KPI library

An indicator someone has already defined, tested and measured is easier to defend than one invented under deadline. This library gathers every indicator DREAMS uses to judge a 15-minute neighbourhood in the outskirts, from the full evaluation framework down to the counts each living lab set for its own measures. Use it when you set targets and indicators, and come back to it when you monitor the plan and need the metric, the data source and the collection method behind a reading.

Three layers

The library is built in three layers, each a subset or an application of the one before it.

The evaluation framework

34 indicators describing what should ideally be tracked, chosen from the research literature without regard to the data any one city holds. An indicator you cannot measure this year may still matter for judging the plan.

The shared KPIs

The 19 framework indicators the project could apply across its six living labs, kept because partners judged them relevant, sensitive to the interventions and measurable within a pilot. 7 are computed by MinuteMap and 2 more could be once extra data is added.

Living lab indicators

53 indicators the six labs set for the particular measures they tested, each with a target, a method and a collection schedule. They show what an impact area looks like once it has to be counted in one neighbourhood.

Seven impact areas

Each impact area answers one challenge typical of the outskirts with one strategic objective, and every indicator sits in the area it gives primary evidence on. The areas are read one by one and never folded into a single score, because a gain in one can hide a loss in another. Why the set is built this way, and how to pick from it, is explained under setting targets and indicators.

Accessibility

Ensure proximity-based and multimodal accessibility to essential amenities and to other urban cores.
12 framework indicators, seven shared KPIs, 13 from the labs.

Carbon emissions

Reduce the need to use a private car and the transport emissions that come with it.
4 framework indicators, two shared KPIs, 20 from the labs.

Health

Promote health through active mobility and safer, low-pollution living environments.
3 framework indicators, no shared KPI, none from the labs.

Liveability

Enhance neighbourhood liveability, social interaction and the quality of public space.
2 framework indicators, one shared KPI, 3 from the labs.

Economic impact

Support local economic vitality and the viability of proximity and mobility services.
3 framework indicators, two shared KPIs, 9 from the labs.

Equity

Ensure that benefits are fairly distributed and reach vulnerable and target groups.
6 framework indicators, five shared KPIs, 3 from the labs.

Governance

Foster inclusive, co-created and institutionally anchored governance of 15-minute neighbourhood transformations.
4 framework indicators, two shared KPIs, 5 from the labs.

Living lab targets are plans, not results

The living lab targets were set before delivery began. Several interventions changed on the way, and some were dropped when a partner withdrew, so a target here records an intention rather than an outcome. Each living lab page tells the story of what was actually delivered.

---

Accessibility

Challenge in the outskirts

Long distances, dispersed amenities and weak multimodal links to other urban cores.

Strategic objective

Ensure proximity-based and multimodal accessibility to essential amenities and to other urban cores.

Target societal impacts

Everyday activities reachable without a car within travel times residents helped define, fewer underserved pockets, and better links to other cores.

Accessibility is the core area of a 15-minute neighbourhood and the one MinuteMap supports most directly. Four indicators measure proximity to essential amenities and can each be computed by mode, both against a normative standard and with the preferences residents gave in the DREAMS survey. Connectivity indicators cover public transport, shared mobility and the links to jobs and regional centres that matter in areas built around the commute. The four indicators on land-use mix, walkability, cycling networks and green space describe the conditions for proximity. They respond to planning and infrastructure over years, not to a single pilot, which is why none of them became a shared KPI.

