1
The neglected dimension of community liveability: Impact on social connectedness and active ageing in higher density accommodation
Desley Vine
PhD Thesis
2
3
The neglected dimension of community liveability:
Impact on social connectedness and active ageing in
higher density accommodation
A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
Desley Vine
MA(IntStudies) Griffith, BBus(HlthAdmin) QUT, GradCert(RiskMgt)
QUT, GradCert(PubPrivPart) Melb.
Principal Supervisor
Professor Laurie Buys
School of Urban Design
Queensland University of Technology
Brisbane Australia
May 2012
4
Keywords
Liveability, Older People, Ageing in Place, Active Ageing, Age-Friendly, Urban Community,
Urban Neighbourhoods, Walkability, Amenities, High Density, Quantitative Methods,
Qualitative Methods, Global Positioning Systems (GPS), Geographical Information
Systems (GIS), Transport.
5
Abstract
Purpose
This thesis is about liveability, place and ageing in the high density urban landscape of
Brisbane, Australia. As with other major developed cities around the globe, Brisbane has
adopted policies to increase urban residential densities to meet the main liveability and
sustainability aim of decreasing car dependence and therefore pollution, as well as to
minimise the loss of greenfield areas and habitats to developers. This objective hinges
on urban neighbourhoods/communities being liveable places, which residents do not
have to leave for everyday living.
Community/neighbourhood liveability is an essential ingredient in healthy ageing in place
and has a substantial impact upon the safety, independence and well-being of older
adults. It is generally accepted that ageing in place is optimal for both older people and
the state. The optimality of ageing in place generally assumes that there is a particular
quality to environments or standard of liveability in which people successfully age in
place. The aim of this thesis was to examine if there are particular environmental
qualities or aspects of liveability that test optimality and to better understand the key
liveability factors that contribute to successful ageing in place.
Method
A strength of this thesis is that it draws on two separate studies to address the research
question of what makes high density liveable for older people. In Chapter 3, the two
methods are identified and differentiated as Method 1 (used in Paper 1) and Method 2
(used in Papers 2, 3, 4 and 5). Method 1 involved qualitative interviews with 24 inner city
high density Brisbane residents. The major strength of this thesis is the innovative
methodology outlined in the thesis as Method 2. Method 2 involved a case study
approach employing qualitative and quantitative methods. Qualitative data was
collected using semi-structured, in-depth interviews and time-use diaries completed by
participants during the week of tracking. The quantitative data was gathered using
Global Positioning Systems for tracking and Geographical Information Systems for
mapping and analysis of participants’ activities. The combination of quantitative and
qualitative analysis captured both participants’ subjective perceptions of their
neighbourhoods and their patterns of movement. This enhanced understanding of how
neighbourhoods and communities function and of the various liveability dimensions that
6
contribute to active ageing and ageing in place for older people living in high density
environments. Both studies’ participants were inner-city high density residents of
Brisbane. The study based on Method 1 drew on a wider age demographic than the
study based on Method 2.
Findings
The five papers presented in this thesis by publication indicate a complex inter-
relationship of the factors that make a place liveable. The first three papers identify what
is comparable and different between the physical and social factors of high density
communities/neighbourhoods. The last two papers explore relationships between social
engagement and broader community variables such as infrastructure and the physical
built environments that are risk or protective factors relevant to community liveability,
active ageing and ageing in place in high density. The research highlights the importance
of creating and/or maintaining a barrier-free environment and liveable community for
ageing adults. Together, the papers promote liveability, social engagement and active
ageing in high density neighbourhoods by identifying factors that constitute liveability
and strategies that foster active ageing and ageing in place, social connections and well-
being.
Recommendations
There is a strong need to offer more support for active ageing and ageing in place. While
the data analyses of this research provide insight into the lived experience of high density
residents, further research is warranted. Further qualitative and quantitative research is
needed to explore in more depth, the urban experience and opinions of older people
living in urban environments. In particular, more empirical research and theory-building
is needed in order to expand understanding of the particular environmental qualities that
enable successful ageing in place in our cities and to guide efforts aimed at meeting this
objective.
The results suggest that encouraging the presence of more inner city retail outlets,
particularly services that are utilised frequently in people’s daily lives such as
supermarkets, medical services and pharmacies, would potentially help ensure residents
fully engage in their local community.
7
The connectivity of streets, footpaths and their role in facilitating the reaching of
destinations are well understood as an important dimension of liveability. To encourage
uptake of sustainable transport, the built environment must provide easy, accessible
connections between buildings, walkways, cycle paths and public transport nodes. Wider
streets, given that they take more time to cross than narrow streets, tend to
.compromise safety - especially for older people. Similarly, the width of footpaths, the
level of buffering, the presence of trees, lighting, seating and design of and distance
between pedestrian crossings significantly affects the pedestrian experience for older
people and impacts upon their choice of transportation. High density neighbourhoods
also require greater levels of street fixtures and furniture for everyday life to make places
more useable and comfortable for regular use. The importance of making the public
realm useful and habitable for older people cannot be over-emphasised.
Originality/value
While older people are attracted to high density settings, there has been little empirical
evidence linking liveability satisfaction with older people’s use of urban neighbourhoods.
The current study examined the relationships between community/neighbourhood
liveability, place and ageing to better understand the implications for those adults who
age in place. The five papers presented in this thesis add to the understanding of what
high density liveable age-friendly communities/ neighbourhoods are and what makes
them so for older Australians.
Neighbourhood liveability for older people is about being able to age in place and remain
active. Issues of ageing in Australia and other areas of the developed world will become
more critical in the coming decades. Creating livable communities for all ages calls for
partnerships across all levels of government agencies and among different sectors within
communities. The increasing percentage of older people in the community will have
increasing political influence and it will be a foolish government who ignores the needs of
an older society.
8
Publications Vine, Desley and Buys, Laurie (2010) The lived world of older urban Australians: Relating
everyday living to GPS tracking data. In OZCHI '10 Proceedings of the 22nd
Conference of the Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group of
Australia on Computer-Human Interaction. QUT, Brisbane, Australia, 22-26
November, ACM: New York.
Vine, Desley; Buys, Laurie and Aird, Rosemary. (in press). Experiences of neighbourhood
walkability among older Australians living in high density inner city areas.
Submitted 21 January 2011 to Planning, Theory and Practice and accepted for
publication 19 April 2012
Papers submitted and currently under review:
Buys, Laurie; Vine, Desley and Miller, Evonne. What makes inner city high density
liveable? Insight from residents in Brisbane, Australia. Submitted 16 November
2011 to Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban
Sustainability
Vine, Desley; Buys, Laurie and Aird, Rosemary. High density urban neighbourhood
amenities: The experiences of older urban Australians. Submitted 16 October
2011 to Landscape and Urban Planning and revision submitted 17 March 2012
Vine, Desley; Buys, Laurie and Aird, Rosemary. Conceptions of ‘community’ among older
Australian adults living in high density urban areas – An Australian case study.
Submitted 14 April 2012 to Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences
Conference/Symposium Papers Delivered
Vine, Desley and Buys, Laurie (2010) The neglected dimension of community liveability:
Impact on social connectedness and active ageing in higher density
accommodation. Paper presented at Australian Association of Gerontology (Qld
Div.) Cutting Edge Research in Ageing Brisbane, Australia, 25 August 2010.
Vine, Desley and Buys, Laurie (2010) Community liveability: Exploring older people’s
access to services. Paper presented Diversicare – Statewide Special Projects
Annual Symposium Brisbane, Australia, 24 November 2010.
9
Vine, Desley and Buys, Laurie (2011) Understanding neighbourhood liveability for older
Australians. Accepted 16 May 2011 by Gerontology 2011 Congress, Melbourne,
Vic, 24-27 October 2011.
Vine, Desley and Buys, Laurie (2011) Perceptions of neighbourhood liveability among
older Australians living in high density areas. Accepted 30 August 2011 by Aging
and Society: An Interdisciplinary Conference, Berkeley, Ca: USA, 8-9 November
2011.
10
11
Table of Contents
Keywords .................................................................................................. 4
Abstract .................................................................................................... 5
Publications .............................................................................................. 8
Table of Contents .................................................................................... 11
List of Figures .......................................................................................... 15
List of Tables ........................................................................................... 17
Declaration ............................................................................................. 18
Acknowledgements ................................................................................ 19
Chapter 1: Introduction .......................................................................... 21
Study Population .......................................................................................... 22
Significance and Innovation .......................................................................... 23
Theoretical and International Significance .....................................................................24
Practical Significance - Outcomes ..................................................................................24
Innovation .....................................................................................................................25
The Overall Purpose ..................................................................................... 25
Contributions of Articles to Objectives of the Research Project .................... 27
Papers 1, 2 and 3 ...........................................................................................................27
Papers 4 and 5...............................................................................................................29
Reference List ............................................................................................... 32
Chapter 2: Literature Review .................................................................. 39
Liveability ..................................................................................................... 39
Defining Liveability ........................................................................................................39
Liveability and Quality of Life .........................................................................................39
Historical Review ...........................................................................................................40
12
What to do with Downtown - Research and Policy Trends ............................................. 45
How Liveability Plays Out in Current Practice ................................................................ 53
Liveability, Place and Ageing......................................................................... 55
Demographics ............................................................................................................... 55
Theoretical, International and National Importance ...................................................... 57
Place ............................................................................................................................. 61
Ageing in Place ............................................................................................................. 63
Environment and Participation in Activities ................................................................... 65
Neighbourhood Design and Active Ageing in Place ........................................................ 68
Theoretical Framework for the Research...................................................... 72
Conclusion .................................................................................................... 73
Reference List ............................................................................................... 75
Chapter 3: Methodology ....................................................................... 101
Method 1 for Paper 1 ................................................................................. 103
Participants ................................................................................................................ 103
Procedure ................................................................................................................... 104
Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 104
Method 2 for Papers 2, 3, 4, 5 .................................................................... 105
Participants ................................................................................................................ 106
Case Study Location .................................................................................................... 108
Apparatus - Global Positioning Systems ...................................................................... 109
GIS Data Preparation and Analysis .............................................................................. 109
Daily Diaries................................................................................................................ 110
In-depth Interviews ..................................................................................................... 110
Procedure ................................................................................................................... 110
Data Analysis .............................................................................................................. 111
13
Conclusion .................................................................................................. 112
Reference List ............................................................................................. 113
Chapter 4: Paper 1 - What makes inner city high density liveable?
Insight from residents in Brisbane, Australia ......................................... 117
Abstract ...................................................................................................... 117
Introduction ............................................................................................... 117
Method ...................................................................................................... 121
Results/Discussion ...................................................................................... 122
Conclusion .................................................................................................. 132
References ................................................................................................. 134
Chapter 5: Paper 2 - The lived world of older urban Australians:
Relating everyday living to GPS tracking data. ...................................... 143
Abstract ...................................................................................................... 143
Introduction ............................................................................................... 144
Method ...................................................................................................... 146
Results/Discussion ...................................................................................... 149
References ................................................................................................. 152
Chapter 6: Paper 3 - Conceptions of ‘community’ among older adults
living in high density urban areas – An Australian case study ............... 157
Abstract ...................................................................................................... 157
Introduction ............................................................................................... 157
Methods ..................................................................................................... 159
In-depth Interviews .....................................................................................................162
Results/Discussion ...................................................................................... 163
Conclusion .................................................................................................. 172
References ................................................................................................. 173
14
Chapter 7: Paper 4 - High density urban neighbourhood amenities:
The experiences of older urban Australians .......................................... 179
Introduction ............................................................................................... 179
Methods ..................................................................................................... 184
In-depth Interviews ..................................................................................................... 187
Results........................................................................................................ 189
Discussion and Conclusions ........................................................................ 199
References ................................................................................................. 204
Chapter 8: Paper 5 – Experiences of neighbourhood walkability
among older Australians living in high density inner city areas ............. 213
Abstract ...................................................................................................... 213
Introduction ............................................................................................... 213
Methods ..................................................................................................... 221
In-depth Interviews ..................................................................................................... 224
Results........................................................................................................ 226
Discussion .................................................................................................. 235
References ................................................................................................. 240
Chapter 9: Discussion ........................................................................... 249
Significance of Findings .............................................................................. 249
The High Density Agenda ............................................................................................ 249
Understanding Liveability Concepts ............................................................................ 250
The Importance of Proximity for Liveability and Opportunity to Actively Age in Place .. 255
Strengths and Limitations of the Research ................................................. 261
Future Directions ........................................................................................ 263
Conclusion .................................................................................................. 266
Reference List ............................................................................................. 269
15
List of Figures
Page No.
Chapter 1
Figure 1 Structure of the relationship between chapters and publications in the
thesis
Chapter 3
Figure 1 Flow Diagram of Overview of Methodology
Figure 2 Map of the inner city high density areas included in this study
26
105
108
Chapter 5
Figure 1 Examples of two weekly activity maps
148
Chapter 6
Figure 1 Map of the inner city high density areas included in this study
Figure 2 Example of a resident’s weekly walking activity map with 5 and 10
minute walking zones indicated
Figure 3 Overhead view of a particularly busy pedestrian section identified by
participants
Figure 4 Map of the retail and trade service activity for CS9 resident
161
164
170
171
16
Chapter 7
Figure 1 Map of the inner city high density areas included in this study
Figure 2 Graphical representation of time spent at home/away from home
during tracking period
Figure 3 Weekly travel maps for two residents – one from a neighbourhood with
few available amenities (CS1) and the other from an amenity rich
neighbourhood with access issues (CS7)
Figure 4 Services accessed by CS3 resident who lives within a high amenity
neighbourhood
Figure 5 Services accessed by CS10 resident who lives within a neighbourhood
with few amenities
Figure 6 Aerial view of a dangerous intersection identified by residents
186
189
190
191
192
196
Chapter 8
Figure 1 Map of the inner city high density areas included in this study
Figure 2 Proportion of total time travelled by different mode of transport
Figure 3 Map of relative location of participant’s home to her therapy pool
Figure 4 Weekly activity map of CS9 (all travel by car)
Figure 5 Aerial view of a dangerous intersection (swift light changes)
Figure 6 An aerial view of footpath very close to a major arterial road
Figure 7 Map of services accessed by CS4 over seven days
Figure 8 Map of CS2’s walking behaviour within her neighbourhood
223
226
228
229
230
231
232
233
17
List of Tables Page No.
Chapter 3
Table 1 Summary Table of Case Study (CS) Respondents and Location Profile for
all papers
107
Chapter 4
Table 1 Key aspects of individual dwelling, building complex and community that
contribute to attractiveness and liveability
123
Chapter 6
Table 1 Summary Table of Case Study (CS) Respondents and Location Profile
107
Chapter 7
Table 1 Summary Table of Case Study (CS) Respondents and Location Profile
Table 2 Transport mode used in total kilometres over 7-day tracking period
107
198
Chapter 8
Table 1 Summary Table of Case Study (CS) Respondents and Location Profile
Table 2 Essential neighbourhood characteristics: the built environment and
walking
107
227
18
Declaration
I, Desley Vine, the candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, certify that the work
contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted for a degree of diploma at any
other high education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis
contains no material previously published or written by another person except where
due reference is made.
Signed……………………………………………………..
Date………………………………………………………..
19
Acknowledgements
This dissertation evolved from meeting two people. The first was my introduction to
Professor David Buisson, now Emeritus Professor Buisson, who for some reason known
only to himself took an interest in a woman who presented in his office announcing that
she wanted to undertake a PhD by publication in the social science area. I knew from the
experience of others that one of the most, if not the most, important decisions you make
in undertaking a PhD is your choice of supervisor. David was critical in this process as he
introduced me to various members of faculty who he thought would be suitable and the
right personality mix for me given my apparent forthrightness, and then sprouted to
them the virtue of undertaking my PhD supervision. I met many worthy candidates for
my supervisor but it was with David’s referral of Professor Laurie Buys that my PhD
started to really take shape. One of the smartest things I have ever done or perhaps it is
just one of the luckiest is to have met David and to score Laurie as my principal
supervisor. My thesis would not have been possible without Laurie’s academic guidance,
encouragement, patience and support, but it has been her friendship that has made my
PhD journey a rich and rewarding one. I will always remember my PhD journey fondly as
it was the means of meeting and knowing David and Laurie, both of whom I feel
incredibly fortunate to know and to count as friends.
I am indebted to my associate supervisor, Associate Professor Evonne Miller, Kim van
Megen and Steve Snow for their interest in my thesis, encouragement and generosity
with their expertise to help and provide guidance. I am also indebited to my very dear
friends Ha Le, Rosemary Aird and Jeff Sommerfeld for being lifelines in times of despair
and for their unwavering friendship, despite the demands of this at times very needy
friend. Rosemary, your insight, help and generous assistance, with my thesis and
wonderful good cheer during the process will never be forgotten. You are truly a
treasure.
Thank you also to the high density participants who agreed to be part of this study. You
gave so much of your time and provided the study with invaluable information, amazing
insights and stories.
Finally, I wish to thank my family and friends. To my husband, best friend and
confidante, Graeme MacDonald, I could not have done this without you. I will never
20
forget the patience you have shown me, the personal sacrifices you have made for me
and the love and encouragement you have given me. To my son Luke, you are my
inspiration, my torment, my joy, my love. Thank you for all you have taught me and for
growing into such a fine young man and making me look good as a mother. To my
mother, Carmel, my other best friend and sister, Debbie and my brother Pete, I love you.
Thank you for always being there for me and for Luke. I feel blessed being related to you.
Thank you also to all my friends but especially Leonie Lovell, Christine Williams, Kerry Cull
and Jennifer Fleming all of whom helped me raise my boy and gave of themselves asking
nothing in return. I am incredibly grateful for your generosity, great wit, wisdom,
support, love and friendship in good times and not so good, for being very patient with
me and for always being there.
In acknowledgement, I am indebted to you all.
21
Chapter 1: Introduction
Nationally and internationally, the negative impacts of urban sprawl have become more
evident. These include, greenhouse gas emissions, air and water pollution; loss of
agricultural land and wildlife habitats; a reduction in viable land; community segregation;
a reliance on cars, increased journey times, and insufficient and expensive infrastructure
(Turton and Hamilton 2002). In urban centres, urban consolidation through higher
density living has been adopted as a key strategy to manage urban growth and minimise
the negative impacts of urban sprawl (Queensland Government 2009; Australian
Greenhouse Office 2003; Australian Government, 2002). New Urbanism, Urban Village,
Complete Communities, Smart Growth, Transit Oriented Development, and sustainability
all advocate living more intensely within existing urban areas. While there is value in
high density development, it is not a universal remedy to the challenges of inner-city
living and establishing liveable places. Liveable communities or neighbourhoods are
more than the provision of parking, units and open space. It is the everyday life supports
which supplement density that make urban living desirable. Only limited research,
however, has focussed on the satisfaction of residents living in high-density
accommodation (30 or more dwellings per hectare). There is a need to explore the
viewpoints and experience of current high density urban residents to understand and
identify aspects that might need to be enhanced to make this urban form more liveable
for the wider community.
Liveability, like sustainability, is a driving vision of the 21st century. It is a term commonly
used in practice but appears to lack a single definition due to its use as a “catch all”
concept for a range of ideas about place-based quality of life. The Australian Bureau of
Statistics links liveability to quality of life which is a term that is often strongly associated
or used interchangeably with wellness or well-being. The Victorian Competition and
Efficiency Commission in their Inquiry into Enhancing Victoria’s Liveability (2008)
suggested that liveability can be used in a collective sense to describe how well a society
meets people’s wants and needs.
Community liveability is in large part about the quality of space and the built
environment. It encompasses how safe a place feels and how easy it is to use. A safe
and “enabling environment” has been identified as being critically important to
promoting engagement for people as they age (United Nations, 2003). The hypothesis of
22
this thesis is that liveability is achieved through a focus on meeting everyday life needs at
a social, physical and economic level. It is where members of that community have the
opportunity of meeting a hierarchy of their needs from essential services and security
issues to higher level life-enriching aspects which enhance daily life by making it more
fulfilling.
The liveability aspect of this research therefore has a place-based approach focusing on
issues of everyday life and the functioning of place in meeting daily requirements for
older people, the study population of this thesis.
Study Population
It is generally accepted that ageing in place is optimal for both older people and the state
(Olsberg and Winters, 2005; Judd et al., 2010). The independence, health and well-being
of older people are advanced by ageing in place and remaining active and there is a
reduced economic burden on government through reduced demand for institutionalised
aged care. However, the optimality of active ageing and ageing in place generally
assumes that there is a particular quality to environments in which people age
successfully. The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee (in Smith, 2009)
defines disability not as a physical state, but as a mismatch between what a person can
do and what the environment requires of them. With the associated losses of increasing
age (for example, with health), the quality of the urban environment becomes important
in relation to its effect on well-being and independence (World Health Organisation
(WHO), 2007; Pacione, 2003; Smith, 2009). We have yet to ask if there are particular
environmental qualities that test optimality (Smith, 2009; Olsberg and Winters, 2005;
Judd et al., 2010).
Older people are a significant population group within Australian urban neighbourhoods.
It is likely with their increasing representation in urban neighbourhoods that their
political influence with grow (Judd et al. 2010). By investigating and analysing issues that
impact upon the liveability and sustainability of older people as high density residents,
this research will further the understanding of the specific design factors that make the
urban neighbourhood a more liveable and sustainable environment in which older
people can actively age in place.
23
Significance and Innovation
There is international interest in the demographic profile of older people as populations
around the world are rapidly ageing. By 2050, it is expected that the global population of
people aged 60 years and over will reach two billion (Beard and Petitot, 2010) and it is
projected that 62% of the world’s older people will live in urban areas (United Nations
(UN), 2003). The major and inter-related factors of the projected increase in population
ageing and urbanisation together with growing awarenss that older people are sensitive
to their built environment in terms of its affect on well-being and independence has
increased the need to focus research on older people living in urban areas (Beard and
Petitot, 2010; Zwingle in Smith, 2009; Lui et al., 2009). There is impending global need
for urban neighbourhoods to be liveable age friendly urban forms that facilitate active
ageing in place.
It is widely recognised that an important aspect of positive and healthy ageing is
participation in activities outside the home and that urban design and planning can
influence participation (World Health Organisation (WHO), 2007; Department of Health
and Ageing (DoHA), 2006; Mitchell and Burton, 2006; Inclusive Design for Getting
Outdoors (IDGO), 2007a,b,c). The age friendly cities agenda also intersects with the
recent emphasis on healthy cities, which recognises the important role of planning and
urban design in promoting health and well-being (National Heart Foundation (NHF),
2004). Research and policy development in these areas are still in their infancy, but will
become more critical as the population ages (Judd et al., 2010). This thesis contributes to
the growth of such research in Australia.
A focus on communities, social capital and social connectedness (Council on the Ageing,
2001) is vital in addressing active ageing and ageing in place for Australians. Over the last
25 years, Australian government-initiated policy, research and program development has
set ageing in place as an important priority. Examples include the National Housing
Strategy (NHS) (1992), the New Homes for Old Strategy (Australian Urban Regional
Development Review, 1994) and the National Strategy for an Ageing Australia (Bishop,
2000). Despite implementation of important government initiatives in housing, the role
of neighbourhood design and infrastructure in supporting active ageing and ageing in
place has not been given attention. The optimality of active ageing and ageing in place
assumes the presence of particular qualities within environments in which people
24
successfully actively age in place and this assumption remains both unquestioned and
untested (Smith, 2009; Judd et al., 2010).
Theoretical and International Significance
The theoretical approach for this thesis is inspired by the WHO Active Ageing Policy
Framework (2002), which emphasises health, social participation and security as the key
primary determinants of quality of life for older people. The WHO proposes that these
three areas are targeted for context- and country-specific strategies aimed at fostering
active ageing. The study aligns the framework for active ageing with the concept of
liveable communities: Safe, accessible, affordable housing enables older people to
remain long-term in familiar surroundings, neighbourhoods and communities; Mobility
and reliable transport, safe and secure walkways and/or private or public transport
options support independence and access to services and activities; and Social
engagement is essential for well-being, and links individuals with family/friends,
cultural/community groups and institutions/businesses (Hampshire, 2000). Liveable
communities enable social engagement (Australian Local Government Association
(ALGA), 2006; Kochera et al., 2005) and avoid exclusion of people on the basis of
disability or age (Hugman, 2001).
Practical Significance - Outcomes
Formulating strategies that help older Australians age in place and remain active is of
immense practical significance, given the immediate and long-term economic and social
benefits. In this regard, the link between the “liveability” of communities and social
connections and relationships is vitally important. Despite increasing awareness of the
need for liveable communities in the context of sustainable development and urban
planning (Jay et al., 2007), and health benefits (National Heart Foundation (NHF), 2009),
little research has focussed specifically on older people’s issues. The location and security
of residences, household design, the safety and security of neighbourhood walkways and
transport, the accessibility of services, organisations and social networks, are all vital
ingredients for older people’s continued community engagement into their later years.
Altering the timetable of a local bus, installing rest-stop seating in commercial areas,
providing a mobile library, fruit vendor or dentist, are some examples of changes that are
easier to accomplish than interventions aimed solely at changing people’s behaviours.
Importantly, such neighbourhood changes are likely to have a positive flow-on effect to
all residents.
25
Innovation
The project takes an innovative approach to data collection methods and analysis
(outlined in Chapter 3 as Method 2) through the use of Geographical Information
Systems (GIS), an emerging technique in the social sciences that provides both a visual
and quantitative means of finding, describing and analysing relationships in both time
and space. “One of the strongest arguments for looking at society through a spatial lens –
through maps, GIS, and spatial analysis – is that it provides observations with context:
processes can be examined within their geographic settings” (Goodchild and Haining,
2004). More common to geographical disciplines, GIS techniques was used to analyse and
integrate geospatial data from mapped locations. The incorporation of GIS is an
innovative approach that forms an integral part of the research design, data collection
and analysis procedures, enabling mapping of social, community, and service-use
networks to fully explore community liveability as it impacts upon older people.
Another major innovation of this project is the use of a range of data collection methods
that will support the GIS visual and quantitative time-space mapping. These methods are
also outlined in Method 2 (Chapter 3) and are amenable to in-depth qualitative analysis.
They enabled deeper contextual information to be gathered about participants’ housing,
mobility and transport options, and the attributes of their communities.
The Overall Purpose
This thesis focusses on dense communities/neighbourhoods, their forms, what makes
them liveable and what undermines their liveability. The primary question underpinning
this thesis is: What are high density liveable communities/neighbourhoods and what
makes them liveable for older Australians? Understanding what makes them liveable is
the overarching goal. To achieve this goal, it is important to analyse the key concepts
involved and identify whether or not there are essential aspects of these concepts that
enhance our understanding of liveability. The thesis aims to critically analyse the
definitional attributes and qualities that contribute to the liveability of high density
environments. This analysis will attempt to identify what is comparable and different
between the physical and social attributes of high density communities or
neighbourhoods in general, and then more specifically as they relate to older people and
their everyday life needs. It is also an aim of this thesis to identify key characteristics of
liveability for ageing in place and remaining active within high density environments and
26
to explore relationships between social engagement and broader community variables
such as infrastructure and the built environment, which contribute towards or create
barriers to their liveability. There are five publications which address the core aims of the
thesis. Figure 1 below depicts the structure of the relationship between these
publications, demonstrating that in combination, they form a cohesive research
narrative. This diagram appears throughout the thesis with the section of the
dissertation that follows its inclusion being highlighted.
Figure 1 Structure of the relationship between chapters and publications in the thesis
27
Contributions of Articles to Objectives of the Research Project
Papers 1, 2 and 3
As stated above, the term liveability lacks a single, accepted definition. Liveability has
been defined as neighbourhood or community well-being represented by characteristics
that make a place where people want to live now and in the future (Victorian
Competition and Efficiency Commission, 2008). Politicians use the language of
community, neighbourhood and liveability to win votes and urban planners promote the
development of liveability and a sense of community at the neighbourhood level as a
cure to many social ailments. Like liveability, “community” and “neighbourhood” are
commonly used in everyday conversation in a wide range of contexts; they are the focus
or lens through which planners and others review literature related to liveability. Yet
these concepts are nebulous and slippery and therefore difficult to define. The question
“Are there definitional aspects of these terms that enhance our understanding of
liveability?” was addressed in the first paper of this dissertation.
In attempting to clarify or identify liveability, Paper 1 adopts a system-thinking or holistic
approach due to the complex and multi-variant nature of what makes a place liveable.
Complexity, diversity, density and human scale are the intertwined and interdependent
attributes of liveable neighbourhoods or communities (Jacobs, 1961). Liveable urban
places are a highly integrated collection of organised parts which accomplish the overall
goal of a desirable place to live. The study for Paper 1 utilised a qualitative interview
method outlined as Method 1 (detailed in Chapter 3). The paper describes the residents’
perceptions and experiences of liveability and the ways in which it is broadly
conceptualised. Three main domains and nine key concepts emerged including: the
individual dwelling (thermal comfort, natural light and balconies, and noise mitigation),
the building complex (shared space, good neighbourhood protocols, and environmental
sustainability) and the community (transport, amenities, and a sense of community).
Liveability itself is conceived to rest on attributes that form a web of interconnections
(National Research Council, 2002), and thus theoretically, the complex and multi-layered
nature of Inner City High Density (ICHD) should heighten its potential for being liveable.
By highlighting the aspects current ICHD residents value most about their dwellings,
buildings and communities, these findings help clarify the meanings ascribed to the
concept of liveability and the qualities that contribute to the creation of urban spaces
and dwellings that are more desirable places to live.
28
Papers 2 and 3 identify what is comparable and different between the physical and social
factors within high density communities/neighbourhoods that are related to older
persons and their everyday life needs. ‘Community’ and ‘neighbourhood’ are often
conceived as being synonymous with one another, with each being used interchangeably
to describe both a geographic area and communities of interest (Hillery, 1968). The point
of difference is the ability for communities to exist outside of place (community without
propinquity, Webber, 1963), whereas neighbourhoods are grounded in place within
particular geographical areas. As mentioned above, urban planners use neighbourhood
as their unit of focus in promoting the development of liveability and a sense of
community and yet the different operational definitions of neighbourhoods or
communities used to measure these concepts such as postcodes, school districts or
census allocation bear little resemblance to the types of neighbourhoods or communities
found in urban areas (Ziller, 2004; Coulton et al., 2001; Kusenbach, 2008).
Neighbourhood, like the concepts of liveability and community, is usually studied through
the use of either subjective measures (such as survey items that capture residents’
perceptions) or objective measures of urban environment characteristics. Planning
policies aimed at changing the objective, physical urban neighbourhood environment
assume an improvement in the subjective experience of urban liveability for residents
within that neighbourhood, although there is little empirical evidence that is able to
confirm the validity of this assumption (McCrea et al, 2006). Paper 2 (Chapter 5) is based
on the innovative methodology outlined below in Chapter 3 as Method 2 to investigate
the extent that subjective experiences of urban neighbourhoods are connected to
features of the built environment. Rarely have objective and subjective indicators been
incorporated within the one study in order to understand what constitutes a liveable
urban neighbourhood both spatially and behaviourally. The advantages associated with
using both qualitative and quantitative measures are examined in Paper 2. The use of
both quantitative and qualitative approaches is important for furthering understanding of
human behaviour and the lived world of older urban Australians by enabling a more
comprehensive picture of the urban neighbourhood to emerge than it is possible through
the use of either method alone.
Paper 3 (Chapter 6) investigates the concept of community using the methodology
outlined as Method 2. There has been little exploration of the everyday social networks
of older urban Australians through the place where social interactions occur. In focussing
29
on neighbourhood and community, this study does not rely on a single definition.
Rather, it incorporates the ambiguity of community and neighbourhood boundaries as
part of the analysis. It investigates the everyday social networks of older urban
Australians within the spatial area where social interactions occur. Such an approach is
complex, but is more representative of the reality of urban residents’ lives than
approaches that conceive neighbourhoods or communities as entities with fixed, pre-
determined boundaries. Therefore, place is not pre-conceived as a set territory but is
instead identified through the analysis of the research. The purpose of this paper is to
use closely aligned quantitative and qualitative measures to explore community and its
connection to location and locale in the urban realm for older people. This recognises
the importance of considering both the spatial aspect and the overlay of residents’
subjective perceptions and actual everyday activities when attempting to further
understanding of what makes communities liveable for older people.
Papers 4 and 5
Papers 4 and 5 (Chapters 7 and 8) address the key characteristics of liveability for active
ageing and ageing in place in high density environments. This is achieved by exploring
relationships between neighbourhood or community variables such as infrastructure and
the physical built environments that contribute to or create barriers to their liveability,
and social engagement. If environment matters to the process and experience of ageing,
then we need to better understand the key factors that influence the quality of the
person-environment relationship as people age.
Amenity-rich local environments are necessary for older people to successfully age in
place and will become more critical as the population continues to age. An important
aspect of active ageing is participation in activities outside the home. Recent research
has identified the importance of close proximity to shopping, banking and retail and
health and medical services for older people, particularly those over 70 years old (Judd et
al., 2010). Availability and ease of access to local neighbourhood amenities can
precipitate or inhibit participation (NHF, 2004; WHO, 2007; DoHA, 2006). Paper 4 deals
with the need for high density environments to be amenity-rich spaces that residents do
not have to leave for everyday living. There has been little empirical evidence linking
liveability satisfaction with older people’s use of their urban neighbourhoods. Using the
methodology outlined as Method 2 (described in Chapter 3), Paper 4 explores whether
30
high density settings support liveability and are sustainable for older people to actively
age in place.
Paper 5 investigates older people and their interaction with their urban environment in
terms of their out-of-home mobility. A key component of liveability is the functioning of
place to support and encourage neighbourhood walking. Research in public health,
urban planning and transportation highlights the link between urban form, physical
activity and public health (Frank et al., 2003). Walking has been shown in particular, to
have a positive influence on a range of health outcomes especially for older people -
including chronic conditions such as heart disease, some cancers and diabetes (Prohaska
et al., 2006). Regular walking also contributes significantly to independent lifestyles for
older people as well as their cognitive functioning, reducing the risk of dementia and
benefiting those with established dementia (Karp et al., 2006; Weuve et al., 2004).
There is currently only a small body of empirical evidence of the importance of
neighbourhood walkability to liveability for older urban residents, but research literature
in this area is growing. The healthy cities guidelines advocate “local destinations to
support lively, walkable and rideable neighbourhoods” (NHF, 2004, 13) as a means to
achieve both sustainability and liveability outcomes. The importance of age-friendly
guidelines research and policy development is gaining increased recognition by Australian
and international governments, health and built environment professionals. Two
significant initiatives in this area are the National Heart Foundation’s Healthy by Design
guidelines and the Australian Government’s work on a national planning guide for the
design of healthy Australian built environments (Judd et al., 2010). To encourage uptake
of sustainable transport, the built environment must provide easy, accessible
connections between buildings, walkways, cycle paths and public transport stations.
Paper 5 explores this aspect of liveability within high density neighbourhoods from the
perspective of older Australian people.
Together these five papers address high density liveable communities/neighbourhoods,
what they are comprised by, and the factors that make them liveable for older
Australians. The papers indicate a complex inter-relationship of the factors that make a
place liveable, and in combination, point to the need for the implementation of strategies
aimed at addressing a range of issues that arise for older people living in urban
31
environments. Such strategies are crucial for the meeting of active ageing objectives and
for enabling older people to age in place. Recommendations for policy and interventions
are discussed in detail in the final chapter of this thesis.
The following chapter, Chapter 2, reviews the literature related to the subject matter of
this thesis, then follows Chapter 3, Methodology, prior to the chapters containing the
publications that form the research component of this dissertation (Chapters 2 through
8).
32
Reference List Australian Government. (2002). State of the Environment Report 2001 Retrieved 16
October 2009, from
http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2001/publications/themereports/settleme
nts/settlements04-2.html
Australian Greenhouse Office. (2003). Transport Sector. Canberra: Australian
Greenhouse Office Retrieved from
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/transport/index.html.
Australian Local Government Association. (2006). Age-Friendly built Environments:
Opportunities for Local Government.
Australian Urban Regional Development Review. (1994). New homes for old : a strategy
to increase the efficiency of existing Australian urban housing stock by creating
increased housing choice for older people (pp. 119 p). Melbourne: Australian
Urban and Regional Development Review.
Beard, J. R., and Petitot, C. (2010). Ageing and Urbanization: Can Cities be Designed to
Foster Active Ageing? Public Health Reviews, 32(2), 1-18.
Bishop, B., and Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA). (2000). The National strategy
for an ageing Australia : attitude, lifestyle & community support : discussion
paper (pp. iv, 58 p). Canberra Department of Health and Ageing.
Coulton, C., Korbin, J., Chan, T., and Su, M. (2001). Mapping Residents' Perceptions of
Neighborhood Boundaries: A Methodological Note. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 29(2), 371-383.
Council on the Ageing. (2001 ). Response to Attitude, Life-style and Community Support:
Discussion paper for the National Strategy for an Ageing Australia. Retrieved
from http://www.cota.org.au/NSattitude.htm
Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA). (2006). A Community for All Ages: Building the
Future: The Findings and Recommendations of the National Speakers Series June
2006. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
33
Frank, L. D., Engelke, P. O., and Schmid, T. L. (2003). Health and community design : the
impact of the built environment on physical activity. Washington, DC ; London
Island Press.
Goodchild, M. F., and Haining, R. P. (2004). GIS and spatial data analysis: Converging
perspectives. Papers in Regional Science, 83(1), 363-385.
Hampshire, A. (2000). Stronger communities and social connectedness - social capital in
practice. Paper presented at the The Council on the Ageing National Congress.
Hillery, G. A. (1968). Communal Organizations: A study of local societies. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Hugman, R. (2001). Looking to the future. Australasian Journal of Ageing, 20(3), 57-64.
Inclusive Design for Getting Outdoors (IDGO). (2007a). Older People and the Outdoors
from http://www.idgo.ac.uk/older_people_outdoors/index.htm
Inclusive Design for Getting Outdoors (IDGO). (2007b). Research Methods and Tools,
from http://www.idgo.ac.uk/theories_and_methods/researchtools.htm
Inclusive Design for Getting Outdoors (IDGO). (2007c). What are the Critical Issues? ,
from http://www.idgo.ac.uk/older_people_outdoors/critical_issues.htm
Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. London: Jonathan Cape.
Jay, S., Jones, C., Slinn, P., and Wood, C. (2007). Environmental impact assessment:
Retrospect and prospect. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27(4), 287-
300.
Judd, B., Olsberg, D., Quinn, J., Groenhart, L. a., and Demirbilek, O. (2010). Dwelling, land
and neighbourhood use by older home owners AHURI Final Report No. 144.
Melbourne, Vic: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, UNSW-UWS
Research Centre.
Karp, J. F., Reynolds, C. F., Butters, M. A., Dew, M. A., Mazumdar, S., Begley, A. E., . . .
Weiner, D. K. (2006). The Relationship Between Pain and Mental Flexibility in
Older Adult Pain Clinic Patients. Pain Medicine, 7(5), 444-452.
34
Kochera, A., Straight, A., and Guterbock, T. (2005). Beyond 50.50, a report to the nation
on liveable communities: Creating environments for successful aging.
Washington, DC: AARP Organisation.
Kusenbach, M. (2008). A Hierarchy of Urban Communities: Observations on the Nested
Character of Place. City & Community, 7(3), 225-249.
Lui, C.-W., Everingham, J.-A., Warburton, J., Cuthill, M., and Bartlett, H. (2009). What
makes a community age-friendly: A review of international literature.
Australasian Journal on Ageing, 28(3), 116-121.
McCrea, R., Shyy, T.-K., and Stimson, R. (2006). What is the Strength of the Link Between
Objective and Subjective Indicators of Urban Quality of Life? Applied Research in
Quality of Life, 1(1), 79-96.
Mitchell, L., and Burton, E. (2006). Neighbourhoods for life: Designing dementia-friendly
outdoor environments. Quality in Ageing and Older Adults, 7(1), 26-33.
National Heart Foundation of Australia. (2009). Blueprint for an Active Australia.
Melbourne: NHF.
National Heart Foundation of Australia (Victoria Division) (NHF). (2004). Healthy by
Design: A Planners Guide to Environments for Active Living. Melbourne: NHF.
National Housing Strategy (NHS). (1992). National Housing Strategy : agenda for action
(pp. xiv, 166 p). Canberra Australian Government Publishing Service.
National Research Council. (2002). Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for
Informed Decision-Making. Washington, DC: Board on Earth Sciences and
Resources, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council, National
Academy Press.
Olsberg, D., and Winters, M. (2005). Ageing in place: intergenerational and intrafamilial
housing transfers and shifts in later life (pp. 4p). Melbourne, Vic: Australian
Housing and Urban Research Institute.
Pacione, M. (2003). Introduction on urban environmental quality and human wellbeing.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 65(1-2), 1-3.
35
Prohaska, T., Belansky, E., Belza, B., and Buchner, D. (2006). Physical Activity, Public
Health, and Aging: Critical Issues and Research Priorities. The Journals of
Gerontology, 61B(5), S267.
Queensland Government. (2009). Climate Q: Toward a greener Queensland, 2009.
Retrieved 16 September 2009, from
http://www.climatechange.qld.gov.au/pdf/climateqreport/climateqreport.pdf
Smith, A. E. (2009). Ageing in urban neighbourhoods : place attachment and social
exclusion. Bristol, UK ; Portland, OR: Policy.
Turton, H., and Hamilton, C. (2002). Updating per capita emissions for industrialised
countries Retrieved 27 January 2011, from
https://www.tai.org.au/documents/downloads/WP37.pdf
United Nations. (2003). Political Declaration and Madrid International Plan of Action on
Ageing. New York: Department of Public Information.
Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission. (2008). State of Liveability: An inquiry
into enhancing Victoria's liveability
Webber, M. M. (1963). Order in Diversity: Community without Propinquity. In J. Wingo,
Lowdon (Ed.), Cities and Space: The Future Use of Urban Land (pp. 23-56).
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Weuve, J., Kang, J. H., Manson, J. E., Breteler, M. M. B., Ware, J. H., and Grodstein, F.
(2004). Physical Activity, Including Walking, and Cognitive Function in Older
Women. JAMA, 292(12), 1454-1461.
World Health Organisation (WHO). (2002). Active Ageing: A Policy Framework., from
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2002/WHO_NMH_NPH_02.8.pdf
World Health Organisation (WHO). (2007). Global Age Friendly Cities: A Guide. Geneva:
World Health Organisation.
Ziller, A. (2004). The Community is Not a Place and Why it Matters - Case Study: Green
Square. Urban Policy and Research, 22(4), 465 - 479.
36
37
+
38
39
Chapter 2: Literature Review
The literature review for this thesis has two main sections: 1) liveability broadly
conceived and 2) liveability, place and ageing. The first section has several components
and provides a review of liveability literature, research and practice. The second section
involves discussion and review of the effect of place in enabling or inhibiting active
ageing and ageing in place. It addresses the significance of liveability to older people’s
ability to age in place and remain active. This review draws on a cross-section of
literature that informs the dual conceptualisation of liveability – the first is used when
investigating place in general, and the second, when examining matters related to ageing
in place.
Liveability
Defining Liveability
As an introductory, denotative or base meaning, liveability simply refers to a place able to
be lived in and supporting the processes of living (Tulloch, 1997). The relative nature of
liveability is implicit in this description, since where people choose to live can be
considered liveable through each individual’s subjective filter. This subjectivity has been
one of the major challenges for researchers attempting to develop a more objective and
community- or neighbourhood-based definition of liveable places (Myers, 1988;
Andrews, 2001).
Liveability and Quality of Life
Ideas about liveability have often been expressed in terms of functional urban form,
urban health, well-being or quality of life and rarely by the term “liveability” itself.
“Liveability” emerged in the late 1950s and has become synonymous with “quality of
life”, often being used interchangeably in the literature (Myers, 1987). In attempting to
differentiate between the two terms, it could be stated that liveability relates to placed-
based possibilities for life, whereas quality of life has broader applications and often has
a connotative meaning relating to the person rather than that of place. Quality of life
measures encompass the basic human requirements for shelter, food and water, as well
as human health, education, employment and environmental quality. There appears to
be agreement in the literature that liveability is a relative concept that is subject to local
meanings across a wide range of social, political and environmental domains, and which
are unique to each place (Myers, 1988; Andrews, 2001). Most liveability research has
40
focussed on either the development of indicators, data collection or attributes of
measurement rather than the application of theory (National Research Council, 2002).
There appears to be little in the literature which discusses how to use or apply liveability
indicators once they have been identified.
Historical Review
Urban liveability and its planning have a very long history. The ability to sustain life
through attention to where a city was situated, and its control of food and water
supplies, capacity to address climate exposure and defend itself against enemies have all
long been considered important to the health of inhabitants (Mumford, 1961). While not
framed in terms of liveability, consideration of the requirements for sustaining life with
some ease represents the first sign of this concept’s emergence (Mumford, 1961). As
long as population density remained stable and small enough to be accommodated by
natural resource supply and sanitation absorption in the countryside, the medieval city
was regarded as being much cleaner and more healthful than the later industrial city
(Mumford, 1961; Gies, 1969; Frugoni, 2005).
Growing urbanisation, capitalism and industrialisation gave rise to concerns with urban
residential health (Mumford, 1961; Benevolo, 1980; Girouard, 1985). Piece-meal physical
and planning improvements had difficulty keeping pace with growing urbanisation and
the pace of technological change (Mumford, 1961; Benevolo, 1980; Girouard, 1985).
Deteriorating physical infrastructure forced public outcry and responses were either
unplanned public works (programs and legislation to improve immediate physical
conditions) or the seeking of utopia elsewhere (fleeing the city and its problems)
(Mumford, 1961; Benevolo, 1971; Girouard, 1985; Maldonado and Cullars, 1991).
Industrial districting and thus the origin of modern town planning started as early as the
renaissance (Mumford, 1961; Benevolo, 1980; Girouard, 1985). Mumford (1961)
observed that from the 16th century onwards, the street became the unit of planning and
not the neighbourhood - as had been the case previously. He conceived that living space
was treated as a left-over after the avenue itself determined the depth of the block and
the shape of the housing plot. Wheeled traffic became an issue as early as the 16th
century but more so of the 17th and 18th centuries (Mumford, 1961; Sitte, 1965).
41
Scientific Rationality
Changes in the process of management and production began to impact on urban
liveability, regulation and planning of the built environment (Friedman, 1987; Hamilton,
1996). The advent of Taylorism established systems of standardisation to streamline
production in manufacturing (Spender, 1996). As a result of its popularity, a campaign of
standardisation was launched that relied on theories of both industrialisation and
scientific rationality (Braham, 1996). The rationale for this program cloaked itself in the
language of the public interest and safeguarding public health and welfare (Hamilton,
1996). The result was the minimum standard which regulated everything from education
merit and transport safety to public health and housing production (Spender, 1996;
Hamilton, 1996).
The public use of standardisation was based on the theory of social homogenisation of
the good arising out of what is normal (Spender, 1996; Hamilton, 1996). Standards were
set by perceptions of desired average quality rather than idealised concepts (Chapin and
Kaiser, 1979). Typically, standards were determined by elites with little input from direct
users or those affected by them (Beall and Fox, 2009) and were therefore, often in
opposition to the needs of urban residents (Jacobs, 1961). Later standards of the post
war period for street design, public housing and neighbourhood sought to regularise new
development to benefit the construction industry, lower costs, minimise risk and ensure
lenders a bankable product (Southworth and Parthasarathy, 1996). Roads were widened
and the suburban model became enshrined including both the cul-de-sac and the super
block development (Southworth and Ben-Joseph, 1997).
Standardisation of physical planning ensured basic physical liveability but did not
consider the social aspects of liveability (Friedman, 2002). The results of scientific
technocratic planning had dire impacts upon urbanism and led to revolts against the
planning establishment; these in turn resulted in liveability coming to the forefront of
planning thought (Jacobs, 1961).
Moving out of the City to Utopia
The utopian movement sought rapid change through grand schemes to decongest the
city and allow people to flee to more liveable suburban environments (Friedman, 2002).
Those drivers of the utopian movement were inspired by new interest in public health
and by technological change enabling new forms of construction and transportation,
42
preferring greenfield areas to the problems of the city (Friedman, 2002). For example,
through the urban parks movement, Frederick Law Olmsted stressed the importance of
nature and greenery as the “lungs of the city”. Olmstedian principles advocated parks,
greenways, streetscaping and the urban forest as design methods for increasing
liveability in tightly packed cities (Friedman, 2002).
The need for a series of satellite cities to be built around an industrial and cultural centre
so as to decentralise the metropolis and provide economically sustainable and
independent employment on cooperatively owned land was suggested by Howard
(1945). Howard (1945) conceived these satellites or “garden cities” as being bounded by
large agricultural tracts and greenbelts of wilderness which would separate them from
the primary regional city, and also allow the recreational enjoyment of nature. While
often credited as the inventor of suburbia, his ideas about decentralisation, segregated
land uses, greenbelts, communal ownership and sustainable economic development laid
the groundwork for much 20th century suburban expansion (Mumford, 1961).
From the public health and social concerns of the “garden city” planners such as Olmsted
and Howard and the need to provide affordable housing to returning servicemen and
servicewomen in Australia and the US, there was a massive expansion of suburban
greenfield development at the end of World War II. Suburbanisation was seen by the
majority as providing the hope of home ownership, economic investment and liveable
environments devoid of the older cities’ environmental and social challenges (Mumford,
1961; Friedman, 2002; Clapson, 2003; Rabinowitz, 2004). With this suburban expansion
came city disinvestment, the flight of the middle-class and continued neglect of the poor
(Friedman, 2002; Clapson, 2003; Rabinowitz, 2004). Suburbia’s liveability benefits were
well understood by most housing consumers – available land for recreation and
children’s play, new housing, greater access to nature and fresh air, and relatively safe
and healthful neighbourhoods (Friedman, 2002; Clapson, 2003; Rabinowitz, 2004). These
characteristics of suburbia have now become components of any liveability definition and
cause problems for planners attempting to apply suburban amenity to dense urban areas
(Friedman, 2002; Clapson, 2003; Rabinowitz, 2004).
Problems in Paradise
In the second half of the 20th century, concerns grew about liveability, emanating out of
criticisms of contemporary urban development as a machine dedicated to through-put
43
and economic gain and efficiency rather than to developing places for living (Webber,
1963). Critics were scathing of the failure of planners to produce cohesive, liveable cities
and neighbourhoods and worse, as having actively contributed to increased social
isolation, economic inequity and ecological deterioration. Critics spoke of injudicious
policy, enforcement of dominant discourses and the power of capitalist elites, the failure
of decision-makers to take community interests into account, as well as the increasing
scale of the new development and its dehumanising design (Jacobs, 1961; Mumford,
1961; Boyer, 1983; Relph, 1987; Ellin, 1996). Despite good intentions, urban planning in
the 20th century has often proceeded in directions that have been profoundly
unsustainable (Jacobs, 1961; Mumford, 1961; Boyer, 1983; Relph, 1987; Ellin, 1996;
Clapson, 2003; Filion, 2003). Freeways and other auto-dependent infrastructure have
been promoted without consideration of their sprawl-inducing impact (Jacobs, 1961;
Ellin, 1996; Filion, 2003). Modern urban environments have also been criticised for being
homogeneous and aesthetically dull, fragmented, regulated and segregated (Jacobs,
1961; Relph, 1987; Ellin, 1996; Rabinowitz, 2004).
Through her seminal work, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs
(1961) awakened concerns about place-based liveability (Gratz, 2003). She promoted
dense urban neighbourhoods but believed that modern city building practices
undermined many of the qualities that encourage pedestrian use of the street,
neighbourhood contacts and a thriving local economy of small businesses (Jacobs, 1961).
Jacobs suggested that cities were more complex creatures than the reductionist and
scientific impressions of planners and she championed community processes, inductive
reasoning rather than generalised prescription, and the “unaverage” (Jacobs, 1961, 574).
Jacobs’ call for diversity, mixed uses, lively and walkable streets, density, safety, urban
amenity and the ability to see the particularity of place is at the heart of liveability today
(Gratz, 2003). Jacobs recognised that cities were unique with unending variation for
which universal prescriptions and solutions were inappropriate (Gratz, 2003). This is an
approach that place-based liveability researchers continue to champion (Flint, 2009).
Jacobs ignited a national discussion on the efficacy of planning, professional education,
architecture and city development practice (Gratz, 2003; Flint, 2009). She pushed for
more liveable urban neighbourhoods and community preservation (Gratz, 2003). Jacobs’
work has inspired many researchers and advocates who asked questions about what
44
makes a ‘good city’ and whether liveable places could be objectively assessed and
promoted through government action (Gratz, 2003; Flint, 2009).
Notions of liveability became popularised in the mid-1970s (McNulty, 2006). Towards
the end of the 1970s, a makeshift committee of committed supporters deeply interested
in urban liveability established a not-for-profit corporation called ‘Partners for Livable
Places’ (later to be renamed ‘Partners for Livable Communities’) (PLC, 2000). Initially,
‘Partners’ were interested in raising awareness of quality of life issues and attempting to
define a liveable community. Even after years of meetings, Partners failed to reach
consensus on a succinct definition due to the relativity of the term to various contexts
and persons (McNulty, 2006). Without an agreed definition and little theory to guide
measurement, the only suitable social indicator agreed upon to guide liveability was
leadership (PLC, 2000). Following a report by the Rand Corporation in 1979 about places
attracting jobs and labour, Partners initiated a liveability study in thirty (30) pilot cities,
which focussed the growing importance of community amenities to economic growth
(PLC et al., 1986). From this new economic focus and results from the pilot cities,
Partners determined that collaboration and cooperation between civic and business
leaders, institutions and communities was necessary to achieve desired liveability
expectations. The economics of liveability substantially grew during the 1980s with the
publication of a number of place-rating guides focussed on community amenity and
resident/business location (Boyer and Savageau, 1985). While narrow in its focus,
economic emphasis continues to drive government and business interest into the 21st
century (Rogerson and Tremblay, 2008).
In the latter part of the 20th century (late 1980s to late 1990s), PLC were critical of
academic and statistical liveability approaches that attempted to generalise liveability to
exceedingly large metropolitan areas and regions. They argued that liveability could not
be measured by the number of golf courses, art galleries or stadiums per 100,000 people
or by other indices or benchmarks and that attention needs to be directed instead at
places and the people who work and live in them (PLC, 2000). Their Shaping Growth in
American Communities program between 1988 and 1992 provided community
participation assistance and workshops to over 72 communities interested in social
equity, managing community assistance and the economics of amenity (PLC, 2000). This
provided a greater focus on daily life issues in real places and resulted in a broader
45
definition of liveability which included concepts of essential services, safety, health, jobs,
justice, family concerns, welfare and community level environmental issues (Myers,
1988; Andrews, 2001; McNulty, 2006). This appears to be the beginning of the ensemble
approach in which definitions of liveability are a collection of liveable attributes (Myers,
1988; Andrews, 2001). Partners focussed on liveability as a strategy rather than a luxury,
placing it in the middle of community and neighbourhood planning efforts, encouraging
planners to seek out the participatory involvement of communities (PLC, 2000; McNulty,
2006).
What to do with Downtown - Research and Policy Trends
Urban design has developed from a diverse set of practices and disciplines, including
urban planning, architecture and more recently, anthropology, sociology and
environmental planning, science and psychology (Lynch, 1981; Southworth and
Parthasarathy, 1996). Social and spatial aspects of urban design have been an important
focus for many researchers. Lynch (1960; 1981) focussed on a series of ‘universal’
performance dimensions that are generally conceived to be important for most urban
settings: vitality (sustenance, safety, biologic consonance), sense (place identity,
legibility, transparency), fit (appropriateness, adequacy of uses, adaptability), access
(transportation and circulation), control, efficiency and justice. Other environmental
design research focussed on various elements that affect liveability, including: housing
(Cooper Marcus and Sarkissian, 1986), public space (Gehl, 1987; Cooper Marcus and
Francis, 1998; Whyte, 2001); street design (Jacobs, 1961; Southworth and Ben-Joseph,
1997; Jacobs et al, 2002); physical comfort in the city (Bosselmann et al, 1990); crime
prevention and public safety (Newman, 1973; Zelinka and Brennan, 2001), and physical
aspects of transit use (Cervero and Bernick, 1997; Cervero, 2000). Another group of
researchers focussed more specifically on neighbourhood area liveability, rather than
generalised urban areas or cities. Their work largely focussed on neighbourhood quality
(Marrans, 1979), definitions (Hillery, 1968; van Vliet, 1987), satisfaction (Morrish and
Brown, 1994), planning and community development and empowerment (Keller, 1968;
Banerjee and Baer, 1984; Hester, 1984; Brower, 1996).
A key component of a liveable community according to Oldenburg (1999) is the ‘third
place’. He argues that third places are essential components of a well functioning
democracy, for endowing a sense of identity, developing social cohesion and providing
46
psychological support of life lived in the home (first place) and at work (second place).
Third places provide a sense of compensatory public space, especially in dense urban
settings, where private exterior space and well programmed public spaces are at a
premium. Oldenburg (1999) argues that third places are not necessarily public spaces
but are often private spaces open to the public for socialising, developing friendships,
extending social and support networks and spending leisure time ( for example, coffee
shops, cafes, hotels, bookshops, bars, hairdressers, shops and other affordable gathering
spots) in the heart of the community. Oldenburg’s third place research establishes
important links to considerable research efforts on neighbourhood walkability that have
arisen as a result of recent public health concerns. Walkability has been defined as:
…the extent to which the built environment supports and encourages walking by
providing for pedestrian comfort and safety, connecting people with varied
destinations within a reasonable amount of time and effort, and offering visual
interest in journeys throughout the network (Southworth, 2005, 248).
Some types of third places in close proximity to housing, especially relating to food and
dining, are key determinants in whether people will decide to walk or not (Moudon et al.,
2002). Restaurants/cafes/bars within 1000 feet and grocers within 1500 feet of housing
are important destinations for pedestrians and will influence decisions on walking
(Moudon et al., 2002). Other research supports these findings in suggesting that greater
land use mix, greater street connectivity and higher densities, are key correlates of
walking decisions (Saelens et al., 2003; Kaufmann and Jemelin, 2003; Henson and Essex,
2003; Gertz, 2003; Southworth, 2005; Behan et al., 2008). These and other findings that
highlight the importance of physical built environment conditions in terms of pedestrian
realm comfort and aesthetics inform useful strategy for addressing walkability issues to
advance economic, environmental and social neighbourhood objectives (Maldonado and
Cullars, 1991; Gertz, 2003; Southworth, 2005; Owen et al., 2007; Raco, 2007; Moreno and
Ruiz, 2008).
In more recent times there have been design movements developed in response to poor
urban planning and its negative outcomes of congestion, pollution, sprawl and placeless
design (Porter et al., 2002; Raco, 2007; Behan et al., 2008). These movements include:
New Urbanism and Urban Village Movements, Smart Growth and Compact City
47
Movements. All of these movements are designed to improve place-based liveability and
ensure that any new development delivers environmental, economic and social returns
(McKee, 2007; Behan et al., 2008).
Smart Growth has generally taken a growth management and regulatory approach to
increase density and restrict new greenfield construction (Shaw and Utt, 2000; Bullock,
2005; Moore and Scott, 2005; Eisen, 2009; Dernbach, 2009). Smart Growth’s key
practices include: growth management plans, densification, urban growth boundaries,
adequate public facilities and infrastructure ordinances, zoning reform, limits on new
freeway construction and transit expansion (Freilich, 1999; Porter, 2002; Salkin, 2009).
The Compact City movement is the United Kingdom’s version of the United States’ Smart
Growth (Ewing, 1997; Jenks et al., 1996). Compact City strategies encourage
densification, brownfield redevelopment and conservation of greenfields and agricultural
lands where possible (Moore, 2005; Eisen, 2009). These strategies have usually been
more over-arching policies rather than particularizing local placed issues (Kushner, 2007;
Harmon, 2008).
Urban sprawl, the major driver for the Smart Growth and Compact City movements, has
been defined by McManus (2005, 77) as poorly planned, haphazard, low density
development, with this criticism apparently being applied to the entire suburban realm
whether well planned or otherwise. Critiques of both Compact City and Smart Growth
find fault with arguments against suburbia, low density living, driving, energy use and
congestion, which critics suggest have been vetted by the market, are constantly
improving and whose positive aspects are perceived to outweigh negative externalities
(Gordon and Richardson, 1997; Cox, 2001; Davison, 2006; Gaynor, 2006; Moran, 2006;
Moran and Staley, 2007). Christoff and Low (2000) concluded that it has never been
established scientifically that residential densities reduce the consumption of energy or
greenhouse emissions resulting from travel behaviour. Gaynor (2006) argues that
original suburbia - opposed to the McMansions (Ritzer, 1993) of some more modern
suburbs - is a lot more sustainable than any contemporary ultra-consuming urban
landscape setting. Technological progress (for example, the private vehicle, air
conditioning, standardisation of housing, communication and information technologies)
and market innovations (for example, innovative products, fast food dining) are all based
48
on demand from knowing consumers (Cox, 2001). Suburban living remains popular with
those who choose it over urban amenities and nuisances (Cox, 2001).
New Urbanism within the United States (US) incorporates many of the Smart Growth
practices but focusses more on principles of place-making, traditional urban fabric
making, prescriptive design regulation and imagery from idyllic small town life (Talen,
2005; Duany et al., 2000; Katz, 1994). The United Kingdom (UK) Urban Village movement
was developed in response to city decline and parallels the US New Urbanism in
focussing on creating a village character in high density urban settings (Magnaghi, 2005;
Neal, 2003; Biddulph, 2000). The Urban Village movement has a traditional urban design
orientation by incorporating a local neighbourhood focus (Neal, 2003; Biddulph et al.,
2002).
Urban village concepts have been quickly adopted as key tools in planning and
development guidance in the UK at national and local government levels, with the strong
support of His Royal Highness (HRH) Prince Charles, (Neal, 2003; Biddulph et al., 2002).
”The village in the city” movement has been incredibly popular with local residents, city
officials and property owners in Britain (Savage et al., 2005; McDowell et al., 2006;
Russell et al., 2005; Yabes and Pijawka, 2008; Rohe, 2009). Liveability concepts and
planning models appear to be reinvented with each new generation. It is perhaps most
pertinent now when there appears to be a greater need for a sense of place in an
increasingly isolating world and when planning efficacy is questioned (Madanipour,
2001). The urban village movement has also gained popularity in Australia, New Zealand,
Canada and the US as neighbourhood planning efforts that have adopted the “village”
approach have secured higher levels of liveability (Neal, 2003; Yabes and Pijawka, 2008;
Rohe, 2009).
There are strong similarities between urban village and complete community movements
in terms of their liveability principles. They both espouse varied architecture, mixed
tenures for both housing and employment uses, mixed land uses, walkable and
pedestrian friendly environments, provision of basic shopping, health and educational
needs, and a degree of local self-sufficiency (Neal, 2003; Biddulph, 2000). The focus on
neighbourhood and community planning and improving the quality of urban life is what
makes these movements the closest in spirit to much of the place-based liveability
emphasised in local government planning throughout the western world (Moore and
49
Scott, 2005; Kushner, 2007). The idea of “complete communities” has gained favour in
ensuring neighbourhoods are diverse, choiceful and equipped with a plethora of social
services, institutions and amenities (Perkins, 1995). Active community participation and
a long-term sense and ownership of place emanate from places epitomised by complete
community ideology with meaningful place-based identity, amenities and services
(Morrish and Brown, 1994).
Despite their popularity, neighbourhood and community planning efforts such as the
urban village and complete community movements, are not without their critics. A major
criticism is that modern life has changed cities so much that the relevance of the place-
based neighbourhood community has passed. These changes include: weak social ties
due to rapid demographic change, high levels of mobility, and anonymity and
individualism at the expense of social cohesion (Isaacs, 1948; Webber, 1963; Silver, 1985;
Driskell and Lyon, 2002). Other critics suggest that neighbourhood or community
planning is fraught with difficulty when there is no universal agreement on
neighbourhood and community definitions (Silver, 1985; Webber, 1963; Biddulph, 2000;
Savage et al., 2005). There is also the assertion that residents are primarily concerned
with their immediate home area at the expense of larger neighbourhood or community
issues (Biddulph, 2000; Savage et al., 2005; Butler and Savage, 1995). Further criticism
surrounds the tendency of these planning movements to differentiate and create
tensions between small districts, thus encouraging segregation, social exclusion,
inequitable conditions and a hastening of gentrification (Lynch, 1981; Silver, 1985; Smith,
1996; Madanipour, 2001; Butler and Robson, 2003; Grant, 2006; McDowell et al., 2006).
There is also the cynical argument that neighbourhood planning has grown in importance
because of shared political interests, to protect and encourage strong growth of property
values supporting rent-seeking and development interests and for security and policing
purposes (Logan and Molotch, 1987; Madanipour, 2001). Thus, neighbourhood planning
has been criticised for being anti-urban, largely because it favours self-interested local
places rather than the urban community more broadly (Jacobs, 1961; Etzioni, 1995;
Biddulph, 2000; Wulff and Lobo, 2009).
There is a significant degree of overlap and agreement amongst the commentators and
theorists discussed above with respect to the physical characteristics of what constitute a
liveable city. Pedestrian amenity is universally recognised as being important for the
50
creation of more walkable cities, neighbourhoods or communities with a mix of land uses
in close proximity. All commentators have promoted the benefits that come from mixed
land uses as opposed to segregation and regulatory zoning. Close proximity of housing to
a wide range of retail outlets - especially those selling goods for everyday local use – is a
common recommendation across different theoretical positions. Almost all called for
more compact development patterns utilising brownfield redevelopment and
densification policies. A varied mix of dwelling type, size and price range was
recommended by many. There appears to be less agreement however, on the
importance of accessible and useable public space in terms of whether this space should
take the form of parks, plazas, footpaths or streets. Streets and footpaths were quite
broadly promoted as being shared social space, rather than single-use zones dominated
by vehicles. There was differing opinion on transportation. Many authors sought a
better balance in choice of mode; some suggested a reduction in auto use, while others
sought to accommodate both vehicles and people.
Quality of Life Indicators
Early social indicator research primarily explored concepts of social and personal quality
of life, addressing the well-being of interest groups living with specific conditions, such as
those with chronic medical conditions or diseases (Evans, 1994). Quality of life therefore
tends to deal with the more or less ‘satisfactory’ or ‘good’ nature of people’s lives (Szalai
in Dissart and Dellar, 2000). Notions of quality of life came to be identified with three
main domains of human experience: 1) social norms of what was important for individual
utility; 2) personal experience filtered through psychological filters; and 3) environmental
factors influencing perception (Dissart and Dellar, 2000; Romney et al., 1994). While
most commentators accept that effective liveability/quality of life measurement requires
research into both the analysis of environmental factors and of perceptions of
satisfaction (Grayson and Young, 1994), many researchers have focussed solely on one or
the other.
Two distinctive research directions have evolved within the study of quality of life, with
the bulk of research having focussed on place-based or domain-specific measures at
various scales as predictors of this outcome. This particular research approach involved
substantial work that situated quality of life issues within the context of their emergence
within different geographic settings such as urban areas (Schmandt and Bloomberg,
1969; Turksever and Atilak, 2001), metropolitan areas (Dahman, 1985), and specific cities
51
(Lever, 2000). The other involved universal or overall measures of quality of life with
extensive research being conducted to develop overall quality of life measures outside of
any place-based context (Parmenter, 1994; Friedman, 1987). The goal was to create a
single social indicator to replace gross economic indicators as a basis for comparing
countries and levels of national health (Evans, 1994). The rationale for these country
comparisons was to provide indicators to determine which countries needed
improvement as a precursor to generating programs to enhance quality of life across
general populations (Evans 1994). However, little of this work translated into action
(Evans, 1994).
Social indicators have waning policy relevance due to the difficulty translating social
science findings into actionable local policy (Myers, 1988; Sawicki and Flynn, 1996).
Myers (1988) suggests there are two reasons for this. Firstly, academic research is not
trusted by decision-makers who are suspicious of academic local interpretations,
reductionist problem-frameworks, its language and theory (Myers, 1988). Secondly,
there is often little by way of recommended solutions thereby producing little direct
impact (Myers, 1988). According to Cobb and Rixford (2005), this second reason is
because policy makers have failed to implement the research findings and researchers
have wanted to maintain their objectivity thereby opting to separate themselves from
politics and from operationalising their research. On the other hand, interested parties
have “cherry-picked” indicators to support their particular respective arguments or
positions (Cobb and Rixford, 2005).
Liveability and the Concept of Well-Being
The dominant theory in liveability research has been utilitarian theory, which values the
personal happiness and satisfaction of individuals (Veenhoven 1995; Diener and Lucas
2000). There has been a substantial amount of research into quality of life as “personal
utility”, which indicates that personal income, education, age and gender have little
impact on perceptions of subjective well-being (Veenhoven and Ehrhardt, 1995; Myers
and Diener, 1995; Diener, 2000; Peiro, 2006). Some researchers (Diener et al., 2003;
Myers and Diener, 1995; De Neve and Cooper, 1998; Argyle, 1999; Diener, 2000) have
found wealth to be a key determinant of general well-being up to the level where it
allows for the meeting of basic health and physiological needs, but past that, it no longer
a predictor of happiness. Research findings have also indicated that happier people tend
to have higher levels of self-esteem or optimism, a sense of personal control, and to be
52
extroverts or have strong faith lives (Diener et al., 2003; Myers and Diener, 1995; De
Neve and Cooper, 1998; Argyle, 1999; Diener, 2000).
From his research into residential surveys, Brower (1996) was able to draw a number of
general conclusions about housing satisfaction studies. He found that most satisfaction
and quality of life surveys used random samples of residents to determine the nature of
desirable qualities that exist in place, the reasons for having relocated to a new area or
for obtaining resident ratings of the qualities of a given place. Residents are frequently
asked to indicate their rationale for choosing to live in a place from a list of
characteristics and components typically supplied by the researcher, and less frequently
from open-ended questioning. Tables of attributes are the results of this type of research
and are a primary reason why liveability is described as being an “ensemble concept”
(Myers, 1989; Andrews, 2001).
Placed-based liveability approaches connect objective observations of physical places
with associated behaviour and activity levels that can be viewed and measured (see the
work of Gehl, 1987; Goffman, 1972; Lynch, 1981; Stevens, 2006; Lofland, 1998). Whyte
(2001), the PPS (2005), and a number of environmental behaviour researchers (Gehl,
1987; Goffman, 1972; Lynch, 1981; Stevens, 2006; Lofland, 1998) recommend behaviour
and/or activity observation as an appropriate means of analysing efficacy in public space
design and planning.
According to Andrews (2001) place-based measurements need to combine subjective
survey work reporting on residents’ opinions, perceptions, priorities and satisfaction
together with objective descriptions of the physical, economic and social environments.
This approach combines statistical, observational and empirical methods, supplemented
and vetted by residents’ perceptions, thus providing checks against either researcher or
resident bias (Andrews, 2001). In this way, the data from place-based work tends to form
a more “realistic description of the community’s quality of life, broadly enough based
that all segments of the community can accept it as a basis for subsequent decision
making” (Myers, 1988, 357).
Myers (1987) connected both objective and subjective data in his “community trend
method” as an illustration of place-based liveability research designed to present a more
53
accurate picture of local quality of life issues. This method requires researchers to
engage in dialogue with local stakeholders to identify characteristics that would
subsequently become the subject of longitudinal study in understanding local trends and
progress over time (Myers, 1989). Rather than researchers bringing a pre-selected set of
metrics to the community, this “negotiation” over indicators allows the research to be
grounded in local reality, and thus be made more pertinent to potential political and
planning action (Myers, 1989). Myers’ (1987) method gave recognition to liveability as a
shifting concept which is characterised by a variety of local issues rather than one over-
arching measure.
How Liveability Plays Out in Current Practice
Despite the absence of a universally accepted definition, liveability as an ideology has
grown in importance. Notions of liveability have risen in importance due to perceived
threats to existing quality of life from loss of agricultural land, congestion, shortage of
affordable housing stock, a growing social divide, and sustained losses of community life,
physical identity and sense of place (Wheeler, 2001). Interestingly, liveability has also
grown in importance because of the needs of an increasingly affluent post-industrial
society seeking amenities and quality of life (Wheeler, 2001; Lofti and Koohsari, 2009).
With growing wealth, comes a growing interest in leisure pursuits and protection of
property values. Demand for housing is closely aligned to the level of desirability of a
neighbourhood – the more desirable, the greater the demand, the greater the demand,
the higher the prices (Markusen and Glasmeier, 2008). While for some, liveability is a
means of improving property values, for most, the value is in improving the
neighbourhood living environment (Morrish and Brown, 2000).
Liveability agendas have reached the highest levels of state and national government
here in Australia (Curtis and Punter, 2004) as well as the United Kingdom, the United
States and Canada (Lambright et al., 1996; Evans, 2002; McCann, 2007; Raco, 2007).
While liveability issues are a major concern of western governments they are also
important to developing country governments although focussed at more basic needs
like good public health, adequate shelter and food (Deshkar et al., 2011). The over-riding
focus for developing countries is on improving basic infrastructure, environmental health
and the physical well-being of places of poverty to bring general economic and quality of
life benefits (Evans, 2002; Das, 2008; Tesfazghi et al., 2009; Deshkar et al., 2011).
54
Liveability Attribute and the Notion of the Everyday
Utilitarian theory dealing with levels of individual satisfaction and personal happiness is
the theory of choice in most liveability research (Veenhoven, 1995; Diener and Lucas,
2000). Personal utility theory, however, has been heavily criticised for not providing
greater social capital or sense of community and for not effectively guiding planning
efforts to improve liveability at the local level (Myers, 1988; Sen, 1993). The focus on
meeting particular satisfaction levels maybe a required goal but it appears to do little to
help planners know what to do to improve places.
Much of the research discussed in this chapter has argued that liveability is the
availability and accessibility of several factors, such as good public health, local serving
land uses, active social settings, specific urban forms, well programmed amenities, social
services and the like. These built environment factors are viewed as essential for day to
day living in place. A theory of the everyday or daily life is particularly useful as it
focusses attention on the required factors for regular functioning and social use of place
and not just on the things that simply make individuals happy or satisfied (Diener et al.,
2003; Chiesura, 2004; Lefebvre, 1991; Maldonado and Cullars, 1991). This requires
understanding through objective observation of the functioning of the urban
environment of what constitutes shared place-based experience as well as an
understanding of the prevailing cultural influences over use of the environment (Cobb
and Rixford, 2005; Myers, 1988). A daily life perspective is a useful framework through
which to review and promote liveability for cities and neighbourhoods to function
physically, socially and economically more effectively (Pacione, 1990; 2003).
A theory of the everyday has a long history. Lefebvre (1991) was a great exponent of an
everday perspective in urban settings. He was concerned that the powerful through
bureaucratic controls and capitalism were destroying everyday life (Lefebvre, 1991). The
power of the everyday however, was highlighted by de Certeau (1984) who asserted that
the practice of daily life – cooking, talking, reading and importantly walking, was a
“victory of the weak over the strong” (de Certeau, 1984, xix). These everday practices,
Mayol (in de Certeau et al., 1998) suggested, are acts of identity creation founded in the
everyday use of space. Regular neighbourhood walking, Mayol (in de Certeau et al.,
1998) argued, produces a sense of ownership of public neighbourhood space drawing it
into into the realm of private domestic life for the enrichment of the neighbourhood
user, thus, expanding one’s home far beyond the walls of the physical house.
55
A focus on the everyday aids understanding of what is vital and necessary for day to day
living (Maffesoli, 1993). Methods for assessing the practice of everyday life involve
objective observation (Highmore, 2002) based on qualitative descriptions of activity and
the space of activity with acknowledgement of the culture of use associated with the
space. Highmore (2002) asserted that everyday practice is largely invisible and has often
been overlooked but because of this, provides a great opportunity for tackling its issues
(Highmore, 2002). However, it should be noted that everyday urbanism has driven much
of the recent interest in the New Urbanism, Urban Village and Complete Communities
movements (Grant, 2006, 2006a; Bakardjieva, 2003) and is providing a serious rationale
for improving the city for regular daily functioning toward the goal of liveability
(Newman, 2008; Grant, 2006; Bakardjieva, 2003).
Liveability, Place and Ageing
Because of the complexity of liveability, place, and ageing, the literature review that
follows focusses on six relevant topic areas. The first topic area is the demographics of
the ageing population and the timeliness and importance of studying liveability and older
adults. The second topic is the theoretical, international and national significance of
understanding the relationship between older people and the quality of the
environment. The third is “place” and the understanding and meaning of place in the
process of ageing. The fourth is “ageing in place” and its impact on urban planning for
older people. The fifth topic area is the environment and older people’s participation in
activities. The sixth deals with neighbourhood design and active ageing in place within an
urban context. These topics are inter-related layers and are integral to understanding
liveability as it is directly related to successful ageing in place.
Demographics
Older populations in developed nations are, in the main, healthier and living longer than
previous generations. This is due to: a rapid increase in life expectancy in developed
nations in the 20th century; associated reductions in infectious diseases and declining
early age and maternal mortality; medical advances in recent decades that led to
declining middle- and old-age mortality; and rapid demographic shifts in the age
structure known as population ageing (Kinsella and He in Olshansky et al., 2011). The
most significant of these demographic shifts involves the ageing of the baby boom
generation. The demographic changes indicate that the ageing of the baby boom
56
generation will have a profound effect on the developed world in the decades to come
with the urgent need to better understand the situation of ageing in place to consider
appropriate policy and practice solutions.
The full effect of population ageing has yet to be experienced ,given that the leading
edge of the baby boom generation (those born mid 20th century) is now only beginning to
reach age 65, the retirement age in many countries (Olshansky et al., 2011). In 2003, the
United Nations (UN) reported that one out of every 10 persons were aged 60 years or
over and this is projected to increase in the proceeding years (Smith, 2009). In Australia,
people aged 55 years and over account for almost a quarter of the total population
(Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2007). By 2021, this is expected to increase to at
least 30%, and by 2051, at least 38% (ABS, 2006). The ageing of the baby boom
generation is playing a significant role in our ageing society, with the first of the
“boomers” already reaching the age of 60 (Judd et al., 2010). Census figures show an
increase of 28.7% in the population aged 55-59 over the last five years, compared to a
6.8% increase in the overall population (ABS, 2007).
The increasing percentage of older people in the community will have increasing
influence on all levels of the political system to achieve more age-friendly
neighbourhoods and transport infrastructure to age in place or make other informed and
appropriate choices (Judd et al., 2010). It must also be recognised that current and
future cohorts of older persons are not homogeneous and their diversity is expected to
grow as the size of elderly cohorts swells (Kinsella and He in Olshanky et al., 2011). Some
will be frail and demanding on existing institutions, many will be healthy (and some
wealthy), and they will continue to serve as resources for their families, communities and
countries (United Nations (UN), 2003). Not only is the ageing population of interest now,
it represents a social, health and economic issue for at least another 30 plus years with
the number and percentage of older people continuing to grow into the middle of the
21st century.
Society has reached an historical period in the population’s demographic profile focusing
nations on the need to support ageing and older people. There is international interest in
the demographic profile of older people in preparing to meet the needs of an older
society (Smith, 2009). Over half the world’s older population currently lives in urban
57
areas (51%) and the figure is projected to increase to 62% by 2050 (UN, 2003). These
trends should raise significant concerns given growing criticism and questioning of the
age-friendliness of urban areas and the ability to meet the current needs of an ever-
increasing urbanised ageing population (Zwingle in Smith, 2009). This impending global
phenomenon holds relevance for urban planning in creating liveable age-friendly urban
form that facilitates active ageing in place.
Theoretical, International and National Importance
In recent years, there has been increasing recognition of the need to improve the quality
of cities and neighbourhoods in reference to supporting an ever-increasing ageing
society. The Second World Assembly on Ageing held in Madrid 2002 adopted an
International Plan of Action on Ageing in response to the challenges and opportunities of
population ageing in the 21st century and to promote a society for all ages (Sidorenko and
Walker, 2004). One of the three key priority areas raised was to create enabling and
supportive environments (Sidorenko and Walker, 2004).
In 2006, the World Health Organisation (WHO) brought together 33 cities in 22 countries
for a research programme to help determine the key elements of the urban environment
that support active and healthy ageing. The result was The Global Age-Friendly Cities
Guide, which outlines a framework for assessing the “age-friendliness” of a city (WHO,
2007) and defines an age-friendly city as: “an inclusive and accessible urban environment
that promotes active ageing”. The WHO identified eight domains of city life that might
influence the health and quality of life of older people and these include:
Outdoor spaces and buildings
Housing
Transport
Social participation
Respect and social inclusion
Civic participation and employment
Communication and information
Community support and health services
Recognition and endorsement by influential international organisations like the WHO and
UN of the need to create a supportive environment for older people encourages
58
discussion of age-friendly communities (Sidorenko and Walker, 2004). For example,
initially through its Healthy Cities Project that commenced in 1986, the WHO emphasised
the relationship between health and the built, natural and social environments as well as
the role of local government in promoting active living for all ages (Edwards and Tsouros
in Lui et al., 2009). The Global Age-Friendly Cities Project has intensified renewed interest
in the concept of an age-friendly community in many countries.
It is widely recognised that an important aspect of positive and healthy ageing is
participation in activities outside the home and that urban design and planning can
influence participation (WHO, 2007; DoHA, 2006; Mitchell and Burton, 2006; Inclusive
Design for Getting Outdoors (IDGO), 2007a; 2007c). The age friendly cities agenda also
intersects with the recent emphasis on healthy cities, which recognises the important
role of planning and urban design in promoting health and well-being (NHF, 2004). These
areas of research and policy development are still in their infancy, but will become more
critical as the population ages (Judd et al., 2010).
While a decent environment is a right requiring no empirical justification, social policy
and social change needs to be driven by a better understanding of what constitutes a
‘decent’ environment in which older people are committed to ageing in place (Lawton in
Smith, 2009). The need to better understand older people’s experiences is in part driven
and supported by research that suggests that environment matters (Atkinson and Kintrea
in Smith, 2009; Brown et al., in Smith, 2009).
The research literature suggests that well-being in later life is closely related to the
physical environment, because environments can have a powerful enabling and disabling
impact on older age (Lui et al., 2009; Smith, 2009). With the increased losses associated
with later life due to the malleable process of ageing, the quality and type of
environment becomes a significant factor in determining the well-being and
independence of older people (Cunningham and Michael, 2004; Phillipson, 2004; House
of Lords Science and Technology Committee in Smith, 2009). Similarly, recent findings
from research undertaken within the discipline of urban studies confirm that the nature
of the neighbourhood has a significant impact on the mobility, independence and quality
of life of older people (numerous authors cited in Lui et al., 2009). Recognising that age
composition is a dimension of diversity, urban planning has moved to include
59
neighbourhood design and sophisticated conceptions of place, emphasising the value of
inclusive design for preserving heterogeneity in the community (Gilroy in Lui et al., 2009).
