EVALUATION FRAMEWORK PDF Free Download

Name: EVALUATION FRAMEWORK PDF
Author: michaellawson2020

1 / 38

0 views•38 pages

EVALUATION FRAMEWORK PDF Free Download

EVALUATION FRAMEWORK PDF free Download. Think more deeply and widely.

HORIZON Innovation Actions | Project: 101139633

TIPS4PED - HORIZON-MISS-2023-CIT-01

Project deliverable D1.3

EVALUATION FRAMEWORK

Author

Geo T. Sam (RINA-C)

Evaluation Framework

DELIVERABLE ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION

Deliverable Administration

Grant

Agreement

101139633

Project short

name

TIPS4PED

Deliverable no.

D1.3

Deliverable

Name

Evaluation Framework

Status

Final

Due

M10

Date

30/10/2024

Author(s)

Geo T. Sam

Dissemination

level

SEN

Document

history

Version

Date

Submitted

Reviewed

Comments

V0.1

03/10/2024

Geo T. Sam

(RINA-C)

Marco

Pagliarini,

Cesar Diaz

Londono,

Alessandro

Aloi (LINKS)

First draft of the

document

V0.2

18/10/2024

Geo T. Sam

(RINA-C)

Miguel Gomez

Meiras

(CIRCE),

Daniele

Salvatore

Schiera

(POLITO)

Second draft of

the document

V1.0

30/10/2024

Geo T. Sam

(RINA-C)

Laura Bordo

(RINA-C)

Final document

integrating all

comments

Legal Disclaimer

Co-funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only

and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or European Climate, Infrastructure and

Environment Executive Agency (CINEA). Neither the European Union nor CINEA can be held responsible

for them.

 
 
     
II 
Evaluation Framework 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Deliverable Administrative Information  I 
TABLE OF CONTENTS  II 
Project Executive Summary  IV 
DELIVERABLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  1 
List of abbreviations and acronyms  2 
PURPOSE OF THE DELIVERABLE  3 
1 Attainment of the objectives and explanation of deviations  3 
2 Intended Audience  4 
3 Structure of the deliverable and links with other work packages/deliverables  4 
METHODOLOGY  7 
1 Methodology to develop the evaluation framework  7 
1.1 Step 1: Literature Review  7 
1.2 Step 2: Development of Draft KPIs  8 
1.3 Step 3: Iteration with Partners  8 
1.4 Step 4: Finalization of Evaluation Framework  9 
Selected indicators for evaluating the performance  10 
1 Criteria for selecting indicators  10 
2 Selected Indicators and definition  10 
2.1 Energy  11 
2.2 Environmental  13 
2.3 Mobility  13 
2.4 Economy  14 
2.5 Social  15 
2.6 ICT  16 
Calculation of the baseline situation: TURIN LH  18 
1 City Level  18 
1.1 Energy Indicators Calculation  19 
1.2 Environmental Indicators Calculation  21 
1.3 Mobility Indicators Calculation  23 
1.4 Economy Indicators Calculation  24 
1.5 Social Indicators Calculation  24 
1.6 ICT Indicators Calculation  24 
2 Pilot Level  25 

III

Evaluation Framework

4.2.1 Energy Indicators Calculation 25

4.2.2 Environmental Indicators Calculation 26

4.2.3 Mobility Indicators Calculation 27

4.2.4 Economy Indicators Calculation 28

4.2.5 Social Indicators Calculation 29

4.2.6 ICT Indicators Calculation 29

5 Brief overview on gdpr compliance 30

6 Conclusions 32

7 References 33

List of Figures

Figure 1: KPI Dimensions in TIPS4PED 3

Figure 2: T1.5- Connections between tasks and WPs 1 to 4 5

Figure 3: Methodology to develop the evaluation framework 7

Figure 4: Partner's feedback for KPI refining 8

Figure 5: KPI breakdown by category 11

Figure 6: City data collection- Turin 19

List of Tables

Table 1: Contribution to the task from different partners 5

Table 2: Number of KPIs per category 17

Table 3: Turin - City level characteristics 18

Table 4: Turin- Pilot level characteristics 25

Evaluation Framework

PROJECT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TIPS4PED will design, develop, and test in a relevant environment the effectiveness and the techno-

economic viability of a Digital Twin based Platform, to support municipalities in the implementation of Positive

