Disclaimer:
Please be aware that the content herein has not been peer reviewed. It consists of personal reflections, insights, and learnings of the contributor(s). It may not be exhaustive, nor does it aim to be authoritative knowledge.
Overview
Prepared by (Name of the experimenter)
Tran Huong Giang – Head of Experimentation
On date (Day/Month/Year)
14/01/2024
Current status of experimental activity
Completed
What portfolio does this activity correspond to? If any
Circular Economy
What is the frontier challenge does this activity responds to?
Apart from sharing old items through gifting or donating to family and friends, in Da Nang city, there are various channels available for buying, selling, or donating used items. However, these trading avenues are decentralized, and even when they are centralized, there is a lack of support from local authorities in terms of promotional and advocacy efforts.
What is the learning question(from your action learning plan) is this activity related to?
Will the promotion of sharing used items be enhanced when centrally organized and supported by local authorities through promotional and advocacy efforts?
Please categorize the type that best identifies this experimental activity:
Quasi experimental (Analytical, observations, etc)
Which sector are you partnering with for this activity? Please select all that apply
Public Sector
Please list the names of partners mentioned in the previous question:
Da Nang Institute for Socio - Economic Development
People's Committee of Nai Hien Dong ward
Design
What is the specific learning intent of the activity?
To shift the perception that solely increasing awareness of recycling activities can enhance the waste classification rate, it is imperative for the government to implement targeted propaganda efforts in this regard.
What is your hypothesis? IF... THEN....
H1: Participation in the sharing of old items by the residents of Da Nang city increases when organized centrally at one location.
H2: Participation in the sharing of old items by the residents of Da Nang city significantly increases when organized centrally at one location, especially with the involvement of local authorities in propaganda and advocacy efforts.
Does the activity use a control group for comparison?
No, it does not use a control group
How is the intervention assigned to different groups in your experiment?
Non-random assignment
Describe which actions will you take to test your hypothesis:
- Choose a common place to live
- Organize the first market session that meets the conditions for organizing it concentrated in one location
- Organize a second market meeting that meets the conditions for organizing it concentrated in one location and with the participation of local authorities in propaganda and advocacy.
What is the unit of analysis of this experimental activity?
Individual
Please describe the data collection technique proposed
Conducting in-depth interviews with individuals to assess the objectivity and appropriateness of the hypothesis, while also gaining insights into the behaviors associated with sharing and consuming used goods.
Engaging in experimental measurement, which involves constructing and refining questionnaires, administering surveys, analyzing collected data, and generating comprehensive reports on the results.
What is the timeline of the experimental activity? (Months/Days)
60 Days
What is the estimated sample size?
100-999
What is the total estimated monetary resources needed for this experiment?
Between 1,000 and 9,999 USD
Quality Check
This activity is relevant to a CPD outcome, The hypothesis is clearly stated, This activity offers strong collaboration oportunities, This activity offers a high potential for scaling, This activity has a low risk
Please upload any supporting images or visuals for this experiment.
Please upload any supporting links
What are the estimated non- monetary resources required for this experiment? (time allocation from team, external resources, etc) If any.
The estimated non-monetary resources required for the experiment are:
A common activity area: The experiment was conducted at the outdoor yard of A5 apartment building, Nai Hien Dong ward, Son Tra district, Da Nang city.
An event organizer and a coordinator: The experiment was coordinated by DISED and UNDP, with the support of the local authorities and the participation of various organizations related to charity or environment.
Communication channels and materials: The experiment used various communication methods such as Facebook, banners, posters, flyers, bracelets, paper bags, etc. to promote the event and raise awareness about circular economy and sharing economy.
A registration system for stalls: The experiment required the participants to register for stalls in advance via online forms or phone calls.
A measurement system for the results: The experiment used various measurement methods such as counting the number of buyers and sellers, conducting surveys, interviewing, observing, etc. to collect and analyze data on the outcomes of the event.
Results
Was the original hypothesis (If.. then) proven or disproven?
The original hypothesis was partially proven. The experiment showed that the second market, which had the participation of the local authorities in communication and mobilization, had more people joining the sharing activities than the first market, which only had a centralized location. However, the difference was not large, and there were other factors that might have affected the results, such as weather, time, and location.
