From the literature three types of predictors for factor scores are available. These are characterized by the constraints: linear, linear conditionally unbiased, and linear correlation preserving. Each of these constraints generates a class of predictors. Best predictors are defined in terms of L?wner's partial matrix order applied to matrices of mean square error of prediction. It is shown that within the first two classes a best predictor exists and that it does not exist in the third. Copyright ? 1996 by Marcel Dekker, Inc.
MULTIFILE
The number of Electric Vehicles (EVs) is expected to increase exponentially in the coming years. The growing presence of charging points generates a multitude of interactions between EV users, particularly in metropolitan areas where a charging infrastructure is largely part of the public domain. There is a current knowledge gap as to how current decisions on charging infrastructure deployment affect both current and future infrastructure performance. In the thesis an attempt is made to bridge this knowledge gap by creating a deeper understanding of the relation between charging behavior, charging infrastructure deployment, and performance.The results demonstrate shown how both strategic and demand-drive deployment strategies have an effect on performance metrics. In a case study in the Netherlands it was found that during the initial deployment phase, strategic Charging Points (CPs) facilitate EV users better than demand driven deployment. As EV user adoption increased, demand-driven CPs show to outperform strategic CPs.This thesis further shows that there are 9 EV user types each with distinct difference distinct behavior in terms of charging frequency and mean energy uptake, both of which relate to aggregate CP performance and that user type composition, interactions between users and battery size play an important role in explaining performance of charging infrastructure.A validated data-driven agent-based model was developed to explore effects of interactions in the EV system and how they influence performance. The simulation results demonstrate that there is a non-linear relation between system utilization and inconvenience even at the base case scenario. Also, a significant rise of EV user population will lead to an occupancy of non-habitual charging at the expense of habitual EV users, which leads to an expected decline of occupancy for habitual EV users.Additional simulations studies support the hypothesis that several Complex Systems properties are currently present and affecting the relation between performance and occupation.
In tourism and recreation management it is still common practice to apply traditional input-output (IO) economic impact models, despite their well-known limitations. In this study the authors analyse the usefulness of applying a non-linear input-output (NLIO) model, in which price-induced input substitution is accounted for. For large changes in final demand, a NLIO model is more useful than a traditional IO model, leading to higher or lower impacts. For small changes in final demand input substitution is less likely. In that case the application of the NLIO may lead to the same results as a traditional IO model. To analyse changes of subsidies, a traditional IO model is not an option. A more flexible model, such as the NLIO, is required. The NLIO model forces researchers to make choices about capacity constraints, factor mobility and the substitution elasticity, which can be difficult but create flexibility and allow for more realism.
LINK
De afgelopen twee decennia is er veel meer aandacht ontstaan bij onderzoekers en beleidsmakers voor het begrip co-creatie. Bijna altijd wordt de rol van co-creatie als positief en essentieel gezien in een proces waarin maatschappelijke of publieke uitdagingen worden onderzocht en opgelost (zogenaamde sociale innovatie). Het meeste onderzoek naar deze twee begrippen is kwalitatief van aard en gebaseerd op ‘case studies’.In zijn promotieonderzoek kijkt Peter Broekema naar de rol van co-creatie binnen sociale innovatie in Europese samenwerkingsprojecten. In zijn eerste artikel heeft hij de begrippen co-creatie en sociale innovatie tussen 1995 en 2018 binnen de EU geanalyseerd en geconcludeerd dat beide begrippen steeds breder gebruikt worden en samen met het begrip impact zijn getransformeerd tot een beleidsparadigma.In het tweede artikel keek Peter Broekema hoe beide begrippen doorwerken in specifieke subsidieoproepen en hoe consortia deze begrippen toepassen en samenwerken. Hierbij bleek dat er weliswaar verschillende typen consortia bestaan, maar dat zij geen specifieke co-creatiestrategie hadden.In zijn laatste twee artikelen zal hij gedetailleerd kijken naar een aantal EU projecten en vaststellen hoe de samenwerking is verlopen en hoe tevreden de verschillende partners zijn met het resultaat. Peter Broekema maakt hiervoor gebruik van projecten waarin hij zelf participeert (ACCOMPLISSH, INEDIT en SHIINE).EU beleidsparadigma van sociale innovatie in combinatie met co-creatie en impact. Co-creatie vindt vaak binnen eigen type stakehodlers plaatsAbstractSocial innovation and co-creation are both relatively new concepts, that have been studied by scholars for roughly