Environmental gerontology, the application of a multidisciplinary focus to the
relationship between older people and their socio-spatial environment, has been
increasing in importance over the past few decades (Lui et al., 2009; Smith, 2009). This
pluralistic focus has generated a wealth of data, developed a range of theoretical
concepts and frameworks and has encompassed empirical findings and mixed
methodological approaches (Wahl and Weisman, 2003). It therefore, has no standard
methodological or theoretical approach (Kendig, 2003) and thus provides both challenges
and opportunities for studying the environment and ageing (Smith, 2009).
While great gains in knowledge were made in environmental gerontology in the 1970s
and early 1980s, much of the work since has sought to verify and replicate findings
(Smith, 2009). Whal and Weisman (2003, 1) have observed that “environmental
gerontology may be described as a field high in conceptual aspiration (‘world views’) but
low with regard to making research and application-productive use of its theoretical
achievements”. Kendig (2003) identified the “astonishing paucity” of research beyond
the home environment in environmental gerontology theory. Indeed in Australia, the
importance of the role of the urban environment in supporting older people to age in
place has sometimes been overlooked due to the focus on the home itself and the
services provided therein (Quinn et al., 2009). Kendig (2003, 612) highlighted the
importance of extending research to cities and neighbourhoods, particularly in view of
“important macro-dimensions to change, such as aging of the baby boom cohort in post-
war suburbs”.
While research on the relationship between older people and their outdoor
environments is limited relative to work on the design of housing (Mitchell and Burton,
2006), there are a number of projects recently completed or currently in progress with
this topic area as their main focus. For example, the United Kingdom's Inclusive Design
for Getting Outdoors (IDGO, 2007a) research project is investigating how design of the
outdoor environment affects the quality of life of older people (Quinn et al., 2009). In-
depth interviews and focus groups have been conducted with older people across the UK
investigating matters related to their outdoor environments, and nearly 800 older people
60
have been surveyed as part of the project (IDGO, 2007b). This project aims to provide a
list of quality of life criteria relating to outdoor environments for older people as a guide
for the best design of outdoor environments to enhance older people's quality of life
(Mitchell and Burton, 2006).
Another research project run by the Well-being in Sustainable Environments (WISE)
research unit at the Oxford Centre for Sustainable Development has investigated
perceptions, experience and use of the outdoor environment by older people with
dementia, and identified design factors that influence their ability to successfully use and
negotiate their local neighbourhoods (Mitchell and Burton, 2006). Prior to this research,
little empirical attention had been given to the design of outdoor environments for
people with dementia. Earlier studies concentrated on designing supportive institutional
environments and, more recently, dementia-friendly housing (Quinn et al., 2009).
However, as there is a general desire among people with dementia to remain living at
home for as long as possible, and most do so, it is important that the design of their local
community supports their independence. The familiarity of their home and local
neighbourhood has been shown to assist them to better cope with their mental and
physical symptoms (Mitchell and Burton, 2006; Teri et al., 2003; Weuve et al., 2004).
In their positioning paper entitled Dwelling, land and neighbourhood use by older Home
Owners for the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Quinn and her
colleagues (2009) identified work on the design of the outdoor environment for older
people currently underway in Australia. This work respresents progress made in response
to a recommendation from the 2005-06 National Speakers Series A Community for All
Ages: Building the Future for the development of a planning guide for the design of
healthy Australian built environments. Development of this guide is being undertaken
jointly by the Planning Institute of Australia, the National Heart Foundation of Australia
(NHF) and the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA), along with the
Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA), and is using the NHF’s Healthy
by Design: A Planners Guide to Environments for Active Living as its starting point (Quinn
et al., 2009).
Spatial contexts where older people live and the meaning they attach to these spaces is a
critical component of studying the ageing process (Becker, 2003). Research into
61
environmental ageing is important because places can affect many aspects of daily life,
for example, feelings of safety and comfort, levels of independence, physical and mental
well-being, and social support (Lawton, 1985; 1986). According to McPherson (cited in
Smith, 2009) the type and quality of the environment can determine the level of personal
well-being and independence of older people who experience changes in marital status,
health or income.
Place
The meaning of place
The Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus (Tulloch, 1997, 674) defines place as “a particular
position or point in space: a location”. Cutchin (2005, 121) defines place as “a concept
that broadly refers to the ensemble of social, cultural, historic, political, economic and
physical features that make up the meaningful context of human life”. The literature
related to concepts of place that relate specifically to ageing presents a complex picture.
First, place has a physical dimension that can be seen and touched. It is spatial and
material with measurable dimensions. Second, place contains a social dimension
involving relationships with people, and the ways in which individuals remain connected
to others in various places. Finally, there is an emotional and psychological reaction to a
place, which has to do with a sense of belonging and attachment. The physical places of
community, neighbourhood and home are closely linked to social relationships with
associates, friends and family that exist within a specific place, creating the emotional or
psychological world where issues are resolved, challenges are met or a sense of
belonging is created or strengthened.
The terms place, neighbourhood and community are used interchangeably in popular
parlance to describe both a geographic area and area of interest (Hillery, 1968). No
single or widely agreed definition applies to any of these three terms. Scholars have
attempted to distinguish between neighbourhood and community through the concept
of place. Webber (1963) argued that the point of difference between community and
neighbourhood is that communities exist outside of place (community without
propinquity), whereas neighbourhoods are grounded in place within particular
geographical areas. Tuan (1990) considered place from the perspective of the user. He
found that place symbolised security and that it was created when space had undergone
human modifications, and people have experience within that place. Because this
section looks at liveability and older people’s ability or otherwise to age in place, it draws
62
on literature that reviews ageing in place through the use of either place, community or
neighbourhood. Therefore, for the purpose of the discussion on liveability and place, and
ageing in place, the terms place, neighbourhood and community are used either
collectively or individually for this review.
Place in Ageing
Place in ageing is concerned with understanding the meaning of place in the process of
ageing (Rowles, 1978; 1980; 1981; 1983). Connected to place in ageing is the idea of
emotive connection to place or place attachment (Wahl, 2001). Whereas ageing in place
focuses on the physical familiarity or process underlying the physical attachment to
place, place in ageing relates to the psychological reason underlying people’s desire to
stay in their present locality (Smith, 2009). Such understanding might be particularly
useful when trying to understand the reasons why people might desire to remain in
place.
Numerous studies have sought to understand place in relation to the development and
creation of meaning (Smith, 2009). Terms such as attachment to place, place attachment
and sense of place have all been used to denote the creation of positive experience and
memories (Rowles, 1980; 1983). Attachment to place has been defined as a “set of
feelings about a geographical location that emotionally binds a person to that place as a
function of its role as a setting of experience” (Rubinstein and Parmelee, 1992, 139).
Brown and Perkins (1992, 284) describe it differently, saying that:
…place attachment involves positively experienced bonds, sometimes occurring
without awareness, that are developed over time from the behavioural, affective
and cognitive ties between individuals and/or groups and their socio-physical
environment.
Place is argued to provide an individual with a rich tapestry of experiences and
memories; as one ages and possible health problems challenge identity, place can work
to reinforce one’s life and help the individual manage their present or future self
(Rubinstein and Parmelee, 1992). Disruption to place attachments can happen quickly
but create a “long-term phase of dealing with the loss and repairing or re-creating
attachments to people and places” (Brown and Perkins, 1992, 284). The physical
environment can present a backdrop against which the individual chooses to accept or
63
reject the self (Howell, 1983) and this is why place in the ageing process might be
particularly significant (Smith, 2009).
Rowles (1980) framed ideas of attachment within the term “insideness”. He identified
physical insideness, social insideness and autobiographical insideness. Physical
insideness relates to ageing in place which is discussed below in the next section. The
other two types of insideness (social and autobiographical) proposed by Rowles relate to
the emotive or sentimental meaning given to place in ageing (Smith, 2009). Social
insideness relates to the proclivity to form social affinity with a place or “integration
within the social fabric of the community” (Rowles, 1983, 302). This includes for
example, daily routines, rules and norms that operate and develop between others in the
household or outside the home with neighbours. Individuals are enabled to develop a
sense of belonging through participation in local culture, and through sharing in nurturing
the neighbourhood’s sense of group identification with place (Rowles, 1978; 1980; 1983).
Autobiographical insideness relates to our images of self and sense of identity as we grow
older, and as those around us age, we are inextricably intertwined with the places of our
lives. These places are selectively recalled as we reinforce our image of who we are
(Smith, 2009).
Ageing in Place
Ageing in place is about preference and self-determination (Sherman and Dacher, 2005;
Gabriel and Bowling, 2004; Godfrey et al., 2004). The research literature related to
ageing in place confirms that older people desire to age in place even when faced with
increased frailty (Wister, 2005; Rowles, 1978; 1980; Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD), 2003; Godfrey et al., 2004; Gabriel and Bowling,
2004;). It also confirms the benefit of liveable places, neighbourhoods or communities in
fostering safe and independent living for ageing adults (Lawton, 1985; Rowles, 1983;
Olsberg and Winters, 2005; Smith, 2009; Judd et al., 2010). Ageing in place is concerned
with understanding the physical process of ageing in a familiar environment – the
physical insideness (Rowles, 1980; 1983; Smith, 2009). Older people are able to benefit
from and remain more independent as a result of ageing in familiar environments,
especially as they become more frail (Heuman and Bold, 1993; Rowles, 1980; 1983). This
has largely attracted the attention of policy makers interested in assessing the economic
64
costs of housing an ageing society (Wister, 2005; Cutchin, 2003; OECD, 2003) and
meeting social care needs (Wanless, 2006).
It is generally accepted that ageing in place is optimal for both older people and the state
(Olsberg and Winters, 2005; Judd et al., 2010; Heuman and Bold, 1993). The
independence, health and well-being of older people are advanced by ageing in place and
there is a reduced economic burden on government through reduced demand for
institutionalised aged care. Ageing in place is increasingly endorsed by governments, not
just in Australia but also in New Zealand, North America, the United Kingdom,
Scandinavia and elsewhere in Europe, where there seems to be a general consensus that
the state’s role in welfare provision needs to be curtailed (De Vaus and Qu, 1997).
Government-provided services for the elderly were once viewed as an inviolable social
right, but there is now pressure on governments to reduce spending imposed by
economic globalisation (OECD, 2003).
Two reasons that could be important for ageing in place include physical necessity and
spatial restriction (Smith, 2009). There is pragmatism in ageing in place in a location
where one is fully cognisant of and integrated within a local service network and can
receive practical assistance from friends and neighbours (Rowles, 1981; 1983). Physical
attachment is one of the principal reasons underlying a need to age in place (Rowles,
1978; 1980; 1981; 1983; Rubinstein, 1989; Lawton, 1982; 1983; 1985; 1986). Acute
physical awareness of one’s own environment is most advantageous in cases of declining
functional health for maintaining independence and maximising physical function
(Rowles, 1978; 1981).
Successful adaption to increased spatial restriction brought about by declines in
functional health could be another underlying reason to age in place (Smith, 2009).
Environmental barriers and health restrictions have been found to increase spatial
restriction with ageing (Lawton, 1985; Rubinstein, 1989; Rowles, 1978). Such research
highlights that the process of ageing is made easier if one remains in place when spatial
restriction occurs (Smith, 2009). One benefit of ageing in place when this kind of
restriction occurs, relates to the role played by fantasy in terms of adaption and well-
being (Rowles, 1978). Rowles (1978) defined fantasy as the recollection of the past. It
can liberate an individual from any spatial considerations as fantasy supports personal
65
identity in the face of changes and adaption to health decline. It is achieved by locating
the person in the past as a healthy, active, independent person, thereby creating a
continuity of self (Rowles, 1978). It is suggested that fantasy and environmental
restructuring might not be achieved outside a familiar environment (Rowles, 1978). If
this is the case, ageing in place might be a prerequisite for successful adaptation to
increased spatial restriction and therefore physical attachment. It could also be argued
that urban environments fuel such fantasy due to their high energy nature, the culture of
the street and the sense of being at the centre of things all characteristic of postmodern
urban sensibility (see Ellin, 1996; Smith, 1996; Dear, 2000; Gratz, 2003).
Environment and Participation in Activities
There has been growing attention given to the neighbourhood environment and older
people’s everyday out-of-home mobility both in environmental gerontology (Day, 2010)
and across a wide range of disciplines including geography, urban studies, transport
studies and public health (Spinney et al., 2009; Burton and Mitchell, 2006; Feldman and
Oberlink, 2003; Sugiyama and Ward Thompson, 2007; Banister and Bowling, 2004;
Shendell et al., 2011; King et al., 2011). There is the recognition that well-being and
independence are positively correlated to out-of-home mobility in later life (Spinney et
al., 2009; Wahl et al., 2007; Sugiyama et al., 2009) and this relationship is embedded in
the discourse around healthy and active ageing (Ziegler and Schwanen, 2011; World
Health Organisation, 2002; 2007). Healthy ageing and active ageing differ from each
other in subtle ways, but they both highlight vitality, activity and resisting the negative
consequences of biological ageing (Schwanen and Ziegler, 2011). Various studies have
found that older people who are unable to move around freely because of a physical
disability or through environmental limitations have a lower quality of life (Wahl et al.,
2007; White et al., 2010).
A high level of accessibility in the outside environment (as well as the inside
environment) is required to age in place well. Building and maintaining liveable places,
neighbourhoods or communities is a core component of a positive approach to
supporting the increasing population of older people (Lui et al., 2009). Liveable places,
neighbourhoods or communities include availability of affordable and appropriate
housing, opportunities for civic engagement, provision of supportive place,
neighbourhood or community features and services, safe pedestrian environments, and
expansion of transportation options for residents (Hwang et al., 2008). While residing in
66
a liveable place, neighbourhood or community is an ideal that people aim to realise, it
takes a lot of hard work, diligence, and time by policy makers and residents to transform
the ideal into tangible reality. It is nearly impossible for individuals to change their
outside environments as easily as they are able to modify their own homes. Promoting
liveability requires the attention of local civic leaders, policy makers, service providers,
and advocates.
The need to create liveable environments is essential as poor neighbourhood features
are linked to lower levels of engagement and less successful ageing (Smith, 2009).
Neighbourhoods can significantly impact upon the mobility, independence, and quality of
life of ageing adults (Lui et al., 2009). Engagement and use of outdoor environments
have various benefits for people through participation in physical activity, exposure to
outdoor elements, and social interaction (Sugiyama and Ward Thompson, 2007). Jacobs
et al. (2008) found a link between the frequency with which older adults leave their
homes and subsequent functional health. Those who have a risk of falling are more likely
to stay in their homes and restrict their activity in the community because of their fear,
even before a fall occurs (Rubenstein, 2006; Anders et al., 2007; Sugiyama and Ward
Thompson, 2009). But when older people reduce their activity and mobility, they are
actually placing themselves at an increased risk for falling (Rubenstein, 2006). Routine
walking improves the gait and reduces the risks of falling which leads to broken bones,
social isolation and declining physical and mental health (Frumkin et al, 2004; McGuire et
al, 2004). Another implication of limiting activity is that it can lead to declining fitness
and health. Therefore, creating and sustaining a neighbourhood or community
environment conducive to an active lifestyle - where ageing adults can get around safely -
is beneficial to both their health and well-being. Eliminating potential hazards in the
outdoor environment and ensuring low levels of crime in the community assist in
providing a safe pedestrian environment. Ageing in place implies an enabling and
supportive environment (WHO, 2007; Smith, 2009).
The provision of services is especially important for older people as they need access to
shopping medical services, support services and transportation in order to continue to
age in place. In their study entitled Dwelling, land and neighbourhood use by older home
owners for the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Judd and his colleagues
(2010) confirmed that the design of the neighbourhood and provision of neighbourhood
67
facilities can enhance or inhibit participation (Judd et al., 2010). They found that
participation in shopping, banking and retail stood out as the most frequent (one or more
times per week) and important activities to be located near to the home. Although less
frequent, having medical and health facilities close to the home was also considered
important by a high percentage of their respondents. Other activities considered as
important to have in close proximity by more than half of their respondents included
visiting family and friends, having family and friends visit, sport and recreation,
volunteering, dining out and religious services (Judd et al., 2010).
Findings from research undertaken by Judd and colleagues’ (2010) suggest that older
Australian home owners wish to live in areas that are well serviced by a combination of
facilities. This aligns with the incorporation of mixed-use neighbourhoods within most
metropolitan strategic plans of major Australian cities — for example, the South East
Queensland Regional Plan (Office of Urban Management (OUM), 2004); the Sydney
Metropolitan Strategy (Department of Planning (DoP), 2005); and the Melbourne 2030
(Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE), 2005). This approach co-locates
residential and other uses around transport nodes, thus providing pedestrian access to
local retail, commercial, community and cultural facilities with related public open space.
This is also advocated in the healthy cities guidelines (NHF, 2004), which promotes “local
destinations to support lively, walkable and rideable neighbourhoods” (NHF, 2004:13).
Public health, urban planning and transportation research highlights the link between
urban form, physical activity and public health (Frank et al., 2003). Walking in particular
has been shown to have a positive influence on a range of health outcomes especially for
older people - including chronic conditions such as heart disease, some cancers and
diabetes (Prohaska et al., 2006). Walking is the main form of exercise for older
Australians, and in the context of public health, walking is the behaviour that is most
likely to be amenable to influence (Siegel et al., 1995). Older people are more likely to
participate in the recommended level of physical activity, improving their health and
increasing life satisfaction, when the design of their neighbourhood is safe and pleasant
so that it is easy and safe to go outdoors (IDGO, 2007a).
Walkability is prominent in Australian government policy for environmental, social and
economic objectives and substantial investment is being directed to increase walking for
68
transport, mixed-use neighbourhoods and pedestrian accessibility (Lee and Moudon,
2004). The importance of physical conditions, aesthetics, and comfort of the pedestrian
realm itself provide a useful strategy for tackling walkability issues in support of
environmental, social and economic goals within neighbourhoods (Maoh and
Kanaroglou, 2009).
Public transportation is vital for liveable places, neighbourhoods or communities to allow
older adults to remain independent and more actively engaged with neighbours and
friends, fostering ageing in place. Social ties to neighbours and friends grow initially in the
outdoor environment through repeated visual contacts, greetings, and short
conversations (Sugiyama and Ward Thompson, 2007). Gray (2009) found a positive link
between social support scores and neighbourhood contacts. He found that accessible or
liveable neighbourhoods or communities are those that are walkable and/or can provide
transportation (formally or informally), are safe, well-lit environments that help maintain
friendships, sustain social networks, and ensure continued opportunities to actively
participate in their neighbourhood or community (Gray, 2009).
Healthy ageing and successful ageing in place is a notion that encompasses a broad
spectrum of factors, well beyond physical health or freedom from disease. Successful
ageing is dictated by internal beliefs, viewpoints and highly individualised approaches to
healthy living. It also is dependent upon external dimensions that include social
networks, community services, public policies, and the built and natural environment
(National Council on Aging (NCOA), 2004).
Neighbourhood Design and Active Ageing in Place
The design of the urban environment has a major influence on older people’s
involvement in the community: access to social activities, services and amenities. It is not
just accessing facilities that is important. Access to amenities, diverse activities,
residential density and street connectivity have all been correlated with a person’s
decision to walk, rather than to drive or to stay home (Siegel et al., 1995; Saelens et al.,
2003). People who engage in physical activity are at least 20% more likely to consider
replacing car journeys with other modes of transport than sedentary respondents
(Badland and Schofield, 2006). As a matter of routine, this group is healthier, chooses to
drive less and also choose to live in Activity Friendly Communities, recognising the link
between environmental design and opportunities for physical activity and health
69
maintenance (Librett et al., 2007). People are attracted to destinations that are clusters
of mixed activities (Frank et al., 2003; Sallis, 2008), conscious of the importance of the
wider neighbourhood to their capacity to age in place and remain active as they age
(Judd et al., 2010; Quinn et al., 2009). Older people value convenient access to public
transport, retail, medical, community, cultural and recreational facilities; they require
well maintained and safe pedestrian networks, crossings and lighting at night, places to
walk, sit, have a cup of coffee and read the paper; and they need good seating, bus
shelters and public toilets (Judd et al., 2010). Leslie et al. (2005; 2007) found that
proximity and easy access to such amenities influence walking behaviour, as does
environmental aesthetics and perceptions of safety.
Approaches to planning the built environment enable or obstruct physical activity and
hinder or promote a healthy lifestyle (Powell, 2005; Lloyd and Auld, 2003). According to
Powell (2005), our built environment moulds our behaviours. Judd et al (2010) found that
some interviewees in their study were very satisfied with the design and facilities in their
neighbourhood and this encouraged their participation in activities outside the home. In
other areas where interviewees expressed concerns about the design of the public realm,
this did appear to discourage participation (Judd et al., 2010). Inadequate provision or
poor quality of paths of travel, transport nodes, public open space, access to public
buildings, street furniture, local cafes and public toilets were issues raised by some
interviewees, along with fear of crime and anti-social behaviour (Judd et al., 2010). With
mounting evidence that good neighbourhood design is associated with walking and more
physically active lifestyles, strategies to increase land-use mix while reducing time in a car
can be effective as health interventions (Frank et al., 2003).
Implications for policy and wellness maintenance programs are amplified as a public
health challenge as populations of developed countries like Australia and the US grow
increasingly more sedentary and obese (Sallis et al., 2004; Moudon et al., 2005).
Environmental or neighbourhood design has an important role to play in improving
physical activity and overall health in all segments of the population (Frank et al., 2007).
With the number of adults over 65 expected to double worldwide (UN, 2003), a
community that enables ageing in place through pedestrian friendly neighbourhoods,
streets and walkways will become even more desirable.
70
Community design that strategically supports active ageing by facilitating regular physical
activity has become a national focus and goal for many developed countries. Urban
design and land use policies and practices that are married with street and sidewalk
connectivity, lighting and aesthetic streetscapes promote walking, as do co-locating
compatible activities, such as schools, community centres and parks (Frumkin et al.,
2004; Heath et al., 2005). Policy initiatives that seek to enforce the permanent removal of
impediments to walking, including street crossings that do not allow older people or
disabled enough time to cross, deteriorating sidewalks or other physical barriers will be
instrumental in the older adult’s ability to age in place (Frumkin et al., 2004; Heath et al.,
2005). These issues also feature strongly in the healthy cities and age friendly cities
agenda (WHO, 2007; NHF, 2004; IDGO 2007a,c; Ritter et al., 2002) for improving the
design of cities and neighbourhoods, a task that needs to involve all levels of
government. In Australia, the Federal Government has already taken a lead in identifying
the design of urban environments as an important response to an ageing population via
DoHA’s National Speaker Series A Community for All Ages (DoHA, 2006). The importance
of the role of local government has been recognised by the Australian Local Government
Association (ALGA) which, with the support of DoHA, has published Age Friendly Built
Environments: Opportunities for Local Government (ALGA, 2006) and established the
website Planning for an Ageing Community which includes material on age-friendly built
environments for local government.
Neighbourhoods that limit the mobility of the elderly, people who use walkers or
wheelchairs or other persons with disabilities can hinder opportunities for physical
activity, reduce independence and compromise quality of life. Environmental design and
planning policies have the potential to immediately and positively affect the lives of a
significant proportion of these groups within the population, making this a reality that
demands due political attention (International City/County Managers Association (ICMA),
2005). Public health interventions that enhance physical activity and enable access to
destinations are recommended by ICMA (2005) and the Center for Disease Control and
Prevention (2009). Two Australian cities have participated in the WHO Age Friendly Cities
Project — Melbourne, Victoria, and Melville in the Perth metropolitan area, Western
Australia. The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) has also collaborated with the
Council of the Ageing (COTA) and the McCaughey Centre at Melbourne University in the
WHO project (MAV, undated, retrieved 1 July, 2010). A number of individual Local
71
Government Areas have adopted age-friendly planning, transport and housing strategies
(ALGA, 2006; MAV, undated, retrieved 1 July, 2010). Smart Growth, New Urbanist, Eco-
Village, Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and similar models serve the widest range
of citizens, with older people and people with disabilities being particularly poorly served
by urban sprawl (Frumkin et al., 2004). While the interests of older people intersect with
healthy city, urban design, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) and
sustainable city concepts and guidelines, there has been no systematic appraisal to date,
of how comprehensively these represent the interests and needs of older people — for
example, those with mild dementia (Mitchell and Burton, 2006). Whether a stand alone
set of guidelines or systematically incorporated into other broader guidelines, this is an
important task that is yet to be undertaken and would require the cooperation of all
levels of government (Judd et al., 2010).
There will be unprecedented pressures on communities as the growing population of
older people demand greater services and infrastructure. However, these challenges
could very well be overshadowed by the enormous share of social and human capital that
will be available by the largest, healthiest, best educated and most affluent generation of
older adults in history (Koff, 2008). Ageing in place is a widely held lifestyle preference
and a comprehensive strategy that ensures that communities are designed and equipped
to allow older adults to age with dignity in their own homes and still maintain an active
social life in their communities. However‚ making a community ageless requires the
collaboration of numerous players from the public, private and non-profit sectors
(Campoli and MacLean, 2007).
This review has revealed that the relationship between ageing, health and the design of
the urban environment is a relatively new area of research and policy attention linked to
the healthy cities (or healthy planning) debate. Its importance has been recognised by
governments, health and built environment professionals both overseas and in Australia
and work is underway on a national planning guide for the design of healthy Australian
built environments as recommended in DoHA’s National Speakers Series report. The
other significant initiative is the National Heart Foundation’s Healthy by Design
guidelines, which is supported by the Planning Institute of Australia.
72
This review has established that the design of the urban environment influences older
people's access to community facilities, amenities and transport, socialising with friends
and family, and participation in recreational activities, particularly walking for exercise.
The design of the urban environment can, therefore, like the design of the home,
enhance or limit older people’s safety and independence. Conversely, a poorly designed
environment can provide considerable barriers for older people. The literature review
has demonstrated that mixed use design for amenities and design of paths of travel,
transport, public buildings, open spaces, street fixtures and furniture and measures to
ensure easy wayfinding and safety and security are all important in contributing to a safe
and accessible urban environment for older people.
Theoretical Framework for the Research
One way to consider liveability and ageing in place is according to Maslow’s Hierarchy of
Needs Pyramid (Maslow, 1999) which begins with essential needs as the base and as
these are met, progressing through to more life enriching elements at higher levels of the
pyramid. Using this model, liveability is not achieved without the essential needs of
adequate shelter, nourishment and good public health conditions. Once these basic
survival needs are met, concerns for safety and security within the urban environment
become the focal point (Yuen, 2004; Lang, 1994; Lynch, 1981). Lang (1994) argued two
dimensions of safety and security needs in places – the physiological need and the
psychological need. He argued that safety needs in places involve physical, social and
economic security, including the need to dispel fears over material wants, social
vulnerability, inequity and injustice threats. When economic conditions are challenging
people are concerned with basic needs such as employment, food, shelter and security,
however, in strong economic times the focus switches to more life enriching
opportunities (Andrews, 2001). The need to belong, to establish and enjoy social
networks, community formation and cohesion and have settings which are conducive for
social activity has been recognised as important by many researchers and advocacy
groups (Jacobs, 1961; Whyte, 2001; Myers, 1987; 1988; Hampshire, 2000; PLC et al.,
1986). Needs for self-actualisation (Maslow, 1999) might include spiritual and personal
fulfilment needs. Understanding the role of built environments with regard to the
hierarchy of needs is important to improving place-based liveability.
73
Measures of age-friendliness (van Vliet, 2008; WHO, 2002; 2007; Neal and DeLa Torre,
2009) and liveability (Myers, 1987; Stevens, 2006; NRC, 2002) guided by local knowledge
and place-based cultures of use tend to be more relevant and are more likely to be
actioned than abstract generalities about liveability and age-friendliness requirements.
With the recognition that places are dynamic and in the constant process of evolving,
placed-based issues like liveability and age-friendliness then are usually best understood
by those embedded within place (Jacobs, 2004; van Vliet, 2008; Neal and DeLa Torre,
2009). Public consultation and participation can help make liveability and age friendly
cities research relevant and timely (NRC, 2002). Working with stakeholders, communities
and local governments in a participatory manner can also help build support and a sense
of ownership for findings and provide stimulus for change (WHO, 2007; Neal and DeLa
Torre, 2009; COTA, 2001). Attention to local patterns can help make liveability
measurement relevant for local planners and decision makers, who can then translate
findings into actionable and implementable policies, programs and designs (NRC, 2002).
Conclusion
This review of literature provides a range of perspectives on liveability, age-friendliness
and ageing in place. Much of it begins to overlap, pointing to similar conclusions. While
neighbourhood liveability is a complex multi-layered concept encompassing many
attributes, in its most basic form liveability comes down to place-based well-being for all
citizens. Considering liveable, age-friendly places through a theory or lens of daily life
requires addressing a few criteria to derive accurate definitional attributes to measure
those things that are truly important to the functioning of everyday life for older people.
A theory of the everyday or daily life has the great advantage of focussing attention on
the required elements, regular functioning and social use of place (Lefebvre, 1991; Diener
et al., 2003; Chiesura, 2004). This is reinforced by much of the research, discussed above,
which views liveability as the availability and accessibility of several key elements, such as
basic needs, local serving land uses, well programmed amenities, social services, specific
urban forms, and active social settings. These elements are perceived to be essential for
the regular daily activities associated with living in a particular place.
A liveable, age-friendly neighbourhood is one that provides its residents and users with
essential services and life enriching amenities within the immediate place. Great
liveable, age-friendly neighbourhoods operate holistically on social, economic and
74
environmental dimensions to enable successful ageing in place with secure and fulfilling
life experiences. To use the motto of the Birmingham Centre for Applied Gerontology
(first coined by its founding director, the late Bernard Isaacs), ‘Design for the young and
you exclude the old; design for the old and you include the young” (quoted in Haigh,
1993, 9). It is argued that this applies to all forms of design including urban design. To
determine these criteria, the work of the World Health Organisation (WHO, 2002; 2007)
and the National Research Council (NRC, 2002) provided information on gathering data
and measurements necessary for informed local decision making. This work has been
useful in guiding selection of liveability characteristics and methods that can lead to
effective policy and planning action within an everyday life focus or agenda for older
people.
The methods for the program of research of this thesis are outlined in the following
chapter. The research undertaken through this methodology explores and expands on
the major issues raised in this literature review and significantly contributes to the body
of knowledge related to community/neighbourhood liveability, age-friendliness and
active ageing in place for older high density residents.
75
Reference List Anders, J., Dapp, U., Laub, S., and von Renteln-Kruse, W. (2007). Impact of fall risk and
fear of failing on mobility of independently living senior citizens transitioning to
frailty: Screening results concerning fall prevention in the community. Zeitschrift
für Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 40(4), 255-267. doi: 10.1007/s00391-007-0473-z
Andrews, C. J. (2001). Analyzing Quality of Place. Environment & Planning B: Planning &
Design, 28, 201-217.
Argyle, M. (1999). Causes and correlates of happiness In S. Kahneman, E. Diener & N.
Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundation of hedonic psychology. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation. .
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2006). Population Projections 2004-2021, Cat No.
3222.0, from
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/3222.0Explanatory%20Not
es12004%20to%202101
Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS]. (2007). General Social Survey (GSS): Summary
Results Australia 2006 (Cat. No. 4159.0). Canberra Australian Bureau of Statistics,
[ABS]
Australian Local Government Association (ALGA). (2006). Age-Friendly built
Environments: Opportunities for Local Government. Canberra: ALGA.
Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB). (2004). Road Safety in Australia: A Publication
Commemorating World Health Day 2004, from
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/2004/pdf/Safety_A
ust.pdf
Badland, H., and Schofield, G. (2006). Perceptions of replacing car journeys with non-
motorized travel: Exploring relationships in a cross-sectional adult population
sample. Preventive Medicine, 43(3), 222-225.
Bakardjieva, M. (2003). Virtual Togetherness: an Everyday-life Perspective. Media Culture
Society, 25(3), 291-313. doi: 10.1177/0163443703025003001
Banerjee, T., and Baer, W. C. (1984). Beyond the Neighborhood Unit: Residential
Environments and Public Policy. New York: Plenum Press.
76
Banister, D., and Bowling, A. (2004). Quality of life for the elderly: the transport
dimension. Transport Policy, 11(2), 105-115. doi: 10.1016/s0967-070x(03)00052-
0
Beall, J., and Fox, S. (2009). Cities and development New York: Routledge.
Becker, G. (2003). Meanings of place and displacement in three groups of older
immigrants. Journal of Aging Studies, 17(2), 129-149.
Behan, K., Maoh, H., and Kanaroglou, P. (2008). Smart growth strategies, transportation
and urban sprawl: simulated futures for Hamilton, Ontario. The Canadian
Geographer, 52(3), 291-308.
Benevolo, L. (1980). The History of the City. London: Scolar Press.
Berke, E. M., Koepsell, T. D., Moudon, A. V., Hoskins, R. E., and Larson, E. B. (2007).
Association of the Built Environment With Physical Activity and Obesity in Older
Persons. American Journal of Public Health, 97(3), 486-492.
Biddulph, M. (2000). Villages Don't Make a City. Journal of Urban Design, 5(1), 65-82.
Biddulph, M., Franklin, B., and Tait, M. (2002). The Urban Village: A Real or Imagined
Contribution to Sustainable Development? Cardiff, Wales: City and Regional
Planning Cardiff University.
Bosselmann, P., Arens, E. A., Dunker, K., and Wright, R. (1990). Sun, Wind, and Pedestrian
Comfort: A Study of Toronto's Central Area. Toronto: City of Toronto,
Department of Planning and Development.
Boyer, C. (1983). Dreaming the Rational City. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Boyer, R., and Savageau, D. (1985). Places Rated Almanac: Your Guide to Finding the Best
Places to Live in America (2nd ed.). New York: Rand McNally.
Braham, P. (1996). Ch. 9: Divisions of Labor. In S. Hall, D. Held, D. Hubert & K. Thompson
(Eds.), Modernity: An Introduction to Modern Societies (pp. 307-342). Oxford, UK:
Blackwell Publishers.
Brower, S. (1996). Good Neighborhoods: A Study of In-Town and Suburban Residential
Environments. Westport, Conn: Praeger Publishers.
Brown, B. B., and Perkins, D. D. (1992). Disruptions in place attachment. In I. Altman & S.
Low (Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 279–304). New York: Plenum.
77
Buck, N. H., Gordon, I., and Hall, P. (2002). Working Capital: Life and Labour in Greater
London. London: Routledge.
Bullock, C. (2005). Higher density or open space : the future role of green space / In N.
Moore & M. Scott (Eds.), Renewing urban communities : environment, citizenship
and sustainability in Ireland Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
Burton, E., and Mitchell, L. (2006). Inclusive Urban Design: Streets for Life. Oxford:
Architectural Press.
Butler, T., and Robson, G. (2003). London Calling: The Middle Classes and the Remaking of
Inner London. Oxford: Berg.
Butler, T., and Savage, M. (1995). Social Change and the Middle Classes. London:
University College London Press.
Campoli, J., and MacLean, A. S. (2007). Visualizing Density. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln
Institute of Land Policy.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2009). National Center for Health
Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/otheract.htm.
Cervero, R. (2000). The Transit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry. Washington, DC: Island
Press.
Cervero, R., and Bernick, M. (1997). Transit Villages in the 21st Century. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Chapin, F. S., Jr, and Kaiser, E. J. (1979). Urban Land Use Planning (3rd ed.). Urbana:
University of Illinois Press.
Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 68(1), 129-138.
Christoff, P., and Low, N. (2000). Recent Australian urban policy and the environment:
green or mean? In N. Low, B. Gleeson, I. Elander & R. Lidskog (Eds.), Consuming
Cities (pp. 241-264). London: Routledge.
Clapson, M. (2003). Suburban century : social change and urban growth in England and
the United States Oxford ; New York: Berg.
Cobb, C., and Rixford, C. (2005). Historical background of community indicators. In R.
Phillips (Ed.), Community indicators measuring systems. Aldershot, Hants,
England: Ashgate.
78
Cooper Marcus, C., and Francis, C. (1998). People places: design guidelines for urban
open space (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Cooper Marcus, C., and Sarkissian, W. (1986). Housing as if People Mattered: Illustrated
Site Planning Guidelines for Medium-Density Family Housing. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Council on the Ageing. (2001 ). Response to Attitude, Life-style and Community Support:
Discussion paper for the National Strategy for an Ageing Australia.: Retrieved
from http://cotaover50s.org.au/acota/cotaAust/NSattitude.htm.
Cox, W. (2001). Livability: The How-It-Never-Was-New-Urbanist Illusion. Demographia.
Retrieved from http://demographia.com/dbc-livability.htm
Cunningham, G. O., and Michael, Y. L. (2004). Concepts guiding the study of the impact of
the built environment on physical activity for older adults: A review of the
literature. American Journal of Health Promotion, 18, 435-443.
Curtis, C., and Punter, J. (2004). Design-led sustainable development: The Liveable
Neighbourhoods experiment in Perth, Western Australia. The Town Planning
Review, 75(1), 31-65.
Cutchin, M. P. (2003). The process of mediated aging-in-place: a theoretically and
empirically based model. Social Science & Medicine, 57(6), 1077-1090.
Cutchin, M. P. (2005). Spaces for inquiry into the role of place for older people's care.
Journal of Clinical Nursing, 14(8b), 121-129.
Cutter, S. (1985). Rating Place: A Geographer's View on Quality of Life. Washington DC:
American Association of Geographers.
Dahmann, D. C. (1985). Assessments of Neighborhood Quality in Metropolitan America.
Urban Affairs Review, 20(4), 511-535.
Das, D. (2008). Urban Quality of Life: A Case Study of Guwahati. Social Indicators
Research, 88(2), 297-310.
Davison, A. (2006). Stuck in a Cul-de-Sac? Suburban History and Urban Sustainability in
Australia. Urban Policy and Research, 24(2), 201 - 216.
Day, R. (2010). Environmental justice and older age: consideration of a qualitative
neighbourhood-based study. Environment and Planning A, 42(11), 2658-2673.
79
de Certeau, M. (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
de Certeau, M., Giard, L., and Mayol, P. (1998). The Practice of Everyday Life, Volume 2:
Living and Cooking. Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota Press.
De Vaus, D., and Qu, L. (1997). Intergenerational transfers across the life course in
Australia. Bulletin on Ageing, 2&3, 12-18.
Dear, M. J. (2000). The postmodern urban condition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
DeNeve, K. M., and Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137
personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 197-
229.
Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA). (2006). A Community for All Ages: Building the
Future: The Report on the Findings and Recommentations of the National
Speakers Series Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Department of Planning (DoP). (2005). City of Cities: A Plan for Sydney's Future,
Metropolitan Strategy Supporting Information Sydney: NSW Department of
Planning.
Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE). (2005). Melbourne 2030 —
Planning for Sustainable Growth. Retrieved from
www.dse.vic.gov.au/melbourne2030online
Dernbach, J. C. (2009). Sustainable Development and the United States In J. C. Dernbach
(Ed.), Agenda for a sustainable America. Washington, D.C: ELI Press,
Environmental Law Institute.
Deshkar, S., Hayashia, Y., and Mori, Y. (2011). An alternative approach for planning the
resilient cities in developing countries. International Journal of Urban Sciences,
15(1), 1-14.
Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a
national index. American Psychologist, 55(1), 34-43.
Diener, E., and Lucas, R. E. (2000). Explaining Differences in Societal Levels of Happiness:
Relative Standards, Need Fulfillment, Culture, and Evaluation Theory. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 1(1), 41-78.
80
Diener, E., Oishi, S., and Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, Culture, and Subjective Well-
Being: Emotional and Cognitive Evaluations of Life. Annual Review of Psychology,
54(1), 403-425.
Dissart, J. C., and Deller, S. C. (2000). Quality of Life in the Planning Literature. Journal of
Planning Literature, 15(1), 135-161.
Downs, A. (2004). Growth management and affordable housing : do they conflict?
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Driskell, R. B., and Lyon, L. (2002). Are Virtual Communities True Communities?
Examining the Environments and Elements of Community. City & Community,
1(4), 373-390.
Duany, A., Plater-Zyberk, E., and Speck, J. (2000). Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl
and the Decline of the American Dream. New York: North Point Press.
Eisen, J. B. (2009). Brownfields Development: From Individual Sites to Smart Growth In J.
C. Dernbach (Ed.), Agenda for a sustainable America Washington, D.C: ELI Press,
Environmental Law Institute.
Ellin, N. (1996). Postmodern Urbanism. Oxford UK: Blackwell.
Etzioni, A. (1995). The Spirit of Community: Rights, Responsibilities and the
Communitarian Agenda. London: Fontana Press.
Evans, D. R. (1994). Enhancing Quality of Life in the Population at Large. Social Indicators
Research, 33, 47-88.
Evans, P. (2002). Livable Cities? Urban Struggles for Livelihood and Sustainability.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ewing, R. (1997). Is Los Angeles Style Sprawl Desireable. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 63(1), 107-126.
Feldman, P. H., and Oberlink, M. R. (2003). The AdvantAge initiative: developing
community indicators to promote the health and well-being of older people.
Family & Community Health, 26(4), 268-274.
Filion, P. (2003). Towards Smart Growth? The Difficult Implementation of Alternatives to
Urban Dispersion. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 12(1), Supplement pages
48-70.
81
Flint, A. (2009). Wrestling with Moses: How Jane Jacobs Took On New York's Master
Builder and Transformed the American City New York: Random House.
Frank, L. D., Engelke, P. O., and Schmid, T. L. (2003). Health and community design : the
impact of the built environment on physical activity. Washington, DC: London
Island Press.
Frank, L. D., Saelens, B. E., Powell, K. E., and Chapman, J. E. (2007). Stepping towards
causation: Do built environments or neighborhood and travel preferences explain
physical activity, driving, and obesity? Social Science & Medicine, 65(9), 1898-
1914.