Do you have observations about the methodology chosen for the experiment? What would you change?
The methodology chosen for the experiment was a quasi-experimental design with two groups: one with the intervention (the second market) and one without (the first market). This design was suitable for testing the causal effect of the intervention on participants' behavior. However, some improvements are:
Using a control group that did not receive any intervention to compare with the two experimental groups and isolate the effect of other factors.
Randomizing the assignment of the participants to the groups to reduce selection bias and increase internal validity.
Conducting a pre-test and a post-test to measure the changes in the behavior and attitudes of the participants before and after the intervention.
Using multiple methods of data collection and analysis, such as surveys, interviews, observations, and focus groups, to triangulate the findings and increase reliability and validity.
From design to results, how long did this activity take? (Time in months)
From design to results, this activity took about two months. The experiment stated that the first market was held on June 19, 2022, and the second market was held on July 10, 2022.
What were the actual monetary resources invested in this activity? (Amount in USD)
5,000 USD
Does this activity have a follow up or a next stage? Please explain
This activity did have a follow-up or a next stage, which was a workshop to summarize the results of the policy experiment and to propose a model for scaling up. The experiment stated that the workshop was held on July 19, 2022, with the participation of the representatives from the Da Nang Institute of Socio-Economic Development (DISED), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Nai Hien Dong ward authorities, and some other stakeholders. The workshop aimed to share the findings and lessons learned from the experiment, to discuss the challenges and opportunities for developing a circular economy in Da Nang, and to suggest some recommendations for replicating and expanding the model of the sharing market to other locations and contexts.
Is this experiment planned to scale? How? With whom?
The experiment proposed a model for scaling up the sharing market to other locations and contexts, based on the results and lessons learned from the policy experiment. The model suggested four steps: (1) identifying potential areas and partners; (2) designing and testing the sharing market according to the local characteristics and needs; (3) evaluating and adjusting the model based on the feedback and data; and (4) replicating and expanding the model to other areas and partners. The experiment also recommended some criteria for selecting suitable areas and partners, such as the level of awareness, participation, and demand for sharing old goods, the availability of infrastructure and resources, and the support and cooperation of the local authorities and stakeholders.
Please include any supporting images that could be used to showcase this activity
Please add any supporting links that describe the planning, implementation, results of learning of this activity? For example a tweet, a blog, or a report.
Considering the outcomes of this experimental activity, which of the following best describe what happened after? (Please select all that apply)
Learning
https://vietnamcirculareconomy.vn/ki%E1%BA%BFn-th%E1%BB%A9c/phien-cho-chia-se-do-cu-thu-nghiem-chinh-sach-ve-kinh-te-tuan-hoan-tai-thanh-pho-da-nang/
What do you know now about the action plan learning question that you did not know before? What were your main learnings during this experiment?
Some of the main learnings from the experiment were:
The sharing market was an effective way to promote the reuse of old goods and to raise awareness and interest in the circular economy among the residents.
The participation of the local authorities in communication and mobilization was helpful, but not sufficient, to increase the participation of the residents in the sharing activities. Other factors, such as the convenience, accessibility, and attractiveness of the market, also played a role.
The sharing market could be improved by providing more incentives, feedback, and recognition for the participants, by diversifying the types and quality of the goods, by creating more interactions and connections among the participants, and by integrating the market with other activities and services related to the circular economy.
What were the main obstacles and challenges you encountered during this activity?
Weather conditions: The second market day was affected by heavy rain and drizzle, which reduced the number of participants and the duration of the event.
Lack of awareness and motivation: Some people did not understand the purpose and benefits of sharing used goods or did not want to spend time and effort to sort and transport their items to the market.
Logistics: Some people had difficulties in registering for a booth, finding a suitable location, or arranging the transportation of their goods. Some people also complained about the lack of parking space, security, or sanitation at the market venue.
Quality and quantity of goods: Some people brought low-quality or damaged goods that were not suitable for sharing or reuse. Some people also brought too many or too few goods, which affected the balance and diversity of the market.
Who at UNDP might benefit from the results of this experimental activity? Why?
The Climate Change and Environment Unit
Who outside UNDP might benefit from the results of this experiment? and why?