twenty years and are still heavily contested. The former emerged as a response to the more technologically focused concept of innovation and the latter originally solely described the collaboration of end-users in the development of new products, processes or services. Between 2010-2015, both concepts have been adapted and started to be used more widely by for example EU policymakers in their effort to tackle so called ‘grand societal challenges’. Within this narrative – which could be called co-creation for social innovation, it is almost a prerequisite that partners – especially citizens - from different backgrounds and sectors actively work together towards specific societal challenges. Relevance and aimHowever, the exact contribution of co-creation to social innovation projects is still unclear. Most research on co-creation has been focussing on the involvement of end-users in the development of products, processes and services. In general, scholars conclude that the involvement of end-users is effective and leads to a higher level of customer satisfaction. Only recently, research into the involvement of citizens in social innovation projects has started to emerge. However, the majority of research on co-creation for social innovation has been focusing on collaborations between two types of partners in the quadruple helix (citizens, governments, enterprises and universities). Because of this, it is still unclear what co-creation in social innovation projects with more different type of partners entails exactly. More importantly however, is that most research has been based on national case studies in which partners from different sectors collaborate in a familiar ‘national’ setting. Normally institutional and/or cultural contexts influence co-creation (for example the ‘poldermodel’in the Netherlands or the more confrontational model in France), so by looking at projects in a central EU and different local contexts it becomes clear how context effects co-creation for social innovation.Therefore this project will analyse a number of international co-creation projects that aim for social innovation with different types of stakeholders in a European and multi-stakeholder setting.With this research we will find out what people in different contexts believe is co-creation and social innovation, how this process works in different contexts and how co-creation contributes to social innovation.Research question and - sub questionsThe project will answer the following question: “What is the added value of co-creation in European funded collaboration projects that aim for social innovation?” To answer the main question, the research has been subdivided into four sub questions:1) What is the assumed added value of co-creation for social innovation?2) How is the added value of co-creation for social innovation being expressed ex ante and ex post in EU projects that aim specifically for social innovation by co-creation?3) How do partners and stakeholders envision the co-creation process beforehand and continuously shape this process in EU projects to maximise social innovation?4) How do partners and stakeholders regard the added value of co-creation for social innovation in EU projects that that aim for social innovation?Key conceptsThe research will focus on the interplay between the two main concepts a) co-creation and b) social innovation. For now, we are using the following working definitions:a) co-creation is a non-linear process that involves multiple actors and stakeholders in the ideation, implementation and assessment of products, services, policies and systems with the aim of improving their efficiency and effectiveness, and the satisfaction of those who take part in the process.b) social innovation is the invention, development and implementation of new ideas with the purpose to (immediately) relieve and (eventually) solve social problems, which are in the long run directed at the social inclusion of individuals, groups or communities.It is clear that both definitions are quite opaque, but also distinguish roughly the same phases (ideation/invention, development, implementation and assessment) and also distinguish different levels (products/services, policies and systems). Both concepts will be studied within the policy framework of the EU, in which a specific value to both concepts has been attributed, mostly because policymakers regard co-creation with universities and end-users almost as a prerequisite for social innovation. Based on preliminary research, EU policies seem to define social innovation in close reation with ‘societal impact’, which could defined as: “the long lasting effect of an activity on society, because it is aimed at solving social problems”, and therefore in this specific context social innovation seems to encompasses societal impact. For now, I will use this working definition of social innovation and will closely look at the entanglement with impact in the first outlined paper.MethodologyIn general, I will use a qualitative mixed method approach and grounded theory to answer the main research question (mRQ). In order to better understand the added value of co-creation for social innovation in an EU policy setting, the research will:SubRQ1) start