Energy Districts. The TIPS4PED Platform will be able to support municipalities in the decision-making

delivering a series of evidence-based results, increasing the environmental sustainability of cities, and

reducing operational costs. The project will adopt a people-centric approach, which aims at engage, train

and empower citizens and potential stakeholders. TIPS4PED will do this by leveraging on consortium

knowledge and prior EU experience and being motivated by the goals set forth by the European Commission.

To design and manage the PED effectively and foster its implementation through city planning actions,

different modules will be made available on the Integrated Assessment Platform, to support

municipalities from the technical perspective, as well as the social, financial, regulatory and administrative

ones. The tools will be developed thanks to a end-users co-design approach, capable of providing constant

feedback to the software development process.

The TIPS4PED solutions will be tested in one Light House city (Turin), where the Integrated Assessment

Platform (IAP) will be connected to a sensoring system for the real time management of the assets, and

replication studies will be conducted in three Follower Cities (Cork, Kozani and Budapest). The testing and

replication phase will result in the creation of 4 cities Digital Twins and decarbonization roadmaps. TIPS4PED

seeks to suggest scalable and easily reproducible technologies and digital optimization as a key solution for

to achieve 2030 EU goals, while taking into consideration various market circumstances, and environmental,

safety, and regulatory aspects.

Social Media links:

@TIPS4PED

@tips4ped

@TIPS4PED

For further information please visit WWW.TIPS4PED.EU

Evaluation Framework

DELIVERABLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document presents a framework for evaluating TIPS4PED KPIs and assessing the

baseline scenario for the Lighthouse (LH) city.

Drawing from insights and methodologies established by prior EU initiatives on PEDs

and smart cities, such as Making City, RESPONSE, and PED EU NET, the framework

enables holistic and standardized evaluation across energy, environmental, social,

economic, mobility & ICT dimensions.

The primary purpose of these KPIs is to facilitate an in-depth understanding of the PED

solutions’ impacts at varying spatial levels (from PED pilot, district, to city scale) and

across temporal stages (from short, medium, to long-term, targeting milestones up to

2030).

The results of this framework will guide improvements in PED solution implementation

and inform data-driven decision-making, promoting sustainable urban development in

PEDs across Europe.

Evaluation Framework

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

Acronym

Meaning

District Heating

European Commission

Electric Vehicle

Follower City

GDP

Gross Domestic Product

GHG

Green House Gas

IAP

Integrated Assessment Platform

ICT

Information and Communication Technology

KoM

Kick-off Meeting

KPI

Key Performance Indicator

Light House

MAPE

Mean Absolute Percentage Error

NPV

Net Present Value

PBP

Pay Back Period

PED

Positive Energy District

Work Package

Evaluation Framework

1 PURPOSE OF THE DELIVERABLE

1.1 Attainment of the objectives and explanation of deviations

The objective of this deliverable is to define the energy, social, environmental, mobility, ICT and economic

KPIs, as well as the variables needed for their calculation. It will also establish the measurement criteria and

the baseline scenario for the LH. This deliverable aims to enable transparency for the research and

monitoring process. With the insight from this document, in essence, anyone should be able to comprehend

the implemented research actions fully.

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) can act as a universal instrument to evaluate the progress of smart city

strategies, supporting the monitoring of relevant solutions and projects. [1] Six main domains have been

considered in the evaluation process (Figure 1): energy, environmental, economic. mobility, ICT and social.

The evaluation framework outlined in this document will assess the demonstration actions through the lens

of each domain, with the goal of capturing a comprehensive cross-section of the societies involved.