Freilich, R. H. (1999). From sprawl to smart growth. Chicago Section of State and Local
Government. Law, American Bar Association.
Friedman, A. (2002). Planning the new suburbia : flexibility by design Vancouver: UBC
Press.
Friedman, J. (1987). Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Frugoni, C. (2005). A day in a medieval city. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Frumkin, H., Frank, L. D., and Jackson, R. (2004). Urban sprawl and public health :
designing, planning, and building for healthy communities. Washington, DC:
Island Press.
Gabriel, Z., and Bowling, A. N. N. (2004). Quality of life from the perspectives of older
people. Ageing & Society, 24(05), 675-691.
Gaynor, A. (2006). Harvest of the Suburbs Crawley: The University of Western Australia
Press.
Gehl, J. (1987). Life between Buildings, using Public Space. New York: Von Nostrand
Reinhold Company.
Gertz, C. (2003). Lessons from a landmark US policy for transportation, land use and air
quality, and implications for policy changes in other countries. International
Social Science Journal, 55(176), 307-317.
Gies, J. (1969). Life in a medieval city. London: Barker.
Girouard, M. (1985). Cities and People: A Social and Architectural History. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
82
Godfrey, M., Townsend, J., and Denby, T. (2004). Building a Good Life for Older People in
Local Communities: the experience of ageing in time and place Retrieved from
http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/socialcare/014.asp.
Goffman, E. (1972). Interaction ritual: essays on face-to-face behaviour. London: Allen
Lane.
Gordon, P., and Richardson, H. W. (1997). Are Compact Cities a Desirable Planning Goal?
Journal of American Planning Association, 63(1), 95-106.
Gottdeiner, M. (1985). The Social Production of Urban Space. Austin, TX: University of
Texas Press.
Grant, J. (2006). Planning the good community : new urbanism in theory and practice.
London ; New York: Routledge.
Grant, J. (2006a). The Ironies of New Urbanism. Canadian Journal of Urban Research,
15(2), 158-174.
Gratz, R. B. (2003). Authentic Urbanism and the Jane Jacobs Legacy. In P. Neal (Ed.),
Urban Villages and the Making of Communities. London/New York: Spon Press.
Gray, A. (2009). The social capital of older people. Ageing & Society, 29(01), 5-31.
Grayson, L., and Young, K. (1994). Quality of Life in Cities: An Overview and Guide to the
Literature. London: The British Library/London Research Centre.
Haigh, R. (1993). The ageing process: a challenge for design. Applied Ergonomics, 24(1), 9-
14.
Hamilton, P. (1996). Ch. 1: The Enlightenment and the Birth of Social Science. In S. Hall, D.
Held, D. Hubert & K. Thompson (Eds.), Modernity: An Introduction to Modern
Societies (pp. 19-54). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
Hamnett, C. (2003). Gentrification and the Middle-class Remaking of Inner London, 1961-
2001. Urban Stud, 40(12), 2401-2426.
Hampshire, A. (2000). Stronger communities and social connectedness - social capital in
practice. Paper presented at the The Council on the Ageing National Congress.
Harmon, D. E. (2008). Al Gore and Global Warming. New York: Rosen Publishing Group.
83
Healey, P. (2000). Planning Theory and Urban and Regional Dynamics: A Comment on
Yiftachel and Huxley. International Journal of Urban & Regional Research, 24(4),
917.
Heath, C., vom Lehn, D., and Hindmarsh, J. (2005). Rethinking interactivity: Design for
participation in museums and galleries. Retrieved from
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/schools/sspp/mgmt/research/wit
Henson, R., and Essex, S. (2003). The development, design, and evaluation of sustainable
local transport networks. International Social Science Journal, 55(2), 173-174.
Hester, R. (1975). Neighborhood Space. Stroudsburg PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.
Hester, R. (1984). Planning Neighborhood Space with People. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold.
Heumann, L., and Bold, D. (1993). Ageing in Place with Dignity: International Solutions to
the Low-income and Frail Elderly. London: Praeger.
Highmore, B. (2002). Introduction: Questioning Everyday Life. In B. Highmore (Ed.), The
Everyday Life Reader. London, UK: Routledge.
Hillery, G. A. (1968). Communal Organizations: A study of local societies. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Howard, E. (1945). Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London: Faber & Faber.
Howell, S. C. (1983). The meaning of place in old age. In G. D. Rowles & R. J. Ohta (Eds.),
Aging and milieu: Environmental perspectives on growing old (pp. 97-107). New
York: Academic Press.
Hwang, E., Glass, A. P., Gutzmann, J., and Shin, K. J. (2008). The Meaning of a Livable
Community for Older Adults in the United States and Korea. Journal of Housing
For the Elderly, 22(3), 216-239.
Inclusive Design for Getting Outdoors (IDGO). (2007a). Older People and the Outdoors,
from http://www.idgo.ac.uk/older_people_outdoors/index.htm
Inclusive Design for Getting Outdoors (IDGO). (2007b). Research Methods and Tools,
from http://www.idgo.ac.uk/theories_and_methods/researchtools.htm
Inclusive Design for Getting Outdoors (IDGO). (2007c). What are the Critical Issues, from
http://www.idgo.ac.uk/older_people_outdoors/critical_issues.htm
84
Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
International City/County Managers Association (ICMA). (2009). Getting To Smart
Growth: 100 Policies for Implementation. Prepared for ICMA by the Smart
Growth Network, from http://www.smartgrowth.org/pdf/gettosg.pdf
Isaacs, R. R. (1948). The Neighborhood Theory: An Analysis of its Adequacy. Journal of
American Institute of Planning 14(2), 12-23.
Jacobs, A. B., Macdonald, E., and Rofé, Y. (2002). The boulevard book : history, evolution,
design of multiway boulevards Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. London: Jonathan Cape.
Jacobs, J. (2004). Dark Age Ahead. New York: Random House.
Jacobs, J. M., Cohen, A., Hammerman-Rozenberg, R., Azoulay, D., Maaravi, Y., and
Stessman, J. (2008). Going Outdoors Daily Predicts Long-Term Functional and
Health Benefits Among Ambulatory Older People. Journal of Aging and Health,
20(3), 259-272.
Jenks, M., Burton, E., and Williams, K. (1996). Compact Cities: A Sustainable Urban Form?
London: E & FN Spon.
Judd, B., Olsberg, D., Quinn, J., Groenhart, L. a., and Demirbilek, O. (2010). Dwelling, land
and neighbourhood use by older home owners AHURI Final Report Melbourne,
Vic: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, UNSW-UWS Research
Centre.
Katz, P. (1994). The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Community. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Kaufmann, V., and Jemelin, C. (2003). Coordination of land-use planning and
transportation: how much room to manoeuvre? International Social Science
Journal, 55(2), 295-305.
Keller, S. (1968). The Urban Neighborhood: A Sociological Perspective. New York:
Princeton University Press / Random House.
Kendig, H. (2003). Directions in environmental gerontology: A multidisciplinary field. The
Gerontologist, 43(5), 611.
85
King, A. C., Sallis, J. F., Frank, L. D., Saelens, B. E., Cain, K., Conway, T. L., . . . Kerr, J. (2011).
Aging in neighborhoods differing in walkability and income: Associations with
physical activity and obesity in older adults. Social Science & Medicine,
73(10), 1525-1533.
Koff, R. (2008). Engaging Older Adults Through Arts and Culture. Report for Partners for
Livable Communities and National Association of Area Agencies on Aging.
Washington, DC: Metlife Foundation.
Kushner, J. A. (2007). Healthy cities : the intersection of urban planning, law and health
Durham, N.C: Carolina Academic Press.
Lambright, W. H., Chjangnon, S. A., and Harvey, L. D. D. (1996). Urban reactions to the
global warming issue: Agenda setting in Toronto and Chicago. Climatic Change,
34(3), 463-478.
Lawton, M. P. (1982). Competence, environmental press, and the adaptation of older
people. In M. P. Lawton, Windley, P.G., Byerts, T.O. (Ed.), Aging and the
environment: theoretical approaches (pp. 33-49). New York: Springer.
Lawton, M. P. (1983). Environment and Other Determinants of Well-Being in Older
People. The Gerontologist, 23(4), 349-357.
Lawton, M. P. (1985). The Elderly in Context. Environment and Behavior, 17(4), 501-519.
Lawton, M. P. (1986). Environment and Aging. New York: Springer.
Lee, C., and Moudon, A. V. (2004). Physical Activity and Environment Research in the
Health Field: Implications for Urban and Transportation Planning Practice and
Research. Journal of Planning Literature, 19(2), 147-181.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). Everyday Life in the Modern World. New Brunswick NJ: Transaction
Publishers.
Leslie, E., McCrea, R., Cerin, E., and Stimson, R. (2007). Regional Variations in Walking for
Different Purposes: The South East Queensland Quality of Life Study.
Environment and Behavior, 39(4), 557-577.
Leslie, E., Saelens, B., Frank, L., Owen, N., Bauman, A., Coffee, N., and Hugo, G. (2005).
Residents' perceptions of walkability attributes in objectively different
neighbourhoods: a pilot study. Health & Place, 11(3), 227-236.
86
Lever, J. P. (2000). The Development of an Instrument to Measure Quality of Life in
Mexico City. Social Indicators Research, 50(2), 187-208.
Librett, J. J., Yore, M. M., Schmid, T. L., and Kohl Iii, H. W. (2007). Are self-reported
physical activity levels associated with perceived desirability of activity-friendly
communities? Health & Place, 13(3), 767-773.
Lloyd, K., and Auld, C. (2003). Leisure, public space and quality of life in the urban
environment. Urban Policy and Research, 21(4), 339 - 356.
Lofland, L. (1998). The Public Realm. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Logan, J. R., and Molotch, H. L. (1987). Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place.
Berkeley CA: University of California Press.
Lotfi, S., and Koohsari, M. (2009). Analyzing Accessibility Dimension of Urban Quality of
Life: Where Urban Designers Face Duality Between Subjective and Objective
Reading of Place. Social Indicators Research, 94(3), 417-435.
Lui, C.-W., Everingham, J.-A., Warburton, J., Cuthill, M., and Bartlett, H. (2009). What
makes a community age-friendly: A review of international literature.
Australasian Journal on Ageing, 28(3), 116-121.
Lynch, K. (1960). Image of the City. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Lynch, K. (1981). Good City Form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Madanipour, A. (2001). How Relevant is 'Planning by Neighbourhoods' Today? Town
Planning Review, 72(2), 171-189.
Maffesoli, M. (1993). Everyday Life. In W. Outhwaite, T. Bottomore & e. al (Eds.), The
Blackwell Dictionary of Twentieth Century Social Thought. Oxford, UK: Blackwell
Publishers.
Magnaghi, A. (2005). The urban village : a charter for democracy and local self-
sustainable development. London: Zed Books.
Maldonado, T., and Cullars, J. (1991). The Idea of Comfort. Design Issues, 8(1), 35-43.
Mannheim, K. (1992). Essays on the sociology of culture. London; New York: Routledge.
Maoh, H., and Kanaroglou, P. (2009). A Tool for Evaluating Urban Sustainability via
Integrated Transportation and Land Use Simulation Models. Environnement
Urbain/Urban Environment, 3, a-28- a-46.
87
Markusen, A., and Glasmeier, A. (2008). Rejoinder: History, Leadership, Place Prosperity,
Rationales, Competitiveness, Outcomes: A Response to Drabenstott, Finkle, John,
and Singerman. Economic Development Quarterly, 22(2), 115-118.
Marlin, J. T., Avery, J. S., and Collins, S. T. (1983). The Book of American City Rankings.
New York: Facts on File.
Marrans, R. W. (1979). The Determinants of Neighborhood Quality: Institute for Social
Research, Univ. of Michigan / US Dept of Housing and Urban Development -
Office of Policy Development and Research.
Maslow, A. H. (1999). Toward a psychology of being New York J. Wiley & Sons.
May, D. (2007). Determinants of Well-being. Retrieved from
http://www.neighbourhoodaccounts.ca/communityaccounts/onlinedata/pdf_file
s/DeterminantsOfWellBeing-06.pdf
McCann, E. J. (2007). Inequality and Politics in the Creative City-Region: Questions of
Livability and State Strategy. International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research, 31(1), 188-196.
McDowell, L., Ward, K., Perrons, D., Ray, K., and Fagan, C. (2006). Place, Class and Local
Circuits of Reproduction: Exploring the Social Geography of Middle-class
Childcare in London. Urban Stud, 43(12), 2163-2182. doi:
10.1080/00420980600936509
McGuire, F. A., Boyd, R. K., and Tedrick, R. E. (2004). Leisure and aging. Champaign, IL:
Sagamore.
McKee, G. A. (2007). Blue Sky Boys, Professional Citizens, and Knights-in-Shining-Money:
Philadelphia's Penn Center Project and the Constraints of Private Development.
Journal of Planning History, 6(1), 48-80.
McManus, P. (2005). Vortex Cities to Sustainable Cities: Australia’s urban challenge
Sydney: UNSW.
McNulty, R. H. (2006). Measuring Creativity, Happiness and Wellbeing, from conference
link: http://www.accfhk.org/eng/2006_open_forum.htm transcript link:
http://www.accfhk.org/ACCF2006%20Transcript/Session%203/Robert%20HOLM
ES%20McNULTY.pdf
88
Mitchell, L., and Burton, E. (2006). Neighbourhoods for life: designing dementia-friendly
outdoor environments. Quality in Ageing, 7(1), 26-33.
Moore, N. (2005). Re-greening brownfields : land recycling and urban sustainability. In N.
Moore & M. Scott (Eds.), Renewing urban communities : environment, citizenship
and sustainability in Ireland Aldershot, England Ashgate.
Moore, N., and Scott, M. (2005). Towards a sustainable future for Irish towns and cities
In N. Moore & M. Scott (Eds.), Renewing urban communities : environment,
citizenship and sustainability in Ireland Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
Moran, A. (2006). The Tragedy of Planning Melbourne: The Institute of Public Affairs.
Moran, A., and Staley, L. (2007). Locked Out: How Victoria’s land supply laws are keeping
young people out of the housing market, Occasional Paper. Melbourne: The
Institute of Public Affairs.
Moreno, M., and Ruiz, J. P. (2008). Sustainability of Urban Transport: Common Strategies
and Individual Actions / In L. C. Heberle & S. M. Opp (Eds.), Local sustainable
urban development in a globalized world Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
Morrish, W., and Brown, C. (1994). Planning to Stay: Learning to See the Physical Features
of your Neighborhood. Minneapolis, MN: Milkweed Editions.
Moudon, A. V., Lee, C., Cheadler, A.D., Collier, C.W., Johnson, D., Schmid, T.L. Weather,
R.D. . (2005). Cycling and the built environment, a US perspective. Transportation
Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 10(3), 245-261.
Moudon, A. V., Hess, P. M., Matlick, J., and Pergakes, N. (2002). Pedestrian Location
Identification Tools: Identifying Suburban Areas with Potentially High Latent
Demand for Pedestrian Travel. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, 1818(-1), 94-101.
Mumford, L. (1961). The City in History: Its Origins, Its Transformation, and its Prospects.
New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV). (undated). Age Friendly Environments: WHO
Global Age-Friendly Cities Project Retrieved from http://www.mav.asn.
Myers, D. (1987). Community-Relevant Measurement of Quality of Life: A Focus on Local
Trends. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 23(1), 108-125.
89
Myers, D. (1988). Building Knowledge about Quality of Life for Urban Planning. Journal of
American Planning Association, 54(3), 347-358.
Myers, D. (1989). The Ecology of 'Quality of Life' and Urban Growth. In D. J. Brower & D.
R. Godschalk (Eds.), Understanding Growth Management: Critical Issues and
Research Agenda. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.
Myers, D. G., and Diener, E. (1995). Who is Happy? Psychological Science, 6(1), 10-19.
National Association of Area Agencies on Aging (n4a), Partners for Livable Communities,
and MetLife Foundation. (2007). A Blueprint for Action: Developing a Livable
Community for All Ages, from http://www.n4a.org/pdf/07-116-n4a-
blueprint4actionwcovers.pdf
National Council on Aging (NCOA). (2004). Improving the Lives of Older Americans.
Washington CD: NCOA Retrieved from
http://www.ncoa.org/content.cfm/content.dfm?sectionid=131.
National Heart Foundation of Australia (Victoria Division) (NHF). (2004). Healthy by
Design: A Planners Guide to Environments for Active Living. Melbourne: NHF.
National Research Council. (2002). Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for
Informed Decision-Making. Washington, DC: Board on Earth Sciences and
Resources, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council, National
Academy Press.
Neal, M. B., and DeLaTorre, A. (2009). The WHO Age-Friendly Cities project: a global
effort to understand what works locally. Generations, 33(2), 74-75.
Neal, P. (2003). Urban Villages and the Making of Communities. London: Spon Press w/
the Prince's Foundation.
Newman, D. M. (2008). Sociology : exploring the architecture of everyday life Thousand
Oaks, Calif: Pine Forge Press
Newman, O. (1973). Personal Space. New York: Macmillan.
Office of Urban Management (OUM). (2004). Draft South East Queensland Regional Plan
2005–2026 Brisbane: Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and
Recreation.
Oldenburg, R. (1999). The Great Good Place. New York: Paragon House.
90
Olsberg, D., and Winters, M. (2005). Ageing in place: intergenerational and intrafamilial
housing transfers and shifts in later life. Melbourne: Australian Housing and
Urban Research Institute Swinburne-Monash Research Centre.
Olshansky, S. J., Biggs, S., Achenbaum, W. A., Davison, G. C., Fried, L., Gutman, G., . . .
Butler, R. N. (2011). The Global Agenda Council on the Ageing Society: Policy
Principles. Global Policy, 2(1), 97-105.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2003). Economic
Surveys Paris: OECD.
Owen, N., Cerin, E., Leslie, E., Du Toit, L., Coffee, N., Frank, L. D., . . . Sallis, J. F. (2007).
Neighborhood Walkability and the Walking Behavior of Australian Adults.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 33(5), 387-395.
Pacione, M. (1990). Urban liveability: A review. Urban Geography, 11(1), 1-30.
Pacione, M. (2003). Urban environmental quality and human wellbeing—a social
geographical perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65(1-2), 19-30.
Parmenter, T. R. (1994). Quality of life as a concept and measurable entity. Social
Indicators Research, 33(1), 9-46.
Partners for Livable Communities. (2000). The Livable City: Revitalising Urban
Communities. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Partners for Livable Communities, McNulty, R. H., Penne, L., and Jacobson, D. R. (1986).
The Return of the Livable City: Learning from America's Best. Washington, DC:
Annapolis Books.
Peiro, A. (2006). Happiness, satisfaction and socio-economic conditions: Some
international evidence. Journal of Socio-Economics, 35(2), 348-365.
Perkins, R. (1995). Vancouver: Complete Communities for the Liveable Region
Intensification Report: Canadian Urban Institute.
Phillipson, C. (2004). Urbanisation and ageing: Towards a new environmental
gerontology. Ageing & Society, 24(06), 963-972.
Porter, D. R., Dunphy, R. T., and Salvesen, D. (2002). Making smart growth work.
Washington, D.C. : Urban Land Institute.
91
Powell, K. E. (2005). Land use, the built environment, and physical activity: A public
health mixture; a public health solution. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 28(2, Supplement 2), 216-217.
Prohaska, T., Belansky, E., Belza, B., and Buchner, D. (2006). Physical Activity, Public
Health, and Aging: Critical Issues and Research Priorities. The Journals of
Gerontology, 61B(5), S267.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone : the collapse and revival of American community.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Quinn, J., Judd, B., Olsberg, D. a., and Demirbilek, O. (2009). Dwelling, land and
neighbourhood use by older home owners AHURI Positioning Paper No. 111.
Melbourne, Vic: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, UNSW-UWS
Research Centre.
Rabinowitz, A. (2004). Urban economics and land use in America : the transformation of
cities in the twentieth century. Armonk, N.Y: M.E. Sharpe.
Raco, M. (2007). Securing sustainable communities - Citzenship, safety and sustainability
in the new urban planning. European Urban and Regional Studies, 14(4), 305-320.
Relph, E. (1987). The Modern Urban Landscape. London: Croom & Helm.
Ritter, A., Straight, A., and Evans, E. (2002). Understanding Senior Transportation: Report
and Analysis of a Survey of Consumers Age 50+. Washington CD: AARP Public
Policy Institute.
Ritzer, G. (1993). The McDonaldization of society : an investigation into the changing
character of contemporary social life. Newbury Park, Calif: Pine Forge Press.
Rogerson, R. J., and Tremblay, R. (2008). Places Rated Almanacs and roll out
neoliberalism. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(5), 52.
Rohe, W. (2009). From Local to Global: One Hundred Years of Neighborhood Planning.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 75(2), 209-230.
Romney, D. M., Brown, R. I., and Fry, P. S. (1994). Improving the quality of life:
Prescriptions for change. Social Indicators Research, 33(1), 237-272.
Rowles, G. D. (1978). Prisoners of space?: Exploring the geographical experience of older
people Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
92
Rowles, G. D. (1980). Growing old "inside": Aging and attachment to place in an
Appalachian community. In N. Datan & N. Lohmann (Eds.), Transitions of aging.
New York: Academic Press.
Rowles, G. D. (1981). The surveillance zone as meaningful space for the aged. The
Gerontologist, 23, 304-311.
Rowles, G. D. (1983). Place and personal identity in old age: Observations from
Appalachia. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3(4), 299-313.
Rubenstein, L. Z. (2006). Falls in older people: epidemiology, risk factors and strategies
for prevention.(Author abstract). Age and Ageing, 35(5), ii37(35).
Rubinstein, R. L. (1989). The Home Environments of Older People: A Description of the
Psychosocial Processes Linking Person to Place. Journal of Gerontology, 44(2),
s45-s53.
Rubinstein, R. L., and Parmelee, P. A. (1992). Attachment to place and the representation
of the life course by the elderly. In I. Altman & S. M. Low (Eds.), Place attachment
(pp. 139-163). New York: Plenum.
Russell, P., Scott, M., and Redmond, D. (2005). Active citizenship : resident associations,
social capital and collective action In N. Moore & M. Scott (Eds.), Renewing urban
communities : environment, citizenship and sustainability in Ireland. Aldershot,
England: Ashgate.
Saelens, B. E., Sallis, J. F., and Frank, L. D. (2003). Environmental Correlates of Walking
and Cycling: Findings from the Transportation, Urban Design and Planning
Literatures. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 25(2), 80-91.
Salkin, P. (2009). Land Use: Blending Smart Growth With Social Equity and Climate
Change Mitigation In J. C. Dernbach (Ed.), Agenda for a sustainable America
Washington, D.C.: ELI Press, Environmental Law Institute.
Sallis, J. F. (2008). Angels in the details: Comment on "The relationship between
destination proximity, destination mix and physical activity behaviors".
Preventive Medicine, 46(1), 6-7.
Savage, M., Bagnall, G., and Longhurst, B. (2005). Globalisation and Belonging. London:
Sage.
93
Sawicki, D. S., and Flynn, P. (1996). Neighborhood Indicators: A Review of the Literature
and an Assessment of Conceptual and Methodological Issues. Journal of the
American Planning Association, 62(2), 165 - 183.
Schmandt, H. J., and Bloomberg, W. (1969). The quality of urban life Beverly Hills CA:
Sage.
Schwanen, T., and Ziegler, F. (2011). Wellbeing, independence and mobility: an
introduction. Ageing & Society, 31(05), 719-733.
Sen, A. (1993). Capability and Well-Being. In M. Nassbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The Quality of
Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Shaw, J. S., and Utt, R. D. (2000). A Guide to Smart Growth: Shattering Myths and
Providing Solutions. Washington, DC: Heritage and Bozeman, Montana: Property
and Environment Research Center.
Sheehan, B., Burton, E., and Mitchell, L. (2006). Outdoor wayfinding in dementia.
Dementia, 5(2), 271-281.
Shendell, D. G., Johnson, M. L., Sanders, D. L., Nowakowski, A. C., Yang, J., Jeffries, C. D., .
. . Moulding, M. (2011). Community built environment and mobility around
senior wellness centers: the concept of "safe senior zones". Journal of
Environmental Health, 73(7), 9-18.
Sidorenko, A., and Walker, A. (2004). The Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing:
from conception to implementation. Ageing & Society, 24(02), 147-165.
Siegel, P. Z., Brackbill, R. M., and Heath, G. W. (1995). The epidemiology of walking for
exercise: implications for promoting activity among sedentary groups. Am J
Public Health, 85(5), 706-710.
Silver, C. (1985). Neighborhood Plannin in Historical Perspective. Journal of American
Planning Association, 51, 161-174.
Sitte, C. (1965). City Planning according to Artistic Principles. London: Phaidon.
Smith, A. E. (2009). Ageing in urban neighbourhoods : place attachment and social
exclusion. Bristol, UK ; Portland, OR: Policy.
Smith, N. (1996). The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City. London:
Routledge.
94
Southworth, M. (2005). Designing the Walkable City. Journal of Urban Planning and
Development, 131(4), 246-257.
Southworth, M., and Ben-Joseph, E. (1997). Streets and the Shaping of Towns and Cities.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Southworth, M., and Parthasarathy, B. (1996). The suburban public realm I: Its
emergence, growth and transformation in the American metropolis. Journal of
Urban Design, 1(3), 245-263.
Spender, J.-C. (1996). Ch. 1. Villain, victim or visionary?: The insights and flaws in F. W.
Taylor's ideas Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Spinney, J. (2009). Cycling the city: movement, meaning and method. Geography
Compass, 3(2), 817-835.
Stevens, Q. (2006). The shape of urban experience: a reevaluation of Lynch’s five
elements. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 33(6), 803-823.
Sugiyama, T., Thompson, C., and Alves, S. (2009). Associations Between Neighborhood
Open Space Attributes and Quality of Life for Older People in Britain.
Environment and Behavior, 41(1), 3-21.
Sugiyama, T., and Ward Thompson, C. (2007). Outdoor environments, activity and the
well-being of older people: conceptualising environmental support. Environment
and Planning A, 39(8), 1943-1960.
Talen, E. (2005). New urbanism and American planning : the conflict of cultures New York:
Routledge.
Teri, L., Gibbons, L. E., McCurry, S. M., Logsdon, R. G., Buchner, D. M., Barlow, W. E., . . .
Larson, E. B. (2003). Exercise Plus Behavioral Management in Patients With
Alzheimer Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA, 290(15), 2015-2022.
Tesfazghi, E., Martinez, J., and Verplanke, J. (2009). Variability of Quality of Life at Small
Scales: Addis Ababa, Kirkos Sub-City. Social Indicators Research.
Tuan, Y.-F. (1990). Topophilia: A study of environmental perception, attitudes and values.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Tulloch, S. (1997). The Oxford dictionary and thesaurus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
95
Türksever, A. N. E., and Atalik, G. (2001). Possibilities and Limitations for the
Measurement of the Quality of Life in Urban Areas. Social Indicators Research,
53(2), 163-187.
United Nations. (2003). Political Declaration and Madrid International Plan of Action on
Ageing. New York: Department of Public Information.
United Nations Development Program. (1995). Human Development Report. New York:
Oxford University Press.
van Vliet, W. (1987). Housing and neighborhoods : theoretical and empirical
contributions. New York: Greenwood Press.
van Vliet, W. (2008). Creating Livable Cities for All Ages: Intergenerational Strategies and
Initiatives1. Paper presented at the UN-Habitat’s Global Dialogue on Harmonious
Cities for All Age Groups at the World Urban Forum IV, Nanjing. Retrieved from
http://www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/6264_30721_CreatingLivableCitiesfo
rAllAges.pdf
Veenhoven, R., and Ehrhardt, J. (1995). The cross-national pattern of happiness: Test of
predictions implied in three theories of happiness. Social Indicators Research,
34(1), 33.
Wahl, H.-W. (2001). Environmental Influences on Aging and Behavior. In J. E. Birren & K.
W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (5th ed. ed., pp. xx, 677
p.). San Diego, Calif.: Academic Press.
Wahl, H.-W., Mollenkopf, H., Oswald, F., and Claus, C. (2007). Environmental aspects of
quality of life in old age: conceptual and empirical issues. In H. Mollenkopf & A.
Walker (Eds.), Quality of Life in Old Age: International and Multidisciplinary
Perspectives (pp. 101–122). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Wahl, H.-W., and Weisman, G., D. (2003). Environmental gerontology at the beginning of
the new millennium: Reflections on its historical, empirical, and theoretical
development. The Gerontologist, 43(5), 616.
Wanless, D. (2006). Securing Good Care for Older People: Taking a Long-Term View
London: Kings Fund.
96
Ward Thompson, C., Sugiyama, T., Alves, S., Southwell, K. . (2007). Inclusive Design for
Getting Outdoors (IDGO) Parks and Open Spaces: Design Findings and
Recommendations. , from
http://www.idgo.ac.uk/design_guidance/open_spaces.htm
Webber, M. M. (1963). Order in Diversity: Community without Propinquity. In J. Wingo,
Lowdon (Ed.), Cities and Space: The Future Use of Urban Land (pp. 23-56).
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Weuve, J., Kang, J. H., Manson, J. E., Breteler, M. M. B., Ware, J. H., and Grodstein, F.
(2004). Physical Activity, Including Walking, and Cognitive Function in Older
Women. JAMA, 292(12), 1454-1461.
Wheeler, S. (1999). Planning Sustainable and Livable Cites. In R. T. LeGates & F. Stout
(Eds.), The City Reader (pp. 434-445). London: Routledge.
Wheeler, S. (2001). Livable Communities: Creating Safe and Livable Neighborhoods,
Towns, and Regions in California. UC Berkeley, Berkeley. Retrieved from
http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/8xf2d6jg
White, D. K., Jette, A. M., Felson, D. T., Lavalley, M. P., Lewis, C. E., Torner, J. C., . . .
Keysor, J. J. (2010). Are features of the neighborhood environment associated
with disability in older adults? Disability and Rehabilitation, 32(8), 639-645.
Whyte, W. H. (2001). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. New York: Project for Public
Spaces.
Wister, A. V. (2005). The Built Environment, Health, and Longevity. Journal of Housing For
the Elderly, 19(2), 49-70.
Wolfensohn, J. D. (1997). Livable Cities for the 21st Century: The Post Habitat II Agenda
for the World Bank. Retrieved from
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/ORGANIZATION/EX
TPRESIDENT2007/EXTPASTPRESIDENTS/PRESIDENTEXTERNAL/0,,contentMDK:20
040615~menuPK:232083~pagePK:159837~piPK:159808~theSitePK:227585,00.ht
ml
World Health Organisation (WHO). (2002). Active Ageing: A Policy Framework. Retrieved
from http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2002/WHO_NMH_NPH_02.8.pdf
World Health Organisation (WHO). (2007). Global Age Friendly Cities: A Guide. Geneva:
WHO.
97
Wulff, M., and Lobo, M. (2009). The New Gentrifiers: The Role of Households and
Migration in Reshaping Melbourne's Core and Inner Suburbs. Urban Policy and
Research, 27(3), 315-331.
Yabes, R., and Pijawka, D. (2008). Public Participation in Achieving Sustainability in
Central City Neighborhoods In L. C. Heberle & S. M. Opp (Eds.), Local sustainable
urban development in a globalized world. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
Yuen, B. (2004). Safety and dwelling in Singapore. Cities, 21(1), 19-28.
Zelinka, A., and Brennan, D. (2001). Safescape: Creating Safer More Livable Communities
through Planning and Design. Chicago: Planners Press/ American Planning
Association.
Ziegler, F., and Schwanen, T. (2011). ‘I like to go out to be energised by different people’:
an exploratory analysis of mobility and wellbeing in later life. Ageing & Society,
31(05), 758-781.
Zwingle, E. (2002). Feature: More to Explore. National Geographic Magazine On-Line.
Retrieved from www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0211/feature3/index.html
98
99
100
101
Chapter 3: Methodology
Liveability is best understood through place-based research that incorporates both
objective place measurement as well as measures of subjective satisfaction and
perceptions of place to provide more holistic understandings of what liveability means
(Pacione, 2003; 1990). Two approaches to data collection were used in this thesis. The
two methods are identified and differentiated below as Method 1 (used for Paper 1) and
Method 2 (used for Papers 2, 3, 4 and 5). Each method formed part of a separate larger
program of research funded by the Australian Research Council (ARC). Details of these
programs of research are detailed below. Paper 1 utilising Method 1 was simply one
paper drawn from the data collected from the larger program of research detailed below
under Method 1. The data from Method 2 utilised for Papers 2, 3, 4 and 5 were from a
discrete section of the larger project. This section was the high density section and it was
the sole domain of the author of this thesis. In attempting to explore the attributes and
qualities that contribute to liveability of high density environments for older people it
was considered of benefit to examine what constitutes liveability for any high density
resident regardless of age within the inner city neighbourhoods of Brisbane, Queensland,
Australia. The research based on Method 1 explored through in-depth investigation the
attributes and qualities that contribute to liveability for a sample of 24 inner city high
density Brisbane residents aged 25 to 79 years which was a much broader age range than
those who formed the sample for the study based on Method 2.
Method 2 data was collected using interviews, maps and time-use diaries from a sample
of high density residents aged 57 to 80 years. Employed in this study was an innovative
method for measuring the out-of-home mobility and use of space (metres) and time
(seconds) by older high density participants based on global positioning system (GPS)
devices and geographic information systems (GIS) for its analysis. GPS devices (with
operation instruction and appropriate battery charging) offer the unprecedented
opportunity to collect continuous and high resolution data collection in space
(metres/kilometres) and time (seconds, minutes, hours) for extended periods (Shoval et
al., 2011). GPS tracking is used in diverse fields including clinical services such as
cardiology, physiology, treatment of people with Alzheimer’s disease; environmental
health and as a tool to assist visually impaired or blind pedestrians (Shoval et al., 2011).
Most research using devices such as a GPS have been in transport studies tracking motor
vehicles (Shoval et al., 2011). This application is straight forward with the device being
102
fixed directly into the motor vehicle without any affect to the vehicle’s performance. Use
of a GPS is more complicated, however, when requiring an individual to carry it on his or
her person (Shoval et al., 2011). For individuals the device must be small and non-
intrusive to ensure that it does not interrupt the participant’s normal behaviour.
Participants also required a simple set of guidelines in the use of the device, its charging
and general features of operation. The device used in this study was very compact and
unobtrusive being slightly larger in size than a credit card. The device was also
accompanied by a set of instructions, pre-tested for their simplicity, clarity and ease of
use. A laminated A4 sheet of paper was also given to each participant to stick behind
their front door asking them to remember to take their GPS with them when leaving their
residence.
Geogrpahic Information System (GIS) was the approach used for analysis of the GPS data
and to link objective and subjective measures of the urban environment. GIS is a
sophisticated tool for storing, displaying and analysing geographic information and is
being increasingly used in the social sciences (Goodchild, 2000; 2004). After determining
the residential location of a participant, GIS can relate other spatial data to that location;
for example, calculating distances to other urban features including retail, health and
leisure services. GIS was used to gather objective indicators about participants’ urban
environment within the region with regard to services, facilities and their use of their
out-of home environment. GIS is a methodology which can be used to efficiently and
cost effectively link objective urban environment information with subjective urban
environment indicators by taking advantage of readily available geographic information
and linking it to residential locations (McCrea et al., 2006).
During the week of GPS tracking, participants were asked to keep a diary of
activities/destinations. Despite the disadvantages of diaries, in terms of participant
commitment and measuring indistinct activities (socialising and television viewing)
(Thornton et al., 1997), diaries have been used to great effect by other researchers (see
Goodchild and Janelle, 1984; Janelle et al., 1988). The diaries in this study offered an
efficient and affordable way to track specific details about activity (i.e., duration,
frequency, social context and location), check any missing or conflicting information from
the GPS tracking (e.g. when a participant forgot to take the GPS device with them or was
in some black spot where the GPS was unable to track) and provide a very useful
103
supplement to the interview process. Participants were asked to identify their
destinations for the past week, noting accessibility (mobility via walkways, or transport
options) and user-friendliness, security and safety of travel options and the public
environment. The in-depth interviews were based on information in the diary and the
visual information contained in the maps, and investigated participants’ experiences of
and perceptions about, their neighbourhood/community liveability. The maps provided a
useful tool to both generate discussion, and log information about destinations,
complete and incomplete journeys or activities not undertaken, noting specifically the
various reasons inhibiting social connections (e.g., lack of mobility options). The process
captured both narration and mapped information about housing, lifestyle, and actual
events for the week of activities for each individual. The data was used to produce a
time/space life path diagram for each participant using a GIS (Geographical Information
Systems) program - ARC INFO - accompanied by tabulated information about each
journey and destination. Interviews were audio-taped, transcribed, entered into N-Vivo
(QSR) and coded. The resulting categories were analysed using appropriate qualitative
analysis techniques, such as, for example, thematic analysis (Strauss and Corbin, 1998)
and used with GIS information about community liveability, thus triangulating data to
strengthen findings.
Method 1 for Paper 1
This research was funded by an Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage Project;
Project Id. LP0668911, “Managing the social, environmental and economic impacts of
high density-living within inner-urban sub-tropical environments”. Chief Investigators:
Laurie Buys, Peter Grace, Clevo Wilson, Rosemary Kennedy, Jennifer Ryan, Mike
Hefferan, Jennifer Summerville. Project duration: 2006-2010.
Participants
A total of 24 participants (14 men, 10 women) residing in inner city high density (ICHD)
Brisbane suburbs were interviewed; half of the sample owned their unit, while the
remainder were either paying off a mortgage (7 participants) or renting (5 participants).
They had lived in their present accommodation for an average of three years and five
months, with only three having children living with them. Ages ranged from 25 to 79
years, with approximately a third of the sample falling within each major age grouping -
25-44 years (7 residents), 45-64 years (9 residents) and 65-79 years (8 residents). The
104
majority were married or in a de facto relationship (14 participants), with the remainder
being either single (7 participants), widowed or divorced (3 participants). Over half had a
university degree, a combined household annual income over A$80,000 and worked in
managerial/professional fields.
Procedure
The study received ethics approval and standard good practice ethical protocols were
followed. Interviewees were part of a larger study, with a proportionate sampling
technique utilised to mail survey 2311 ICHD (defined as 30 or more dwellings per
hectare) residents of six selected precincts (eight suburbs) located within six kilometres
of the Central Business District (CBD) of Brisbane, the capital city of Queensland,
Australia. There was a 28% response rate, with 636 surveys (involving questions related
to the positive and negative social, environmental and economic impacts of living in the
city) returned. This paper focuses on the qualitative in-depth interviews conducted with
24 residents randomly selected (ensuring range of socio-demographic differences) from
those who expressed interest in the survey about participating in further research.
Potential interviewees were contacted via email and phone and invited to participate in a
face-to-face semi-structured interview (lasting approximately 60 minutes) to explore the
liveability of high-density (HD) settings. The following topic areas were broadly covered:
likes and dislikes of current dwelling and neighbourhood, social contacts within the
dwelling, views on sustainability, transport practices, design perceptions and general
opinions about high-density living. Paper 1 focuses specifically on perceptions and
experiences of what makes ICHD areas liveable and attractive.
Analysis
Interviews were audio-recorded and later transcribed. A thematic analysis was conducted
to identify categories, themes and patterns (Liamputtong, 2009). Three iterative steps
were involved in the thematic analysis. First, transcripts were read and re-read to identify
the overarching themes. Second, the data were coded manually, with common and
contrasting concepts identified, highlighted and grouped. Third, themes were identified,
reviewed, categorised and named to create a comprehensive picture of how ICHD
residents defined ‘attractiveness and liveability’ (Liamputtong, 2009). Saturation was
achieved with the themes discussed in Paper 1. The themes were also discussed and
confirmed with my Principal Supervisor and other members of the research team.
105
Method 2 for Papers 2, 3, 4, 5
This research was funded by an Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage Project,
Project Id. LP0883447, “The neglected dimension of community liveability: Impact on
social connectedness and active ageing”. Chief investigators: Laurie Buys, Evonne Miller,
Gillian Boulton-Lewis, Mary Courtney, Richi Nayak, Debra Anderson. Project duration:
2008-2011.
The data used for this study comprises a sub-set of qualitative data related to the
experiences of older Australians residing in inner-urban, high density suburbs, which
were gathered as part of a larger project exploring active ageing and liveability in rural,
regional and urban locations. The research methodology used for Papers 2, 3, 4, and 5
involves three different data collection methods: time-use diaries, Global Positioning
Systems (GPS) mapping, and in-depth qualitative interviews (see Figure 1 below for a
flow diagram overview of the methodology). Two weeks prior to the semi-structured in-
depth interviews, participants were given a GPS tracking device and paper diary and were
asked to carry the light-weight GPS everywhere they went and to complete a daily diary
on their activities for that one week period in 2010. Ethical approval for this project was
obtained from a university Human Research Ethics Committee, with all case study
participants providing written informed consent prior to their participation in the study.
Figure 1 Flow Diagram of Overview of Methodology
106
Participants
A total of 12 participants (6 men, 6 women) living in selected high density areas were
used for this research with all but one of the sample drawn from a database of a past
project (‘Living in the City’) (see Table 1 for a summary of respondents’ profile). This
previous study utilised a proportionate sampling technique for a postal survey completed
by 636 inner urban residents (28% response rate) in 2007, involving research that
focussed on the social, environmental and economic aspects of inner city life. Using this
database, participants who had indicated a willingness to participate in further research
and were now aged 55 years or older were contacted and invited to participate, ensuring
that those recruited allowed exploration of differences that might emerge as a function
of age or gender. Since the original sample from which these participants were drawn
lacked any persons of low socioeconomic status (SES), a twelfth participant was recruited
through a community group to facilitate a case study within this particular demographic.