The results of this experiment could also benefit other actors outside UNDP, such as:
The residents of Da Nang and other cities in Vietnam, who could enjoy the environmental, social, and economic benefits of the circular economy, such as reducing waste, saving resources, creating jobs, and improving well-being.
The local authorities and stakeholders in Da Nang and other cities in Vietnam, who could learn from the experience and lessons of the experiment and apply them to their own contexts and challenges.
The researchers and practitioners in the field of circular economy and policy experimentation, could use the data and findings of the experiment to advance their knowledge and practice.
Did this experiment require iterations? If so, how many and what did you change/adjust along the way? and why?
The experiment did not require iterations, as it was designed as a quasi-experimental design with two groups: one with the intervention (the second market) and one without (the first market). However, some adjustments were made during the implementation of the experiment, such as changing the location of the second market to a more convenient and accessible place, and adding more activities and services to the market, such as a workshop on repairing and upcycling old goods, and a free drink station for the participants.
What advice would you give someone wanting to replicate this experimental activity?
Some advice for someone wanting to replicate this experimental activity are:
Conduct a thorough analysis of the local context and needs before designing and testing the sharing market and involve the local authorities and stakeholders in the process.
Use a mixed-methods approach for data collection and analysis, and triangulate the findings from various sources and methods, such as surveys, interviews, observations, and focus groups.
Provide clear and consistent communication and information about the purpose and benefits of the sharing market and use various channels and formats to reach and attract the target audience.
Create a friendly and lively atmosphere for the sharing market, and provide incentives, feedback, and recognition for the participants, such as vouchers, certificates, or badges.
Integrate the sharing market with other activities and services related to the circular economy, such as workshops, exhibitions, or consultations, and create opportunities for interaction and connection among the participants and with the organizers.
Can this experiment be replicated in another thematic area or other SDGs? If yes, what would need to be considered, if no, why not?
This experiment could be replicated in another thematic area or other SDGs, if the following factors are considered:
The relevance and suitability of the sharing market for the specific theme or goal, and the potential impact and benefits of the sharing market for the target group and the wider society.
The availability and accessibility of the old goods or resources that could be shared, reused, or recycled, and the quality and safety of the goods or resources.
The legal and regulatory framework and the cultural and social norms and values that could affect the sharing market and the behavior of the participants.
The capacity and willingness of the local authorities and stakeholders to support and cooperate with the sharing market, and the level of awareness and participation of the potential participants.
How much the "sense" and "explore" phases of the learning cycle influenced/shaped this experiment? In hindsight, what would you have done differently with your fellow Solution Mapper and Explorer?
experiment by helping the researchers to identify the problem, the context, the assumptions, and the hypotheses related to the circular economy and the sharing behavior of the citizens of Da Nang.
The “sense” phase involved conducting in-depth interviews with some individuals to understand their perspectives and preferences on sharing and consuming used goods, as well as reviewing the existing literature and policies on the circular economy.
The “explore” phase involved designing and implementing the policy experiment of organizing two sharing markets for used goods, with different levels of involvement from the local authorities, and measuring the outcomes and impacts of the intervention.
In hindsight, the researchers would have done differently with their fellow Solution Mapper and Explorer by:
Engaging more stakeholders: They would have involved more representatives from the private sector, civil society, and the media to increase the awareness and participation of the public in the sharing markets.
Expanding the scope and scale: They would have extended the duration and frequency of the sharing markets, the number and diversity of the locations and participants, to test the model's sustainability and scalability.
Enhancing the data collection and analysis: They would have improved the quality and quantity of the data collected from the sharing markets, such as using digital tools and platforms, and applied more rigorous and robust methods of data analysis, such as using randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental designs.
What surprised you?
The high demand and enthusiasm for the sharing markets: They found that many people were interested and willing to join the sharing markets, either as sellers or buyers, and expressed their satisfaction and appreciation for the initiative.
The positive spillover effects and impacts of the sharing markets: They observed that the sharing markets not only reduced the waste generation and increased the resource efficiency, but also fostered the social cohesion and community empowerment among the participants.
11Sustainable cities and communities
13Climate action
16Peace, justice and strong institutions
Comments
Log in to add a comment or reply.