Figure 1: KPI Dimensions in TIPS4PED

The KPIs presented in this deliverable have been designed based on the findings of previous reviews on KPI

frameworks for Positive Energy Districts (PEDs) and smart cities, carried out by EU initiatives and projects

such as Making City, RESPONSE, and PED EU NET. To ensure practical relevance, partners from the

demonstration sites in LH and FCs were actively involved in defining the KPIs, ensuring that the selected

indicators are both feasible and appropriate for monitoring. Given the interrelated nature of social,

environmental, and economic impact categories, the partners collaborated closely to ensure alignment and

cohesion. This collaborative effort led to the development of a comprehensive KPI framework, which is

presented in this document.

Since this deliverable is prepared and written in the initial months of the TIPS4PED project, when the

conditions and solutions for demo sites are not yet fully defined, this KPIs framework will be updated

Evaluation Framework

throughout the project including calculations of temporal and spatial KPIs to offer a more comprehensive

evaluation.

The objectives related to this deliverable have been achieved in full and as scheduled.

1.2 Intended Audience

This deliverable is primarily intended for all consortium partners involved in the TIPS4PED data processing,

covering the entire workflow and dataflow from data collection to its application in IAP services, KPI

evaluation and monitoring during the project including all the intermediate steps.

1.3 Structure of the deliverable and links with other Work

Packages/deliverables

Section 2 of this document defines the TIPS4PED methodology. Section 3 defines the criteria selected and

also a list and categories of the KPIs. Section 4 provides the baseline scenario evaluated for the LH in city &

pilot level. Section 5 provides a brief overview of GDPR compliance. In Section 6 are reported the conclusions

of this work and section 7, the references.

This deliverable is not an isolated document, but is connected with other tasks and WPs within the project.

The evaluation framework is built on the data gathered in T1.2 through dedicated templates for LH & FCs.

The KPIs presented in this document set the ground for several activities within the project: monitoring and

assessing the performance of the PED solutions simulated through the DT and/or tested within the PED

pilots. Apart from the quantitative assessment related to KPIs, the baseline definition in this deliverable will

also provide information to: T3.2 TIPS4PED IAP Validation and LH and FCs performance monitoring where

the evaluation framework will be applied.

Figure 2 shows the connections between the tasks and WPs.

Evaluation Framework

Figure 2: T1.5- Connections between tasks and WPs 1 to 4

Table 1 summarizes the main contributions from participant partners in the development of this deliverable.

Table 1: Contribution to the task from different partners

Partner

Specific Contribution

RINA-C

• Task Leader

• This partner defines the set of KPIs needed to evaluate the project and the

pilot impacts

• Identifies data sources and the methodology to calculate the KPIs

• Collects the baseline KPIs of the LH pilot district

Evaluation Framework

IES

• This partner supports the definition of the KPIs and the identification of data

sources

LINKS

• This partner supports the definition of the KPIs and the calculation of the

Turin district baseline

CIRCE

• Reviewer 2 for D1.3 – Evaluation Framework

• This partner supports the definition of the KPIs and the identification of data

sources

POLITO

• Reviewer 1 for D1.3 – Evaluation Framework

• This partner supports the definition of the KPIs and the calculation of the

Turin district baseline

Evaluation Framework

2 METHODOLOGY

2.1 Methodology to develop the evaluation framework

This section outlines the methodology used to develop the TIPS4PED Evaluation Framework and provides

a brief overview of how the framework will be implemented in the later stages of the project. The methodology

followed a systematic approach consisting of four key steps, which were finalized in collaboration with key

partners from the Lighthouse and Follower cities. As a result, it reflects the real-world experiences and needs

of these ecosystems. Outlined in Figure 3 are the steps involved in the adopted methodology.