Framework indicators for accessibility

Indicator	Dimension	Tier	Metric	Data source	MinuteMap	Direction
Multi-amenity compliance Reported as a population-weighted mean and distribution, with normative and resident-preference thresholds.	Proximity to essential amenities	Shared KPI	Share of amenity-specific travel-time and quantity thresholds met	MinuteMap	Yes	Increase
Amenity-specific compliance Shows which destinations hold the overall score down.	Proximity to essential amenities	Shared KPI	Compliance per amenity type, 15 types including parks, sports facilities and playgrounds	MinuteMap	Yes	Increase
Cumulative opportunities Captures choice beyond the compliance threshold.	Proximity to essential amenities	Shared KPI	Number of amenities of each type reachable within the threshold	MinuteMap	Yes	Increase
Travel time to the nearest amenities The counterpart to cumulative opportunities.	Proximity to essential amenities	Shared KPI	Travel time to the nearest few amenities of each type, by mode	MinuteMap	Yes	Decrease
Public transport catchment with minimum service level Counts only stops served often enough to rely on.	Multimodal and regional connectivity	Shared KPI	Share of population within the access threshold of stops with a minimum frequency	MinuteMap	Yes	Increase
Availability of shared mobility options Could move into MinuteMap with stations and hubs added as destinations.	Multimodal and regional connectivity	Shared KPI	Shared vehicles per 1,000 residents and share of residents within the threshold of a station or hub	Operator data	Planned	Increase
Accessibility to jobs and regional centres Reflects how strongly the outskirts depend on commuting to other cores.	Multimodal and regional connectivity	Framework	–	–	No	Increase
Perceived accessibility to amenities Residents' own view, which often diverges from the modelled one.	Perceived accessibility	Shared KPI	Self-reported ease of reaching essential amenities	Survey	No	Increase
Green space provision per capita Responds to planning over the longer term.	Conditions for proximity and active mobility	Framework	–	–	No	Increase
Land-use mix Responds to planning over the longer term.	Conditions for proximity and active mobility	Framework	–	–	No	Increase
Walkability, including pedestrian infrastructure Responds to planning over the longer term.	Conditions for proximity and active mobility	Framework	–	–	No	Increase
Cycling network density and connectivity Responds to planning over the longer term.	Conditions for proximity and active mobility	Framework	–	–	No	Increase

Set by the living labs for accessibility

Living lab	Intervention	Indicator	Type	Target	Method	When
Brussels	Mobitwin pilot	Reported accessibility of amenities by users Improved access to care-related amenities	Outcome	Most respondents report improved accessibility	Survey, interview or focus group, comparing travel time before and after using Mobitwin	Once, after
Brussels	Cargobike pilot	Reported accessibility of amenities by users Improved access to amenities	Outcome	Most respondents report improved accessibility	Survey, interview or focus group	Once, during or after
Brussels	Cargobike pilot	A suitable location found for a station Improved service in the area	Outcome	One station identified per bike	Survey, interview or focus group	Once, after
Budapest	Island bike-sharing	Number of micromobility vehicles at Mobi points Mobi points integrated into the street	Output	Two vehicles per Mobi point	Observation of the vehicles on site	During
Budapest	Island bike-sharing	Bike availability within the district More bike-sharing use in the living lab area	Outcome	One bike per Mobi point	Operator data	Continuous
Munich	Micro-mobility points	Share of the area with improved accessibility Better accessibility and coverage of mobility services	Output	Accessibility improved in at least 20% of the area	GIS mapping and spatial accessibility analysis	Once, to choose the locations
Munich	Micro-mobility points	Number of shared mobility options linked to public transport More shared mobility options available	Output	At least one shared mobility service at each point	Count of services at the point	Once, after the locations are set
Paris	New shared mobility stations	Travel times Shorter first and last-mile travel times	Output	20% shorter travel times	GIS mapping	Once, after
Paris	New shared mobility stations	Reported accessibility Better access to amenities and services	Output	Most respondents report improved accessibility	Survey, interview or focus group	Once, during or after
Paris	New shared mobility stations	Rides starting or ending at a Tram 12 station Better access to Tram 12	Outcome	10% more trips to Tram 12 stations	Pony trip data	Continuous
Paris	Improved T12 signage	Satisfaction with station navigation Easier wayfinding at Tram 12	Outcome	Most respondents find Tram 12 easy to find	User feedback surveys	Once, after
Vienna	Flexible activity hub	Number of activities and events at the hub More offers in the living lab area	Output	Two events or offers a week, 24 in total	Manual count	During and after
Vienna	Flexible activity hub	Proximity for residents Better access to events and offers	Outcome	20% less travel time to cultural offers	Questionnaire	After

---

Carbon emissions

Challenge in the outskirts

Systemic car dependency and car-based commuting.