107
Table 1 - Summary Table of Case Study (CS) Respondents and Location Profile
108
Case Study Location
The location for all case studies was Brisbane, Queensland, one of the fastest growing
cities in Australia and in the western world. Brisbane has a sub-tropical climate with
undulating topography. The study was undertaken in late March to early April at the
start of autumn, normally characterised by pleasant outdoor weather conditions, to
minimise weather related bias in the data, as Brisbane experiences a typically warm,
humid and wet summer. Results are considered indicative of the typical activity of the
participants across much of the year. The greater Brisbane area is under the jurisdiction
of the Brisbane City Council, which reports that in 2006, the inner five kilometres of
Brisbane included 231,526 people and 105,783 dwellings, and that the population in the
whole of Brisbane area is expected to increase from 991,000 (2009) to 1,270,000 people
by 2031 (Brisbane City Council and Queensland Government, 2010). Participants were
selected from six inner-urban higher density areas (defined as 30 or more dwellings per
hectare) within five kilometres of the Central Business District (CBD) (see Table 1 for
details of areas covered). Figure 2 below is a map of the inner-urban high density areas
included in this study.
Figure 2 Map of the inner city high density areas included in this study
109
Apparatus - Global Positioning Systems
Global Positioning Systems
Objective and accurate measurements of participants’ physical movements throughout
the seven-day tracking periods were obtained by issuing them with portable autonomous
GPS devices. Following the monitored week, the recorded spatial data were analysed
using visual images derived from Geographical Information Systems (GIS): Google Earth.
The GPS device used was a TSI GPS Trip Recorder Model 747A lightweight portable
autonomous GPS recorder. The accuracy of the GPS device is reported to be +-3 metres
(TranSystem Incorporated, 2008); this level of error can increase significantly however,
depending on the level of signal interference caused by buildings, canopy cover, indoor
environments, and so on.
Participants placed the GPS device into a handbag or pocket during waking hours and
charged the battery each night. The GPS devices were programmed to record position,
time, date, speed and altitude at a time interval of one minute. This allowed for accurate
tracking of each participant’s outdoor movements to be recorded throughout the
tracking period. The GPS would not record points when no signal was available (for
instance, if the participant travelled underground for a period of time).
GIS Data Preparation and Analysis
Data from the GPS devices were downloaded using software specific to the GPS device
(included in the purchased package). Using this software, the raw data were then
exported as spreadsheets using a comma-delineated file format with each row
representing a logged position (one each minute).
These spreadsheets were converted to Google Earth files using an online converter and
mapped in Google Earth. Manual data analysis was required to map the different tracks
of each participant’s travel based on the GPS data and information supplied in the Diaries
(refer to Daily Diaries below).
A time/space life path diagram was created for each participant (approximately 6 hours
data analysis) and was accompanied by tabulated information about each journey and
destination. These maps were used during the interviews.
110
Daily Diaries
Participants kept a daily diary for the same week that they were using the GPS tracking
device. The diary had space to record their daily travel, destinations, activities and
reflection on issues relating to their environment or any undertaken activity. The diary
also included a brief survey which captured demographic information, use of transport,
volunteering and aspects of community liveability and engagement. Despite the
disadvantages of diaries in terms of participant commitment and the possibility of
missing data from participants not specifying one or more activities in which they have
engaged, the diaries offered an efficient and affordable way to track specific details
about activity (i.e., duration, frequency, social context and location) and add to the
authenticity and detail of the GPS data. This information was used together with the
mapping, to direct the interview and stimulate discussion.
In-depth Interviews
Residents’ perceptions of place were elicited through their responses to questions
focussed on both the positive and negative experiences and features of their respective
neighbourhoods/communities. The importance of residents’ “ordinary knowledge” of
local issues and the functioning of daily life in place is crucial in effective liveability
research (Myers, 1987). The in-depth interview explored a number of open-ended
questions around level of activity and instrumental and non-instrumental social
behaviour within the immediate urban environment. Using the diary and map
information, the interviews explored the experiences of participants in relation to social
inclusion, frequency of planned and spontaneous encounters and urban community
social support and engagement. All interviews were recorded. Figure 1 above is a
diagrammatic representation of the interview component as it fits within the overall
methodology.
Procedure
Participants were given a typed set of instructions about the use and battery charging of
the GPS device (previously trialled for ease of use and comprehension), with the GPS
device and diary posted back to the research team for interpretation prior to the
interview. The recorded GPS data were merged, with interactive individual ‘activity maps’
created for each participant. These “individual time/space life path maps” were then
reviewed and compared with the time-use diaries to identify any key patterns, issues or
111
anomalies to be discussed at interview. As the computer used at interview was large and
difficult to move, the semi-structured interviews were conducted predominantly at a
central location (the university) and, on occasion, in participants’ homes. The interviews
lasted approximately 90 minutes on average, with the diary and mapping analysis
providing a useful tool to generate discussion. This process captured both narration and
mapped information about destinations, activities, lifestyles, journeys and general
experiences when moving about their community for the target week in each
participant’s life. The interviews involved a general discussion followed by a day-by-day
review of the participant’s activities. Through the interviews, diaries and mapping, the
study captured the frequency of participants’ activity and spontaneous encounters on
different days and at different times, identified the sites used for spending free time, and
allowed interviewers to explore the manner in which the participants’ respective urban
environments facilitated their physical activity (eg shopping, walking) and social
interactions.
Data Analysis
In this study, objective indicators were gathered using GPS to track the respondents’
movements and to map their movements using GIS, and also to gather objective
indicators of available services and facilities within their respective urban environments.
These quantitative measures were then analysed in preparation for the second phase,
when data from the interviews, diaries and maps were compared and analysed using
qualitative methods. The audio recordings were fully transcribed and then analysed using
a thematic approach, identifying key categories, themes and patterns (Liamputtong,
2009). An iterative process was utilised, with the transcripts being read and re-read by
the author of this thesis in order to code the data and identify emerging themes and
meaningful categories. To enable understanding and interpretation, each participant’s
diaries and time/space life path maps were also qualitatively analysed to identify key
patterns related to where and how participants moved during the monitored week.
There was saturation within the data of the major themes discussed and analysed in
Papers 2, 3, 4 and 5. The themes were confirmed with my Principal Supervisor and other
members of the research team. All participants were invited to a presentation outlining
the interpretation of results and development of the themes.
112
Conclusion
A major strength of this thesis is that it uses two separate studies and mixed methods to
address the research question of what makes high density liveable for older people. The
quantitative and qualitative findings and GIS analyses of mapped information emerging
from the data collection were studied and integrated to identify the factors associated
with liveability, active ageing, ageing in place and community engagement. These
methods provided the means to obtain a better understanding of the key concepts of
liveability, neighbourhood and community and ways in which neighbourhood attributes
and the active ageing in place of individuals are associated. The research identified the
risk and protective factors for neighbourhood interactions, attachment and engagement
and the neighbourhood aspects that promote or compromise liveability, active ageing
and ageing in place for older people living in high density. This thesis examines the
everyday lived experiences of older people living in high density through the significant
strength of the eclectic nature of its methodology. It synthesises a conceptual approach
with participants’ perspective and time-space measurement and analysis of actual out-of-
home mobility and activity. This further develops our understanding of the everyday
lived experiences of older people and the interrelationships and interdependencies of
liveability, well-being, independence and mobility.
113
Reference List
Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS]. (2007). General Social Survey (GSS): Summary
Results Australia 2006 (Cat. No. 4159.0). Canberra Australian Bureau of Statistics,
[ABS]
Barclays Wealth. (2010). Retirement shunned by 'Nevertiree' wealthy, says new global
report Retrieved 29 March 2011, from
http://www.barclayswealth.com/americas/about-us/news/retirement-shunned-
by-nevertiree-wealthy-says-new-global-report.htm
Brisbane City Council and Queensland Government. (2010, June 2010). River City
Blueprint. River City Blueprint Forum - Background Paper. Retrieved from
http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:BASE::pc=PC_6257
Goodchild, M. F. (2000). New horizons for the social sciences: Geographic information
systems. In J. E. Aubert (Ed.), Social Sciences for a Digital World: building
Infrastructure and Databases for the Future (Vol. 204, pp. 163-172). Paris:
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Goodchild, M. F. (2004). Social Sciences: Interest in GIS grows. ARCNews, from
http://www.esri.com/news/arcnews/spring04articles/social-sciences.html
Goodchild, M. F., and Janelle, D. G. (1984). The city around the clock: space - time
patterns of urban ecological structure. Environment and Planning A, 16(6), 807-
820.
Hamnett, C. (2005). Social polarisation in global cities : theory and evidence In N. R. Fyfe
& J. T. Kenny (Eds.), The urban geography reader London ; New York Routledge, .
Janelle, D. G., Goodchild, M. F., and Klinkenberg, B. (1988). Space - time diaries and travel
characteristics for different levels of respondent aggregation. Environment and
Planning A, 20(7), 891-906.
Liamputtong, P. (2009). Qualitative research methods (3rd ed. ed.). Melbourne, Vic:
Oxford University Press.
McCrea, R., Shyy, T.-K., and Stimson, R. (2006). What is the Strength of the Link Between
Objective and Subjective Indicators of Urban Quality of Life? Applied Research in
Quality of Life, 1(1), 79-96.
114
Myers, D. (1987). Community-Relevant Measurement of Quality of Life: A Focus on Local
Trends. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 23(1), 108-125.
Pacione, M. (1990). Urban liveability: A review. Urban Geography, 11(1), 1-30.
Pacione, M. (2003). Urban environmental quality and human wellbeing—a social
geographical perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65(1-2), 19-30.
Shoval, N., Wahl, H.-W., Auslander, G., Isaacson, M., Oswald, F., Edry, T., . . . Heinik, J.
(2011). Use of the global positioning system to measure the out-of-home
mobility of older adults with differing cognitive functioning. Ageing & Society,
31(05), 849-869.
Strauss, A. L., and Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thoursand Oaks: Sage.
Thornton, P. R., Williams, A. M., and Shaw, G. (1997). Revisiting time - space diaries: an
exploratory case study of tourist behaviour in Cornwall, England. Environment
and Planning A, 29(10), 1847-1867.
TranSystem Incorporated. (2008). 747 A+ GPS Trip Recorder, User’s Manual. Retrieved
from
http://www.transystem.com.tw/product/59/747%20A+%20User%20Manual%20
v1.1.pdf
Webber, R. (2007). The metropolitan habitus: its manifestations, locations, and
consumption profiles. Environment and Planning A, 39(1), 182-207.
115
116
Paper 1 - What makes inner city high density liveable? Insight from
residents in Brisbane, Australia
STATEMENT OF JOINT AUTHORSHIP AND AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS IN THE
RESEARCH MANUSCRIPT WITH THE ABOVE MENTIONED TITLE
Submitted for review to Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and
Urban Sustainability on 16 November 2011
Contributor Statement of contribution
Laurie Buys
Professor, School of Design, Queensland University of Technology
(QUT)
Significant contribution in the planning of the study (as principal
supervisor) and assisted with data interpretation, preparation and
evaluation of the manuscript.
Desley Vine
Doctoral Student, School of Design, Queensland University of
Technology (QUT)
Chief investigator, significant contribution to the planning of the
study, literature review, data collection and analysis and writing of
the manuscript.
Evonne Miller
Associate Professor, School of Design, Queensland University of
Technology (QUT)
Significant contribution in the planning of the study (as associate
supervisor) and assisted with data interpretation, preparation and
evaluation of the manuscript.
Principal Supervisor Confirmation
I have sighted email or other correspondence from all Co-authors confirming their
certifying authorship.
Professor Laurie Buys
Name Signature Date 20 Dec 2011
117
Chapter 4: Paper 1 - What makes inner city high density
liveable? Insight from residents in Brisbane, Australia
Abstract Over the past two decades, Australia’s urban form and planning has shifted from
traditional individual dwellings on spacious suburban blocks towards higher density
urban consolidation. Despite relatively strong market demand toward inner city high
density (ICHD) living, little research has explored the aspects that make this urban form
liveable. Qualitative interviews with 24 inner-city high density (ICHD) Brisbane, Australia
residents illustrates their perceptions and experiences of liveability and the ways in which
it is broadly understood within three main domains and nine key sub-concepts, including:
individual dwelling (thermal comfort, natural light and balconies, noise mitigation),
building complex (shared space, good neighbourhood protocols, environmental
sustainability) and the community (transport, amenities, sense of community). By
highlighting the aspects current ICHD residents value most about their dwellings,
buildings and communities, these findings will help inform policy-makers, planners,
developers and designers as they create urban spaces and dwellings that are more
desirable places to live.
Keywords: liveability, high density, individual dwelling, building complex, community,
sustainability, Brisbane
Acknowledgments: This research was funded by an Australian Research Council (ARC)
Linkage Project, “Managing the social, environmental and economic impacts of high
density-living within inner-urban sub-tropical environments”.
Introduction
As elsewhere in the world, state and local governments in Australia are developing and
implementing strategic plans for major cities that promote higher density, transit-
oriented and mixed use development. Such urban consolidation, through increasing the
availability and uptake of higher density living, has been adopted as a critical strategy to
manage urban growth and minimise the negative impacts of urban sprawl (Brisbane City
Council and Queensland Government 2010). Much of the focus of interest with urban
sprawl relates to the seemingly incessant demand for car travel and the damaging
environmental impacts associated with car dependency (Howley et al. 2009). Urban
118
consolidation policies and initiatives, such as new urbanism, urban village, transit
oriented developments, healthy cities, sustainability and smart growth, all advocate living
more intensely within existing urban areas in order to facilitate density, amenity,
diversity, mixed uses, safety, reduced travel demand, lively and walkable streets. While
the policy of urban consolidation has been positively received by some Australian
consumers (Neilson 2008), traditional suburban housing preferences for a large detached
house with a private backyard, continue to work against widespread public acceptance
and uptake of consolidation planning initiatives, both in the inner-city and suburban
areas (Smart State Council 2007). Shifting Australians’ perceptions so that compact urban
living is viewed in a more desirable light will require the coordinated efforts of policy-
makers, developers, designers and end-users. Thus, this research investigates the views
and experiences of inner city high density (ICHD) residents, exploring the design,
community and lifestyle factors that make ICHD liveable places. ICHD for this study is
defined as thirty dwellings per hectare within a five kilometre radius of Brisbane’s
General Post Office (GPO). This study provides important insight into what ICHD
residents value most about their dwelling, building and community, thereby assisting
industry to provide ICHD compact living that is more liveable and desirable to the wider
community.
In the second half of the 20th century, there was growing concern about urban liveability
emanating from criticisms of contemporary urban development and planning failure to
deliver positive physical environments (Friedman 2002; Filion 2003). Modern urban
environments have been seen as overly auto-dependent, aesthetically dull and
homogenous, fragmented, regulated and segregated (Clapson 2003; Rabinowitz 2004),
with numerous strategies, movements and initiatives (e.g., smart growth, complete
communities, compact city, new urbanism, urban villages, transit orientated
developments) emphasizing the negative impacts of urban sprawl and the multiple
benefits of a more sustainable compact urban environment. These strategies are for a
better quality urban environment through greater availability of housing that meets
residents’ needs in a sustainable way with increased access to services and facilities
within the local environment (Jones and MacDonald 2004).
The dominant theory in liveability research has been utilitarian theory, which values the
personal happiness and satisfaction of individuals (Veenhoven 1995; Diener and Lucas
119
2000). However, the use of personal utility theory has been heavily criticised for its
inability to effectively guide planning efforts to improve liveability at the local level or to
provide a greater sense of community and social capital (Myers 1988; Sen 1993). While
reaching particular satisfaction levels is a necessary end of a comprehensive liveability
strategy, meeting satisfaction levels provides little to guide citizens and planners on what
to do to improve places.
A liveable place is a complex concept, very personal and therefore often difficult to
articulate. ‘Liveable’ is a commonly used term that lacks a single definition due to its
relativistic use as a concept for a range of ideas about place and its appeal to the
individual or to a community. The individual relativism is implicit in this description, as
where people choose to live can be considered liveable through the individual’s
subjective filter. This subjectivity has been one of the major challenges for researchers
attempting to develop a more objective and community based definition of liveable
places (Andrews 2001).
Several researchers have attempted to measure liveability (Southworth & Parthasarathy
1996; Andrews 2001; Myers 1988; Schmandt & Bloomer 1969). A theory of liveability
requires attributes which can be defined and measured. It is important that definitional
attributes enable focus on their efficacy and ability to target improvement (Myers 1989;
Andrews 2001). A theory of the everyday or daily life has the great advantage of
focussing attention on the required elements, regular functioning and social use of place
(Diener et al. 2003; Chiesura 2004; Lefebvre 1991). Notions of everyday urbanism have
driven much of the recent interest in the New Urbanism, Urban Village and Complete
Communities movements (Grant 2006, 2006(a); Bakardjieva 2003). Within the design
fields, notions of the everyday are providing a serious rationale for improving the city for
regular daily functioning toward the goal of liveability (Newman 2008; Grant 2006;
Bakardjieva 2003). A liveability theory of daily life would suggest the need for the
availability and use of elements such as dwelling, building and community, rather than on
those things that simply make individuals happy or satisfied. This necessarily requires
understanding of the prevailing cultural influences over use of the environment, how
urban environments function, which actions are regular and what comprises shared
place-based experience (Myers, 1988). A daily life perspective is a way of looking at
liveability that may help cities and neighbourhoods function better physically, socially
120
and economically to provide for both basic needs and more fulfilling experiences
(Pacione, 1990; 2003).
Review of the modern urban movements and liveability theorists such as Lynch (1981),
Myers (1988) and Whyte (1988, 2001) suggest general agreement on the aspects that
contribute to a more liveable place. While key concepts and rationales differ, there is a
significant amount of overlap between the physical attributes which centre on the degree
to which a place supports the quality of life, health and wellbeing of occupants. These
physical attributes include greater amenity for pedestrians and active public space,
resulting in more walkable and liveable cities through densification, mixed land uses and
closer proximity to amenities (i.e., residential, commercial, retail, offices, green space and
bikeways). Liveable places, are concerned with the quality of space and the built
environment, encompassing issues such as safety, ease of use and the physical
aesthetics, specifically how dwellings, transport infrastructure and public spaces are
planned constructed and connected. Residential satisfaction studies link liveability to
specific features of the home and building, such as dwelling age, size, structure and
aesthetic feelings (Lu 1999), as well as features of the broader neighbourhood, including
access to facilities, noise, pollution, safety risks, neighbourhood reputation and social
features (Sirgy and Cornwell 2002; Howley et al. 2009). Many researchers and advocacy
groups also attest to the importance of belonging, sense of community, community
formation and cohesion, social networks and the settings requisite for socialising on a
regular basis (Jacobs, 1961; Whyte, 2001; Myers, 1987; 1988; Hampshire, 2000; Partners
for Livable Communities (PLC) et al., 1986). Overall, liveable communities should “create
a comfortable, convenient, efficient and safe public realm and to meet the needs of the
full range of users taking into account age, abilities, gender and race” (Rowley 1998, 154).
Understanding how built environments deliver on these needs in particular contexts is a
key to improving place-based liveability.
This research focuses on Brisbane in subtropical Queensland. The Queensland state and
local governments are actively pursuing urban consolidation, higher density around
transport nodes to create vibrant and active urban spaces using innovative subtropical
design (Smart State Council 2007; Gleeson and Steele 2010). The challenge is that
Brisbane historically developed in a decentralised low density urban form, with many
residents having significant reservations about the policy of densification (Smart State
121
Council 2007). This research explores the viewpoints of current ICHD residents to better
understand their experiences and identify factors that influence their perceptions of
liveability in this urban form.
Method
Participants
A total of 24 participants (14 men, 10 women) residing in inner city high density (ICHD)
Brisbane suburbs were interviewed; half owned their unit, with the remainder paying of a
mortgage (7 participants) or renting (5 participants). They had lived in their present
accommodation for an average of three years and five months, with only three having
children living with them. Ages ranged from 25 to 79 years, with approximately a third in
each major age grouping - 25-44 years (7 residents), 45-64 years (9 residents) and 65-79
years (8 residents). The majority were married or in a de facto relationship (14
participants), with the remainder single (7 participants), widowed or divorced (3
participants). Over half had a university degree, a combined household annual income
over A$80,000 and worked in managerial/professional fields.
Procedure
The study received ethics approval and standard good practice ethical protocols were
followed. Interviewees were part of a larger study, with a proportionate sampling
technique utilised to mail survey 2311 ICHD (defined as 30 or more dwellings per
hectare) residents of six selected precincts (eight suburbs) located within six kilometres
of the Central Business District (CBD) of Brisbane, the capital city of Queensland,
Australia. There was a 28% response rate, with 636 surveys (on the positive and negative
social, environmental and economic impacts of living in the city) returned. This paper
focuses on the qualitative in-depth interviews conducted with 24 residents randomly
selected (ensuring range of socio-demographic differences) from those who expressed
interest in the survey about participating in further research. Potential interviewees were
contacted via email and phone and invited to participate in a face-to-face semi-
structured interview (lasting approximately 60 minutes) to explore sustainability impacts
of high-density (HD) living. The following areas were broadly covered: likes and dislikes of
current dwelling and neighbourhood, social contacts within the dwelling, views on
sustainability, transport practices, design perceptions and general opinions about high-
122
density living. This article focuses specifically on perceptions and experiences of what
makes ICHD areas liveable and sustainable for residents.
Analysis
Interviews were audio-recorded and later transcribed, with a thematic analysis
conducted to identify categories, themes and patterns (Liamputtong and Ezzy 2005).
Three iterative steps were involved in the thematic analysis. First, transcripts were read
and re-read to identify the overarching themes. Second, coding was done manually, with
common and contrasting concepts identified, highlighted and grouped. Third, themes
were identified, reviewed, categorised and named to create a comprehensive picture of
how ICHD residents defined ‘liveability’ (Liamputtong and Ezzy 2005).
Results/Discussion
Focussing on the experience of residents from ICHD locations, this research highlights the
ways in which multiple aspects of the immediate living environment, the unit, building
complex and the community intertwine to provide residents with a liveable space.
Judgements about liveability are not related to one single identifiable and dominant
characteristic of the home or locality, but instead involve a complex array of
interconnected domains that can be grouped conceptually as characteristics of the
individual dwelling (thermal comfort, natural light and balconies, noise mitigation),
building complex (shared space, good neighbourhood protocols, environmental
sustainability) and the community (sustainable transport, amenities, sense of
community). Table 1 identifies the characteristics conceived to fall within these three
domains, which emerged from that data as being important for enhancing the liveability
of ICHD areas. Like community quality of life, where isolating just one dimension leads to
“issue-specific planning efforts that pay too little attention to the web of
interconnections among these dimensions” (National Research Council 2002, 5), it is
essential that each of these domains are conceptualised holistically as inter-related,
multi-layered attributes which interlace to determine ICHD residents’ judgements of
liveability. These findings further highlight the importance of a systems-thinking
approach to exploring and addressing issues of liveability, with various stakeholders,
including policy-makers, developers, designers and urban planners, having ultimate
responsibility for creating the foundational conditions that promote liveability. While we
strongly advocate a systems perspective, we will discuss each domain separately to
123
highlight the implications of our findings as a means to inform the efforts of stakeholders
interested in creating urban spaces and dwellings that are more liveable places.
Table 1: Key aspects of individual dwelling, building complex and community that contribute to
liveability
Individual Dwelling Building Complex Community
Thermal comfort/ventilation
Natural light and balconies
Noise mitigation
Shared space
Good neighbour protocols
Environmental sustainability
Accessible transport
Amenities/services
Sense of community
Individual Dwelling
In considering the findings related to the individual dwelling zone, it is important to note
changes that have occurred in the size of dwelling space over time within the Australian
context. Until recently, the traditional Australian home was constituted by a freestanding
house of around 250sqm on a 400sqm parcel of land spread out in the dormitory suburbs
that sprawl around Australian cities. Thus, many Australians over the age of 30 years old
grew up in homes and properties of this size. In 2008, the average floor space of new
free-standing houses was 245sqm, somewhat larger than the 201sqm average size of
new houses built in the United States (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2010). While floor
space in freestanding homes has tended to increase in Australia over time, the
development of high-density living and migration into these areas represents a marked
change for residents who grew up in 400sqm homes, since the average floor space of
high-density homes is 100sqm. Participants in this study living in high density homes that
are 100sqm on average, identified, thermal comfort and ventilation, natural light and
noise mitigation as contributing significantly to making the home a liveable place. The
seeking of these particular design features in their high-density accommodation in the
present may well reflect a desire for replicating dwelling attributes that they enjoyed in
their earlier lives.
124
Thermal comfort and ventilation
Design features that enhanced thermal comfort, which include indoor air quality,
temperature and humidity, emerged as being very important to study participants.
Features found to contribute to thermal comfort included: natural air-flow and control
over exposure to the sun’s heat and light; dwellings with balconies and other outdoor
living areas; internal and external modifications (e.g. shades and blinds); and orientation
of the dwelling to maximise breezes during summer months and to maximise access to
the sun’s warmth in winter months. The nature of climate considerations will differ
depending on local characteristics. Heating over ventilation may be the key factor in
cooler climates, however in this subtropical climate the emphasis was on keeping cool in
the humid summer months. Interestingly, participants indicated a preference for natural
air flow rather than air-conditioning.
We try and use the air conditioner as little as possible… if you open the windows
you get a good breeze, it’s generally fine. (HD2, male aged 60-64 years)
Participants valued natural climate-efficient ways to address the heat, describing how, for
sustainability reasons, they rarely used their air conditioner and relied instead on fans,
windows, and cross-ventilation.
[I] open the back door and let the breeze go through. That’s just the simplest
form of conserving energy. Most people would go and turn the air conditioner on.
Well, yeah, there are times in the year where I have to do that but, you do simple
things with what you’ve got to reduce the amount of energy you take to live there
and you find that you can live more cheaply and very, very comfortably. (HD1,
male aged 45-49 years)
This is in keeping with Australian research in Sydney on thermal comfort which has
shown high occupant comfort satisfaction scores in naturally ventilated mixed-mode
buildings with sustainability dividends of reduced energy use by a quarter (Rowe 1996)
and occupants being comfortable in temperatures that closely reflect the outdoor
climate (Artkins 2007). Thus, passive temperature control is an extremely desirable
dwelling characteristic that should be prioritised by developers and designers.
125
Natural light and balconies
The importance of exposure to abundant natural light for its aesthetic, thermal and
lighting value was emphasised by residents. Most rooms in traditional Australian homes
have windows that allow for natural lighting and ventilation (Australian Government
2010). Participants associated natural light with not only sunlight and heating, but also
with a ‘feeling’ of more open space, therefore creating a more comfortable, liveable and
aesthetically pleasing dwelling interior. Participants were generally satisfied with natural
light in their dwelling.
It’s excellent. Because we get mainly southern light...unfortunately we don’t get
direct sunlight until the afternoon, because the sun comes over this way... So it
would have been nice to get more sun maybe in the morning, but there’s not
much we can do about that. (HD20, male aged 30-34 years)
Many traditional Australian homes were characterised by broad balconies shaded by
corrugated iron roofing and timber lattice which were important features for cooling the
home by providing breezeways (Australian Government 2010). Most participants
indicated that balconies in high density dwellings were also important for enhancing
natural air-flow and improving thermal comfort, identifying balconies as being important
for improving natural light and maintaining a connection with the outdoor environment.
Natural light was seen as a desirable feature, creating a more comfortable, liveable and
aesthetically pleasing dwelling interior. Part of a dwelling’s liveability was the connection
to the outdoor environment, important for high density residents and achieved through
open windows and balcony areas. Many participants identified the balcony and
associated open space and views as their favourite design feature of the dwelling.
I think [my favourite design feature of this apartment is] the balcony and the
glass windows because it’s private… and just the open space of it”. (HD20, male
aged 30-34 years)
Previous research has shown the beneficial social and psychological effects of building
designs that feature natural light and views of natural surrounds, including reduction in
stress, better emotional health, improved communication and a sense of belonging to a
community or place (Heerwagen and Zagreus 2005; Vallance et al. 2005). The challenge
126
for designers and developers in a subtropical climate is to balance daylight penetration
and maximise the positive outcomes of daylight while minimising the negative impacts of
solar heat gain.
Noise Mitigation
Levels of annoyance are associated with various sources of noise in high density urban
areas and managing noise is crucial for enhancing satisfaction with high density living
(Bramley and Power 2009; Saville Smith 2010). Noise is generated internally within a
building (e.g. noise from surrounding neighbours’ voices, music or appliances) or
externally (e.g. traffic noise industrial activities or surrounding neighbours). Noise can
also be classified as either air-borne (through openings, closed windows, doors, walls and
floors) or structure-borne (through building materials from sound sources such as
vehicular or foot traffic, banging, or objects dropped), with design solutions not always
being the same (Australian Government 2002). For these participants, although motor
vehicle noise was the most commonly heard noise, it was voices, music or sounds from
animals that were identified as the most annoying noises. This is in keeping with research
undertaken by Williams (2000). Williams (2000) found some evidence of increases in
“bad neighbour” effects of noise complaints although causal attribution was difficult to
substantiate. Varying tolerance to these different types of noise may result from the
nature of the noise, be it constant, intermittent, anonymous or identifiable, as well as the
time of day in which it occurs.
There has been a move in recent years for unit owners to change their
floors to timber. The buildings were built with carpet flooring and owners
have been changing them to timber and it’s caused a lot of disputes in a lot
of buildings, you may have heard of other cases, and that is causing
problems. Units on both sides of us have converted their floors to timber
and as a result we’re getting noise transference through which we used
not to get. (HD16, male aged 70-74 years)
Being aware of how noise travels within a building is important for noise management,
both from a building design point of view and the residents’ perspective of wishing to
minimise noise, thereby contributing to greater satisfaction with high density living
(Vallance et al. 2005; Saville Smith 2010). While it is important to insulate and provide
127
barriers against noise, it is also important to look at measures to control noise at the
source.
Building Complex
The building in which dwellings are located was discussed in relation to liveability within
high density urban areas, with shared space, good neighbour protocols and
environmental sustainability identified as key aspects of building design.
Limited use of shared space
The social impacts of high density include the necessity to use shared space for everyday
activity due to reduced private space (Ancell and Thompson-Fawcett 2008). Shared
space includes areas in multi-unit dwellings and apartments that can be accessed by all
residents. This includes amenity areas such as swimming pools, gyms and children’s play
areas and also refers to shared access areas such as corridors, lifts, stairwells and
pathways. Accessing facilities in communal areas was considered useful in high density
environments, with over half indicating they were satisfied with the communal facilities
(pool, clotheslines, laundry) within their building. However, communal facilities within
the building were used infrequently. For example, most have a swimming pool in their
building and yet indicated that they never or infrequently used it or other shared
facilities, such as barbeque and deck areas.
I’m ashamed to say I’ve never used the pool, but I’m not really one to use the
pool. Except when I’ve stood around it for drinks and common social gatherings
(HD11, male aged 70-74 years)
Many said they liked to keep to themselves and valued privacy in shared areas, indicating
that they were happy to maintain a simple ‘hello’ relationship with their neighbours but
did not want to feel pressure or any obligation to talk to neighbours.
I like that when we go out, we don’t have to stand and have a little chat every five
minutes. You can just come and do your own thing (HD6, female aged 25-29
years)
128
Such findings are consistent with an emerging body of research, which suggests there is
little social contact within high density residential communities (Zhang and Lawson 2009).
How high rise developments are designed can influence the sense of social
connectedness between residents. There can be restricted opportunity for residents to
spontaneously participate in short term and spur-of-the-moment activities because of
limited space for eating or playing games or sport outside of the apartment but within
the building complex (Henderson-Wilson 2008). Previous research has found that large
numbers of other occupants can cause residents to withdraw and refuse to participate in
community activities (Adams 1992; Williams 2005). Critically, however, this research
suggests that it is residents themselves who choose to maintain distance between
themselves and others in order to maintain their privacy. While further research would
be needed to more fully explore their motivations in this regard, these findings suggest
that residents choose to remain ‘friendly strangers’ because of their strong desire for
privacy within their home.
Good neighbour protocols
Many Australians accustomed to living in detached houses on larger blocks of land may
find it confronting or difficult to live in shared proximity with others. High density
buildings and facilities are covered by community title laws that allow Body Corporates
and other management structures to develop guidelines for shared facilities, which
include management of noise, behaviour around common areas such as pools and use of
shared parking areas (Queensland Government 2010). Some participants indicated a
level of voluntary behaviour towards neighbours, explaining that they engaged in social
adaptation and reciprocity in high density dwellings, by monitoring their own behaviour
(e.g. noise generated) and being tolerant of particular neighbour behaviour such as
routine and expected noises. Limited tolerance was displayed for particular neighbour
behaviours that were not deemed as ‘acceptable’ however, which were described as
generating noise early in the morning or late at night, loudly exiting and entering the
building, pet noise and disregard for allotted car-parking spaces.
I think each of us have just realised this is the way that it is and we just
have to be a bit considerate. I mean, I have been lucky...I don’t have a
party animal living upstairs who likes to have music blaring and his mates
around every Saturday night to watch the footy. So the people that have
129
been upstairs, previously there was an older person and then more
recently a younger couple. I actually said to them can you hear my TV and
they said yeah, can you hear us talking? And I said, I think that’s just the
way it is and we just have to live with it. And they said ‘yeah’. (HD1, male
aged 45-49 years)
Residents placed value on ‘good neighbour protocols’ and most were aware of how their
behaviour impacted on others and engaged in voluntary mitigation activities. These
findings align with those of Williams (2000) and her description of the “bad neighbour”
and Saville-Smith who identified the built environment key determinants of
neighbourhood satisfaction. The elements identified by Saville-Smith (2010) and
Williams (2000) were the same as those identified by the current study’s participants
including low noise and other disturbance when living in close physical proximity with
other residents. These findings highlight the value of developing and disseminating a
‘code of behaviour’ for building residents that explains, especially for new high density
residents, how seemingly innocuous behaviours may negatively impact upon their
neighbours’ quality of life.
Environmental Sustainability
Environmental sustainability for high density buildings and complexes may involve a
range of initiatives such as recycling bins, installing water efficient fixtures in dwellings
and common areas, planning garden spaces with limited need for watering, and
designing dwellings and common areas that utilise daylight, natural air-flow and passive
heating and cooling (Queensland Government 2009). Participants were aware of
environmental sustainability and some believed utilising less space by living in higher
density dwellings led to more sustainable use of resources. However, many voiced
concerns over the lack of sustainability initiatives within their building and indicated that
there was significant room for improvement in the provision of recycling facilities.
I’ve got 2 wine bottles by my door for me to take them down and throw in the…
garbage. I feel guilty throwing glass in the garbage because I’ve been so used to
[recycling], you just don’t do it here. There’s no facility to do it (HD15, female 30-
34 years)
130
Providing opportunities for efficient waste, water and energy management through
environmental sustainability initiatives is important to residents. Many of these building
initiatives have been identified earlier as contributing to the liveability of the dwelling
(e.g. building design capturing daylight and providing cross ventilation to reduce reliance
on artificial lighting, heating and cooling), with past research also finding that sustainable
cities are considered to be high quality liveable places where people want to live (Bishop
and Syme 1995).
Community
Community is the third major domain that is integral to liveable or desirable places.
Participants described the community aspect of liveability as including accessible and
sustainable transport, amenities and services, and a sense of community. Many said they
decided to live in the area because of the availability of public transport and accessibility
to the community (including foot and bike paths), explaining that residential complex
selection was based on its location with respect to the city centre, facilities in the
neighbourhood and facilities within the complex/design of the residential complex.
Accessible and sustainable transport
The majority agreed that it was easy to walk to a public transport stop from their home
and felt safe walking or bicycling in their neighbourhood during the day; only half felt safe
walking or bicycling at night. Walking was a common mode choice for various types of
journeys, with participants reporting that they walked daily or weekly, commonly for the
purpose of travelling to restaurants, recreational facilities and the newsagent. Walking
was preferred for reaching certain destinations, providing ease of access to local services,
a sense of the surrounding community and, for some, a reduced environmental impact.
Walking around the streets at night I do, coming back from the cinema, it’s just
dead quiet. After ten o’clock at night, the amount of traffic on the road is
significantly less, so there’s hardly any traffic noise, surprisingly. So yeah, there’s
just this feeling of peace and quiet and safety. (HD1, male aged 45-49 years)
Yet, while most thought public transport was available and convenient, cars emerged as
the preferred travel mode for many journeys – most reported travelling by car regularly
(daily or several times weekly).
131
I suppose what’s not great is there’s not that many local shops, so if you do have
to go and do grocery shopping, you’ve got to get in the car and get somewhere.
Public transport is not that crash hot, if you don’t want to go to the city. (HD14,
male 45-49 years)
Amenities and services
Providing services within the community has been linked to residential satisfaction and
quality of life (Lloyd and Auld 2003). Participants in this study explained that having
access to amenities (local services and recreational facilities) in their local area was
considered very important in high density neighbourhoods.
It’s the area. It’s the fact that, two minutes and I’ve got twenty odd restaurants
to go to. I can see work from here. I get the bus to work. I can walk to get my
haircut, see my doctor, walk, walk, walk. (HD3, male aged 50-54 years)
For urban planners, these findings suggest that access to amenities is a key driver of
satisfaction with locality and are consistent with the concept of ‘complete communities’.
‘Complete communities’ refers to liveable places characterised by mixed land uses, as
well as walkable and pedestrian friendly environments equipped with amenities and
services that foster local self-sufficiency, meaningful place-based identity, attachment
and ownership (Perkins 1995). This research suggests that ICHD Brisbane residents
strongly value many of the characteristics of ‘complete communities’, particularly easy,
accessible connections between their homes, shopping, walkways, cycle paths and public
transport.
Sense of community
Although participants describe desirable aspects of their inner urban community, they
were not likely to have strong connections with their neighbours. Most participants had
not visited a neighbour in the past week, had not attended a local community event in
the past six months and did not think they would run into friends and acquaintances
when they went shopping in their local area. While residents may not form strong
relationships with their immediate neighbours, they do seem to enjoy the sense of
community derived from their broader neighbourhood through easy access to local
132
goods and services and a sense of familiarity with the area, as well as people working or
living in the area.
I think [high-density living] is good, because it just … brings people together, and I
think it makes communities … Because I think it’s a myth, this whole thing about,
being out and having a house, and getting to know the neighbours, and… I think
it’s more social living here, [with] shared services, like there’s one pool for
everyone, instead of everyone having to have their own pool, everyone having to
have their own lawn mower… I think it makes more sense to live in a… high-
density apartment like that. And then, basically have parks around which
everyone can use. (HD20, male 30-34 years)
Conclusion This study identifies significant synergy between the aspirations of customers’ and those
of society. The results show that urban features that reflect current societal pressure for
greater sustainability such as lower energy use and more use of public transport are the
exact same features sought by residents in determining the liveability of a particular
community. From the dwelling perspective, enhanced thermal comfort and improved
air-flow and natural lighting would significantly reduce the need to artificially heat, cool
and light these homes. Within the building complex, shared space, good neighbour
protocols and environmental sustainability were the key issues that affect ICHD liveability
for residents. In the community realm, improved public transport and walkability
infrastructure in inner urban areas would provide community dividends of increased
sustainability from making public transport and walkability more appealing. These
findings highlight a number of opportunities for regulators, developers and designers to
incorporate design features that not only enhance the liveability of high density
residences, but also their long term sustainability.
Sustainability and community dividends arising from better design of high density
dwellings, buildings and urban areas identified by this study suggest the need for
regulators to re-examine building codes and guidelines. Future building codes or
guidelines could incorporate “best practice” in sustainability in order to make dwellings,
buildings and urban areas more liveable from a user and community perspective.
Implementation of many of the findings of this study could assist in reducing energy use
and CO2 emissions, while at the same time enhancing the liveability of inner urban high
133
density dwellings. The relevance of these findings is not restricted to the study site since
they are likely to extend to other major subtropical cities throughout the world.
While this study reports on the experiences of a small number of high density residents
living in one city in Australia thereby precluding generalisability of its findings, it captures
the local knowledge and place-based cultures of everyday use for this group of ICHD
residents providing insight into their lived experience. Such results tend to be more
relevant and are more likely to be actioned than abstract generalities about liveability
requirements (Myers 1987; Stevens 2006; National Research Council (NRC) 2002). Their
experiences are also likely to have relevance to other high density contexts elsewhere
without having to discount for local differences. However, further research is needed
that explores, in more depth, how people, both residents and non-residents, view,
experience and judge ICHD areas. In particular, future research should explicitly explore
the extent to which characteristics of the dwelling (small size) and/or the amenities,
services and recreational facilities within the neighbourhood either facilitate or hinder
ICHD localities being accessible and socially inclusive places for all members of the
community. Our results suggest that encouraging more inner-city retail, particularly
services which are utilised frequently in people’s daily lives such as grocers and
pharmacies, would potentially help ensure residents fully engage in their local
community and also attract a more diverse local population.
As stated above, a liveable place is a complex concept, very personal and often therefore
difficult to articulate. It is a multi-faceted concept capturing many attributes which
interplay and operate dynamically within and between the immediate living
environment, the building and the community. These attributes provide the essential
services and life enriching amenities and experiences within close proximity for its
residents and visitors. Understanding the factors that influence residents’ perceptions of
liveability of ICHD locations can assist with the planning, management and design of high
density residential complexes and locations to create liveable, supportive and sustainable
cities.