Figure 3: Methodology to develop the evaluation framework

2.1.1 Step 1: Literature Review

A detailed literature review was carried out to ensure the framework development approach aligns with

existing evaluation frameworks and Key Performance Indicator (KPI) definitions. This included an in-depth

analysis of frameworks like Making City, RESPONSE, and PED EU NET [2]

The review had two main goals: (i) to extract relevant components from existing frameworks for TIPS4PED

and (ii) to develop a robust evaluation framework, along with a diverse set of potential KPIs based on lessons

learned and best practices. In particular, the Making City initiative served as a crucial reference, providing

valuable insights into key performance indicators and evaluation methodologies. Furthermore, the literature

review extended to other important initiatives and projects, such as ATELIER, NEUTRALPATH, and

POCITYF, which have made significant contributions to sustainable urban development.

By integrating insights from the projects referenced above into the comprehensive literature review, the

TIPS4PED framework seeks to harness the strengths and best practices of these initiatives. This approach

Evaluation Framework

not only ensures the incorporation of relevant elements but also supports the development of a robust

evaluation framework for sustainable urban development.

2.1.2 Step 2: Development of Draft KPIs

The extensive KPI pool created in step 1 was refined by identifying recurring KPIs across the projects. These

KPIs were then categorized into defined dimensions (also called sectors or indicator categories): energy,

environmental, economy, mobility, ICT and social. Following other EU projects selecting criteria, which is

better explained in section 3.1 (POCITYF, Making City, etc.), a comprehensive list of indicators was selected

that reflect the direct and indirect impacts of the implemented measures. This served as an excellent basis

for initiating discussions with FCs and LH partners for the selection of final KPIs.

2.1.3 Step 3: Iteration with Partners

The final KPIs should also reflect the opinions and needs of the demo sites. To achieve this, the outcomes

from Step 2 were shared with the LH and FC partners of TIPS4PED for their feedback. A continuous iteration

process, involving email exchanges and meetings, was carried out to gather input on feasibility, relevance,

evaluation boundaries, data sources, and methodological approaches for baseline calculations and

definitions. Additionally, demo sites were asked to provide site-specific KPIs to assess their individual

performance. Figure 4 shows a section of the feedback file that was circulated among the partners.

Figure 4: Partner's feedback for KPI refining

This approach allowed the integration of indicators of particular interest to the LHs, while others were

excluded due to monitoring-related risks, such as data unavailability and as a result, the KPIs underwent a

thorough review process that incorporated diverse perspectives and considerations.

Evaluation Framework

2.1.4 Step 4: Finalization of Evaluation Framework

Following these steps, a finalized list of TIPS4PED KPIs containing all the necessary information for their

evaluation, including metrics, guidelines, formulas, performance thresholds, and category groupings, was

established. The metrics, data collection guidelines, and thresholds/baselines will be further evaluated in

T3.2 and corresponding deliverables.

Section 3.2 describes the KPIs selected for each domain and the parameters required to calculate them. The

total number of identified KPIs is 29.

Evaluation Framework

3 SELECTED INDICATORS FOR EVALUATING THE

PERFORMANCE

3.1 Criteria for selecting indicators

Following the initial screening process, it became necessary to filter the KPIs to identify the most relevant

ones for inclusion in the final TIPS4PED KPI repository. To achieve this, TIPS4PED exploited the selection

criteria outlined by the CIVITAS framework (van Rooyen and Nesterova, 2013) [3], which has also been

adopted by other projects such as Making City, POCITYF, and ATELIER, to develop an appropriate shortlist

of indicators.

1. RELEVANCE; Each indicator must hold significant importance in the evaluation process, meaning it should

be closely aligned with the framework's subthemes. Additionally, indicators should be selected and defined

to ensure that the implementation of the smart city project will clearly reflect changes in their values.

2. AVAILABILITY; Data for the indicators must be readily accessible. Since the data collection process should

be time-efficient and require minimal effort, the indicators should rely on data that either:

• are available from the project partners,

• or can easily be compiled from public sources,

• or can easily be gathered from interviews, maps, or terrain observations.

Indicators that, for example, rely on interviews with users or residents are not suitable, as collecting the large

volumes of data required would be too costly. Similarly, indicators that demand extensive recalculations or

additional data, such as footprint or specific financial indicators, are also unsuitable.