Strategic objective

Reduce the need to use a private car and the transport emissions that come with it.

Target societal impacts

Fewer and shorter car trips, a shift to walking, cycling, public transport and shared modes, and lower transport CO₂ emissions.

Car use is the most direct behavioural outcome, and because the built environment changes travel only modestly it has to be read against a baseline. Uptake of a shared service is the first thing to move, but it is not yet evidence of impact. Shared micromobility often replaces walking or public transport rather than the car, so the share of its trips that replace a car trip is what links uptake to lower emissions. Emissions themselves can be estimated from vehicle kilometres by mode and standard emission factors, including the emissions avoided.

Framework indicators for carbon emissions

Indicator	Dimension	Tier	Metric	Data source	MinuteMap	Direction
Car use, number and share of car trips The most direct behavioural outcome, read against a baseline.	Car dependence and modal shift	Shared KPI	Car trips per person per week and car share of trips to everyday destinations	Survey	No	Decrease
Uptake of shared mobility The first response to move, but not evidence of impact on its own.	Car dependence and modal shift	Shared KPI	Trips, active and new users, and distance per 1,000 residents per month	Operator data	No	Increase
Mode substitution by new mobility services Share of trips on a new service that replace a car trip, which links uptake to impact.	Car dependence and modal shift	Framework	–	–	No	Increase
Transport-related CO₂ emissions Estimated from vehicle kilometres by mode and emission factors, including avoided emissions.	Transport emissions	Framework	–	–	No	Decrease

Set by the living labs for carbon emissions

Living lab	Intervention	Indicator	Type	Target	Method	When
Brussels	Mobitwin pilot	Number of rides to and from Neder-Over-Heembeek More use of the service in the living lab area	Output	25% more rides during the pilot	Ride count from the Mobitwin app	Before, during and after
Brussels	Mobitwin pilot	Number of trips taken with the service Less reliance on private vehicles	Outcome	More rides	Survey after the intervention	Once, after
Brussels	Cargobike pilot	Number of trips with the cargo bikes Fewer car trips in the living lab area	Outcome	An average of five trips a week by the end of the test	Bike tracking in the app and a survey	Before, during and after for tracking, after for the survey
Brussels	Cargobike pilot	Recognition of and interest in the service among pilot users Improved visibility	Output	Ten registered users per bike	Survey, interview or focus group	Once, after
Budapest	Island bike-sharing	Number of new users New users for the bike-sharing system	Output	50 new users	Count of newly registered users	Continuous
Budapest	Island bike-sharing	Number of MOL Bubi trips within the district More bike-sharing use in the living lab area	Output	100 trips	Operator data	Continuous
Budapest	Island bike-sharing	Duration of MOL Bubi trips within the district More bike-sharing use in the living lab area	Output	Five minutes on average	Operator data	Continuous
Budapest	Island bike-sharing	Utilisation rate of MOL Bubi bikes More bike-sharing use in the living lab area	Output	One use a day	Operator data	Continuous
Munich	Micro-mobility points	Number of rides by population group More shared mobility use for first and last-mile trips	Outcome	At least ten rides a day	Ride count	Weekly, during the intervention
Munich	Rewards programme	Increase in public and shared mobility use More public transport and shared mobility in place of the car	Outcome	20% more use	Ride count	Weekly, during the intervention
Paris	New shared mobility stations	Reported modal shift Less car dependency for last-mile trips	Outcome	Some respondents report a modal shift	Survey, interview or focus group	Once, during or after
Paris	New shared mobility stations	Shared mobility ridership More uptake of shared mobility	Outcome	10% more use of Pony bikes and scooters	Pony ridership data	Continuous
Paris	Discounts on shared mobility	Commuting trips by users in the target groups More shared mobility use for commuting	Output	Most respondents have used Pony for commuting	Surveys and focus groups	Once, after
Paris	Discounts on shared mobility	Uptake of free rides among target groups Lasting adoption among hesitant users	Output	Most users take the free trial trips	Operator data	Once, after
Paris	Improved T12 signage	Change in ridership at Tram 12 stations More Tram 12 ridership	Output	5% more ridership	Île-de-France Mobilités data	Once, after
Utrecht	Discounts for shared e-bikes	Number of new users New users for the bike-sharing system	Output	10% more e-bike use among workers who commute by car, within six months	A question in the Dott app before a trip, and a short survey sent out by companies	Once, after six months
Vienna	Flexible activity hub	Travel mode Sustainable travel to the hub	Outcome	80% of visitors arrive on foot or by bike	Questionnaire	After
Vienna	Flexible activity hub	CO₂ emissions Lower CO₂ through sustainable travel	Outcome	20% less CO₂	Questionnaire, using the usual mode for cinema and theatre trips as a proxy	After
Vienna	Bike-sharing station	Pick-ups and drop-offs at the new station More bike-sharing use in the living lab area	Output	Five drop-offs a week	Operator data, monthly rentals and drop-offs	During and after
Vienna	Bike-sharing station	CO₂ emissions Lower CO₂ through sustainable travel	Outcome	20% less CO₂	Questionnaire, compared against the private car	After

