Planning and quality of life: the case of Canberra, Australia Hitomi Nakanishi University of Canberra, Australia Centennial Canberra - Past, Present and Future Workshop, 20 August 2013
Background Enhancing quality of life is the most important challenge and role of urban governance (OECD, 2000) Higher level of sustainable development = higher level of well-being, happiness, and thus of quality of life Changing urban form and the built environment are associated with lifestyle and behavioural change that affect quality of life How planning affect resident s quality of life and sustainability?
Aims Relationship between planning and QoL in Canberra? Apply integrated method of measuring QoL Is there a difference in QoL due to planning concepts? Factors that affect residents priorities in QoL in Canberra?
Assessing Quality of Life: Framework Planning Evaluation Policy Input Output Outcome Over all QoL Urban Form/ the built environ t QoLIs Satisfaction By Dimension
Gungahlin Belconnen City Weston Creek Woden Tuggeranong Legend Export_Output_6 Urban_Form Garden City New Y plan Town New Urbanism
Density by neighbourhood type Gross population density (person/ha) Net residential density (person/ha residential land) Open space density (person/ha open space) Garden City (North Canberra, South Canberra) Y Plan (Belconnen, Weston Creek, Tuggeranong, Woden) 7.85 13.54 15.61 30.18 46.93 47.31 New Urbanism (Gungahlin) 156.92 170.12 173.46 (Lintern, 2012)
Five dimensions of Quality of Life Community Safety and Security Prosperity & Diversity Culture and Education Community Well-being Quality Environment & sustainability Higher Demand Quality Environment & sustainability Community Well-being Culture and Education Environment Economy Basic Needs Prosperity & Diversity Community Safety and Security Community Doi, Kii and Nakanishi (2008)
Mechanism of Individual s Satisfaction, Value and QoL Sugiyama, Kuroda, Doi and Nakanishi CRICOS et al. #00212K (2005)
Integrated model of quality of life Quality of life Categories Community safety and security Indicator X k Prosperity and diversity Culture and education Community well-being Quality environment and sustainability Annual domestic violence crime reported Access to health and social care facilities Houses with EER 5 or above Per capita greenhouse gas emissions Indicators example Satisfaction S formula QoL formula X S ki = S k (X k,se i ) S ki :Individual i s satisfaction for k SE i :Attributes of individual i QoL i =Σ wki ρ k =1 - ρ ρ 1 w ki S ki { } :weight of category k :substitution parameter
Stress Concept of QoL Satisfaction(S) weight Community safety and security(k=1) Prosperity and diversity(k=2) Culture and education (k=3) Community well-being (K=4) QOL Q( S 1, S2,, Sm) m k 1 w k Quality environment and Sus.(K=5) S k 1
Satisfaction S Satisfaction depends on capability QoL =Σ w k S -ρ k =1 1 ρ { } k Level of Indicator Affected by individual s capability o Capability:Capabilities are defined derivatively on functioning, and include inter alia all the information on the functioning combinations that a person can choose. by Amartya Sen S i S i X X i X 1 i i Level of Indicator γ : elasticity of satisfaction
Value (Weight) relative importance to community safety and security w S (1 ) k 0k S m (1 ) km wm S0m S k S m S k ; improved satisfaction level of domain m ; sacrificed satisfaction level of domain k S 0 k wk S 0 m w ; current satisfaction level of domains k and m ; value of domains k and m m ; substitution parameter between domains
QoL indicators for Canberra Dimension Community safety and security Prosperity and diversity Culture and education Community well-being Quality environment and sustainability QoL Indicators num. of domestic crimes per 1,000 households in Canberra, % of residents who feel fairly safe or very safe after dark, num. of new affordable housing in Canberra access to service facilities accessible by disabled people in Canberra, job availability in Canberra, % of people agree that people from different backgrounds get on well, access to broadband network, cost of living, walking distance to the closest bus stop, quality of public transport system English language skills of immigrants in Canberra, % of young people (16-24 yrs old) in full-time education or employment in Canberra, access to cultural facilities, student/staff ratio in higher education in Canberra access to health and social care facilities and service quality, residents who feel they have ability to influence decisions in Canberra, amount of green space within walking distance, % of people who are overweight or obesity in Canberra, illegal drug use in Canberra EER (energy efficiency rating) of house, num. of wild birds in neighbourhood, amount of household waste recycle in Canberra, residents concerned about the impact of climate change, air quality (air pollution) in Canberra