3. MEASURABILITY; Identified indicators should be capable of being measured, preferably as objectively as

possible.

4. RELIABILITY; The indicators should be clearly defined to avoid any ambiguity or multiple interpretations.

5. FAMILIARITY; Indicators should be straightforward and easily understood by users and non-experts. For

many indicators, we have drawn from existing indicator sets that generally meet this criterion."

6. NON-REDUNDANCY; Indicators within a system or framework should avoid measuring the same aspect

of a subtheme.

7. INDEPENDENCE: Minor changes in an indicator's measurements should not affect the preferences

assigned to other indicators in the evaluation process.

3.2 Selected Indicators and definition

The six sectors, or indicator categories, defined for the project are energy, environmental, economic, mobility,

ICT and social. The list of KPIs in each sector is outlined in the following section. The tables in the following

subsections briefly describe how each indicator selected as a metric for the city-level evaluation. These

indicators have been calculated for the LH (baseline calculation) and will be further used in D3.2.

Evaluation Framework

The pie-chart below (Figure 5) shows a breakdown of the final list of KPIs adopted.

Figure 5: KPI breakdown by category

3.2.1 Energy

Indicator

Description

Unit

EN_01: Final energy

consumption per capita

Annual final energy consumption (both thermal and

electrical) across all uses and energy forms, including

residential, tertiary sector, public lighting, industry, and

transport, is measured. This consumption is then

divided by the total city population to obtain the per

capita figure

MWh/cap

EN_02: Primary Energy

Consumption per Capita

This indicator reflects the primary energy consumed in

the city which is divided by the total city population to

obtain the per capita figure

MWh/cap

EN_03: Renewable Energy Ratio

Defined as the ratio between total RES capacity

installed to the total capacity to satisfy all final uses and

energy forms, including residential, tertiary sector,

public lighting, industry, and transport.

EN_04: Integrated Building

Management Systems (BMS)

Percentage of buildings equipped with systems that

integrate and manage energy use efficiently.

EN_05: Wind Energy Potential

Utilization

This indicator corresponds to the ratio between the

wind capacity installed and the average wind power

density

EN_06: Energy Savings

This indicator measures the reduction in energy

consumption due to efficiency measures and

conservation efforts. Average utility bill or a

Evaluation Framework

Indicator

Description

Unit

documented efficiency measure.for families can be

used in comparison with historical data to measure

savings.

EN_07: Solar Energy Potential

Utilization

This indicator corresponds to the ratio between the

solar capacity installed and the average solar power

density

EN_08: Error in energy demand

& production forecasting

This KPI will compare forecast accuracy coming from

the energy models used now and after the planned

implementation of the sensors.

  





MAPE: Mean Absolute Percentage Error: This

represents the average percentage error between the

data predicted by the model and the data measured by

the sensors. [%]

U: A statistical factor related to the coverage of

monitored users is an adjustment to a KPI that accounts

for uncertainty caused by sensors not covering all PED

users, ensuring accurate performance measurement

despite partial coverage.

EN_09: Feasibility of DH

Explores the feasibility of District Heating in the pilot

area and net extension if present, indicated in kms.

EN_10: Energy Storage Capacity

Installed

This KPI reflects the project's impact on the utilization

of smart energy storage systems by indicating the total

capacity of energy storage systems installed. The

baseline is zero, meaning that, as is typically the case,

new buildings do not include any storage.

Evaluation Framework

3.2.2 Environmental

Indicator

Description

Unit

EV_01: GHG Emissions per

Capita [4]

CO2 emissions produced over a calendar year by all

activities.

Tonnes of

CO2/cap

EV_02: SECAP (Sustainable

Energy and Climate Action Plan)

& foreseen measures, Climate

city contract (CCC) & foreseen

measures, SUMP (Sustainable

Urban Mobility Plan) & foreseen

measures and their allocated

budget

This indicator assesses to what extent the city has a

resilience strategy and action plan to adapt/respond to

climate change, by providing a qualitative measure.