134
References Adams, R. E. (1992). Is happiness a home in the suburbs?: The influence of urban versus
suburban neighborhoods on psychological health. Journal of Community
Psychology, 20(4), 353-372. doi: 10.1002/1520-6629(199210)20:4<353::aid-
jcop2290200409>3.0.co;2-z
Ancell, S., and Thompson-Fawcett, M. (2008). The Social Sustainability of Medium Density
Housing: A Conceptual Model and Christchurch Case Study. Housing Studies,
23(3), 423-442. doi: 10.1080/02673030802029990
Andrews, C. J. (2001). Analyzing Quality of Place. Environment & Planning B: Planning &
Design, 28, 201-217.
Artkins, C. (2007). All in the Mind. Essential Matters Retrieved 3 March 2010, from
http://www.essentialmatters.com.au/resources/PropAust_Issue10_p68_69.pdf
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2010). Year Book Australia, 2009–10, Electronic Resource,
Catalogue Number:1301.0, Retrieved from
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/cat/1301.0
Australian Government. (2002). State of the Environment Report 2001 Retrieved 16
October 2009, from
http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2001/publications/themereports/settleme
nts/settlements04-2.html
Australian Government. (2010). Australian Architecture - Australian Government Cultural
Portal Retrieved 10 May 2010, from
http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/architecture/,
Bakardjieva, M. (2003). Virtual Togetherness: an Everyday-life Perspective. Media Culture
Society, 25(3), 291-313. doi: 10.1177/0163443703025003001
Bishop, B. J., and Syme, G. J. (1995). The social costs and benefits of urban consolidation:
A time budget/contingent valuation approach. Journal of Economic Psychology,
16(2), 223-245.
Bramley, G., and Power, S. (2009). Urban form and social sustainability: the role of
density and housing type. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design,
36(1), 30-48.
135
Brisbane City Council, and Queensland Government. (2010). River City Blueprint River City
Blueprint Forum - Background Paper. Brisbane, Queensland: Brisbane City Council
Queensland Government.
Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 68(1), 129-138.
Clapson, M. (2003). Suburban century: social change and urban growth in England and
the United States. . Oxford; New York: Berg.
Diener, E., and Lucas, R. E. (2000). Explaining Differences in Societal Levels of Happiness:
Relative Standards, Need Fulfillment, Culture, and Evaluation Theory. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 1(1), 41-78.
Diener, E., Oishi, S., and Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, Culture, and Subjective Well-
Being: Emotional and Cognitive Evaluations of Life. Annual Review of Psychology,
54(1), 403-425. doi: doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145056
Filion, P. (2003). Towards Smart Growth? The Difficult Implementation of Alternatives to
Urban Dispersion. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 12(1), 48.
Friedman, A. (2002). Planning the new suburbia: flexibility by design. . Vancouver: UBC
Press.
Gleeson, B., and Steele, W. (2010). A climate for growth: Planning South-East
Queensland. Brisbane: UQ Press.
Grant, J. (2006). Planning the good community : new urbanism in theory and practice.
London ; New York: Routledge.
Grant, J. (2006a). The Ironies of New Urbanism. Canadian Journal of Urban Research,
15(2), 158-174.
Hampshire, A. (2000). Stronger communities and social connectedness - social capital in
practice. Paper presented at the The Council on the Ageing National Congress.
Heerwagen, J., and Zagreus, L. (2005). The Human Factors of Sustainable Building Design:
Post Occupancy Evaluation of the Philip Merrill Environmental Center: US
Department of Energy Building Technology Program.
136
Henderson-Wilson, C. (2008, 18-20 June 2008). Inner city high-rise living: a catalyst for
social exclusion and social connectedness? Paper presented at the 3rd
Australasian Housing Researchers’ Conference 2008, Melbourne.
Howley, P., Scott, M., and Redmond, D. (2009). Sustainability versus liveability: an
investigation of neighbourhood satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Planning
and Management, 52(6), 847 - 864.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. London: Jonathan Cape.
Jones, C., and MacDonald, C. (2004). Sustainable Urban Form and Real Estate Markets.
Paper presented at the annual European Real Estate Conference, Milan.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). Everyday Life in the Modern World. New Brunswick NJ: Transaction
Publishers.
Liamputtong, P., and Ezzy, D. (2005). Qualitative research methods. . South Melbourne:
Oxford University Press.
Lloyd, K., and Auld, C. (2003). Leisure, public space and quality of life in the urban
environment. Urban Policy and Research, 21(4), 339 - 356.
Lu, M. (1999). Determinants of Residential Satisfaction: Ordered Logit vs. Regression
Models. Growth & Change, 30(2), 264.
Lynch, K. (1981). Good City Form Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Matysek, K. (2011). A policy/program dilemma? Supportive environments for health and
wellbeing. Paper presented at the 4th Healthy Cities: Making Cities Liveable
Conference, Noosa Qld.
Myers, D. (1987). Community-Relevant Measurement of Quality of Life: A Focus on Local
Trends. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 23(1), 108-125.
Myers, D. (1988). Building Knowledge about Quality of Life for Urban Planning. Journal of
American Planning Association, 54(3), 347-358.
Myers, D. (1989). The Ecology of 'Quality of Life' and Urban Growth. In D. J. Brower & D.
R. Godschalk (Eds.), Understanding Growth Management: Critical Issues and
Research Agenda. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.
137
National Research Council. (2002). Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for
Informed Decision-Making. Washington, DC: Board on Earth Sciences and
Resources, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council, National
Academy Press.
Neilson, L. (2008). The ‘Building Better Cities’ Program 1991-1996: a nation-building
initiative of the Commonwealth Government. In J. Butcher (Ed.), Australia under
construction nation-building – past, present and future (pp. 83-118). Canberra:
ANU E Press.
Newman, D. M. (2008). Sociology : exploring the architecture of everyday life Thousand
Oaks, Calif: Pine Forge Press
Pacione, M. (1990). Urban liveability: A review. Urban Geography, 11(1), 1-30.
Pacione, M. (2003). Urban environmental quality and human wellbeing—a social
geographical perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65(1-2), 19-30. doi:
10.1016/s0169-2046(02)00234-7
Partners for Livable Communities, McNulty, R. H., Penne, L., and Jacobson, D. R. (1986).
The Return of the Livable City: Learning from America's Best. Washington, DC:
Annapolis Books.
Perkins, R. (1995). Vancouver: Complete Communities for the Liveable Region
Intensification Report: Canadian Urban Institute.
Queensland Government. (2009). Climate Q: Toward a greener Queensland, 2009
Retrieved 16 September 2009, from
http://www.climatechange.qld.gov.au/pdf/climateqreport/climateqreport.pdf
Queensland Government. (2010). Body Corporate and Community Management Act
1997. Brisbane: Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel,.
Rabinowitz, A. (2004). Urban economics and land use in America : the transformation of
cities in the twentieth century. Armonk, N.Y: M.E. Sharpe.
Rowe, D. (1996). Mixed Mode Climate Control AIRAH Journal : Australian refrigeration,
air conditioning & heating, 50(12).
138
Rowley, A. (1998). Private-property decision makers and the quality of urban design.
Journal of Urban Design, 3(2), 151.
Saville-Smith, K. (2010, 4-7 July 2010). The Value of Neighbourhood Intensification: The
Interface Between Dwelling, Neighbourhood Design and Affordability. Paper
presented at the ENHR 22nd International Housing Research Conference: Urban
Dynamics & Housing Change - Crossing into the 2nd Decade of the 3rd
Millennium, Istanbul.
Schmandt, H. J., and Bloomberg, W. (1969). The quality of urban life Beverly Hills CA:
Sage.
Sen, A. (1993). Capability and Well-Being. In M. Nassbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The Quality of
Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Sirgy, M. J., and Cornwell, T. (2002). How neighborhood features affect quality of life.
Social Indicators Research, 59(1), 79.
Smart State Council. (2007). Smart Cities: rethinking the city centre. Brisbane: Queensland
Government.
Smith, I., Dodson, J., Gleeson, B., and Burton, P. (2010). Growing adaptively?: Responding
to climate change through regional spatial planning in England and Australia.
Brisbane: Griffith University.
Southworth, M., and Parthasarathy, B. (1996). The suburban public realm I: Its
emergence, growth and transformation in the American metropolis. Journal of
Urban Design, 1(3), 245-263.
Vallance, S., Perkins, H. C., and Moore, K. (2005). The results of making a city more
compact: neighbours? interpretation of urban infill. Environment and Planning B:
Planning and Design, 32(5), 715-733.
Veenhoven, R., and Ehrhardt, J. (1995). The cross-national pattern of happiness: Test of
predictions implied in three theories of happiness. Social Indicators Research,
34(1), 33.
Whyte, W. H. (1988). City: Rediscovering the Center. New York, London: Doubleday.
139
Whyte, W. H. (2001). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. New York: Project for Public
Spaces.
Williams, J. (2005). Designing Neighbourhoods for Social Interaction: The Case of
Cohousing. Journal of Urban Design, 10(2), 195-227. doi:
10.1080/13574800500086998
Williams, K. (2000). Does intensifying cities make them more sustainable. In K. Williams,
L. Burton & M. Jenks (Eds.), Achieving Sustainable Urban Forms (pp. 30-45).
London: Spon.
Zhang, W., and Lawson, G. (2009). Meeting and greeting: Activities in public outdoor
spaces outside high-density urban residential communities. Urban Design
International, 14(4), 207-214. doi: 10.1057/udi.2009.19
140
141
142
Paper 2 - The lived world of older urban Australians: Relating
everyday living to GPS tracking data.
STATEMENT OF JOINT AUTHORSHIP AND AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS IN THE
RESEARCH MANUSCRIPT WITH THE ABOVE MENTIONED TITLE
The definitive, peer-reviewed and edited version of this paper is published in OZCHI ‘10
Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest
Group of Australia on Computer-Human Interaction published online 16 November 2010
Contributor Statement of contribution
Desley Vine
Doctoral Student, School of Design, Queensland University of
Technology (QUT)
Chief investigator, significant contribution to the planning of the study,
literature review, data collection and analysis and writing of the
manuscript.
Laurie Buys
Professor, School of Design, Queensland University of Technology
(QUT)
Significant contribution in the planning of the study (as principal
supervisor) and assisted with data interpretation, preparation and
evaluation of the manuscript.
Principal Supervisor Confirmation
I have sighted email or other correspondence from all Co-authors confirming their
certifying authorship.
Professor Laurie Buys
Name Signature Date 20 Dec 2011
143
Chapter 5: Paper 2 - The lived world of older urban Australians:
Relating everyday living to GPS tracking data.
Abstract Neighbourhood like the concept of liveability is usually measured by either subjective
indicators using surveys of residents’ perceptions or by objective means using secondary
data or relative weights for objective indicators of the urban environment. Rarely, have
objective and subjective indicators been related to one another in order to understand
what constitutes a liveable urban neighbourhood both spatially and behaviourally. This
paper explores the use of qualitative (diaries, in-depth interviews) and quantitative
(Global Positioning Systems, Geographical Information Systems mapping) liveability
research data to examine the perceptions and behaviour of 12 older residents living in six
high density urban areas of Brisbane. Older urban Australians are one of the two
principal groups highly attracted to high density urban living. The strength of the
relationship between the qualitative and quantitative measures was examined. Results
of the research indicate a weak relationship between subjective and objective indicators.
Linking the two methods (quantitative and qualitative) is important in obtaining a greater
understanding of human behaviour and the lived world of older urban Australians and in
providing a wider picture of the urban neighbourhood.
Author Keywords
Neighbourhood, liveability, high density, urban, quantitative, qualitative, older people,
GIS, GPS, Brisbane
ACM Classification Keywords
H5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI): Miscellaneous.
144
Introduction
This paper explores the concept of high density urban neighbourhood and
neighbourhood liveability for older people by linking qualitative evaluations of the lived
urban experience of older urban people and quantitative indicators of their use of and
interface with their urban neighbourhood. There have been two principal groups
attracted to high density urban Australian neighbourhoods including young, single and
childless couples and older ‘empty nest’ people (Brisbane City Council and Queensland
Government, 2010). It is the latter group who is the focus of this paper.
Like liveability, neighbourhood lacks a single accepted definition. In attempting to
conceptualise neighbourhood and neighbourhood liveability, researchers use either
quantitative or qualitative indicators. The term neighbourhood is used generally to
describe vicinities, however, in common useage neighbourhoods are typically associated
with home location, place-based communities and geographic domains (Anderson et al.,
1999). The one definitional attribute agreed by most researchers, is that neighbourhoods
require residents (Brower, 1996). Without residential use a neighbourhood does not
exist, and is otherwise known as a zone, area or district (O’Sullivan, 1993). Apart from
this requirement of place-based residence, there is no stated particular housing density,
type, size, form or cost. However, with regard to the liveability of neighbourhoods, those
particular characteristics become more important (Jacobs, 1993).
The concepts of neighbourhood and community are often synonymous with each other
(Hillery, 1968). Their point of difference is the ability for communities to exist outside of
place (community without propinquity, Webber, 1963), whereas neighbourhoods are
grounded in place and geographical setting. Previous research into neighbourhoods,
neighbourhood liveability and communities can be grouped into three categories (Hillery,
1968).
First is the objective measurement of neighbourhood as a geographical and placed-based
identity with measures derived from primary field surveys or from analysis of secondary,
normally census-based, data sets. Locality, physical characteristic, density, residences
and resident populations, retail and recreational area, utilities and circulation space are
all considered part of this physically-oriented notion (Jacobs, 1993). Physical approaches
to neighbourhoods and neighbourhood liveability are often discussed relative to their
walkable nearness or proximity to some form of centre, whether public facility,
institutional, educational or retail. Proximity to the centre is measured either in walking
145
distance or walking time (Stein, 1951). This physical notion of neighbourhood is
acknowledged by most researchers (Brower, 1996; Keller, 1968). Deciphering the
neighbourhood and neighbourhood liveability by means of ‘objective’ characteristics is
one of two means of determining the concepts; the other is the more ‘subjective’
behavioural approach (Keller, 1968) which is outlined below as the second category.
The second category defines neighbourhoods and neighbourhood liveability by the
subjective behavioural aspects of their use and activity. This incorporates private and
public activity and the exchange of goods and services and information that structure
neighbourhoods (Hillery, 1968). This category is informed by and overlaps with the first
category of physical concept of neighbourhood liveability. This view contends that
neighbourhood and neighbourhood liveability is not inherent in the environment but is a
behaviour related function of the interaction of neighbourhood characteristics and
person characteristics (Anderson et al., 1999). Everyday household activities influence
the perceived dimension of the neighbourhood, for example, how far people are willing
to walk to public transport, banks, health facilities, shops and recreation. This suggests
that neighbourhoods are identifiable through the linkage of their residential function and
their non-residential uses that draw and encourage activity. Neighbourhood behavioural
and use patterns may extend into other neighbourhoods. Behavioural use of the
neighbourhood has been identified as being entrenched within hierarchies of ever-larger
places; i.e., the housing unit situated on a parcel of land, which is situated within the
home area, which is situated in the neighbourhoood, which is situated in the city, etc.,
(Brower, 1996).
Due to the difficulty of defining neighbourhoods spatially or behaviourally, the third
category is one of a sociological approach. It includes community concepts of political
and social organization, interpersonal and group cohesion and relationships, notions of
inclusion or exclusion with social, ethnic, cultural and territorial identity (Hester, 1975;
Gans, 1962). Communication and transport technological advances, housing turnover
and the mobility and changing nature of work has resulted in decreased social capital and
group participation. This has challenged place-based neighbourhoods through the
growth of non-place-based communities of interest (Webber, 1963). It is suggested that
because place-based communities appear to be on the decline, the social neighbourhood
has been reduced to shared political interests against threats to property value and
potential change (Putnam, 2000).
146
As discussed above, most social indicator research has employed either objective or
subjective measures and rarely have the two been linked despite that one indicator can
contribute to the interpretation of the other (McCrea et al., 2006; Pacione, 2003). Also,
there is no conclusive evidence of the superiority of one type of indicator over the other
(Pacione, 2003). Both areas of research have contributed valuable insights into the
concept of liveability, neighbourhood and communities. Thus, a more complete
understanding of neighbourhood use and activity would be facilitated by corresponding
data of peoples’ perceptions of their use and activity within their neighbourhood. It is an
axiom, therefore, that in order to determine a clearer understanding of urban
neighbourhood, it would be beneficial to employ both qualitative and quantitative
evaluations, thereby considering both the physical urban neighbourhood and the social
urban neighbourhood.
Most advanced capitalist societies are keen to develop a more sustainable and liveable
urban development pattern and their unit of focus is the urban neighbourhood. Changes
or policies aimed at changing the objective, physical urban neighbourhood environment
assume an improvement in the subjective experience of urban liveabililty for residents
within that neighbourhood when there is little evidence of empirical strength to these
associations (McCrea et al., 2006). It is important to investigate these associations to
provide greater clarity on the relationship between the two measures. The distinction
between subjective and objective measures is the difference between the perceptions of
behaviour and the actual behaviour of older people within their urban neighbourhoods.
Thus, the purpose of this paper is to use quantitative and qualitative measures to explore
the concept of high density urban neighbourhood and neighbourhood liveability for older
people.
Method The data presented is a sub-set of a larger project exploring active ageing and liveability
in rural, regional and urban Queensland locations; this paper focuses specifically on the
experiences of older Queenslander’s residing in inner-urban, high-density Brisbane
suburbs.
147
Case Study Location
The case study location is Brisbane, Queensland, the fastest growing city in Australia and
the second fastest growing city in the western world with a population of almost one
million people. Seven inner-urban higher-density suburbs (defined as 30 or more
dwellings per hectare) fall within this area (Hamilton, Highgate Hill, West End, Newstead,
Teneriffe, Kangaroo Point and Kelvin Grove) and participants were selected to ensure
that the data represents all seven suburbs.
Participants
A total of 12 participants (6 men, 6 women) living in the selected high-density suburbs in
Brisbane were interviewed. Their ages ranged from 55 to 80 years, with a mean age of
69.5 years and all but one lived in their current residence for over five years. Seven
participants were married; two widowed and living alone and three single and living
alone. Seven participants had annual incomes greater than A$70,000 (three were in full
time employment); one had an income between A$40,000 and A$50,000; one had
income of less than A$20,000 and two chose not indicate their income level. Participants
were currently residing in different inner-urban suburbs with different typography and
varying levels of infrastructure and services in each location.
Apparatus - Global Positioning Systems
Objective and accurate measurements of the participant’s physical movements
throughout the seven day trial periods were obtained by issuing participants with
portable autonomous Global Positioning Systems (GPS) devices. Following the trials, the
recorded spatial data was analyzed and visualised using a Geographical Information
Systems (GIS): Google Earth.
Daily Diaries
Participants kept a daily diary of activities/destinations for the week prior to the
interview. The diary recorded demographics, daily travel and activities for each
participant.
In-depth Interviews
The in-depth interview explored a number of open-ended questions around level of
activity and instrumental and non-instrumental social behaviour within the immediate
148
urban environment. Using the diary and map information, the interviews explored the
experiences of participants in relation to social inclusion, frequency of planned and
spontaneous encounters and urban community social support and engagement. All
interviews were recorded and lasted on average approximately 90 minutes.
Data Analysis
The data from the interviews, diaries and maps was compared and analysed using
qualitative methods. The audio recordings were fully transcribed and then analysed using
a thematic approach, identifying key categories, themes and patterns (Liamputtong,
2009). An iterative process was utilised, with the transcripts being read and reread in
order to code the data and identify emerging themes and meaningful categories. To
enable understanding and interpretation, participant’s diaries and time/space life path
maps were also qualitatively analysed to identify key patterns in where and how
participants moved in the monitored week.
In this study, objective indicators were gathered using Global Positioning Systems (GPS)
to track the respondents’ movements and then to map their movements using
Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and also to gather objective indicators about
their urban environment with regard to services and facilities. This data was then
analysed for the second phase of subjective measurement through semi-structured in-
depth interviews.
Figure 1 Examples of two weekly activity maps
149
Results/Discussion The data reveal a weak link between the subjective perceived use of the local
neighbourhood and the objective indicators of actual use. Older residents reported using
their local neighbourhoods regularly, however the subjective assessment was
incongruent with the GPS and GIS analysis indicating that they have very little local
neighbourhood activity. Similarly, there is disparity between the subjective and objective
indicators on their neighbourhood meeting all their needs. The third dissimilarity
between the objective and subjective related to the geographic concept of local
neighbourhood which goes some way to explaining the first two contradictions.
All participants reported that they used their local neighbourhoods regularly for goods
and services and recreation. However, the GPS and GIS mapping as shown in Figure 1,
demonstrates they spend very little time in their local neighbourhood outside their
residence. Map A, in Figure 1, depicts the week’s activity of a resident whose
neighbourhood has limited available amenities and services which could explain the
extensive use of her private vehicle. Map B is the week’s activity of a participant, who
lives in an urban neighbourhood well serviced with amenities within walkable distances,
with similar vehicle use despite the availability of local amenities. When asked to identify
walkability issues of their local neighbourhood, residents mentioned the weather, lack of
shade and street seating, uneven pedestrian surfaces and topography, lack of hand rails
on steps and lack of good quality public toilets.
All residents said that they loved their neighbourhoods and believed that their location
met their needs. A widely acknowledged definitional attribute of liveable
neighbourhoods is walkable proximity, measured in either distance or time spent
walking, to satisfy everyday needs. The analysis indicated that the residents used their
cars extensively to take them to other neighbourhoods to undertake everyday activities.
The virtues of neighbourhood walking are particularly pertinent to older people. Walking
is regarded as being accessible and convenient to everyone and an act of identity
creation through the everyday use of space (Mayol in de Certeau et al., 1998). Regular
pedestrian use of neighbourhood space allows appropriation of community space into
the realm of domestic life (Mayol in de Certeau et al., 1998). All residents identified the
importance of having facilities and activities within their urban neighbourhood, and yet
they relied on vehicle transport for the majority of trips outside of their homes.
150
The final major disparity between the subjective and objective measures was the concept
of their local neighbourhood. The concept of neighbourhood is one of walkability in
addressing everyday needs. These residents undertook most of their everyday activity
outside of their walkable neighbourhood. When asked to identify their neighbourhood
on the Google Earth map during the interview, the residents indicated a much wider
geographic region than their immediate walkable neighbourhood. One resident
identified, the greater Brisbane area as his neighbourhood. The neighbourhood
identified was in keeping with their everyday activity base which was with the use of a
vehicle. They indicated a geographic radius comprising of their favorite locations that are
generally within a 5-15 minute drive. This is in keeping with Brower (1996) who indicated
that behavioural and use patterns often extend into other neighbourhoods. Access to
familiar everyday type activities (for example, retail shopping, hairdressers, medical
services and the like) appears unproblematic while there is easy availability and use of
the vehicle but this is unsustainable as the residents age and they or their partner can no
longer drive.
The experience or perception of the neighbourhood is represented as a joint function of
the objective physical conditions (for example, state of the footpaths, etc.) and the
subjective interpretation of these conditions to the individual. If the perceived
neighbourhood environment is outside the individual’s comfort range then there is
difficulty in the use of the neighbourhood for any activity whether for recreation or
necessity.
Many factors, including personal and social characteristics such as age and health status
interfere with an individual’s subjective interpretation of their objective physical world
and these may act as noise in distorting objective conditions (Pacione, 2003). A universal
objective, for example, reducing car dependence, can be transformed by individual
perceptions of, for example, how they view the extent of their personal use of the
vehicle. Individual experience is also a factor which will affect the perception of a specific
domain (Pacione, 2003). Experience of cyclists’ rage along a shared pedestrian track, for
example, is likely to have a lasting effect on the individual’s perception of safety and
enjoyment of his or her neighbourbood walkways. Another factor which may be of
importance in the subjective-objective interpretation or understanding of neighbourhood
liveability is the aspiration level or expectations of the individual. This helps explain the
relatively high satisfaction with neighbourhood liveability expressed by individuals whose
151
neighbourhoods do not appear to support their everyday needs. The notion of
accommodation is another variable that may influence the relationship between
objective and subjective conditions. This suggests that in a fixed situation an individual’s
satisfaction with a condition may increase over time by accommodation to that situation
(Pacione, 2003).
Finally, it is important to acknowledge the research limitations. Although the sample is
generally representative of high density older residents of inner urban areas and is
unusual by incorporating both objective and subjective indicators, our findings are based
on a relatively small and potentially unique population.
In summary, neighbourhood liveability is supported by local walkable access for everyday
needs. Data show that older urban residents are typically active participants in a variety
of activities but they have very low levels of locally-based activity within walking distance
of their residences. Those interviewed said that they loved their neighbourhood and
several claimed to love the fact that it was so ‘central to everything’. Close location of
services and activities was regarded as important and this was given as a reason for
choosing the neighbourhood/residence or as a reason for not wanting to move from their
existing neighbourhoods. However, the GPS and GIS data indicated that they had
minimal local neighbourhood contact and that they used their private vehicles
extensively. This demonstrates the relativism that is implicit in the subjective nature of
neighbourhood liveability. Where people choose to live and the areas that they
behaviourally use can be considered ‘liveable’ according to the individual’s own
subjective filter.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by an Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage Project, “The
neglected dimension of community liveability: Impact on social connectedness and active
ageing”.
152
References Anderson, Ralph E., Irl E. Carter, and Gary Lowe. Human Behavior in the Social
Environment: A Social Systems Approach 5th ed. Hawthorne, New York: Aldine de
Gruyter, 1999.
Brisbane City Council, and Queensland Government. "River City Blueprint." In River City
Blueprint Forum - Background Paper. Brisbane, Queensland: Brisbane City
Council, Queensland Government, 2010.
Brower, Sidney. Good Neighborhoods: A Study of in-Town and Suburban Residential
Environments. Westport, Conn: Praeger Publishers, 1996.
de Certeau, Michel, Luce Giard, and Pierre Mayol. The Practice of Everyday Life, Volume
2: Living and Cooking. Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1998.
Gans, Herbert. The Urban Villagers: Group and Class in the Life of Italian-Americans. New
York: Free Press, 1962.
Hester, Randolph. Planning Neighborhood Space with People. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold, 1984.
Hillery, George A. Communal Organizations: A Study of Local Societies. Chicago,IL:
University of Chicago Press, 1968.
Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Modern Library
Edition, Random House, 1993.
Keller, Suzanne. The Urban Neighborhood: A Sociological Perspective. New York:
Princeton University Press / Random House, 1968.
Liamputtong, Pranee. Qualitative Research Methods. 3rd ed. ed. Melbourne, Vic: Oxford
University Press, 2009.
McCrea, Rod, Tung-Kai Shyy, and Robert Stimson. "What Is the Strength of the Link
between Objective and Subjective Indicators of Urban Quality of Life?" Applied
Research in Quality of Life 1, no. 1 (2006): 79-96.
O'Sullivan, Arthur. Urban Economics. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2003.
Pacione, Michael. "Urban Environmental Quality and Human Wellbeing--a Social
Geographical Perspective." Landscape and Urban Planning 65, no. 1-2 (2003): 19-
30.
Putnam, R. D. Bowling Alone : The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New
York: Simon & Schuster, 2000.
Stein, Clarence. Toward New Towns for America. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press,
1951.
153
Webber, Melvin M. "Order in Diversity: Community without Propinquity." In Cities and
Space: The Future Use of Urban Land, edited by Jr Wingo, Lowdon, 23-56.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1963
154
155
156
Paper 3 - Conceptions of ‘community’ among older adults living in
high density urban areas – An Australian case study
STATEMENT OF JOINT AUTHORSHIP AND AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS IN THE
RESEARCH MANUSCRIPT WITH THE ABOVE MENTIONED TITLE
Submitted for review to Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences on 14 April 2012
Contributor Statement of contribution
Desley Vine
Doctoral Student, School of Design, Queensland University of
Technology (QUT).
Chief investigator, significant contribution to the planning of the study,
literature review, data collection and analysis and writing of the
manuscript.
Laurie Buys
Professor, School of Design, Queensland University of Technology
(QUT).
Significant contribution in the planning of the study (as principal
supervisor) and assisted with data interpretation, preparation and
evaluation of the manuscript.
Rosemary Aird
Senior Research Fellow, School of Design, Queensland University of
Technology (QUT).
Significant contribution in the preparation and evaluation of the
manuscript and assisted with data interpretation.
Principal Supervisor Confirmation
I have sighted email or other correspondence from all Co-authors confirming their
certifying authorship.
Professor Laurie Buys
Name Signature Date 6 February 2012
157
Chapter 6: Paper 3 - Conceptions of ‘community’ among older
adults living in high density urban areas – An Australian case
study
Abstract Objectives. We investigated meanings and use of place to explore community and its
connection to location in the context of high density urban neighbourhoods for older
urban Australians.
Method. This paper explores the everyday interaction and social networks and where
they manifest spatially for a group of older urban Australians through analysis of data
derived from travel diaries, individual time/space activity maps (created via GPS tracking
over a seven-day period and GIS technology), and in-depth interviews.
Results. Four distinct layers of community were identified ranging from the building
where older people reside, the area immediately surrounding the building, the walkable
neighbourhood and the broader district.
Discussion. The four layers are explored by taking into account the participants’
perceptions and practical uses of their environment, their interactions and relationships
and participation in events and everyday activities. The study points to a sectioning of
communities that manifest in the everyday perceptions and experiences of older urban
residents and has implications for community building, policy development and
environmental gerontology.
Key words: homogeneous community, geographic community, neighbourhood, high
density.
Introduction Understanding what constitutes community has become confused (Corcoran,
2002; Obst, Smith, & Zinkiewicz, 2002) as it represents both a social space and a
collective consciousness of social cohesion (Gilleard, Hyde, & Higgs, 2007). Previous
research into communities can be grouped into two categories (Obst, et al., 2002). The
first is the territorial or geographical application of the word where community studies
concentrate on objectively defined areas of residence (neighbourhoods). The second
158
usage pertains to relational aspects within communities of interest, concerned with
matters such as the degree of emotional feelings of similarity or homogeneity, social
connectedness and trust existing within people’s everyday social networks (Gilleard, et
al., 2007; Putnam, 2000).
Homogeneous Communities
Mutual interest, social connectedness, homogeneity or similarity among
members within communities of interest provides the cohesive force for cooperative
behaviour (Obst, et al., 2002). Homogeneous communities, in terms of lifestyle
similarities and shared interests, often create strong social networks and a shared sense
of community. However, homogeneous groups or communities can also be dysfunctional
by exacerbating any existing social cleavages (Norris, 2004).
There has been renewed interest in inner-city high density (ICHD) areas that has
introduced new and particularised populations into various neighbourhoods, resulting in
gentrification, at least as gentrification excludes the less wealthy (Butler, 2007).
Gentrifiers constitute a residential class seeking communities of like-minded people who
share an identity shaped by residential preferences, stage in lifecycle, and social network
(Atkinson & Bridge, 2005; Butler, 2007; Savage, 2005). A ‘vanguard of the bourgeoise’ is
how Logan and Molotch (Zukin, 1987) described the behaviour of such cultural and social
homogeneous community groups.
Geographic Analysis of Community
Planners interpret community as place and rely on ‘neighbourhood’ as the unit of
investigation into urban communities (Hunter, 1974; Kusenbach, 2008; Ziller, 2004). This
entrenched conceptual framework of community as place underpins planning
approaches like new urbanism (Ziller, 2004). The fundamental premise of the place-
based focus is that some neighbourhood designs encourage community connections,
while others do not (Leyden, 2003).
Strict adherence to a geographic analysis approach ignores other layers of
everyday social organisation and urban community differentiation. Because of this,
there has been a shift in the geographic analysis of place from it being treated as a static,
bounded container for social relations to instead being conceived as the coincidence of a
159
range of interconnected social processes operating at different scales (for example, the
residential building, the defended neighbourhood and the walkable neighbourhood) over
different time-periods (Jess & Massey, 1995). Hunter (1974) and more recently
Kusenbach (2008) identified “hierarchies of community” ranging in scale from small social
blocks to larger neighbourhoods to even larger city regions. This paper builds on the
work of Hunter (1974) and the subsequent work of Kusenbach (2008) and other scholarly
commentators to explore community and its connection to location in the context of high
density urban neighbourhoods for older urban Australians.
This paper investigates the concept of community for 12 case studies of older
residents living in six ICHD areas in Brisbane, Australia. There has been little exploration
of how older people living in high density are, and have been, engaged in communities.
In identifying community this study does not rely on a single definition. It incorporates
the ambiguity of community boundaries as part of the analysis. It investigates the
everyday social networks of older urban Australians through the place where social
interactions occur. This recognises the importance of the spatial aspect in understanding
communities overlaid with residents’ subjective perceptions and actual everyday
activities. Such an approach is more complex but is more representative of the reality of
urban residents’ lives. Therefore, place is not pre-conceived territorially but identified
through the analysis of the research. The purpose of this paper is to use closely aligned
quantitative and qualitative measures to explore community and its connection to
location and locale in ICHD for older people.
Methods The data used for this study comprises a sub-set of data related to the
experiences of older Australians residing in inner-urban, high density suburbs, which
were gathered as part of a larger project exploring active ageing and livebility in rural,
regional and urban locations. The research methodology used for the current study
involves several different data collection methods: time-use diaries, survey responses,
GPS tracking and GIS mapping, and in-depth qualitative interviews. Ethical approval for
this project was obtained from a university Human Research Ethics Committee, and all
case study participants provided written informed consent prior to their participation in
the current study.
160
Participants
A total of 12 participants (6 men, 6 women) living in selected ICHD areas were
used for this research, with all but one of the sample drawn from a database of a past
project (‘Living in the City’) (see Table 1 on p107 for a profile of participants’
neighbourhoods). This previous study utilised a proportionate sampling technique for a
postal survey completed by 636 inner urban residents (28% response rate) in 2007,
involving research that focused on the social, environmental and economic aspects of
inner-city life. Using this database, participants who had indicated a willingness to
participate in further research and were now aged 55 years or older were contacted and
invited to participate, ensuring that those recruited allowed exploration of differences
that might emerge as a function of age or gender. Since the original sample from which
these participants were drawn lacked any persons of low socioeconomic status, the
twelfth participant was recruited through a community group to facilitate inclusion of a
case study within this particular demographic.
Case Study Location
The location for all 12 case studies was Brisbane, Queensland, one of the fastest
growing cities in Australia and in the western world. Brisbane has a sub-tropical climate
with undulating topography. The study was undertaken in late March to early April at the
start of autumn (normally characterised by pleasant outdoor weather conditions) in
order to minimise possible weather-related bias in the results, given that summer is
usually warm, humid and wet in Brisbane. The findings are thus considered to provide an
indication of the typical activity level of participants. The greater Brisbane area is under
the jurisdiction of the Brisbane City Council, which reports that this city’s population is
expected to increase from 991,000 (2009) to 1,270,000 people by 2031, and that in 2006,
around 231,526 people and 105,783 dwellings were located in the inner five kilometers
of Brisbane (Brisbane City Council & Queensland Government, 2010). Participants in this
study were selected from six inner-city higher density areas (defined as 30 or more
dwellings per hectare) within five kilometers of the Central Business District. Figure 1
shows the location of the high density areas included in this study.
161
Figure 1 Map of the urban high density areas included in this study
Apparatus
Global Positioning Systems
Objective measures of each participant’s travel over a seven-day period were
obtained via a person-based GPS device (lightweight portable TSI GPS Trip Recorder
Model 747A), which was used to track all of their out-of-home movement. The accuracy
of the GPS device is reported to be +-3 meters (TranSystem Incorporated, 2008). This
level of error can increase significantly however, depending on the level of signal
interference caused by buildings, canopy cover, indoor environments, and so on.
Participants placed the GPS device into a handbag or pocket during waking hours and
charged the battery each night. The GPS devices were programmed to record position,
time, date, speed and altitude at a time interval of one minute. This allowed for accurate
tracking of each participant’s outdoor movements, although the GPS would not record
points when no signal was available (for instance, if the participant travelled
underground for a period of time).
GIS Data Preparation and Analysis
Data from the GPS devices were downloaded using software specific to the GPS
device (included in the purchased package). Using this software, the raw data were then
exported as spreadsheets using a comma-delineated file format with each row
162
representing a logged position (one each minute). These spreadsheets were converted to
Google Earth files using an online converter and mapped in Google Earth. The different
tracks of each participant’s travel on the yielded maps were color-coded by mode of
travel used, according to information entered in participants’ travel diaries (see Daily
Diaries below). The creation of each participant’s time/space activity maps (involving day-
by-day and total weekly travels) took approximately 6 hours per diagram and was
accompanied by tabulated information relevant to each journey and destination.
Daily Diaries
Participants kept a daily diary for the same week that they were using the GPS
tracking device. The diary had space to record their daily travel, destinations, activities
and reflections upon issues pertaining to their environment or any undertaken activity.
The diary also included a brief survey which captured demographic information, use of
transport, volunteering and aspects of community livebility and engagement. The diaries
offered an efficient and affordable way to assess specific details about activity (i.e.,
duration, frequency, social context, travel mode, and location), thereby supplementing
information derived from the GPS devices.
In-depth Interviews
Each interview took place around two weeks after the GPS device and diary were
returned to the research team, and lasted approximately 90 minutes on average. The
interviews were sequenced so that initial discussion centred on participants’ general
pattern of movement over the tracking period, followed by a day-by-day review of each
participant’s trips and activities. This enabled exploration of the nature and level of
activity of each participant within their respective immediate ICHD environments. The
diary and map information acted as basis for generating further discussion to examine
participants’ experience of out-of-home mobility and the factors that facilitate and
hinder community activity. Interviews also provided an opportunity for the accuracy of
the GPS data and created maps to be verified by participants. All interviews were
recorded and subsequently transcribed verbatim.
Data Analysis
The qualitative data derived from interview were analysed as individual case
studies to determine community activity for each participant, as well as their experiences
163
within their neighbourhood environments. The concept of a ‘hierarchies of placed-based
community’, proposed by Hunter (1974) and used subsequently by Kusenbach (2008),
was used as a basis for exploring the relationship between community and urban place
for each case study. The interview transcripts were read and re-read, and manually
coded with ‘chunks’ of data being assigned to categories that corresponded to the main
components conceived by Hunter (1974), Kusenbach (2008) and others to act as
determinants of placed-based community. This method of aggregating the data enabled
detection of similarities and differences between the experiences of the case study
participants with regard to their place-based communities and community activity.
These findings are summarised and presented below.
Results/Discussion This study found that urban residents have territory in common, including their
building, the space immediately surrounding their building, their walkable
neighbourhood and the broader district. While places in and of themselves are not
communities, they are a useful lens through which to review the different levels of urban
community for older urban Australian people.
All four zones distinguish themselves through the residents’ everyday practices
and perceptions. When asked about their community, most residents started discussing
their immediate environment (the community of the building in which they live). This is
in keeping with Sastry et al’s research (Kusenbach, 2008) which found that 36 per cent of
respondents identified the block, the smallest possible unit, as their definition of
community. Most interesting is that when asked to identify their community
geographically on a map, the majority of the residents referred to a much larger area, the
district beyond their respective walkable neighbourhoods. The residents thus clearly and
easily identified the community of the building zone and the district community zone.
Only one resident identified her walkable neighbourhood geographically as her
community and she was able to speak at length about the people who live there (see
Figure 2 below for the map of this resident’s walkable neighbourhood). Data gathered at
interview, revealed the importance of the community zone immediately surrounding the
building. The importance of these four community zones in obtaining a clearer
understanding of urban communities and how these zones are differentiated is discussed
below.
164
Figure 2 Example of a resident’s weekly walking activity map with 5 and 10 minute walking zones indicated
Building
Similar to findings in previous studies (Ziller, 2004) very few of those interviewed
were well acquainted with other residents in their building and their interaction was
mostly brief, trivial and regularly involved practical, small exchanges, e.g. You just see
people in lifts…and…around [the building] (CS1). These greetings invariably were the
result of chance encounters through using shared building design features like elevators,
carpark, swimming pool, barbeque facilities and the like – [I] just stand and talk if they
[other residents] are at the letter-box (CS8). Such features provide opportunities for
chance meetings fostering casual relationships and social networks among building
residents (Gutman, 1966; Suttles, 1972). One resident noted that this friendliness did not
extend beyond the greeting to activities such as being welcomed into another resident’s
apartment or invited out for a meal or beverage.
Most of the people who live in blocks like this…seem to me to be pretty much
friendly, extremely friendly when they see you but they do not go out of their way
to make friends with you (CS1).
Most residents reported social functions organised by the body corporate or
management of the respective apartment building and identified such activity as
important to fostering a sense of community.
165
I think we do [have a sense of community]. There’s sausage sizzles…which I think
are a very good way of breaking the ice…It is a great way of meeting other people
(CS11).
This has been found to be a typical and important component of this community zone
(Kusenbach, 2008)).
While residential building communities could be regarded as territory-based with
the expected absence of emotional feelings of similarity between members normally
associated with interest-based communities (Obst, et al., 2002), the majority of
participants recognised and discussed the high level of similarity (homogeneity) between
residents in their respective buildings. Residents identified that the majority of other
residents were retired or semi-retired, and felt a sense of connection and support of
tangible needs.
We have got a lot of home occupiers of advancing age. So it's a good ageing
community to live in (CS12).
Such feelings as those cited above are positive outcomes of homogeneous
communities, however, only one resident spoke of a strong sense of responsibility and
tangible support provided to other building residents within his building.
Very helpful, very kind. We look after each other. The other two towers, it
doesn't happen. If somebody gets ill [in our building], there's somebody to cook
them a meal, take them to the doctor if they have to (CS12).
This resident was confident that such support assisted in lengthening the period of
ageing in place possible for those affected residents. This very successful building
community was well promoted and supported by an equally highly functional body
corporate.
