| CLASSIFICATION // | EXECUTIVE SYNTHESIS — FULL TENSOR PROPOSITION |
| FIELD OF ENQUIRY // | MUNICIPAL PUBLIC SPACE & WASTE GOVERNANCE |
| TARGET MARKET // | POLICY MAKERS / INSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE |
Stadschoon
www.stadschoon.com
Residents observe problems, form civic opinions, hold strong views about neighbourhood quality, and are willing to co-produce outcomes — but the channels available to them are either broken, inaccessible, or structurally skewed toward those who already know how to use them. That surplus is transient: when it goes unrecognised long enough, it converts into disengagement, and disengagement is expensive to reverse.
The institutional frameworks governing this field — the CROW standards, the VANG-HHA targets, the professional identity of the Afvalcoach and Wijkregisseur — have formalised the ambition of civic co-production before the lived cultural reality has caught up with it. The narrative of the "responsible circular citizen" has been adopted at the governance level and not yet absorbed at the neighbourhood level.
The opportunity is a scalable system that makes the feedback visible, makes civic contribution recognisable, and makes the connection between resident action and institutional response legible — in an operational infrastructure that deploys limited capital more safely and more efficiently, rather than as a new programme competing for funds.
The proposition, therefore, is not to change the infrastructure.
It is to measure the growing gap between what residents in this region are already experiencing and what the institutional system is prepared to recognise as legitimate. Once closed — at scale, affordably, and in the language municipalities already use — a durable contract in Dutch civic services starts.01 / Awareness
Measuring the Reporting Gap.
Institutional awareness is dominated by CROW scores, Fixi dashboards, Diftar tonnages, and enforcement statistics that all say “performance is fine,” while resident experience says “it is not.” Awareness is generated by pairing hard operational metrics (CROW, enforcement, tenders, UPV flows) with resident‑level perception and participation signals, measuring the mismatch between civic experience and the institutional record, and understanding the financial instruments currently in use.
02 / Perception
Aligning how each group sees the cleanliness risk into the product’s design constraint.
Where municipalities see rising costs and political exposure, residents see disorder and non‑response, providers see tender pressure, and policy experts see unallocated UPV flows; measuring where residents have stopped expecting institutional response, and where municipalities believe they are already delivering within KPI to document the percieved risk of inaction and definition of the problem through multiple stakeholders to provide a unified narrative.
03 / Loop
Networked co‑production over individual programmes.
designing channels where resident action reliably enters the governance system as a recognised input, instead of ad‑hoc complaints and zienswijzen,tying these networks to the recurring UPV revenue stream, so that engagement is structurally funded and explicitly linked to avoided costs and CROW parity. design of the actual institution: who is connected to whom, through which instruments, paid by which budget lines, with what accountability.