EV_03: Reduction in emissions

The greenhouse gas emissions reduction assesses the

greenhouse gas emissions savings resulting from

interventions in PED/ local renewable generation

EV_04: Area of Additional Green

or Public Spaces Created

This KPI measures the total area of new green or public

spaces added within the city each year, expressed in

square meters.

m2/year

3.2.3 Mobility

Indicator

Description

Unit

EM_01: Modal Split

The indicator determines the distribution of transport

over the modalities of public and collective transport,

private vehicles

EM_02: Number of Public EV

Charging Stations

This KPI tracks the total number of public electric

vehicle (EV) charging stations available in the city,

indicating infrastructure development to support

sustainable transportation.

Number

EM_03: EV Composition in

private & public sectors

This KPI measures the proportion of electric vehicles

(EVs) in both the private and public sectors

Evaluation Framework

3.2.4 Economy

Indicator

Description

Unit

EC_01: Employment rate

Employment percentage over the entire working-age

population

EC_02: GDP (Gross Domestic

Product) per capita

GDP value in millions of euros

€

EC_03: Average Utility Bill for

Families

This KPI tracks the average monthly utility bill for

households, covering essential services such as

electricity, water, and gas.

€/year

EC_04: Payback period

This KPI represents the time required to recover the

initial investment in a project or technology through

savings or profits measured in years. The payback

period is often used as an additional criterion for

evaluating investments, particularly for assessing risk.

Investments with shorter payback periods are generally

considered less risky than those with longer payback

periods.

 



 󰇛 󰇜





PP : Payback period.

TI : Total investment for all the interventions related to

energy aspect [€]

TCS : Total cost savings over the economic analysis

period

TACt : Total annual cost of the systems before and after

the interventions (i.e. energy, operation & maintenance,

financial) for year t [€/year]

T : Duration of the economic analysis period [years]

t : Year

Years

EC_05: Net present Value

This KPI calculates the net present value (NPV) of a

project by determining the difference between the

present value of cash inflows and outflows over time. It

indicates the profitability and long-term financial benefit

of an investment.

€

Evaluation Framework

Indicator

Description

Unit

 󰇟󰇛 󰇜 󰇛󰇜





 󰇠

NPV : Net present value [€]

TI : Total investment for all the interventions related to

energy aspect [€]

TACt : Total annual cost of the systems before and after

the interventions (i.e. energy, operation & maintenance,

financial) for year t [€/year]

T : Duration of the economic analysis period [years]

t : Year

r : Required rate of return or discount rate

3.2.5 Social

Indicator

Description

Unit

SA_01: Citizen

engagement/empowerment to

climate conscious actions

This KPI measures the level of citizen engagement and

empowerment in climate-conscious actions, tracking

participation in sustainability initiatives and the adoption

of environmentally friendly practices.

No engagement – 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – High engagement

Likert scale

SA_02: Consciousness of

residents

This KPI evaluates the increased awareness among

residents regarding key issues such as project

interventions, energy use, environmental impact,

climate change, personal and communal consumption,

and carbon footprint and handprint.

No consciousness - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - High

consciousness.

Likert scale

SA_03: Local community

involvement in the

implementation and planning

phase

This KPI measures the level of local community

involvement during both the planning and

implementation phases of projects.

1 = Not at all: No community involvement. 2 = Inform

and consult: The community is involved for information

only. 3 = Advise: community actors are invited to ask

questions, provide feedback and give advice. 4 =

Partnership: community actors are asked to participate

in the implementation process. The local community is

Likert scale

Evaluation Framework

Indicator

Description

Unit

able to influence the implementation process. 5 =

Community self-development: the project planners

have empowered community actors to manage the

implementation and evaluate the results

3.2.6 ICT

Indicator

Description

Unit

ICT_01: Percentage increase in

the number of Smart Meters

This KPI tracks the percentage increase in the number

of smart meters installed in the city.

ICT_02: Quality of open data

This KPI assesses the quality of open data provided by

the city was increased.