166
We [the Body Corporate] haven’t had a problem since we have been there…Our
annual general meetings take 20 minutes. The other towers take, you know, four
hours. That’s how good our tower is (CS12).
Urban localities have the opportunity of being “sites for new kinds of solidarities among
people who choose to live in particular places” (Savage, 2005).
Although body corporates were acknowledged for organising activities with the
potential to promote a sense of community, many residents reflected on the community
dysfunction that resulted from the operations of these bodies.
… we realised it was getting a bit cliquey...There were people on the body
corporate getting into the ears of the committee members… If you are in the
group, you could just about do anything…But if you weren't in the group and
wanted to do something, it was very hard… there was victimisation there
against one lot of unit members. It was really bad (CS1).
There is little in the literature dealing with a residential building body corporate
either functional or dysfunctional and its effect on a building’s community. As mentioned
above, most interviewees acknowledged the homogeneity of their respective building’s
owner occupiers. Where homogeneity, in terms of lifestyle similarities and shared
interests, resulted in a highly functional and functioning building community, strong
social networks and a shared sense of community were created and reported. However,
there is often a dark underbelly of such homogeneous groups or communities,
categorised as the negative symptoms of a group-think mentality and gentrification.
Varying degrees of the symptoms of group-think and gentrification were identified in the
dysfunctional body corporate communities and in one case causing a resident to move
residences.
I thought I got sick of apartment living but I think it's more - apartment living is
more about the community again. Is there a community within the department
block or is there a power-play on the body corporate within the block? (CS2).
167
Some residents described their respective body corporates in such a way that they
resembled Logan and Molotch’s (Zukin, 1987) ‘vanguard of the bourgeoise’ carrying out
their aims regardless of any opposition (Zukin, 1987).
Area immediately surrounding the building
Community activity regarding the area immediately surrounding the resident’s
building was identified conceptually in the semi-structured qualitative interviews as an
area which extends beyond the building but in the resident’s opinion has a major impact
on his or her immediate residential livebility. From the results, a major feature of the
first two community zones appears to be a greater sense of ownership or community
engagement resulting in the resident being less likely to mind one’s own business and to
actively engage in vocal opposition or complaint of issues deemed to negatively affect
livebility or property values.
The participants had significant vested interest in the area that immediately
surrounds their residence and demonstrated considerable detailed knowledge of the
people and activities of this zone.
Because there's a new building going up there. This house that's here has been
moved to there. This house has been demolished and all this site has been
cleared. There's three new houses going on here. We talk about infill. So the
changes in Harriet Street, which is the side street is huge… That's all gone. It
was all rust. That one has been re-roofed and raised and been completely
renovated. That block there, is now a great big hole. They are going to put three
townhouses in there. This house here, they just moved in the last week to the
back and they are going to build a new one in front. (CS2)
Knowing other people and having an interest or issue in common does not
necessarily require face to face individual contact or constitute a community of territory
or interest, for example, email petitions, protest marches and the like (Ziller, 2004). The
distinction is the face to face contact and conversation with neighbours (Putnam, 2000).
It is suggested that because place-based communities appear to be on the decline, the
social neighbourhood has been reduced to shared political interests against threats to
property value and potential change (Putnam, 2000). Putnam’s observations would
168
appear to represent the community activity undertaken by the interviewed residents
regarding the area that immediately abuts or surrounds their respective residential
apartment building. Plans for further increases in density were of particular concern
which resulted in community organising activity to vocalise objections to such proposals.
Unfortunately, what’s going to happen, they are widening Kingsford Smith Drive
to six lanes, so they are going to take – that’s a community hall… They are going
to put another [building]…right in front of our place. So we used to meet in that
little park [to protest the development]. That little park is going to be a smaller
park. They are talking about putting buildings in that, believe it or not... We
have no right of appeal of any planning in that area [immediately abutting the
resident’s building], which frightens me terribly. They are putting 15,000 people
in that area, 15,000. They say they have got a park. Yes, they have got a park;
you can swing a cat in it. The rest is high-rise. (CS12)
This epitomises Suttle’s (1972) concept of the defended neighbourhood with residents
demonstrating psychological, financial and social investment in this community zone.
Despite their social significance in shaping communities, such areas have largely been
ignored as units of analysis (Kusenbach, 2008).
Walkable neighbourhood
An attractive, safe and useable pedestrian realm provides benefits for the social
health and community development of the neighbourhood (du Toit, Cerin, Leslie, &
Owen, 2007; Salmon, Owen, Crawford, Bauman, & Sallis, 2003; Sugiyama, Ward
Thompson, & Alves, 2009). What is particularly interesting, given the amount of research
attention this zone has received, is that it is the zone least enjoyed or pursued by older
ICHD Australians. In terms of community socio-spatial issues, the walkable
neighbourhood ideally performs two basic functions: a movement corridor to take
people to destinations where planned exchanges will take place and a 'stage' or 'outdoor
living room' to facilitate exchanges both planned and spontaneous (Engwicht, 1999). The
older ICHD participants in this study are not walking in their local neighbourhoods, are
using their motor vehicles extensively and are therefore not achieving the health benefits
of regular everyday walking activity, nor experiencing unplanned, accidental encounters
with others who live in their walkable neighbourhood. They are tending to confine their
169
contact to the tried and trusted at the cost of establishing connection with their
neighbourhood community.
The availability of everyday amenities is necessary to encourage residents to walk
in their neighbourhood (de Certeau, Giard, & Mayol, 1998). Access to amenities that
facilitate participation in everyday type activities (e.g. retail shopping, hairdressers,
medical services, etc) appears to be principally undertaken with the use of a private
motor vehicle.
The shopping could be improved… to get to a supermarket…you have to go
somewhere else with the car. So that's the only thing that I think would be
missing, to make it more of a community...We don't get much interaction
[spontaneous engagement] that way. I think it's because Kangaroo Point really is
a dormitory area. (CS10)
Another major finding was the experience of the neighbourhood walking paths
for these residents. Neighbourhood walking for these residents included unpleasant
experiences which they expect to exacerbate with increasing higher density. Figure 3 is
an overhead view of a particularly busy pedestrian section identified by participants.
While movement through public spaces facilitates both planned and spontaneous
exchanges, excessive volumes of movement from any form of traffic also destroys the
potential for some exchanges to take place (Engwicht, 1999).
There aren't enough parks. Even the German lady that I talk to, she's got a dog.
She said, "I have to now take my dog for a walk at 2 o'clock in the afternoon
because if I go early/late, there's just no room. It's just so full". (CS2)
170
Figure 3 Overhead view of a particularly busy pedestrian section identified by participants.
Broader district
Perhaps the most nebulous in terms of geographical definition is the broader
district zone. Extensive motor vehicle use for everyday activities extends the concept or
perception of community beyond the neighbourhood. When asked to identify their
community geographically, the residents indicated a much wider geographic region than
their immediate walkable neighbourhood. The community they identified was in keeping
with their everyday activity base which included the extensive use of a private motor
vehicle (see Figure 4 for a typical retail and trade services activity map). Figure 4 depicts
the activity map for Case Study 12 resident and demonstrates extensive use of motor
vehicle to access every-day retail and trade services. This is in keeping with previous
research which identified that community orientation and appropriation is a result of the
regular everyday use of that community space (Mayol in de Certeau et al., 1998).
171
Figure 4 – Weekly retail and trade services activity map for CS12 resident
Part of this broader district community is the volunteering work undertaken by
older urban Australians. Older people make a major contribution to the broader
community through voluntary work which invariably takes place outside their local
neighbourhood. Residents who do not feel connected to people in their neighbourhood
have found friendships through their volunteer activity.
I don’t have friends in the area. I mostly when I’m not down at the [volunteer]
society or doing a bit of research or something, I don’t sort of mix. I have got a
few friends in different places [through his previous work and current volunteer
activity]. (CS8)
A wider spatial orientation has been correlated to a stronger sense of community which
may be related to feelings of inclusiveness obtained through activities like volunteering
(Obst, et al., 2002).
Limitations of research
One limitation of this research is that it is based on a small sample of older
Australians living in one capital city. Nevertheless, the sample size contributed to the
feasibility of the innovative approach taken in this study, involving the gathering of
information from multiple sources and the undertaking of analyses linking and relating
172
both subjective (perceptions of behaviour obtained through the interviews) and objective
(actual behaviour gathered from the GPS and GIS and expanded through the individual
diaries) indicators. The results provide insight into the lived experience of older adults
living in high density settings and their experiences are likely to have relevance to other
high density contexts elsewhere. Clearly further qualitative, quantitative research is
needed to explore in more depth, the urban experience and opinions of older people
living in urban environments. In particular, more research is needed to understand
community experience and development in terms of its implications for older people.
Conclusion This study explores hierarchies of community from the residential building to the
broader community in the context of ICHD neighbourhoods for older people. Results
show some interesting tensions around social interactions that are spontaneous or
imposed by virtue of living in close proximity and those that are planned or chosen and
usually take place outside of the residential building. This study points to a sectioning of
communities that manifest in the everyday perceptions and experiences of older ICHD
residents. There is a risk of not adopting a zonal approach to understanding community
as there is a chance of missing the diversity of impacts on community through such things
as gentrification at different spatial scales. This has implications for theory building as
well as practical application in areas such as urban planning and design, community
building and policy development. As this research is based on the feelings, interactions
and everyday practices of a sample of older ICHD people, it provides a useful example of
a methodological approach for furthering investigation into important issues like
gentrification, segregation and social divides, individual and community sustainability and
resilience, safety and ageing in place. The theoretical analysis of place as intersections of
processes at different spatial scales may need to be modified and /or tested through
more detailed empirical analyses focusing on different types of
neighbourhoods/communities and other population groups. The challenge posed is for
more commentators to explore community and its connection to location in the context
of high density urban environments for older people.
173
References
Atkinson, R., & Bridge, G. (2005). Gentrification in a global context the new urban
colonialism (pp. x, 300 p ).
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2008). Population Projections, Australia, 2006 to 2101.
Cat. No. 3222.0. Canberra: ABS.
Barclays Wealth. (2010). Volume 12: The age illusion: how the wealthy are redefining
their retirement. Barclays Wealth Insights, from
http://www.barclayswealth.com/insights/assets/pdf/BW12_UK__ForWeb.pdf
Brisbane City Council, & Queensland Government. (2010, June 2010). River City Blueprint.
River City Blueprint Forum - Background Paper, from
http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:BASE::pc=PC_6257
Butler, T. (2007). For gentrification? Environment and Planning A, 39(1), 162-181.
Corcoran, M. P. (2002). Place attachment and community sentiment in marginalised
neighbourhoods: A European case study. Canadian Journal of Urban Research,
11(1), 47-67.
de Certeau, M., Giard, L., & Mayol, P. (1998). The Practice of Everyday Life, Volume 2:
Living and Cooking. Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota Press.
du Toit, L., Cerin, E., Leslie, E., & Owen, N. (2007). Does Walking in the Neighbourhood
Enhance Local Sociability? Urban Studies, 44(9), 1677-1695.
Engwicht, D. (1999). Street reclaiming : creating livable streets and vibrant communities.
Annandale, NSW: Pluto Press.
Gilleard, C., Hyde, M., & Higgs, P. (2007). The Impact of Age, Place, Aging in Place, and
Attachment to Place on the Well-Being of the Over 50s in England. Research on
Aging, 29(6), 590-605.
Gutman, R. (1966). Site Planning and Social Behavior*. Journal of Social Issues, 22(4), 103-
115. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1966.tb00553.x
Hunter, A. (1974). Symbolic Communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
174
Jess, P., & Massey, D. B. (1995). A Place in the world? : places, cultures and globalization.
Oxford, New York: Open University, Oxford University Press.
Kusenbach, M. (2008). A Hierarchy of Urban Communities: Observations on the Nested
Character of Place. City & Community, 7(3), 225-249. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-
6040.2008.00259.x
Leyden, K. M. (2003). Social Capital and the Built Environment: The Importance of
Walkable Neighborhoods. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1546-1551.
doi: 10.2105/ajph.93.9.1546
Norris, P. (2004). The bridging and bonding role of online communities. In P. N. Howard &
S. Jones (Eds.), Society online : the Internet in context (pp. 31-42). Thousand Oaks,
Calif. ; London: Sage.
Obst, P., Smith, S. G., & Zinkiewicz, L. (2002). An exploration of sense of community, Part
3: Dimensions and predictors of psychological sense of community in
geographical communities. Journal of Community Psychology, 30(1), 119-133.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone : the collapse and revival of American community.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Salmon, J., Owen, N., Crawford, D., Bauman, A., & Sallis, J. F. (2003). Physical activity and
sedentary behavior: A population-based study of barriers, enjoyment, and
preference. Health Psychology, 22(2), 178-188.
Savage, M., Bagnall, G., Longhurst, B. (2005). Globalisation and Belonging. London: Sage.
Sugiyama, T., Ward Thompson, C., & Alves, S. (2009). Associations Between
Neighborhood Open Space Attributes and Quality of Life for Older People in
Britain. Environment and Behavior, 41(1), 3-21.
Suttles, G. D. (1972). The social construction of communities. Chicago, London: University
of Chicago Press.
TranSystem Incorporated. (2008). 747 A+ GPS Trip Recorder, User’s Manual, from
http://www.transystem.com.tw/product/59/747%20A+%20User%20Manual%20
v1.1.pdf
175
Ziller, A. (2004). The Community is Not a Place and Why it Matters—Case Study: Green
Square. Urban Policy and Research, 22(4), 465-479. doi:
10.1080/0811114042000296353
Zukin, S. (1987). Gentrification: Culture and Capital in the Urban Core. Annual Review of
Sociology, 13(1), 129-147. doi: doi:10.1146/annurev.so.13.080187.001021
176
177
178
Paper 4 - High density urban neighbourhood amenities: The
experiences of older urban Australians
STATEMENT OF JOINT AUTHORSHIP AND AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS IN THE
RESEARCH MANUSCRIPT WITH THE ABOVE MENTIONED TITLE
Submitted for review to Landscape and Urban Planning on 16 October 2011; Revised
paper submitted to Landscape and Urban Planning on 17 March 2012
Contributor Statement of contribution
Desley Vine
Doctoral Student, School of Design, Queensland University of
Technology (QUT)
Chief investigator, significant contribution to the planning of the study,
literature review, data collection and analysis and writing of the
manuscript.
Laurie Buys
Professor, School of Design, Queensland University of Technology
(QUT)
Significant contribution in the planning of the study (as principal
supervisor) and assisted with data interpretation, preparation and
evaluation of the manuscript.
Rosemary Aird
Senior Research Fellow, School of Design, Queensland University of
Technology (QUT)
Significant contribution in the preparation and evaluation of the
manuscript and assisted with data interpretation.
Principal Supervisor Confirmation
I have sighted email or other correspondence from all Co-authors confirming their
certifying authorship.
Professor Laurie Buys
Name Signature Date 20 Dec 2011
179
Chapter 7: Paper 4 - High density urban neighbourhood
amenities: The experiences of older urban Australians
Introduction In recent years there has been increasing recognition of the need to improve the quality
of cities and urban neighbourhoods in reference to supporting an ever-increasing ageing
society (see Australian Local Government Association (ALGA), 2006; Burton and Mitchell,
2006; Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA), 2006; Inclusive Design for Getting
Outdoors (IDGO), 2007a,b; World Health Organisation (WHO), 2007). There has been
growing attention given to the urban neighbourhood environment of older people not
only in gerontology but also across a wide range of disciplines including geography, urban
design, transport studies and public health (Day, 2010; Ziegler and Schwanen, 2011). This
cross-disciplinary interest is fuelled by the inter-related factors of increasing urbanisation
and population ageing (Beard and Petitot, 2010; Lui et al., 2009; Smith, 2009) and the
significant challenges these trends pose for landscape planning and design.
With the losses in functioning associated with the ageing process, the quality and type of
environment becomes a significant factor in determining well-being and independence of
older people (Smith, 2009; WHO, 2007). The design of the neighbourhood and provision
of neighbourhood amenities can enhance or inhibit participation and are especially
important for older people to be able to continue to age in place (Judd et al., 2010).
While there is limited research evidence related to access to urban neighbourhood
amenity among older people (Quinn et al., 2009), projects undertaken in the United
Kingdom and in Australia identify age-friendly built environment design approaches
(Burton and Mitchell, 2006; IDGO, 2007a,b; Judd et al., 2010). Many western
governments are developing strategies for age-friendly cities (see ALGA, 2006; DoHA,
2006; IDGO, 2007a,b; WHO, 2007) and are pursuing urban planning policy aimed at
reducing the physical separation of daily activities with a more effective integration of
land use and transport (Neal., 2003). Policies aimed at changing the physical urban
neighbourhood environment in ways that increase ready access to amenities assumes an
improvement in the experience of liveability for residents within that neighbourhood
(McCrea et al., 2006). While there is no universally accepted definition of liveability, it
can be broadly defined as “the well being of a community and represents the
characteristics that make a place where people want to live now and in the future”
(Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission, 2008). The purpose of this paper is to
180
explore the effect of the neighbourhood environment and its influence on liveability for
older urban residents.
An ecological perspective of ageing
An ecological perspective of ageing “assumes an interplay between an individual’s
functional capacity, adaptation, and their physical and social environment” (Beard and
Petitot, 2010, 430). There are a number of models which could be seen to embody such
a theoretical foundation. For example, urban consolidation models, such as urban village
and smart growth, with planning designs that co-locate residential and other uses around
transport nodes, promote easy local access to diverse amenities and public transport
which may encourage older people to maintain social networks and remain engaged with
their local community. Similarly, policy initiatives that seek to enforce the permanent
removal of impediments to walking, including street crossings that do not allow older
people or people with disability enough time to cross, deteriorating footpaths or other
physical barriers are instrumental in older people’s ability to age in place (Frumkin et al.,
2004). These issues relate to liveable neighbourhoods, universal design and also feature
strongly in the healthy cities and age-friendly cities agenda (IDGO 2007a,b; National
Heart Foundation (NHF), 2009; WHO, 2007) for improving the design of cities and
neighbourhoods to be more conducive to ageing in place (Beard and Petitot, 2010).
It is broadly recognised that ageing in place (growing older in one place without the need
to move as a result of health impacts) is in the interests of both older people and the
government (Judd et al., 2010). The independence, health and wellbeing of older people
are advanced by ageing in place and there is a reduced economic burden on government
through reduced demand for institutionalised aged care. While a quality environment is
a right requiring no empirical justification, social policy and social change needs to be
driven by a better understanding of what constitutes a ‘quality’ environment in which
older people are committed to ageing in place (Lawton in Smith, 2009; Rosso et al.,
2011). The need to better understand older people’s experiences is in part driven and
supported by research that suggests that environment matters (Rosso et al., 2011; Smith,
2009).
Environmental gerontology, an ecological perspective of ageing, has been increasing in
importance over the past few decades (Day, 2010; Peace et al., 2007, 2011; Smith, 2009).
181
While acknowledged for expanding the body of knowledge pertaining to older people’s
environments and extending the methods used in this topic area (Smith, 2009; Wahl and
Weisman, 2003), it has also been criticised for having no standard methodology or
theoretical approach (Kendig, 2003), relying too heavily on quantitative methods (Wahl
and Weisman, 2003) and for predominantly focusing on micro-environments (Kendig,
2003). Kendig (2003, 612) has emphasised the need to extend research beyond the
micro-environment to urban neighbourhoods, cities and regions especially in light of
“important macro-dimensions to change, such as aging of the baby boom cohort”. The
term “urban” is used in this study in a specialised sense to refer to inner-city, high density
environments/neighbourhoods (a minimum of 30 dwellings per hectare).
The study of the neighbourhood setting
While the term “neighbourhood” is used in everyday conversation it lacks any single or
widely agreed definition. Neighbourhoods are comprised by residence and home-related
facilities that are in close proximity and which serve residential needs (Kearns and
Parkinson, 2001). Characteristics of proximity of access to everyday needs, influenced by
both distance and transport infrastructure, could be considered a widely acknowledged
definitional attribute of neighbourhood (Galster, 2001) especially as it relates to
neighbourhood liveability (Jacobs, 1961). Physical approaches to neighbourhoods and
neighbourhood liveability are often discussed relative to their walkable proximity to
some form of centre (institutional, educational, retail or other public facility) (Galster,
2001). Walkable proximity is difficult to define geographically due to variables such as
the age and ability of residents, the state of the streetscape, and the topography of a
given urban area. Notwithstanding these qualifications, for the purposes of this research,
walkable proximity is considered to be an area within 10 minutes walking distance of
home.
Rather than conceiving neighbourhood and neighbourhood liveability on the basis of
particular inherent physical qualities in the environment, a second conceptual approach
views them as a behaviour-related function of the interaction of neighbourhood and
person-based characteristics (Anderson et al., 1999). Everyday household activities
influence the perceived dimension of the neighbourhood: for example, how far people
are willing to walk to public transport, banks, health facilities, shops and recreational
facilities. This suggests that neighbourhoods are identifiable through the link between
182
their residential function and their non-residential uses and how this linkage draws and
encourages activity. Neighbourhood behavioural and use patterns may extend into other
neighbourhoods as people function in different social networks, at different scales,
across different times and spaces, and thus as a result may look for different things than
those that exist within their home area (defined as an area of 5-10 minutes walk) (Kearns
and Parkinson, 2001). For some, time-geography of their neighbourhood is delimited
across a wider region (Kearns and Parkinson, 2001).
Out-of-home mobility
Key correlates of the decision to walk include local availability and design of amenities
including an accessible, time efficient, safe and comfortable transport network of public
transport nodes, transport corridors and available and interconnected walking
infrastructure (Berke et al., 2007; Judd et al., 2010; Leslie et al., 2007). Close proximity
and accessible amenities such as restaurants, cafes, shops, employment, health care
facilities, parks and recreational facilities have been linked to residential satisfaction and
quality of life (Glaeser et al., 2001; Lloyd and Auld, 2003) and to decisions of whether to
walk or take the car (Southworth, 2005). Easy access to everyday activities significantly
adds value to liveability for both the individual and the broader community (Glaeser et
al., 2001).
The preferred mode of transport for older people is the car (Alsnih and Hensher, 2003).
Motor vehicles are widely used among all those of driving age and above but they are
especially important to older people for mobility and their overall well-being. Driving
cessation has been linked to reduced out-of-home mobility and life satisfaction (Harrison
and Ragland, 2003), reduced quality of life (Gabriel and Bowling, 2004) and has been a
strong predictor of worsening depressive symptoms (Fonda et al., 2001). Use of a car is
crucial for those with waning sensory ability and physical strength to meet the everyday
demands of life and for maintaining participation in social and cultural activities
(Mollenkoph et al., 2002). The inability to drive or use public transport leaves older
people with little option than to travel as a passenger in a car if and when the
opportunity arises (Judd et al., 2010).
183
Recent research
There has been criticism of the extensive use of quantitative methods in environmental
gerontology studies because these methods fail to capture the experience of the
environment for older people (Ewing and Handy, 2009). More recently, however, there
have been a number of studies using either qualitative methods (Day, 2010) or a mixed
methods approach (Lord and Luxembourg, 2007; Shoval et al., 2011) to explore older
people’s experiences within their neighbourhood environment. Lord and Luxembourg
(2007) and Shoval and colleagues (2011) both employed in-depth interviews and
geographic technology to study the mobility of their participants with the former using
geographic information systems (GIS) and the latter, global positioning system (GPS)
devices.
There were three main issues from the findings of this group of studies regarding older
people and their out-of-home mobility. Firstly, transport planning has traditionally and
incorrectly viewed older people as a homogeneous group. Secondly, there are varied
reasons why older people heavily rely on cars for their out-of-home mobility and not just
because of problems with availability of amenities and public transport. Thirdly,
problems with neighbourhood walkability continues to discourage walking and reinforce
reliance on the car. These sorts of studies help to explain why the idea of urban
consolidation models, such as smart growth, which serve to shorten trip distances,
increase travel options and thus reduce older people’s need for owning a car (Behan et
al., 2008; Judd et al., 2010) remain the subject of debate (see Alsnih and Hensher, 2003;
Therese et al., 2010). Established norms around car use act as a significant barrier to
reducing people’s reliance on them (Lee and Moudon, 2004; Therese et al., 2010).
Context of the current study
There is international interest in the demographic profile of older people in preparing to
meet the needs of an older urban society (Smith, 2009). This impending global
phenomenon holds relevance for landscape planning and design in creating age-friendly
urban form that facilitates ageing in place. Many advanced societies are developing
strategies for age-friendly urban environments (ALGA, 2006; DoHA, 2006; IDGO, 2007a,b;
WHO, 2007) and their entrenched default conceptual framework is the urban
neighbourhood. Proximity characteristics of access to everyday activity is an integral
attribute of liveability and the complex commodity called neighbourhood. The extent
184
that higher density living actually encourages walkable neighbourhood activity and
reduces car use among older people within Australia is unclear. It is important therefore
to investigate the relationship between high density living and amenity access when
making determinations of neighbourhood liveability. Given the possibility that
differences exist between the perceptions and actual behaviour of older people within
their urban neighbourhoods, both subjective and objective measures are needed to
explore the neighbourhood environment as older people experience this phenomenon
through space and time. Thus, this paper reports on findings based on the use of twelve
case studies employing both quantitative and qualitative measures for the purpose of
exploring the effect of the neighbourhood environment and its influence on liveability for
older urban residents.
Methods The data used for this study comprises a sub-set of data related to the experiences of
older Australians residing in inner-urban, high density suburbs, which were gathered as
part of a larger project exploring ageing and liveability in rural, regional and urban
locations. The research methodology used for the current study involves three different
data collection methods: time-use diaries, Global Positioning Systems (GPS) mapping, and
in-depth qualitative interviews. Two weeks prior to the semi-structured in-depth
interviews, participants were given a GPS tracking device and paper diary and were asked
to carry the GPS everywhere they went and to complete a daily diary on their activities
for that one week period in 2010. Ethical approval for this project was obtained from a
university Human Research Ethics Committee, with all case study participants providing
written informed consent prior to their participation in the current study.
Participants
A total of 12 participants (6 men, 6 women) living in selected high density areas were
used for this research with all but one of the sample drawn from a database of a past
project (‘Living in the City’) (see Table 1 on p107 for a summary of respondents’ profile).
This previous study utilised a proportionate sampling technique for a postal survey
completed by 636 inner-urban residents (28% response rate) in 2007, involving research
that focussed on the social, environmental and economic aspects of inner-city life. Using
this database, participants who had indicated a willingness to participate in further
research and were now aged 55 years or older were contacted and invited to participate,
185
ensuring that those recruited allowed exploration of differences that might emerge as a
function of age or gender. Since the original sample from which these participants were
drawn lacked any persons of low socioeconomic status (SES), a twelfth participant was
recruited through a community group to facilitate a case study within this particular
demographic.
Case Study Location
The location for all case studies was Brisbane, Queensland, one of the fastest growing
cities in Australia and in the western world. Brisbane has a sub-tropical climate with
undulating topography. The study was undertaken in late March to early April at the
start of autumn, normally characterised by pleasant outdoor weather conditions. The
population of the greater Brisbane area under the jurisdiction of the Brisbane City
Council is expected to increase from 991,000 (2009) to 1,270,000 people by 2031
(Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2007). In 2006, the inner five kilometres of
Brisbane included 231,526 people and 105,783 dwellings (ABS, 2007). Participants were
selected from six inner-urban higher density areas (defined as 30 or more dwellings per
hectare) within five kilometres of the Central Business District (CBD) (see Table 1 p107 for
details of areas covered). Figure 1 is a map of the inner-urban high density areas
included in this study.
186
Figure 1 Map of the inner city high density areas included in this study
Apparatus
Global Positioning Systems
Objective measures of each participant’s travel over a seven-day period were obtained
via a person-based GPS device (lightweight portable TSI GPS Trip Recorder Model 747A),
which was used to track all of their out-of-home movement. The accuracy of the GPS
device is reported to be +-3 metres (TranSystem Incorporated, 2008); this level of error
can increase significantly however, depending on the level of signal interference caused
by buildings, canopy cover, indoor environments, and so on. Participants placed the GPS
device into a handbag or pocket during waking hours and charged the battery each night.
The GPS devices were programmed to record position, time, date, speed and altitude at a
time interval of one minute. This allowed for accurate tracking of each participant’s
outdoor movements, although the GPS would not record points when no signal was
available (for instance, if the participant travelled underground for a period of time).
187
GIS Data Preparation and Analysis
Data from the GPS devices were downloaded using software specific to the GPS device
(included in the purchased package). Using this software, the raw data were then
exported as spreadsheets using a comma-delineated file format with each row
representing a logged position (one each minute). These spreadsheets were converted
to Google Earth files using an online converter and mapped in Google Earth. The different
tracks of each participant’s travel on the yielded maps were colour-coded by mode of
travel used, according to information entered in participants’ travel diaries (refer to Daily
Diaries below). The creation of each participant’s time/space activity maps (involving
day-by-day and total weekly travels) took approximately 6 hours per diagram and was
accompanied by tabulated information relevant to each journey and destination. These
maps were used during the interviews.
Daily Diaries
Participants kept a daily diary for the same week that they were using the GPS tracking
device. The diary had space to record their daily travel, destinations, activities and
reflections upon issues pertaining to their environment or any undertaken activity. The
diary also included a brief survey which captured demographic information, use of
transport, volunteering and aspects of community liveability and engagement. The
diaries offered an efficient and affordable way to assess specific details about activity
(i.e., duration, frequency, social context, travel mode, and location), thereby
supplementing information derived from the GPS devices.
In-depth Interviews
Residents’ perceptions of place were elicited through their responses to open-ended
questions focussed on both the positive and negative experiences and features of their
respective neighbourhoods. The importance of the ‘ordinary knowledge’ of residents for
providing insight into local issues and the functioning of daily life in place is crucial in
effective liveability research (Myers, 1987). The interviews were sequenced so that initial
discussion centred on participants’ general pattern of movement over the tracking
period, followed by a day-by-day review of each participant’s trips and activities. This
enabled exploration of the nature and level of activity of each participant within their
respective immediate urban environments. The diary and map information acted as basis
for generating further discussion to examine participants’ experience of the built
188
environment and the factors that facilitate and hinder their activity. In this way, their
potential and realised out-of-home activity could be examined. All interviews were
recorded and subsequently transcribed verbatim.
Procedure
Participants were telephoned prior to them being sent a paper travel diary, a GPS device
and recharger, and a typed set of instructions about the use and battery charging of the
GPS device (previously trialled for ease of use and comprehension). The GPS device and
diary were posted back to the research team for interpretation prior to the interview.
The recorded GPS data were merged, with interactive individual ‘activity maps’ created
for each participant. These ‘individual time/space life path maps’ were then reviewed and
compared with the time-use diaries to identify any key patterns, issues or anomalies to
be discussed at interview. As the computer used at interview was large and difficult to
move, the semi-structured interviews were conducted predominantly at a central
location (the university) and, on occasion, in participants’ homes. The interviews lasted
approximately 90 minutes on average. The process captured both narration and mapped
information about destinations, activities, lifestyles, journeys and general experiences
when moving about their community for the target week in each case study participant’s
life. Through the interviews, diaries and mapping, the study captured the frequency of
participants’ activity on different days and at different times, identified the sites used for
spending free time and allowed interviewers to explore the manner in which the
participants’ respective urban environments facilitated their physical activity (eg
shopping, walking) and social interactions.
Data Analysis
In this study, objective indicators were gathered using GPS to track the respondents’
movements and to map their movements using GIS, and also to gather objective
indicators of available services and facilities within their respective urban environments.
These quantitative measures were then analysed for the second phase of subjective
measurement via interviews. The data from the interviews, diaries and maps were
subsequently compared and analysed as individual case studies. The audio recordings
were fully transcribed and then analysed using a thematic approach, identifying key
categories, themes and patterns (Liamputtong, 2009). An iterative process was utilised,
with the transcripts being read and re-read in order to code the data and identify
189
emerging themes and meaningful categories. To enable understanding and
interpretation, each participant’s diaries and time/space life path maps were also
qualitatively analysed to identify key patterns in where and how participants moved
during the monitored week.
Results Data gathered from the survey items revealed that all participants loved their
neighbourhoods and did not report any negative issue relating to their neighbourhood.
The main two findings are that older people are not using local amenities in their high
density neighbourhoods and that only a small percentage of each day is being used for
outside activity (see Figure 2 below for a graphical representation of time spent in and
outside the home for each participant, based on their mapped activities over the tracked
seven-day period). As can be seen from this diagram, the majority of cases spent most of
their time within the confines of their home. One notable exception to this overall
pattern of behaviour was CS5 (male) who cycled extensively throughout his immediate
and surrounding neighbourhood (see also Table 2 for detail of kilometres travelled by
mode of transport)
Figure 2 Graphical representation of time spent at home/away from home during tracking
period
190
The two main themes that emerge from the data explaining why older people are not
using local neighbourhood amenities relate to the availability and accessibility of
amenities within these local high density neighbourhoods. Figure 3 below shows the
weekly activity maps of two residents. One resident, CS1 was from Newstead which has
limited available amenities and the other resident, CS7 was from Hamilton with excellent
availability of local amenities but with a number of barriers to easy walking access to
these amenities. These barriers are discussed below.
Figure 3 Weekly travel maps for two residents – one from a neighbourhood with few available amenities (CS1) and the other from an amenity rich neighbourhood with access issues (CS7).
Residents were found to be driving outside their local neighbourhoods for everyday
goods and services, rather than accessing everyday amenities within their own high
density neighbourhoods. Figures 4 and 5 below show the weekly services accessed by
two residents, CS3 and CS10, with the five and ten minute walk zones highlighted on each
map. Figure 4, CS3’s map, depicts the retail and service network accessed by this
resident. This resident lives in a newly established urban village with new and varied
amenities. This resident, however, has issues associated with affordability and landscape
topography which form barriers to accessing available amenities. The retail and service
network activity map depicted in Figure 5 is from a resident who lives in an amenity poor
neighbourhood referred to by two residents as a “dormitory suburb”. There was a great
191
deal of similarity in the appearance of the activity maps regardless of the availability of
amenities in residents’ local walkable neighbourhoods. This would indicate that there
are factors other than availability of amenities which affect older residents’ decisions to
walk within their local neighbourhood. Residents discussed significant issues pertaining
to walkable access to local amenities. These are captured below under Barriers to
Accessing Local Amenities.
Figure 4 Services accessed by CS3 resident who lives within a high amenity neighbourhood
192
Figure 5 Services accessed by CS10 resident who lives within a neighbourhood with few
amenities
Local Availability of Amenities
There appears to be great diversity between the high density urban areas under study
in terms of locally available amenities. Participants experienced two different realities:
residents from two areas in particular (Kangaroo Point and Newstead) have minimal
amenity choice and have to travel by motor vehicle in order to access most services -
since they are poorly served by public transport - while others choose to drive or be
driven to access their services of choice.
I used to live at Kangaroo Point which doesn't have a sense of community. It
doesn't have a heart or soul. It's what I call a dormitory suburb. People go
there to sleep. There are no amenities there. So by comparison, if you look at
West End, there's a centre…there's a hub. (CS2)
Basic developed world infrastructure (eg, internet, telecommunications, consistent
electricity supply) can be of poor quality or lacking altogether in some high density
areas.
193
There's no cabling…We get intermittent power - I think all the infrastructure is
really old…I feel that we were misrepresented…It never occurred to us to ask
about the (television and internet infrastructure) that it wasn't cabled. (CS4)
All of those interviewed reported loving their urban environment and a number of them
reported that they loved it because it met their needs. The mapping (the objective,
quantitative measure) showed that they used very few or no local services and utilised
their motor vehicle extensively (see Figures 3, 4 and 5). While they identified the
importance of having facilities and activities within their urban neighbourhoods, they
were still dependent on private motor vehicle transport for the majority of trips outside
their homes.
Amenity accessibility
Each of the individual maps revealed that private motor vehicles were used for the
majority of activities. While this was seemingly due in part to the freedom motor vehicles
provide, participants identified their reliance on their motor vehicles as a consequence of
poor provision of and/or problems with access to amenities that service everyday needs
and activities. Their low use of public transport appears to be attributable to some
limitation or dissatisfaction with available public transport services, rather than a lack of
their availability.
I have heard this place referred to as Kangaroo Island [rather than the suburb
name of Kangaroo Point] because of how bad public transport is. (CS11)
Car trips for some residents were necessitated by their wish to access specialist items or
preferred health service providers outside their neighbourhood precinct.
I have always been travelling there because she's a good optometrist and that's
why I go out there…I had been chasing a book that day and I couldn't get it
anywhere, and then back to [dress shop], oh, yes, I bought something at the
dress shop. (CS4)
194
Barriers to Accessing Local Amenities
Affordability, aspects of the built environment (including pedestrian pathways,
streetscape and buildings) and public transport were highlighted by interviewees as being
key areas that either facilitate or hinder their participation within their respective
neighbourhood communities.
Affordability
Where services and facilities did exist in the local urban environment, there was often a
premium that older people were reluctant to pay. Those interviewed often chose to
bypass local chain grocery stores and travel across suburbs to shop at a cheaper grocery
outlet.
It depends who has got the best specials. (CS2)
Another interviewee was mindful of the need to support local services even though this
might involve greater cost to her than non-local services.
I have always been a firm believer you have to support your local shopkeepers.
If you don't, you lose them. So I always feel very strongly about that. Even if
sometimes it might be a little bit more costly, but when you measure that
against convenience, it's ahead. (CS11)
Built Environment
Three key design characteristics of the built environment restricted participants’
participation in the community: pedestrian pathways, streetscape and buildings.
Pedestrian Pathways
The quality of pedestrian footpaths varied between urban neighbourhoods. Some were
well maintained with even surfaces and hand rails being provided adjacent to any steps
along the path, while others had uneven surfaces with no handrail support for stairs.
Uneven footpath surfaces and steep terrain pose problems for older people when
walking around their neighbourhoods.
I would do a lot more walking if I could walk uphill and down hills (CS3)
195
Footpaths in high density areas are often overcrowded and narrow and difficult for
older people to negotiate. Some participants noted increasing numbers of runners and
bicycle traffic along shared pedestrian/cycling paths becoming a real and significant
threat to older people.
Yes, cyclists. They are the biggest one. It's becoming very frightening. A lot of
them are very abusive…Most of them don't have a bell, so you get frightened for
your life, even though you are keeping to the left and everything. What I am
really concerned about, is that I feel there's animosity that's developing between
walkers and cyclists. (CS11)
In some urban neighbourhoods, footpaths are dangerously close to busy roads where
people have fallen and been killed. Also, on these busy roads, some pedestrian crossings
appear not to provide enough time for older people to safely cross the road before the
lights change. Figure 6 below is an overhead view of such an intersection. The land
surrounding this intersection has been earmarked for significant high rise re-
development.
That is the problem, crossing Kingsford Smith Drive…There's lights on the corner
with pedestrian crossing. I try to get across as fast as I can and I can't get across
in one change of the lights. People on the walking sticks haven't got a hope… we
have taken it up with the council. They have increased the time to 2 seconds, but
that's still not enough...Yes, these lights – we have had one (person), at our
tower, hit by a truck. (CS12)
196
Figure 6 An overhead view of a dangerous intersection identified by residents
Streetscape
Lack of shade and street seating for those living in Brisbane’s subtropical climate were
evident in some urban neighbourhoods, as was clean and safe public toilets.
It has got no shade. It's got no seating for older people, strollers I call them.
People who want to stroll rather than - so it's for, you know, the 15 to 50 age
group but they forget about the (ages) beyond that. (CS12)
Buildings
Lack of hand rails on steps to be negotiated when entering and leaving buildings was
identified as a problem, as was uncomfortable and inadequate seating in public shopping
areas and buildings. Difficulty accessing buildings and uncomfortable seating also
restricts favoured activity.
From the footpath, there's four/five steps up and then you go into a lift or if you
are coming through the car park, they is still a step up. One step up and then
there's two doors to sort of go through. If you were by yourself in a wheelchair,
you probably wouldn't be able to do it because the doors are very heavy and it's
on a spring and it's got a lock and it's quite narrow. (CS1)
197
Public Transport
Some urban neighbourhoods are poorly serviced by public transport. Some urban older
people: perceive public transport services to be irregular or unreliable; experience
difficulty in physical access onto buses, trains or ferries; experience excessive distance or
steep topography when travelling to transit nodes or excessive waiting including transfer
times between changes of transport; and find timetable and route information confusing.
Use of public transport was also found to be limited to certain destinations and locations,
such as inner-city travel. The findings from interviews illustrated that choice of travel
mode was largely affected by perceptions of convenience related to physical access,
seamless journeys (perception of inconvenient bus routes or connections) and journey
destination or purpose. Table 2 below details the total distance travelled (in kms) by
each participant, according to the modes of transport used during the monitored week,
as well as comments regarding factors that serve to either enable or constrain
participants’ use of public transport (gathered at interview or from travel diary entries).
198
Table 2 Transport mode used in total kilometers over 7 day tracking period
Case
Study
No.
Transport mode
in total kms over
7 days of tracking
Identified public transport barriers and facilitators
CS1 Car - 93.7kms Bus - 21.63kms
Walk - 7.04kms
…the public transport is so good. Next to our driveway is a bus stop and it comes every ten minutes during the day
CS2 Car - 51.33kms
Walk - 12.75kms
I could catch the bus. But I have got to walk down there to
catch the bus
CS3 Car - 150.2kms
Walk - .86kms
Public transport doesn't always go where you want to go.
CS4 Car - 115.72kms
Walk – 7.4kms Ferry – 1.77kms
that [taking away the Ferry service] would be
devastating...See, we have got no bus service.