---

Health

Challenge in the outskirts

Low levels of active travel, exposure to traffic and danger on the road.

Strategic objective

Promote health through active mobility and safer, low-pollution living environments.

Target societal impacts

More physical activity through active travel, lower exposure to air pollution and noise, and fewer traffic injuries.

Health is the most common argument for proximity planning and the area in which a short, local intervention is hardest to detect. None of its three indicators became a shared KPI, because none could register a change within the living lab timeframe. That reflects the limits of a pilot, not the importance of the area. Keep these indicators in a longer monitoring plan, and note that compliance for general practitioners, pharmacies and parks, measured under accessibility, also bears on health.

Framework indicators for health

Indicator	Dimension	Tier	Metric	Data source	MinuteMap	Direction
Physical activity from active travel The main health benefit of proximity.	Physical activity	Framework	–	–	No	Increase
Exposure to traffic-related air pollution and noise Exposure where people live and travel.	Environmental exposure	Framework	–	–	No	Decrease
Road safety of active and micromobility users Covers pedestrians, cyclists and micromobility users.	Road safety	Framework	–	–	No	Fewer injuries

Set by the living labs for health

No living lab set an indicator of its own for health.

---

Liveability

Challenge in the outskirts

Car-oriented public space, limited local social life and a sense of insecurity.

Strategic objective

Enhance neighbourhood liveability, social interaction and the quality of public space.

Target societal impacts

More local social interaction, safer public space, stops and hubs, and access to green and public space.

Liveability is captured by local social contact and by how safe people feel in public space, at stops and at hubs. Perceived safety shapes how women and older people use public space in particular, and in the outskirts, where public space is often laid out for the car, it is a precondition for walking and waiting at all. Access to green and public space is measured under accessibility.

Framework indicators for liveability

Indicator	Dimension	Tier	Metric	Data source	MinuteMap	Direction
Social interaction and perceived social mix Measured with validated survey items on local contacts.	Social interaction and cohesion	Shared KPI	Local social contacts and perceived social mix	Survey	No	Increase
Perceived personal safety In public space, at stops and at hubs.	Safety and security	Framework	–	–	No	Increase

Set by the living labs for liveability

Living lab	Intervention	Indicator	Type	Target	Method	When
Vienna	Flexible activity hub	Visitors at cinema and theatre evenings Better access to events and cultural offers	Output	100 visitors per event	Manual visitor count	During
Vienna	Flexible activity hub	Visitors at the hub, for example at workshops Better offers in the living lab area	Output	At least ten visitors on days with activity	Manual visitor count	During
Vienna	Flexible activity hub	Feedback on the quality of new offers Better quality of events and offers	Outcome	High satisfaction, 4 out of 5	Interviews or feedback forms	During and after

---

Economic impact

Challenge in the outskirts

A weak demand base for local businesses and a high cost per user for shared services.