1 = Very poor: incomplete, inaccurate, difficult to

access. 2 = available, lacks completeness:. 3 =

Average: relatively accurate. 4 = Good: accurate, up-

to-date & easily accessible 5 = Excellent: highly

accurate, comprehensive, frequently updated

Likert scale

ICT_03: Improved Data Privacy

This indicator refers to the level of improvement of data

privacy and safety analysing the extent to which data

collected by the project is protected, for instance, by

following regulations on data protection and

implementing proper procedures to protect personal or

private data.

Not at all – 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – Excellent

Likert scale

ICT_04: Adoption Rate of

Project-Developed Tools by

Partner Organizations

Measure of successful uptake of project-developed

tools / capability by partner organisations.

Not at all – 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – Very high

Likert scale

To summarize the breakdown, Table 2 shows the number of KPIs selected across each category.

Evaluation Framework

Table 2: Number of KPIs per category

EVALUATION FRAMEWORK PDF Free Download

EVALUATION FRAMEWORK PDF free Download. Think more deeply and widely.

Uploaded by michaellawson2020 on 3/17/2026

/38

100%

HORIZON Innovation Actions | Project: 101139633

TIPS4PED - HORIZON-MISS-2023-CIT-01

Project deliverable D1.3

EVALUATION FRAMEWORK

Author

Geo T. Sam (RINA-C)

Evaluation Framework

DELIVERABLE ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION

Deliverable Administration

Grant

Agreement

101139633

Project short

name

TIPS4PED

Deliverable no.

D1.3

Deliverable

Name

Evaluation Framework

Status

Final

Due

M10

Date

30/10/2024

Author(s)

Geo T. Sam

Dissemination

level

SEN

Document

history

Version

Date

Submitted

Reviewed

Comments

V0.1

03/10/2024

Geo T. Sam

(RINA-C)

Marco

Pagliarini,

Cesar Diaz

Londono,

Alessandro

Aloi (LINKS)

First draft of the

document

V0.2

18/10/2024

Geo T. Sam

(RINA-C)

Miguel Gomez

Meiras

(CIRCE),

Daniele

Salvatore

Schiera

(POLITO)

Second draft of

the document

V1.0

30/10/2024

Geo T. Sam

(RINA-C)

Laura Bordo

(RINA-C)

Final document

integrating all

comments

Legal Disclaimer

Co-funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only

and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or European Climate, Infrastructure and

Environment Executive Agency (CINEA). Neither the European Union nor CINEA can be held responsible

for them.

 
 
     
II 
Evaluation Framework 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Deliverable Administrative Information  I 
TABLE OF CONTENTS  II 
Project Executive Summary  IV 
DELIVERABLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  1 
List of abbreviations and acronyms  2 
PURPOSE OF THE DELIVERABLE  3 
1 Attainment of the objectives and explanation of deviations  3 
2 Intended Audience  4 
3 Structure of the deliverable and links with other work packages/deliverables  4 
METHODOLOGY  7 
1 Methodology to develop the evaluation framework  7 
1.1 Step 1: Literature Review  7 
1.2 Step 2: Development of Draft KPIs  8 
1.3 Step 3: Iteration with Partners  8 
1.4 Step 4: Finalization of Evaluation Framework  9 
Selected indicators for evaluating the performance  10 
1 Criteria for selecting indicators  10 
2 Selected Indicators and definition  10 
2.1 Energy  11 
2.2 Environmental  13 
2.3 Mobility  13 
2.4 Economy  14 
2.5 Social  15 
2.6 ICT  16 
Calculation of the baseline situation: TURIN LH  18 
1 City Level  18 
1.1 Energy Indicators Calculation  19 
1.2 Environmental Indicators Calculation  21 
1.3 Mobility Indicators Calculation  23 
1.4 Economy Indicators Calculation  24 
1.5 Social Indicators Calculation  24 
1.6 ICT Indicators Calculation  24 
2 Pilot Level  25 