---
# System prepended metadata

title: '*translation*: Eindrapportage Smart Citizen Kit Amsterdam - Meten is weten? [Final report Smart Citizen Kit Amsterdam - Measuring is knowing?]'
tags: [data]

---

# *translation*: Eindrapportage Smart Citizen Kit Amsterdam - Meten is weten? [Final report Smart Citizen Kit Amsterdam - Measuring is knowing?]

###### tags: `data`

:::info
**Eindrapportage Smart Citizen Kit Amsterdam - Meten is weten? 
[Final report Smart Citizen Kit Amsterdam - Measuring is knowing?]**
- Link: https://waag.org/sites/waag/files/media/publicaties/eindrapportage-sck-asd.pdf
- August 2014
:::

*Note: the following transcription was google-translated into English.*

---

![](https://i.imgur.com/FNJTcyQ.png)

## Introduction

During the Smart Citizen Kit Amsterdam pilot project, it was examined to what extent you can collect data about your immediate living environment yourself with a set of affordable electronics and sensors. It was investigated how this works in practice and what the results, preconditions and impact are. The project was a collaboration between Waag Society, Amsterdam Smart City and Amsterdam Economic Board and was co-financed by the Creative Industries Fund NL.

The kit was tested on an experimental basis in a network with citizens in Amsterdam for three months. In this document, we share our experiences that may contribute to the design of further research and new experimental initiatives.

### Question

How polluted is the air around your house or company? And what about noise pollution? These are questions that concern many people, especially in the city. Imagine being able to measure, share and compare values ​​with others yourself - in real time. How does that work? What does it mean for you as a citizen? Can you have more influence on your living environment with data in your hands? How valid is the data you collect with affordable electronics and sensors? Can you approach the government with the request for policy changes? Is measuring knowing? Does that change your behavior or feeling towards your immediate environment? Do you take more responsibility? Is the relationship between you as a citizen and official bodies such as RIVM, GGD and KNMI shifting? Is the relationship being optimized or are citizens who take a more active stance an obstacle?

These were some of the questions with which Amsterdam Smart City and Waag Society started the Smart Citizen Kit Amsterdam project. We found answers to a number of questions and new questions arose.

• Platform website: smartcitizen.me 
• Forum users: forum.smartcitizen.me 
• Project page Amsterdam: waag.org/smartcitizen
• Manual installation: waag.org/sck

## The pilot - an overview

### The activities and planning

At the end of September 2013, we took the first steps in the project. We invited Tomas Diez of Fab Lab Barcelona to discuss the possibilities of the Smart Citizen Kit for a city like Amsterdam in a debate with Amsterdam residents and representatives of the municipality. After the meeting, Het Parool published an article about the kit and, at our request, called on Amsterdammers to adopt a kit and participate in the research project. The aim was to involve about 100 Amsterdammers; from schools and concerned citizens to more technically oriented people. About 150 people responded.

We selected the participants from this group, aiming for a good distribution across the city. February 2014 we started with the first participants. In the meantime, we did preparatory work: tested the improved 1.1 version of the kit, wrote a manual and technical overview in Dutch, set up a help desk and implemented the communication strategy and process. Part of this process included meetings aimed at support, information transfer and community building.

[...]

### Data collection

[...]

### Is measuring knowing?

[...]

### Analysis of data sources

[...]

### Social impact

[...]

### Behavioral change

[...]

### Trial & error

[...]

## Experts

During the process we contacted the official measurement institutions. We entered into discussions with them because we were increasingly asked about the technique of measurement. After installing the kits, we saw large differences and very different measurement results. We lacked the expertise to place the measurement results in context.

### RIVM

We invited Hans Berkhout, chief validator of RIVM, to a meeting where he explained how RIVM works and we asked him for feedback on the Smart Citizen Kit. This contact came about through one of the project participants, Dieter Camps. 

Hans Berkhout shared his knowledge about measuring strategies, testing and selecting measuring equipment and the interpretation of data. He told us about the history of air pollution measurement. Very valuable information that gave us tools to better understand results and made many aspects of measuring transparent.

#### Short history

The motivation to map air pollution dates from 1943 in Los Angeles, where people suffered from air pollution: “Visibility is only three blocks and people suffer from smarting eyes, respiratory discomfort, nausea, and vomiting” and the London great smog, in 1952: "concerts and screenings of films were canceled as the audience could not see the stage or screen." Regulatory action was then taken in the US in 1950 and in the EU in 1980.

