What works in Groningen
All catalogues · Netherlands profile
Quality scores are 0–100 rubric scores; “strong evidence” reflects study design; adoptions count documented replications elsewhere. Know more
Evidence snapshot for Groningen
Groningen's Traffic Circulation Plan (1977) divided the city centre into four car-free sectors in 1977, reducing private-car traffic by 47% while increasing bus ridership by 12–17% on weekdays and 17% on Saturdays. Weekly visits to the commercial core rose 22% (from 357,500 to 436,300), though 25% of businesses initially reported lower sales—a figure that fell to 14% by 1981, indicating retail impacts were milder than merchants feared. The plan was modified in 1982 after business demands but the changes were kept minimal; later cycling-strategy documents credit it as foundational to Groningen's current cycling share of about 60% of trips, though this figure draws from secondary sources and cannot be isolated from other factors.
Drawn from: Groningen's Traffic Circulation Plan (1977) — Four Sectors Closed to Through Car Traffic in One Night · DUO's Student-Grant Fraud-Check Algorithm — Dutch Risk Profiling Found Indirectly Discriminatory · DUO's Discriminatory Fraud-Detection Algorithm — A National Cautionary Case in Automated Student-Grant Checks
Generated from this place's cited practices only. Always check the linked sources.
Strengths & weaknesses vs peers
Strengths
Innovation +38 pts 100 here · 62 average
Inclusiveness / equity +24 pts 67 here · 43 average
Transferability / demonstrated replication +23 pts 83 here · 60 average
Sustainability / continuity +22 pts 100 here · 78 average
Evidence of impact / measured public value +9 pts 67 here · 57 average
Weaknesses
Scalability & sustainability -18 pts 44 here · 62 average
Evidence of learning impact -26 pts 0 here · 26 average
Governance, capability & sustainability -30 pts 33 here · 64 average
Teacher capability & pedagogy -37 pts 0 here · 37 average
Multi-stakeholder collaboration -41 pts 33 here · 74 average
Transparency, ethics & data protection -47 pts 0 here · 47 average
Equity & inclusion -50 pts 0 here · 50 average
Transparency, fairness & accountability -54 pts 0 here · 54 average
Score profile vs peers
Coloured bar: Groningen. Grey bar: peer average across the corpus. Both on a common 0–100 scale.
Points compare this place's average on each dimension with the average across all evaluated places, on a common 0–100 scale. Know more
Top good practices here
DUO's Student-Grant Fraud-Check Algorithm — Dutch Risk Profiling Found Indirectly Discriminatory · 40
Each number is the practice's overall 0–100 quality score against its catalogue's rubric. Know more
Recommended to adopt or replicate
Transferable practices from elsewhere that address this place's gaps.
Ushahidi — Kenya's Crowdsourced Crisis-Mapping Platform · fit 82/100
- Rated highly transferable
- Addresses this place's weak dimensions
Smart City Wien Framework Strategy · fit 82/100
- Rated highly transferable
- Addresses this place's weak dimensions
Ciudad Mujer — El Salvador's Integrated Women's Services Programme · fit 100/100
- Rated highly transferable
- Backed by strong evidence
Already adopted in 3 other places
SASA! Community Mobilisation Programme against Intimate Partner Violence — Uganda · fit 100/100
- Rated highly transferable
- Backed by strong evidence
Already adopted in 4 other places
Karya — Fair-Wage AI Data-Work Platform Bringing Digital Income to Rural India · fit 100/100
- Backed by strong evidence
safe+natal — Comadrona-Designed Smartphone Checklist for Maternal Risk Screening in Rural Guatemala · fit 100/100
- Backed by strong evidence
Digital Green — Video-Mediated Agricultural Extension · fit 100/100
- Backed by strong evidence
Kartu Prakerja – National Digital Skills and Financial Inclusion Programme · fit 100/100
- Backed by strong evidence
Fit estimates how well a practice matches this place, 0 (poor) to 100 (excellent); the list is ordered to favour practices that address this place's gaps. Know more