with an analysis of academic literature on co-creation and social impact. This analysis will be followed by and confronted with an analysis of EU policy documents. SubRQ2) use a qualitative data analysis at nineteen EU funded projects to understand how co-creation is envisoned within social innovation projects by using the quintuple helix approach (knowledge flows between partners and stakeholders in an EU setting) and the proposed social innovation journey model. By contrasting the findings from the QDA phase of the project with other research on social innovation we will be able to find arachetypes of social innovation in relation with the (perceived) added value of co-creation within social innovation. SubRQ3) These archetypes will be used to understand the process of co-creation for social innovation by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.SubRQ4) The archetypes will also be used to understand the perceived added value by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.ImpactThe project will contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between co-creation and social innovation on different levels:a) Theoretical: the research will analyse the concepts of co-creation and social innovation in relation to each other by looking at the origins of the concepts, the adaptation in different fields and the uptake within EU policies;b) Methodological: a model will be developed to study and understand the non-lineair process of co-creation within social innovation, by focusing on social innovation pathways and social innovation strategies within a quintuple helix setting (i) academia, ii) enterprises and iii) governments that work together to improve iv) society in an v) EU setting);c) Empirical: the project will (for the first time) collect data on behavioural interactions and the satisfaction levels of these interactions between stakeholders and partners in an EU project.d) Societal: the results of the research could be used to optimize the support for social innovation projects and also for the development of specific funding calls.
In the coming decades, a substantial number of electric vehicle (EV) chargers need to be installed. The Dutch Climate Accord, accordingly, urges for preparation of regional-scale spatial programs with focus on transport infrastructure for three major metropolitan regions among them Amsterdam Metropolitan Area (AMA). Spatial allocation of EV chargers could be approached at two different spatial scales. At the metropolitan scale, given the inter-regional flow of cars, the EV chargers of one neighbourhood could serve visitors from other neighbourhoods during days. At the neighbourhood scale, EV chargers need to be allocated as close as possible to electricity substations, and within a walkable distance from the final destination of EV drivers during days and nights, i.e. amenities, jobs, and dwellings. This study aims to bridge the gap in the previous studies, that is dealing with only of the two scales, by conducting a two-phase study on EV infrastructure. At the first phase of the study, the necessary number of new EV chargers in 353 4-digit postcodes of AMA will be calculated. On the basis of the findings of the Phase 1, as a case study, EV chargers will be allocated at the candidate street parking locations in the Amsterdam West borough. The methods of the study are Mixed-integer nonlinear programming, accessibility and street pattern analysis. The study will be conducted on the basis of data of regional scale travel behaviour survey and the location of dwellings, existing chargers, jobs, amenities, and electricity substations.
The presented research project will address parasocial interaction (PSI) directed towards non-player characters (NPCs) within video games. As first described by Horton and Wohl in 1956, the investigation of PSI has been predominantly limited to the context of linear media. Consequently, a significant research gap has emerged, prompting the need for this study. This research endeavors to bridge this gap by conducting multiple studies that delve into different aspects of a character's presence that seem to affect PSI. For example, factors such as obtrusiveness and persistence will be investigated due to their potential influence on the strength of PSI (Hartmann, Schramm, & Klimmt, 2004). Furthermore, the inquiry extends to exploring the collective impact of a group of NPCs on PSI dynamics. To achieve these objectives, the research will employ research through design methods, involving iterative modifications to the NPCs across various test setups. A game-based research environment will be created for participant exposure, leveraging the video game RimWorld (Ludeon Studios, 2018) as a foundational framework that can be adapted as necessary. Employing a quantitative approach, the studies will document the impact different aspects of a character’s presence have on the strength of PSI observed. The outcomes of this research endeavor will be disseminated among fellow game developers through artistic interventions, such as, for example, game jams. This approach seeks to not only contribute to the scholarly understanding of PSI but also offer practical insights in the context of game development.