Quality of life in your city and living environment questionnaire survey in Canberra 2012 May Aug Online questionnaire + mail(sent to appro. 3,000 households ) 648 responses collected ( on-line: 278; mail: 370) Male 230: 37.4%; Female 385: 62.6% 4 % more Garden City residents and 4 % less New Urbanism residents compared to Census 2011
Stress Map
Level of satisfaction by neighbourhood type by domain Quality environment and sustainability Community well-being Culture and education New Urbanism New Y Plan Town Garden City Prosperity and diversity Community safety and security 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Value (Weight) Quality environment and sustainability Safety and security 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Prosperity and diversity Community well-being All Culture and education
Value (Weight) Quality environment and Safety and security 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Prosperity and diversity Safety and security 0.5 0.4 Quality 0.3 0.2 Male environment and 0.1 Female 0 Prosperity and diversity - 30s 40s - 50s 60s - Community well-being Culture and education Community well-being Culture and education By gender By age group
Value (Weight) by neighbourhood type Quality environment and sustainability Safety and security 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Prosperity and diversity Community well-being Culture and education Garden City New Town New Urbanism Y Plan
Satisfaction Satisfaction Satifsfaction Relationship between satisfaction level and weight 60 40 20 0 Garden City 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Weight 60 Safety and security 40 Prosperity and diversity Culture and education 20 Community well-being 0 Quality environment and sustainability Y Plan New Town 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Weight 60 Safety and security 40 Prosperity and diversity Culture and education 20 Community well-being 0 Quality environment and sustainability New Urbanism 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Weight Safety and security Prosperity and diversity Culture and education Community wellbeing Quality environment and sustainability
Time, Stress, and QoL DS (stress) Policy measures Change in stress DS Duration time T T - T Time Stress Recognition Weight Satisfaction level w 3 Stress Community safety and sec. Prosperity and diversity Culture and education Community well-being Quality environment and sus. w k =T k DS k /ΣT k DS k Change in Weights
QoL by neighbourhood type Quality of Life Level Garden City 50.1 Y Plan 49.5 New Urbanism 49.9
Discussion and policy implication QoL by neighbourhod influenced by value Latent factors that affect the priorities in QoL -gender, age, occupation, with/without dependent children, period of living in current neighbourhood Garden City neighbourhod achieved high QoL, majority of residents have high value on environment, but not affordable for everyone Y Plan neighbourhood community well-being is the area for improvement New Urbanism neighbourhood - accessibility is the key issue, need strategic approach to integrated land use and transport planning
Indicator and policy input mapping Key indicator in Y Plan Neighbourhood Satisfaction with access to health and social care facilities and quality Land use location of facilities Architecture design and quality of facility building Social services quality of health and social care services Transport public transport Nakanishi, Sinclair & Lintern(2013)
Canberra can be top QoL city Thank you! Questions and comments hitomi.nakanishi@canberra.edu.au
References -Doi, K, Kii, M & Nakanishi, H 2008 An integrated evaluation method of accessibility, quality of life, and social interaction Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol.35, pp.1098-1116. -Sugiyama, I, Kuroda, K, Doi, K, Nakanishi, H, Ikegame, K, Ikejima, K, Nishida, J & Tanaka, M 2005 A rating system for realizing sustainable urban space with a focus on quality of life and quality of space, Proceedings of the 2005 World Sustainable Building Conference in Tokyo, Institute of International Harmonization for Building and Housing, Tokyo, Japan, 27-29 September, 2005, pp. 3708-3715. -Nakanishi, H, Sinclair, H & Lintern, J 2013, Measuring Quality of Life: an Integrated Evaluation of Built Environment, Proceedings of the 13 th International Conference on Computers in Urban Planning and Urban Management, Universiteit Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands, 2-5 July, 2013. paper no. 70.