Design Process: 

Duration: 4 months 

Team capacity: 3

Role: Team Lead, Project Lead 

Methods: Participatory design, problem definition, asset mapping, stakeholder mapping, community interviews and analysis, personas, ideation workshops, prototype workshops

Software: Miro, SketchUp/FreeCAD, Adobe InDesign, Google Jamboard

Problem Definition

Wicked Problem: Flooding risk in Boston's Back Bay neighborhood, lack of community awareness, preparedness, decreased levels of youth participation

Background

The Back Bay neighborhood in Boston is a vital area that impacts the entire city. It is home to landmarks such as the public library, esplanade, restaurants, residences, and shops. The location holds historical significance, serves as a transit hub, and is a major public interest space. However, the Back Bay sits on reclaimed land from the Charles River basin, making it vulnerable to the increasing effects of flooding in Boston.

Initial How Might We (HMW)

Initially, our How Might We (HMW) question focused on promoting dialogue between the City and community members from the Back Bay area to build collaborative community mitigation methods. However, further investigation and research led us to refine our HMW question.

Refined How Might We (HMW)

How might we engage youth communities in a way where they can participate in community-based discussions and discourses relating to climate change?
This refined HMW question aims to address the lack of community awareness, preparedness, and decreased levels of youth participation in the Back Bay neighborhood. By specifically targeting youth engagement, we believe we can foster a sense of ownership and involvement in addressing the flooding risk and wider climate change issues affecting their community.
Through meaningful youth participation, we hope to promote dialogue, information sharing, and the development of innovative solutions that can contribute to more effective community-based discussions and actions relating to climate change.

Research 

MAJOR STAKEHOLDERS 

Identifying major stakeholders helped us understand where we could begin our approach. We grouped stakeholders into two broad categories: Institutions (associations) and Individuals (people).

INTERVIEW INSIGHTS 

After identifying our stakeholders, we proceeded into interviews with cityscape experts. We interviewed Elliot Laffer and Catherine McCandless for 30 minutes each. We interviewed Mr. Laffer at the Boston Public Library and held a Zoom call with Ms. McCandless. Mr. Laffer was representative of neighborhood organizations while Ms. McCandless gave us the perspective of city officials.

​

BACKGROUND RESEARCH

Our background research included the following and is compiled in this Jamboard.


1. Demographic data 

2. Historical research  and Urban development research

User Personas

Based on research, we decided to create two unique user personas for younger individuals. We ended up using Katie's perspective heavily in our project

User workshops

One unique aspect of our design process was the use of workshops in order to garner user insight and data before we began our ideation and prototyping phases. We used data collected from our ideation workshop to develop our intervention. We swiftly followed through and iterated it over through the prototyping workshop

IDEATION WORKSHOP

Insights: 


1. The pictionary game gave us insights into what people think
when they approach communication infrastructure without
limits. Both groups identified emergency based communication system. The interesting link was that they were both very
physical - a blip in the air and a response system on building
window. 

2. Activity 2 revealed that people were less likely to communicate intergeneration-ally

PROTOTYPING WORKSHOP

Insights: 


-Youth build networks of connection online and want to see that kickball in person

-Youth want to participate in person but are not comfortable in person

-Youth need some form of encouragement to bring their voices to the physical 3D world outside of their phones and computers

Final Idea

The Water Cube’s objective is to use digital screens in a physical space such as the Copley Square. S. floor: would imitate the ground and how it would look like in case of floods.

Screen 1: Would give viewers an overview of the issue,
Screen 2: Would play videos featuring our youth partners: “I care because....”
Screen 3: Would be an interactive that allows people to use it kind of like a giant phone or iPad. It is here that people can sign up to act. 


LOGISTICS: 

- We need to partner with a youth community organization or a school in Back Bay.


-Extra workshops and training workshops for digital skills


- The way the presentation and the actual content would be entirely the student’s own. We seek to make it a platform for young people to unabashedly exercise their voice
 

​

Evaluation Criteria 

2 discussions:
a) Before the installation to see whether the process of participating is motivating and if the  young community members feel more confident to participate in public life.


b)After the installation has been in place a few days. Here we would ask them how they felt  represented, and whether they will partake in other public and civic activities relating to neighborhood issues.
Data


Mapping out really how many people are engaging with our installation and then how many people are interacting, signing up, and trying to learn more.
​
To monitor the numbers on the screens. How many people interacted with the floor , how many interacted with the panels, and finally, how many signed up to learn/engage more. 

Short-term goals: Give youth a platform in the community, showcasing their ideas and opinions in a public space for visibility and inclusion.
Long-term goals: Advocate for youth inclusion in decision-making processes, with the belief that involving them will benefit the city and community.
Additional aim: Educate the public about the flood issue in Boston, regardless of their participation or enrollment.

​