Strategic objective

Support local economic vitality and the viability of proximity and mobility services.

Target societal impacts

More local economic activity and jobs, and mobility and proximity services that stay viable beyond the pilot.

Jobs created by new services and hubs are best read together with wider local business activity, where evidence from investment in active travel points to mostly positive or neutral effects. Willingness to pay is the key parameter for a business model that does not exclude low-income residents in lower-density areas. In DREAMS it came from surveys and the choice models of the resident study, and deriving it directly within MinuteMap is a possible later extension.

Framework indicators for economic impact

Indicator	Dimension	Tier	Metric	Data source	MinuteMap	Direction
Local employment generated by services and hubs Best read together with local business activity.	Local economic activity	Shared KPI	Jobs created or sustained by new services and hubs	Living lab records	No	Increase
Local business activity Footfall and turnover of local businesses.	Local economic activity	Framework	–	–	No	Increase
Willingness to pay for services Informs pricing and social business models in lower-density areas.	Viability of services	Shared KPI	Stated willingness to pay relative to price, by income group	Survey and choice models	No	Track against price

Set by the living labs for economic impact

Living lab	Intervention	Indicator	Type	Target	Method	When
Brussels	Mobitwin pilot	Number of volunteers A bigger pool of volunteers	Output	Five more volunteers	Volunteer count from the Mobitwin app	Before, during and after
Brussels	Mobitwin pilot	Trip cost coverage Better understanding of the local business case	Output	Cost break-even	Number of trips, income and cost per trip	During and after
Brussels	Cozywheels pilot	Interest in the service among local businesses Exploring a possible future business case	Outcome	Barriers to adoption identified	Interviews with local companies	Once, after
Brussels	Cargobike pilot	Number of trips with the cargo bikes Better understanding of the local business case	Output	An average of one trip a day by the end of the test	Revenue per trip, from bike tracking and time per trip	Before, during and after
Budapest	Island bike-sharing	Total cost per user Financial viability of the service	Outcome	Cost break-even	Registered users against total pilot cost, and cost per trip in other areas	After
Munich	Micro-mobility points	Operating costs and revenues Insight into the business case for shared mobility	Outcome	Cost break-even	Trips, revenue and operating costs	Once, after
Paris	Discounts on shared mobility	Conversion from free trial to paid use Lasting adoption among hesitant users	Outcome	20% of users ride again after the trial or consider subscribing	Operator data and focus groups	Once, after
Utrecht	Solar charging e-bike station	Number of tasks saved Fewer battery-swapping tasks	Output	20% lower logistics cost	Interview with Dott	Once, six months after
Utrecht	Solar charging e-bike station	Energy cost saved Less dependence on grid energy	Output	5% lower energy use	Data from the energy company	Once, six months after

---

Equity

Challenge in the outskirts

Diverse needs, unequal access and the risk of displacing vulnerable groups.

Strategic objective

Ensure that benefits are fairly distributed and reach vulnerable and target groups.

Target societal impacts

Smaller accessibility gaps between groups and places, affordable access, inclusive services and no displacement.

Equity is read across groups, places, affordability, inclusiveness and housing. The core comparison sets the accessibility of target groups such as older adults, migrants and low-income residents against the general population and the normative standard. Across places, the spread of any accessibility indicator shows where underserved locations sit and can be summarised with a Gini or Palma index. Travel cost turns the money a trip costs into time, using the value each group places on its own travel time, so a fare that is trivial for one group can show up as a barrier for another.