The importance of a thorough selection process and testing of measuring equipment has become clear to us. Measuring equipment must be reliable. It is the basis for the measurements. When there are inexplicable deviations that are not due to external factors, it is impossible to make analyzes of the data and to draw conclusions from the data. In addition to reliable equipment, establishing management and maintenance procedures is very important.

This concerns: 
• Checking monitor messages 
• Checking for drift (calibration) 
• Maintenance of measuring set-up

When selecting equipment, RIVM uses: 
• Laboratory tests 
• Field tests 
• Comparison tests (old measuring method)

In order to give meaning, RIVM pays a lot of attention to analysis of data. Comparing data sources, looking for deviations, environmental factors that can influence the measurement data. Only after analysis are conclusions carefully drawn.

*Technical validation* 
• Notifications from equipment 
• Calibration results 
• Environmental conditions 

*Content validation*
• Weather conditions 
• Relations with other stations 
• Relations with other contaminants 
• Reports from the field

In response to the Smart Citizen Kit, Berkhout indicates that the NO2 sensor is primarily intended for the automotive industry, which makes the application of the Smart Citizen Kit as a measuring station in the city virtually impossible. You could possibly use the kit as an indicator for detecting abuses. This should be tested.

#### Feedback on the Smart Citizen Kit

• Industrial sensor: “the detection of pollution from automobile exhausts” 

*Measurement range of contaminants by SCK sensor:*
• Carbon monoxide (1 - 1000 ppm) 
• Nitrogen dioxide (0.05 - 10 ppm) 

*Outdoor air concentrations in 2013:* 
• Carbon monoxide (0.12 - 7.3 ppm; average 0.3 ppm) 
• Nitrogen dioxide (0 - 0.15 ppm; average 0.02 ppm)

***“With projects such as the Smart Citizen Kit, I hope in any case for a development in measurements, and in the end, as a result, more insight into the problems surrounding air quality.”*** 

***“The measuring range of the Smart Citizen Kit sensors is not correct for measurements in the open air. Perhaps other possibilities can be explored, such as measuring indoors or signaling calamities.”*** - Hans Berkhout, RIVM

### TNO

Two people from TNO took part in the project: R.A. (Roel) Massink, Research Scientist Strategy & Policy for Environmental Planning and Dr. ir. E.J. (Lisette) Klok, Research Scientist Urban Environment. They participated in a personal capacity, but the motive was professional. TNO is very interested in research into new measurement strategies and their impact. 

Both work in different departments and represent a different perspective. The department to which Roel Massink is affiliated examines, among other things, the shift in roles between citizens, government and other players in smart cities. Lisette Klok and the team associated with the Urban Environment department, especially looking at new measurement strategies and the possibilities and preconditions, we entered into discussions with both departments. 

Not only has this yielded a great deal of relevant information in response to questions and obstacles in the Smart Citizen Kit Amsterdam project, it has also led to research and collaboration on a follow-up process. 

Under the supervision of Roel Massink, Hanke Nijman is researching the role of various actor groups in the development of smart cities. The Smart Citizen Kit Amsterdam project is one of the three case studies in this study. She describes the smart city as a city in which the quality of life is improved in a sustainable way by means of technology. On the one hand there are initiatives by governments (top-down) and on the other hand, many citizen initiatives arise (bottom-up). These different approaches lead to a shift in roles and responsibilities that she tries to map out. During the Smart Citizen Kit Amsterdam project, she conducted interviews with the various parties in the project. October 2014 she expects to have completed her research. The results are a valuable addition to the outcomes of the project. 

We have entered into discussions with Lisette Klok and her colleague Marita Voogt, affiliated with the Urban Environment department, about measurement strategies and the interpretation of data. They were the first party we spoke to. We enlisted their help because we needed expert knowledge. Because Lisette participated as a participant, she was able to provide us with clear feedback. This largely corresponds to the feedback from Hans Berkhout, chief valuer of RIVM, who also noticed their enthusiasm for the project. 

Smart Citizen Kit Amsterdam is an experiment with a new measurement strategy, which succeeded in involving a fairly large group of people (active citizens), which yielded many insights. The use of cheap sensors has proven to be a problem here, but that seems to be a temporary problem. Both Lisette and Marita expressed the expectation that the quality of cheap sensors will improve in the near future and that sensor networks, citizens who collect data, will play an important role. The manner in which should be further investigated. The key question is: how do measurement data with / by / from citizens lead to policy and behavioral adjustment. There are technical, social and procedural aspects to this. The Smart Citizen Kit Amsterdam project contributed to this. The approach is that we will continue research in collaboration with TNO and other players.

