were interested in this idea, and the opportunity it provided for potentially cheaper energy bills for Londoners. It also helps to overcome the mental barrier of ‘what I do won’t make a difference’, as it demonstrates to Londoners that other local people are interested in greener energy too. That said, this idea would need to be marketed successfully, in order to attract those who don’t proactively engage with green issues anyway. It is also important this actually does provide cheaper energy for Londoners – otherwise, the majority of people will just go with a cheaper (not necessarily green) supplier.

Solution 2: Participants mentioned that individuals wont necessarily do anything with this data (although it should be an open source, and could help ‘demystify’ smart meters) – but that the GLA could use this data to target areas where retrofits are needed.

Solution 3: This has potential to be a good idea – the GLA could take it further by extending to heat pumps. There will be issues that need to be overcome however: what alternatives will be available if flats are suitable for standard solar panels? And what will happen if there are blocks where residents are keen, but unable to make an upfront investment?

What else? One Talk London member said that City Hall should include all Londoners in a London-wide procurement operation (whereby the GLA procures energy for all London residents, thereby exercising economies of scale) that people need to actively opt out of, or tax unsustainable energy to make it more expensive than renewable – whilst this would not be possible, the point remains that there needs to be some thought about how using a renewable energy supplier can be made the easiest – and cheapest – option for all Londoners.

These initiatives also need to be organised properly – if they do go ahead, they need to deliver what they promise, otherwise they will just serve to alienate Londoners from greener options. Similarly, they need to be open to a wide range of people – e.g. will there be alternative options available for those blocks of flats where standard solar panels don’t work, to avoid people otherwise giving up at that obstacle? How can housing associations be encouraged to use green energy providers in their properties?

Renewable energy 1, 2, 3: these are all great ideas but need to be executed well. I know lots of people who signed up to Mayor of London buying schemes like solar, and never heard anything back which demoralises people.

Female, aged 27

18 of 21

Low carbon transport �Solution 1: Embedding the future voice in city planning �Solution 2: Reimagine your street with augmented reality (AR)

Solution 1: This was seen as an excellent idea. Considering the impact on future generations should be prioritised in policy-making (one respondent mentioned that in Wales this had become law). In terms of including youth in decision making – this is important, but others should be included too. How will older Londoners be catered for, for example, especially if owning a car becomes more difficult? Londoner should be included, not only to minimise negative impacts of any new policies, but also to increase engagement with these issues.

Solution 2: This was not felt to be a good use of resources, as it is seen to be costly and time-consuming with little payback. In and of itself, this solution doesn’t offer substantial climate benefits. There is little point in people being able to imagine their street, if they don’t then feel empowered to do anything about it.

What else? As with many of the solutions, it was felt these did not go far enough. Some respondents mentioned the need for more measures that encouraged active travel (better cycle lanes and traffic lights for cyclists, not cars) or discouraged car use: it was felt this would do more to tackle the climate crisis in the immediate term.

I feel older people are forgotten here. No suggestions about improving availability for older people that would reduce their need to have cars and also would help general well being if their was accessible transport to doctors, hospitals, shops etc.

Female, aged 71

[Solution 2:] Just consider the cost/time implications of this. Would it not be easier to just draw a picture or a diagram?

Male, aged 31

19 of 21

One World Living �Solution 1: reCare (app to make repairs easier)�Solution 2: Carbon footprint initiative (app for citizens)

Solution 1: This was received very positively, and is seen to be relatively low cost to implement. The success of Olio and Too Good to Go demonstrates people are interested in similar apps. Again, convenience is key – so making sure there are enough repair centres to meet demand, and located nearby.

Solution 2: Again, potentially a useful tool for people, so long as it is easy to use. One respondent mentioned this idea could go further, saying large-scale food buyers (such as schools) could use the app to procure hyper local producers.

What else? Apps are seen as a good idea to disseminate a lot of information quickly to a large number of people, in a cost-effective way. However, they risk excluding those who do not have access to smartphones. How can the GLA include these people too? Could they provide simple smartphones to older Londoners, for example? Or work with community groups to help assist / train those who aren’t familiar with tech? Alternatively, could they spread information (in the case of repair hubs) through other channels too (housing associations, libraries etc.)?

I do think a way to promote hyper local producers within London is really important and interesting. I wonder what procurement options within the GLA/schools etc, there are to support these producers to scale and make profit?

Female, aged 31

20 of 21

Conclusion

Popular solutions are those which make being green an easier / the easiest choice, such as removing obstructive planning permissions for retrofits, apps advising on how to make lower-carbon choices etc.
Less popular solutions are those which are perceived as using tech for the sake of it (VR headsets), or as being ‘gimmicky’ (home upgrade prize draw). They do not focus on changing behaviours, or on targeting the most in need.
Moving forward (with solutions focused around individual behaviours), the GLA needs to think about how it can ‘engage the unengaged’ – how can those who aren’t motivated to download an app be brought onboard? And how can those who are not tech-savvy be brought into the conversation?
This may involve marrying data-based approaches with human capital – for example, providing energy drop-in services in local boroughs where residents can meet up with ‘energy champions’ and talk through their options.
The GLA could further strengthen Londoners’ engagement with energy issues by using data to demonstrate the impact of initiatives such as ULEZ (real time data that shows the impact on air quality).

1 of 21

2 of 21

3 of 21

4 of 21

5 of 21

6 of 21

7 of 21

8 of 21

9 of 21

10 of 21

11 of 21

12 of 21

13 of 21

14 of 21

15 of 21

16 of 21

17 of 21

18 of 21

19 of 21

20 of 21

21 of 21