Framework indicators for equity

Indicator	Dimension	Tier	Metric	Data source	MinuteMap	Direction
Preference-based compliance of target groups Computed for all six living labs.	Distribution across groups	Shared KPI	Compliance with target-group preference sets, compared with general and normative sets	MinuteMap	Yes	Narrow the gap
Perceived accessibility of target groups The survey counterpart of preference-based compliance.	Distribution across groups	Shared KPI	Perceived accessibility broken down by target group	Survey	No	Narrow the gap
Accessibility from social and affordable housing Needs social-housing locations added to MinuteMap as origins.	Distribution across places	Shared KPI	Compliance at social-housing locations against other residential locations	MinuteMap	Planned	Narrow the gap
Travel cost Shows whether a fare cancels out the time a service saves.	Affordability	Shared KPI	Generalised travel time to essential amenities, with the money cost converted using group-specific values of travel time	MinuteMap	Yes	Decrease
User representativeness of new services Tests whether a service reaches beyond residents who were already well served.	Inclusiveness of services	Shared KPI	Share of women, older adults and low-income residents among users, against their share of the population	Survey and operator data	No	Increase
Housing affordability and displacement pressure Watches for gentrification as an area improves.	Housing and displacement	Framework	–	–	No	Decrease

Set by the living labs for equity

Living lab	Intervention	Indicator	Type	Target	Method	When
Munich	Rewards programme	Share of migrants and older adults among users More involvement of migrants and older adults	Outcome	At least 20% of registered users	Demographic data from registration	Weekly, during the intervention
Paris	Discounts on shared mobility	Uptake of discounted memberships More shared mobility use among students	Output	10% more subscriptions	Operator data	Once, after
Paris	Discounts on shared mobility	Share of students among all users More shared mobility use among students	Outcome	Students make up 10% of users	Operator data	Once, after

---

Governance

Challenge in the outskirts

Fragmented jurisdictions, limited participation and contested acceptance.

Strategic objective

Foster inclusive, co-created and institutionally anchored governance of 15-minute neighbourhood transformations.

Target societal impacts

Broad and representative participation, decision-making that is transparent and responsive, and public acceptance of the measures.

The value of participation depends on who takes part and on how their input is connected to decisions, so reach is measured together with how representative the participants are. Procedural quality asks residents whether they were informed, whether they could influence the outcome and whether their input was taken up. Acceptance conditions whether a measure can be implemented at all, which matters for a concept that has met resistance in public debate. Report these indicators for target groups as well as for the whole population.

Framework indicators for governance

Indicator	Dimension	Tier	Metric	Data source	MinuteMap	Direction
Participation reach and representativeness Who takes part, not only how many.	Participation	Shared KPI	Share of residents participating and how representative the participants are	Living lab records	No	Increase
Number of public events organised by public authorities A simple count of formal opportunities to take part.	Participation	Framework	–	–	No	Increase
Perceived procedural quality Whether residents felt their input was heard and used.	Procedural quality	Shared KPI	Ratings of information, opportunity to influence and uptake of input	Survey	No	Increase
Public acceptance of 15-minute neighbourhood measures Acceptance conditions whether a measure can be implemented.	Acceptance	Framework	–	–	No	Increase

Set by the living labs for governance

Living lab	Intervention	Indicator	Type	Target	Method	When
Budapest	Island bike-sharing	Number of local residents reached through any channel Awareness of the service in the living lab area	Output	500 local residents	Social media pages and groups, local media reports	Continuous
Munich	Micro-mobility points	Satisfaction and willingness to continue using the services A community satisfied with the points and willing to keep using them	Outcome	Most respondents satisfied and willing to continue	Survey or focus-group workshops	Once, after
Munich	Rewards programme	Share of enrolled users who use and redeem points, and their satisfaction User engagement and satisfaction with the scheme	Outcome	At least 50 active users in the first three months	System usage data and short satisfaction surveys	Once, after
Vienna	Flexible activity hub	Organisations and initiatives involved in preparing the hub More involvement and networking of local actors	Output	Three organisations or initiatives	Manual count and qualitative assessment	Once, after
Vienna	Bike-sharing station	Satisfaction with the new station Better understanding of the need for the station	Outcome	High satisfaction, 4 out of 5	Interviews or feedback forms	During and after

Sources and further information

DREAMS Deliverable 6.1: the impact assessment framework and the indicators, targets and data collection plans of the six living labs.

MinuteMap: computes the accessibility, equity and travel cost KPIs.