### GGD Amsterdam, Air Quality Office

In his conversation with Dave de Jonge of the GGD Amsterdam (Air Quality Office), **he particularly emphasized the unrest that inaccurate measurements can cause in society**. Citizens and media are often unable to value measurement data. In the case of the Smart Citizen Kit, the measurement data has proven to be invalid and difficult to compare with data provided by the official institutes. **There was a fear that the GGD participants would knock on the door with alarming stories. However, this has not happened. Dave also assumes that citizen sensor networks will occupy a larger place in the future. The important question here is how official bodies and experts can achieve optimal cooperation with citizens.** He underlines the importance of valid measurement results and a thorough interpretation and analysis of the data.

At our request, Dave de Jonge explained his perspective on the project during the project evaluation meeting. Participants have also been invited to visit the GGD's measuring installations. 

In a follow-up project, we intend to set up the Air Quality Bureau with GGD Amsterdam. The approach in a follow-up project will include the reinforcement between formal and informal measurement networks. 

***“With the air quality technology from the Smart Citizen Kit, the GGD can do nothing, but the group of people is taken seriously and can come by to learn from the knowledge of the GGD.”*** - Dave de Jonge, GGD Amsterdam

### Main learning points regarding the Smart Citizen Kit

#### Measure air pollution

The CO / NO2 sensor used turned out to be unsuitable for outdoor measurements. In addition, the sensor is not intended for measurements in relatively moderate conditions. The sensor is not sophisticated enough for this. It is intended to give an indication of major abuses (outliers in the measured values) in industry. The measured values were difficult to interpret (resistance values) and could not be traced back to comparable values. In addition, being able to measure under controlled conditions has proved essential. Having a suitable housing is crucial for this.

#### Social

The community feeling is facilitated to a limited extent on the website. Everyone is a "dot on the map". From this you can determine how many kits are active or not and where they are located. This is interesting, but of little relevance if you are then unable to compare the data from the different kits. That is essential if you want to be able to give meaning to the data. It is also not possible to combine the data from the kit with other relevant data, such as the wind direction. Another important point is that the forum, where participants can communicate with each other, does not yet support local communities. Care for the living environment is a local fact and an option to support it would be a valuable addition. People primarily want to find each other at that level. Only in the second instance do people become interested in comparisons between cities, for example.

#### Technology

The level of knowledge in the field of technology as well as the interests of the participants varied widely. A large number of users had network problems, partly due to the limited range of the Wi-Fi module in the kit and partly because it functions best on now obsolete wireless network types. Windows users often had a bad user experience when installing the kit from the website

## Helpdesk experiences

[...]

## Conclusions and advice for a follow-up

- Smart Citizen Kit Amsterdam was an experiment with a new measurement strategy, which succeeded in involving a fairly large group of people (active citizens), which yielded many insights. It is valuable to be able to continue working with this involved group of people and to expand it further. 
- For a follow-up, it is important that the technology does not hinder the collection of the measurement data. If citizens use measuring equipment, it must be easy to install. 
- After the project, we can say that "With affordable electronics and sensors you can collect data in your immediate living environment?", This was only partially the case. For a follow-up, reliable measurement results are an important condition for being able to compare the measurement data. In addition, measurement by citizens is only possible by using placement-independent, calibrated measuring equipment. 
- We were able to partly investigate the social impact in this pilot. In a follow-up, we will go deeper into the impact that measuring can have on behavior and the preconditions will be filled in better, by facilitating both the (online) dialogue between the participants themselves and that between participants and the official measurement institutions. 
- Both TNO , RIVM as the Air Quality Office of the GGD Amsterdam would like to be involved in civilian monitoring networks in the future and can play an important role in the validation of the measurement data, the analysis of data, the comparison of data sources, the search for deviations and the environmental factors that influence on the measurement data 
- Visualisations of the measurement data are particularly valuable for gaining a good insight and comparing data with other sources. For this it is necessary that the underlying data is reliable and validated. For a follow-up, a visualization could even be the starting point for development to find the most suitable measuring method.

Waag Society and Amsterdam Smart City intend to take the next steps after the summer of 2014. Contributions from partners and residents are very welcome - and conditional for success.

## Attachments

[...]