CS5 Car – 53.25kms
Bike – 197.65kms Walk – 18.53kms
…this go card stuff means I will avoid public transport
unless I can walk in and put my money down and get on the bus because I only occasionally use it.
CS6 Car – 65.39kms I can get on a bus but I can't get off the bus. It depends how
- if it's a good driver and he goes right to the kerb, I can get
off easily, but usually they don't… Most places I would have to go to the city and go and get another bus out
CS7 Car – 66.78kms
Taxi – 6.98kms
Bus – 5.72kms Foot – 26.98kms
Ferry – 8.46kms
…it was suitable to me because it was close to public
transport, close to the airport,
CS8 Car – 36.34kms They don't all go the right way that you want to go, the busses, but there's nothing that we can do about that.
CS9 Car – 159.02kms I don't want to get too far away from the loo [toilet]…Of
course you will worry about it; you don't want to wet
yourself. So, yeah, basically things like busses don't appeal.
CS10 Car – 309.51kms
Taxi – 6.43kms
Walk – 2.33kms
the only bus that comes down, comes off the Story Bridge
and stops on the other side of the Bradfield Highway and
then carries on down there. There's nothing that actually
comes round in the Kangaroo Point area itself.
CS11 Car – 11.33kms
Taxi – 7.75kms
Walk - 8.62kms Ferry – 1.43kms
It's hazardous just in the crossing [to the ferry]
CS12 Car - 46.67kms
Walk – 1.74kms
The City Cat is good in that… it's available and cheap for
seniors but when you come to the city, where do you finish
up? There's three stops. There's the Riverside, QUT ----and this side, North Quay. Riverside is a million miles
from the shops. QUT is half a million miles from the
shops. And north bank, North Quay, you have got a cliff to climb.
199
Discussion and Conclusions
The findings from this study suggest that there is a gap between the rhetoric of
neighbourhood amenity that surrounds the high density living policy agenda and the
reality of life within these settings for older Australian people, particularly in relation to
the availability of and accessibility to neighbourhood amenities within walking distance.
However, availability and access issues to neighbourhood amenities do not appear to
lead to older adults being dissatisfied with life within high density contexts. From the
subjective data gathered in this study, it is apparent that overall, participants believe that
their neighbourhoods meet their needs and that they “love” their respective
communities. Nevertheless, these positive perceptions arise within the context of them
having access to and extended use of private motor vehicles, as evidenced by the
objective map data documenting their driving behaviour.
The methods used by this study in gathering both subjective and objective data that
capture participants’ subjective perceptions of their neighbourhoods and their patterns
of movement is a key strength of this study, with the information each provides having
the potential to inform policy strategies associated with high density environments.
Previous research has provided rich quantitative data on older people’s trip-making
(Mollenkopf et al., 2011) or on the physical features of urban environments for older
people (Ewing and Handy, 2009) but there has been a lack of research on the
perceptions, preferences and experiences of older people when venturing out-of-home
(Banister and Bowling, 2004; Coughlin, 2001; Ziegler and Schwanen, 2011). Rarely are
objective and subjective indicators analysed in conjunction with one another (McCrea et
al., 2006), thereby precluding simultaneous consideration of the subjective dimensions of
life within neighbourhoods and the actual movement and participation of residents that
occurs within them. The breadth of information gathered from the objective and
subjective measures used in this study strengthens the case for using both and thus
acknowledging the importance of the subjective when investigating the objective
environment (Pacione, 2003).
This research demonstrates that the mixed-use neighbourhood outcomes and better
quality public transport systems that best support an ageing population are not uniform
across Brisbane’s high density neighbourhoods. The research highlights that some urban
neighbourhoods in Brisbane have minimal facilities or services, while others have the
200
necessary facilities but lack ease of access. Problems with availability of or access to
amenities may explain the lack of local walking undertaken by the majority of
participants. However, a recent review of empirical literature published between 1990
and 2010 examining objective measures of the built environment and older people’s
mobility, concluded that the direct impact on older people’s mobility by urban design,
land use and transportation systems remains unclear due to inconsistent findings across
studies (Rosso et al., 2011). The authors found more promising evidence in street and
traffic conditions, intersections and proximity to select locations as the most likely factors
to impact mobility (Rosso et al., 2011). While the current study is based on a small
number of participants living in one Australian capital city, precluding any generalising of
its findings, all of these factors surfaced as having an influence for the participants
thereby supporting the quantitative studies reviewed by Rosso and colleagues (2011).
Key issues raised by residents included: poor quality or inadequate provision of walking
paths, transport nodes, public open space, street seating, local cafes and public toilets;
steps to public buildings and lack of handrails beside steps; competing with cyclists and
runners along walking paths; lack of pedestrian crossings or inadequate time to cross at
traffic lights; ambiguous crossing cues; and close proximity to busy roads. These built
environment characteristics have previously been acknowledged as concerns for older
people’s out-of-home mobility (Booth et al., 2000; Burton and Mitchell, 2006; IDGO,
2007a,b; Judd et al., 2010). What emerges from this study, as it did for Judd and
colleagues (2010), is an uneven standard of design, provision of amenities and
maintenance of the public realm.
All residents in this study identified the importance of having facilities and activities
within their urban neighbourhood (consistent with high density policy agendas),
however, the GPS and GIS mapping showed these residents to have very low levels of
locally-based everyday activity within walking distance of their residences and that they
relied on vehicle transport for the majority of trips made outside of their homes. Almost
all residents undertook their everyday activities outside of their walkable neighbourhood,
despite no obvious barrier of physical incapacity preventing them from walking in their
local areas. When asked to identify their neighbourhood on the Google Earth map during
their interviews, residents indicated a much wider geographic region than their
immediate walkable neighbourhood (five to fifteen minutes walking distance from their
residence). The neighbourhood identified was in keeping with their everyday activity
201
base - which relied on the use of a motor vehicle. This suggests an extended
neighbourhood based physically and subjectively on spaces of behavioural use.
While problems with accessibility and availability of amenities are plausible explanations
for a lack of local neighbourhood activity and a preference for the private motor vehicle,
there are established norms surrounding driving. Cars are of instrumental and intrinsic
value for older people as a consequence of the pleasure derived from driving itself and
the sense of freedom and ease of movement cars provide (Lord and Luxembourg, 2007;
Lord et al., 2011). Lord and Luxembourg (2007) found the same reasons for reliance on
cars among older people in low and high density areas in Canada and France. This poses
the question as to whether substantial improvements to the accessibility and availability
of local neighbourhood amenities would result in a substantial reduction in the use and
reliance of cars by older people without implementing significant community
engagement strategies aimed at changing norms around car use and encouraging the
value of neighbourhood walking for older people.
A number of barriers to public transport use were identified for older people living in
Brisbane which included: a lack of services in some urban neighbourhoods; terrain or
distance to transport nodes; inconvenient bus routes or connections; queues, crowding
and lack of seating on buses and at bus stops; problem with negotiating steps onto public
transport and difficulties with walking supports on buses. These findings are consistent
with previous research on the nature of barriers to the use of public transport by older
people. Broome and colleagues (2009) in their review of the literature on bus use by
older people found that bus design, service provision and performance, information,
attitudes of staff and the community all affect older people’s use of buses. Only two
participants in this study travelled by bus over the monitored seven day period and this
represented only a small proportion of their travel time (see Table 2). The issues raised
with the use of busses in this current study are consistent with those identified in studies
reviewed by Broome et al. (2009). An issue that was particularly important to one
participant in the current study was level access from the front door of the bus onto the
road-side kerb. Currently, the Brisbane City Council (BCC) has 1006 low-floor busses in
the Council’s fleet which equates to approximately 85 per cent of the fleet (BCC, accessed
22 February, 2012). Continuing improvement in public transport services, access and
202
infrastructure is needed for older people to find public transport more attractive and
reduce their use of their car.
Currently, access to amenities that facilitate participation in everyday type activities (e.g.,
retail shopping, hairdressers, medical services and the like) appears to be made easy
through the availability and use of the private motor vehicle. With the increased losses in
functioning that occur due to the ageing process, older people’s spatial movement
shrinks to the vicinity of their immediate environment (Weiss et al., 2010). When the
older person or his or her partner can no longer drive, there will be significant problems
with access to everyday goods and services unless they live in an accessible, amenity-rich
local environment. With availability or access issues to amenities including public
transport, the loss of a driving licence would limit older people’s ability to participate in
activities outside their local home environment and jeopardise their ability to age in
place. It becomes imperative that environmental factors that negatively impact on older
people’s everyday living are understood and addressed so as to maximise their
opportunities to age in place. This area of research and policy is still in its early stages
however, is gaining increased recognition by Australian and international governments,
health and built environment professionals, and will inevitably continue to grow in
importance as the population ages (Judd et al., 2010).
The findings of this study highlight the relevance and importance of objectives outlined
by the National Heart Foundation (NHF) of Australia if older Australians are to change
their behaviour by driving less and walking more. The NHF (2009) has called for the build
and retrofit of existing neighbourhoods to increase pedestrian access to shops and public
transport and to consider the mobility and access needs of older Australians when
planning pedestrian infrastructure, road crossings, public open space, public transport
access and recreational infrastructure. This needs to extend beyond the planning stage
however, to the maintenance of this infrastructure. Their lack of upkeep has repeatedly
been shown to negatively affect older people’s mobility (Judd et al., 2010).
In conclusion, this study used an innovative, mixed-methods approach in investigating
the socio-spatial environment and everyday lived experiences of twelve older people
living in high density neighbourhoods in Brisbane, Australia. Although the sample size
was small, it contributed to the feasibility of the innovative approach taken in this study.
203
The use of case studies has enabled the gathering of comprehensive information derived
from multiple sources and the undertaking of analyses linking and relating both
subjective (perceptions of behaviour obtained through the interviews) and objective
(activity gathered from the GPS and GIS and expanded through the individual diaries)
indicators. The results therefore provide insight into the lived experience of a group of
older adults living in high density settings and their experiences are likely to have
relevance to other high density contexts elsewhere.
This research contributes to a growing body of knowledge that explores interactions
between residential density and liveability especially as it applies to older people. As
they continue to age and become less able to drive a motor vehicle, older people will
require more appropriate service provision within their local urban neighbourhood in
order to remain living in their own homes and familiar neighbourhoods for as long as
possible. These findings have implications for landscape planning, design and
management of services, facilities and infrastructure that serve older people. By
highlighting issues that impact on the liveability and sustainability of older people as high
density residents, this research furthers our understanding of the specific landscape
planning and design factors which make the urban neighbourhood more liveable and
sustainable and can thus inform actionable and implementable policies, programs and
designs.
204
References Alsnih, R., Hensher, D. A., 2003, The mobility and accessibility expectations of seniors in
an aging population, Transportation Research Part A 37:903-916.
Anderson, R. E., Carter, I. E., Lowe, G., 1999, Human behavior in the social environment: a
social systems approach, Aldine de Gruyter, Hawthorne, New York.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007, General Social Survey (GSS): Summary Results
Australia 2006 (Cat. No. 4159.0), Australian Bureau of Statistics, [ABS] Canberra
Australian Local Government Association (ALGA), 2006, Age-Friendly built Environments:
Opportunities for Local Government, Australian Local Government Association,
Canberra.
Banister, D., Bowling, A., 2004, Quality of life for the elderly: the transport dimension,
Transport Policy 11(2):105-115.
Barclays Wealth, 2010, Retirement shunned by 'Nevertiree' wealthy, says new global
report Retrieved 29 March 2011, 2011, from
http://www.barclayswealth.com/americas/about-us/news/retirement-shunned-
by-nevertiree-wealthy-says-new-global-report.htm
Beard, J. R., Petitot, C., 2010, Ageing and Urbanization: Can Cities be Designed to Foster
Active Ageing?, Public Health Reviews 32(2):1-1-18.
Behan, K., Maoh, H., Kanaroglou, P., 2008, Smart growth strategies, transportation and
urban sprawl: simulated futures for Hamilton, Ontario, The Canadian Geographer
52(3):291-308.
Berke, E. M., Koepsell, T. D., Moudon, A. V., Hoskins, R. E., Larson, E. B., 2007, Association
of the Built Environment With Physical Activity and Obesity in Older Persons,
American Journal of Public Health 97(3):486-492.
Booth, M. L., Owen, N., Bauman, A., Clavisi, O., Leslie, E., 2000, Social-cognitive and
perceived environment influences associated with physical activity in older
Australians, Preventive medicine 31(1):15-22.
205
Brisbane City Council, 2012, Brisbane City Council Dedicated to a better Brisbane Bus
accessibility, Retrieved 21 February 2012, from
http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/traffic-transport/public-transport/buses/bus-
accessibility/index.htm
Broome, K., McKenna, K., Fleming, J., Worrall, L., 2009, Bus use and older people: a
literature review applying the Person-Environment-Occupation model in macro
practice, Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy 16(1):3-12.
Burton, E., Mitchell, L., 2006, Inclusive Urban Design: Streets for Life, Architectural Press,
Oxford.
Coughlin, J., 2001, Transportation and Older Persons: Perceptions and Preferences, AARP,
Washington, DC.
Day, R., 2010, Environmental justice and older age: consideration of a qualitative
neighbourhood-based study, Environment and Planning A 42(11):2658-2673.
Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA), 2006, A Community for All Ages: Building the
Future: The Report on the Findings and Recommentations of the National
Speakers Series Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Ewing, R., Handy, S., 2009, Measuring the Unmeasurable: Urban Design Qualities Related
to Walkability, Journal of Urban Design 14(1):65-84.
Fonda, S. J., Wallace, R. B., Herzog, A. R., 2001, Changes in driving patterns and worsening
depressive symptoms among older adults, Journal of Gerontology: SOCIAL
SCIENCES 56B(6):S343-S351.
Frumkin, H., Frank, L. D., Jackson, R., 2004, Urban sprawl and public health : designing,
planning, and building for healthy communities, Island Press, Washington, DC.
Gabriel, Z., Bowling, A., 2004, Quality of life from the perspectives of older people,
Ageing & Society 24(5):675-691.
Galster, G., 2001, On the Nature of Neighbourhood, Urban Studies 38(12):2111-2124.
Glaeser, E. L., Kolko, J., Saiz, A., 2001, Consumer city, Journal of Economic Geography
1(1):27-50.
206
Hamnett, C., 2005, Social polarisation in global cities : theory and evidence in: The urban
geography reader (N. R. Fyfe, J. T. Kenny, eds.), Routledge, London ; New York
Harrison, A., Ragland, D. R., 2003, Consequences of driving reduction or cessation for
older adults, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board 1843:96-104.
Inclusive Design for Getting Outdoors (IDGO), 2007a, Older People and the Outdoors,
from http://www.idgo.ac.uk/older_people_outdoors/index.htm
Inclusive Design for Getting Outdoors (IDGO), 2007b, What are the Critical Issues, from
http://www.idgo.ac.uk/older_people_outdoors/critical_issues.htm
Jacobs, J., 1961, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jonathan Cape, London.
Judd, B., Olsberg, D., Quinn, J., Groenhart, L. a., Demirbilek, O., 2010, Dwelling, land and
neighbourhood use by older home owners, in: AHURI Final Report No. 144,
Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, UNSW-UWS Research Centre,
Melbourne, Vic.
Kearns, A., Parkinson, M., 2001, The Significance of Neighbourhood, Urban Studies
38(12):2103-2110.
Kendig, H., 2003, Directions in Environmental Gerontology: A Multidisciplinary Field, The
Gerontologist 43(5):611-614.
Lee, C., Moudon, A. V., 2004, Physical activity and environment research in the health
field: implications for urban and transportation planning practice and research,
Journal of Planning Literature 19(2):147-181.
Leslie, E., McCrea, R., Cerin, E., Stimson, R., 2007, Regional Variations in Walking for
Different Purposes: The South East Queensland Quality of Life Study,
Environment and Behavior 39(4):557-577.
Liamputtong, P., 2009, Qualitative research methods, Oxford University Press,
Melbourne, Vic.
Lloyd, K., Auld, C., 2003, Leisure, public space and quality of life in the urban
environment, Urban Policy and Research 21(4):339-356.
207
Lord, S., Després, C., Ramadier, T., 2011, When mobility makes sense: A qualitative and
longitudinal study of the daily mobility of the elderly, Journal of Environmental
Psychology 31(1):52-61.
Lord, S., Luxembourg, N., 2007, The mobility of elderly residents living in surburban
territories, Journal of Housing for the Elderly 20(4):103-121.
Lui, C.-W., Everingham, J.-A., Warburton, J., Cuthill, M., Bartlett, H., 2009, What makes a
community age-friendly: A review of international literature, Australasian Journal
on Ageing 28(3):116-121.
McCrea, R., Shyy, T.-K., Stimson, R., 2006, What is the Strength of the Link Between
Objective and Subjective Indicators of Urban Quality of Life?, Applied Research in
Quality of Life 1(1):79-96.
Mollenkopf, H., Hieber, A., Wahl, H.-W., 2011, Continuity and change in older adults'
perceptions of out-of-home mobility over ten years: a qualitative–quantitative
approach, Ageing & Society 31(05):782-802.
Mollenkopf, H., Marcellini, F., Ruoppila, I., Szeman, Z., Tacken, M., Kaspar, M., 2002, The
role of driving in maintaining mobility in later life: a European view,
Gerontechnology 2(1):231-250.
Myers, D., 1987, Community-Relevant Measurement of Quality of Life: A Focus on Local
Trends, Urban Affairs Quarterly 23(1):108-125.
National Heart Foundation of Australia, 2009, Blueprint for an Active Australia, NHF,
Melbourne.
Neal, P., 2003, Urban Villages and the Making of Communities, Spon Press w/ the Prince's
Foundation, London.
Pacione, M., 2003, Introduction on urban environmental quality and human wellbeing,
Landscape and Urban Planning 65(1-2):1-3.
Peace, S., Holland, C., Kellaher, L., 2011, ‘Option recognition’ in later life: variations in
ageing in place, Ageing & Society 31(5):734-757.
208
Peace, S., Wahl, H.-W., Mollenkopf, H., Oswald, F., 2007, Environment and ageing, in:
European perspectives on gerontology (J. Bond, ed.), Sage Publications Ltd,
London.
Quinn, J., Judd, B., Olsberg, D. a., Demirbilek, O., 2009, Dwelling, land and neighbourhood
use by older home owners, in: AHURI Positioning Paper No. 111, Australian
Housing and Urban Research Institute, UNSW-UWS Research Centre, Melbourne,
Vic.
Rosso, A. L., Auchincloss, A. H., Michael, Y. L., 2011, The urban built environment and
mobility in older adults: a comprehensive review, Journal of Aging Research 10
pages, doi:10.4061/2011/816106.
Shoval, N., Wahl, H.-W., Auslander, G., Isaacson, M., Oswald, F., Edry, T., Landau, R.,
Heinik, J., 2011, Use of the global positioning system to measure the out-of-home
mobility of older adults with differing cognitive functioning, Ageing & Society
31(5):849-869.
Smith, A. E., 2009, Ageing in urban neighbourhoods : place attachment and social
exclusion, Policy, Bristol, UK ; Portland, OR.
Southworth, M., 2005, Designing the Walkable City, Journal of Urban Planning and
Development 131(4):246-257.
Therese, S. A., Buys, L., Bell, L., Miller, E., 2010, The role of land use and psycho-social
factors in high density residents' work travel mode choices: implications for
sustainable transport policy, World Review of Intermodal Transportation
Research 3(1-2):46-72.
TranSystem Incorporated, 2008, 747 A+ GPS Trip Recorder, User’s Manual, from
http://www.transystem.com.tw/product/59/747%20A+%20User%20Manual%20
v1.1.pdf
Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission, 2008, A State of Liveability: An Inquiry
into Enhancing Victoria’s Liveability, Victorian Competition and Efficiency,
Commission’s Final Report, Retrieved 1 November 2009, from
http://www.vcec.vic.gov.au/CA256EAF001C7B21/WebObj/Govtresponse-
liveability/$File/Govt%20response%20-%20liveability.pdf
209
Wahl, H.-W., Weisman, G., D., 2003, Environmental gerontology at the beginning of the
new millennium: reflections on its historical, empirical, and theoretical
development, Gerontologist 43(5):616-627.
Webber, R., 2007, The metropolitan habitus: its manifestations, locations, and
consumption profiles, Environment and Planning A 39(1):182-207.
Weiss, R., Maantay, J. A., Fahs, M., 2010, Promoting active urban aging: a measurement
approach to neighborhood walkability for older adults, Cities and the
Environment 3(1):1-17.
World Health Organisation (WHO), 2007, Global Age Friendly Cities: A Guide, WHO,
Geneva.
Ziegler, F., Schwanen, T., 2011, ‘I like to go out to be energised by different people’: an
exploratory analysis of mobility and wellbeing in later life, Ageing & Society
31(05):758-781.
210
211
212
Paper 5 – Experiences of neighbourhood walkability among older
Australians living in high density inner city areas
STATEMENT OF JOINT AUTHORSHIP AND AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS IN THE
RESEARCH MANUSCRIPT WITH THE ABOVE MENTIONED TITLE
Submitted for revised review to Planning, Theory and Practice on 20 January 2012;
accepted for publication 19 April 2012
Contributor Statement of contribution
Desley Vine
Doctoral Student, School of Design, Queensland University of
Technology (QUT)
Chief investigator, significant contribution to the planning of the study,
literature review, data collection and analysis and writing of the
manuscript.
Laurie Buys
Professor, School of Design, Queensland University of Technology
(QUT)
Significant contribution in the planning of the study (as principal
supervisor) and assisted with data interpretation, preparation and
evaluation of the manuscript.
Rosemary Aird
Senior Research Fellow, School of Design, Queensland University of
Technology (QUT)
Significant contribution in the preparation, evaluation, editing and
revision of the manuscript and assisted with data interpretation.
Principal Supervisor Confirmation
I have sighted email or other correspondence from all Co-authors confirming their
certifying authorship.
Professor Laurie Buys
Name Signature Date 2 February 2012
213
Chapter 8: Paper 5 – Experiences of neighbourhood walkability
among older Australians living in high density inner city
areas
Abstract Walking as an out-of-home mobility activity is recognised for its contribution to healthy and
active ageing. The environment can have a powerful effect on the amount of walking activity
undertaken by older people, thereby influencing their capacity to maintain their wellbeing and
independence. This paper reports the findings from research examining the experiences of
neighbourhood walking for 12 older people from six different inner-city high density suburbs,
through analysis of data derived from travel diaries, individual time/space activity maps
(created via GPS tracking over a seven-day period and GIS technology), and in-depth
interviews. Reliance on motor vehicles, the competing interests of pedestrians and cyclists on
shared pathways and problems associated with transit systems, public transport, and
pedestrian infrastructure emerged as key barriers to older people venturing out of home on
foot. GPS and GIS technology provide new opportunities for furthering understanding of the
out-of-home mobility of older populations.
Key Words: walkability, out-of-home mobility, high density, neighbourhood, older people,
active ageing, global positioning systems.
Introduction The need to improve the quality of cities and neighbourhoods is recognised worldwide as a
way of supporting the out-of-home mobility of an ever-increasing ageing population. This
issue is prominent within the discourse surrounding healthy and active ageing and the
building of “age-friendly cities” (World Health Organization, 2002, 2007; Zeigler & Schwanen,
2011). While the concepts healthy ageing and active ageing differ from each other in subtle
ways, both are conceived to encompass vitality, activity and minimization of the negative
consequences of biological ageing (Schwanen & Ziegler, 2011). With the losses in functioning
that occur in later life as a consequence of the ageing process, the type and quality of the
surrounding environment becomes a significant determinant of older people’s wellbeing and
independence (Phillipson, 2004). Older people who are unable to move around freely because
of a physical disability or environmental limitations have been shown to have a lower quality
of life than those without these constraints (Mollenkopf et al., 2002; White et al., 2010). The
capacity of neighbourhood environments to hinder older people’s out-of-home mobility - and
214
marginalize them as a consequence - is a social justice issue (Day, 2010). It is crucial therefore,
that factors within the neighbourhood environment which affect out-of-home mobility are
fully understood so that they can be properly addressed. This paper adds to the empirical
literature related to the neighbourhood environment and its influence on older urban
residents’ walking behaviour as one component of out-of-home mobility.
The study of older people and their socio-spatial environment
Environmental gerontology is concerned with describing, explaining and modifying or
optimizing ‘the relation between elderly persons and socio-spatial surroundings’ (Wahl &
Weisman, 2003, p. 616). As a subfield of gerontology, its focus of enquiry encompasses
differing levels of social organisation and forms of environment, both at a micro- (i.e.
individuals in private and institutional settings) and macro-scale (i.e. groups and
populations within neighbourhoods, rural regions, and cities) (Wahl & Weisman, 2003).
While environmental gerontology is widely acknowledged for making a major
contribution to our present understanding of the person-environment relationship, it has
also attracted substantial criticism. It has been described as relying too heavily on
quantitative methods (Wahl & Weisman, 2003), focusing predominantly on micro-
environments (Kendig, 2003), and failing to adopt new approaches that advance
understanding of the person-environment relationship beyond that which grew in the
1970s and 1980s (Smith, 2009).
In the early 2000s, Kendig (2003, p. 612) emphasised the need for research to extend beyond
micro-environments to neighbourhoods, cities and regions, – those ‘spatial units that are
changing in their populations and built forms’. In the last few years, much more research
attention has been directed at the neighbourhood environments of older people, not only
within gerontology but other disciplines as well (including geography, urban design and public
health) (Day, 2010). This cross-disciplinary interest is fuelled by awareness of the
interrelatedness of increasing urbanisation and population ageing (Lui et al., 2009; Smith,
2009; Beard & Petitot, 2010) and the significant challenges these trends pose for planning,
policy and practice. This development has served to both expand the body of knowledge
pertaining to older people’s environments and their influence on out-of home mobility and
extend the methods used to study this topic area.
215
Out-of-home mobility
Research undertaken over the past decade indicates that whether or not an older
person’s potential for movement is realised, depends upon a wide range of aspects
including urban design characteristics (Koepsell et al., 2002; Blackman et al., 2003; Li et
al., 2005; Burton & Mitchell, 2006; Alves et al., 2008; White et al., 2010; King et al., 2011;
Shendell et al., 2011), house attributes and upkeep (Foster et al., 2011), open (Sugiyama
et al., 2009; Aspinall et al., 2010) and green (Maas et al., 2006) spaces, driving status
(Mollenkopf et al., 2002) and quality of, and access to, public transport (Banister &
Bowling, 2004; Broome et al., 2009). With respect to the latter, a review of the
evidence related to bus use among older people by Broome and colleagues (2009)
suggests that bus design, service provision and performance, information, attitudes of
staff and the community all affect the use of buses by this segment of the population.
Methodological advances that have been made in recent years include the development
of operational definitions that can be used to quantitatively measure the subjective
qualities of urban street design characteristics (see Ewing & Handy, 2009), as well as tools
that enable the auditing of environmental features as people walk through their
neighbourhoods (see Chaudhury et al., 2011). Validation studies of walkability scoring
instruments have also been undertaken (see for example Duncan et al., 2011). While
these developments have been particularly useful for investigating the walkability of
urban environments in terms of their physical features, Ewing and Handy (2009, p. 66)
highlight the inability of quantitative measures to capture the experience of walking –
that is, ‘people’s overall perceptions of the street environment, perceptions that may
have complex or subtle relationships to physical features’. In the last few years however,
a number of studies have used either qualitative methods (Michael et al., 2006; Day,
2008, 2010) or a mixed-methods approach (Lord & Luxembourg, 2007; Lord et al., 2011;
Shoval et al., 2011) to explore older people’s experiences of mobility within their
neighbourhood environments. This particular body of research has yielded rich data,
thereby providing insight into the dynamic interplay of individuals’ preferences and
personal characteristics, features of the built and natural environment, as well as cultural
norms around car use, in determining the out-of-home mobility of older people.
Day (2010) for example, interviewed retirees (n= 45; aged 62 to 90 years) from three
different areas in western Scotland (an inner-city neighbourhood, a suburban estate, and
a small coastal town), using open-ended questions to investigate features of the urban
216
environment that older people felt were important to their wellbeing. Neighbourhood
walkability, along with cleanliness and lack of pollution, peace and quiet, as well as
having an environment that is emotionally uplifting (as a consequence of elements of
both the built and natural environment) and which promotes informal social interaction,
were the key dimensions that emerged as being important across all three study
locations (Day, 2010). Focus groups with seniors aged 55 years and over from 10 different
neighbourhoods in Portland, Oregon, revealed that access to shops and services were
crucial for older people to walk, meet others and move within their neighbourhoods
without relying on cars, that poor quality pedestrian infrastructure and traffic limited
their walking, that the overall attractiveness of the neighbourhood encouraged walking
for both exercise and pleasure, and that adequate transportation was essential to the
maintenance of older people’s independence and their ongoing engagement with the
wider community (Michael et al., 2006). Lord and Luxembourg (2007) on the other hand,
used in-depth interviews and geographic information systems (GIS) software to study the
mobility practices of older adults living in two different countries (Post-War suburbs in
Canada and France) by geocoding their residences and typical out-of-home consumption
patterns. Participants from both Canada and France were found to be highly reliant on
motor vehicles for transportation, but for different reasons. The former seemed to
regard their motor cars as part of their identity and used their cars extensively (despite
the availability of public transport and nearby amenities), while the latter appeared to
value their vehicles for instrumental reasons (as a way to access services that would
otherwise be unavailable to them as they were living in a low-density area with limited
public transport and commercial facilities). For both groups, it was also evident that loss
of the ability to drive a car would mean a loss of opportunity for participation outside of
home. Similarly, a combination of in-depth interviews and geographic technology (in this
case geographic positioning system [GPS]) was used by Shoval and colleagues (2011) to
investigate the mobility patterns of older persons with and without cognitive
impairment. Participants with mild dementia were found to travel smaller distances than
those with mild cognitive impairment, and both of these groups were found to have a
smaller spatial out-of-home range of activity than healthy controls. The non-impaired
controls also demonstrated greater fluctuation in the timing of their out-of-home activity
than either the mild dementia or the mildly cognitively impaired groups.
217
Changes in older people’s experience of mobility over time have also been investigated
by analysing data derived from a survey conducted in 1999 and from in-depth, semi-
structured interviews in 2006. Lord and colleagues (2011) found that although study
participants (n=22) living in suburbs within Quebec City were highly reliant on cars for
transportation, they adopted various adaptive strategies as they aged so as to allow them
to age in place. Fears about their “action space” shrinking as they aged emerged as their
main overall concern, rather than worries about loss of either their vehicles, homes or
neighbourhoods (Lord et al., 2011, p.59).
The findings from this group of studies highlight three key issues related to older people
and their out-of home mobility. Firstly, the qualitative approaches used in these studies
help to highlight the diverse circumstances and needs of older people. The flawed
assumption that older people are a homogenous group has been identified as having
traditionally underpinned transport planning for older people (Alsnih & Hensher, 2003).
Secondly, there are multiple reasons for older people’s heavy reliance on cars for their
out-of-home mobility, not simply the unavailability of public transport and/or lack of
close proximity to amenities. Thirdly, the lack of walkability of their neighbourhoods
continues to discourage walking for either transport or leisure purposes and thereby
reinforces their reliance on the motor car. These sorts of studies help to explain why the
idea that modifications to the built environment such as higher density living, greater
street connectivity and greater mix of land-use will serve to shorten trip distances,
increase travel options (including walking and public transport) and thus reduce older
people’s need for owning a vehicle (Behan et al., 2008; Judd et al., 2010), remains the
subject of debate (see Alsnih & Hensher, 2003; Therese et al., 2010). Established norms
surrounding vehicle use act as a major obstacle to decreasing people’s reliance on motor
vehicles and increasing their levels of walking (Lee & Moudon, 2004; Therese et al.,
2010). Numerous studies have shown that the car is the preferred mode of transport for
older people (aged 65 years and over) (see Alsnih & Hensher, 2003, p. 906). This is
especially the case in countries like Australia and North America, which have been
described as places where ‘the “logic” of a mass car-owning population has been allowed
its full expression’ (Headicar, 2003, p. 207).
While motor vehicles are widely used among all those of driving age upwards, the car is
especially important to older people in terms of both their mobility and their overall
218
wellbeing. Driving cessation is connected to reduced quality of life (Gabriel & Bowling,
2004), reduced out-of-home activity and life satisfaction (Harrison & Ragland, 2003) and
is also a strong predictor of worsening depressive symptoms (Fonda et al., 2001). Car use
is crucial for those with waning physical strength and sensory abilities to meet the
demands of everyday life and for maintaining their participation in social and cultural
activities (Mollenkopf et al., 2002, p. 231). The reasons why many older people give up
driving appear to be the same reasons why they avoid using busses (Broome et al., 2009).
The inability to drive or use public transport leaves older people with little option other
than to travel by car as passengers if and when the opportunity becomes available (Judd
et al., 2010). While it has been argued that strategies for preventing driving cessation
among older people need to be implemented as a means of helping them to maintain
their affective wellbeing (Fonda et al., 2001), this proposal runs counter to efforts aimed
at solving whole-of-society problems like environmental sustainability and physical
inactivity. Reduced car use through the provision of walkable environments is now being
prioritised within both urban planning and public health agendas to ensure
environmental sustainability (Kenworthy, 2006) and the prevention of physical inactivity-
related diseases across all age groups (Woodcock et al., 2009) respectively. The inherent
conflict between the proposition that driving cessation should be prevented as long as
possible among older people as a means to prolong the many benefits that cars provide
this group, and agendas that seek to discourage car use for the purpose of increasing
physical activity and environmental sustainability, requires the attention of policymakers.
It would seem important that they give due consideration to the diverse needs of older
populations, with a key aim being the maximization of older people’s opportunities for
active transport while remaining mindful that the motor vehicle is especially important to
this segment of the population. Given that the spatial movement of older people is
known to shrink to the vicinity of their homes and immediate environments as they age
(Weiss et al., 2010), it is imperative that factors that deter them from walking in their
local areas in particular, are understood and addressed so as to maximize their
opportunities for walking.
Neighbourhood walkability
Living in a location where the surrounding environment is walkable is especially
important for older people. This type of environment provides the necessary pathways
by which they can access public transport (see Besser & Dannenberg, 2005), nearby
219
goods and services (Glaeser et al., 2001), a setting that is conducive to walking for leisure
purposes (thereby providing them with the potential for numerous health benefits from
engagement in physical exercise) (Berke et al., 2007) as well as ongoing opportunities for
social interaction and engagement in the wider community. Southworth (2005, p. 248)
describes walkability as:
…the extent to which the built environment supports and encourages walking by
providing for pedestrian comfort and safety, connecting people with varied
destinations within a reasonable amount of time and effort, and offering visual
interest in journeys throughout the network.
The importance of social interaction and connections made as older people move through
their communities is highlighted by research undertaken by Gray (2009), who found that
among a large sample of older adults aged 60 years or more living in Great Britain,
neighbourhood contacts and frequency of meeting people each had a stronger effect on self-
perceived social support than personal characteristics such as partner status, having had
children or being active. The link between social support and psychological wellbeing has long
been established (see Turner, 1981). Research into characteristics of the built environment
that promote walking among older people demonstrates that a wide range of factors have to
be addressed if the ambulatory members of this group are to increase their walking activity.
The built environment and its contribution to walkability for older people
The study of the built environment and its influence on the physical activity of seniors is
in its infancy. Researchers in this area have tended to use disparate theoretical models
and concepts, with inconsistent findings emerging across studies as a result (Cunningham
& Michael, 2008). Three components of the built environment that have been identified
as essential for the promotion of physical activity among the general population from a
public health perspective include the presence of: street networks, transit systems and
systems for non-motorised users; land use patterns including density and mixed uses;
and urban design characteristics (including aesthetics and safety) (Frank et al., 2003). This
model has recently been applied to older populations in reviewing the empirical
literature based on objective measures of the built environment and older people’s
walking behaviour. In considering the inconsistencies in both the methodological
approaches between studies published between 1990 and 2010 and their respective
220
findings, the authors concluded that the aspects of the built environment that are most
likely to have a direct effect on older people’s mobility are high density of intersections,
street and traffic conditions, and proximity to select destinations and green space (Rosso et
al., 2011, p. 7). The dynamic relationship between the many aspects encompassed by the
components of Frank’s and colleagues’ (2003) model and older people’s walking
behaviour is suggested by research findings based on the use of walkability indexes
(involving the calculation of scores based on land use and slope, vehicular traffic, public
transit data, and park, street, foot and bike trail information). Higher walkability scores
are associated with increased walking for exercise among older men and women (Berke
et al., 2007) and with greater levels of walking for transport (doing errands) and
engagement in moderate and vigorous exercise (King et al., 2011).
With respect to density, close proximity to a wide variety of goods and services, a setting that
allows speed of movement (Glaeser et al., 2001), and the presence of public leisure spaces
(Lloyd & Auld, 2003) are all conceived to be critical for maintaining quality of life and thus
satisfaction with higher density living. These same features are linked to walking decisions -
especially proximity of neighbourhood facilities, which has been found to be a more salient
factor in decisions to walk than physical difficulty, safety, fear of crime or weather
(Southworth, 2005). Walking decisions can also be affected by factors such as personal
enjoyment. Population-based research indicates that enjoyment of unstructured physical
activity is a very strong predictor of walking 2.5 hours or more per week (Salmon et al., 2003),
The presence of walkable green spaces (parks and tree-lined streets) within walking distance
of home has also been found to positively influence the longevity of seniors living in high
density areas (Takano et al., 2002). One emerging problem with cyclist/pedestrian pathways
in high density settings is however, that older people are particularly vulnerable to sustaining
injuries from collisions with cyclists (Chong et al., 2010).
Neighbourhood design features have been shown to exert substantial influence on the
outdoor physical activity of older persons (Booth et al., 2000; Lui et al., 2009). Judd and
his colleagues (2010) found that inadequate provision or poor quality of paths of travel,
transport nodes, public open space, access to public buildings, street furniture, local cafes
and public toilets, as well as fear of crime and anti-social behaviour all have an effect on
older people’s walking decisions. The quality of pedestrian paths are particularly
important to older people as walking difficulty and fear of falling are known to inhibit
221
outside activity among older people (Weuve et al., 2004; Jacobs et al., 2008). Attention to
streets and streetscape amenities can thus facilitate older people’s mobility and
participation in community life (Booth et al., 2000). Day’s (2010, p. 2662) qualitative
study identified high kerbs, large bins, heavy traffic, shop displays and adverse natural
terrain (especially slopes) as compromising walkability for older people, while public
seating, cafes, toilets, routes away from traffic, and an aesthetically pleasing
environment served to promote and support walking.
Context of the current study
In Australia, the creation of walkable neighbourhoods is a central feature of initiatives
taken by government and non-government agencies in response to the challenges posed
by either the ageing of the population (Australian Local Government Association, 2006;
Department of Health and Ageing, 2006) or the rising levels of physical inactivity-related
disease within the whole population (Giles-Corti, 2006; National Heart Foundation of
Australia, 2009). The creation of ‘higher density communities with mixed use zoning (i.e.,
a combination of commercial and residential development); interconnected streets; and
access to public transport’, representing a return to traditional planning principles, and
known as New Urbanism (Giles-Corti, 2006, para 8) is currently being promoted by the
Australian Federal Government as being key to improving public health. The extent that
higher density living actually encourages walking and reduces car use among older
people within Australia is unclear. The current study focuses exclusively on older people
living in high density areas for this reason, in order to explore neighbourhood walkability
as they experience this phenomenon through time and space. This research adds to the
small but growing number of studies pertaining to the walkability of older urban
residents’ environments, which do not rely on objective measures of walkability.
Methods The data used for this study comprises a sub-set of data related to the experiences of
older Australians residing in inner-urban, high density suburbs, which were gathered as
part of a larger project exploring active ageing and liveability in rural, regional and urban
locations. The research methodology used for the current study involves several different
data collection methods: time-use diaries, survey responses, GPS tracking and GIS
mapping, and in-depth qualitative interviews. Ethical approval for this project was
obtained from a university Human Research Ethics Committee, and all case study
222
participants provided written informed consent prior to their participation in the current
study.
Participants
A total of 12 participants (6 men, 6 women) living in selected high density areas were
used for this research, with all but one of the sample drawn from a database of a past
project (‘Living in the City’) (see Table 1 on p107 for a profile of participants’
neighbourhoods). This previous study utilised a proportionate sampling technique for a
postal survey completed by 636 inner urban residents (28% response rate) in 2007,
involving research that focussed on the social, environmental and economic aspects of
inner-city life. Using this database, participants who had indicated a willingness to
participate in further research and were now aged 55 years or older were contacted and
invited to participate, ensuring that those recruited allowed exploration of differences
that might emerge as a function of age or gender. Since the original sample from which
these participants were drawn lacked any persons of low socioeconomic status, the
twelfth participant was recruited through a community group to facilitate inclusion of a
case study within this particular demographic.
Case Study Location
The location for all 12 case studies was Brisbane, Queensland, one of the fastest growing
cities in Australia and in the western world. Brisbane has a sub-tropical climate with
undulating topography. The study was undertaken in late March to early April at the start
of autumn (normally characterised by pleasant outdoor weather conditions) in order to
minimise possible weather-related bias in the results, given that summer is usually warm,
humid and wet in Brisbane. The findings are thus considered to provide an indication of
the typical activity level of participants. The greater Brisbane area is under the
jurisdiction of the Brisbane City Council, which reports that this city’s population is
expected to increase from 991,000 (2009) to 1,270,000 people by 2031, and that in 2006,
around 231,526 people and 105,783 dwellings were located in the inner five kilometres
of Brisbane (Brisbane City Council & Queensland Government, 2010). Participants in this
study were selected from six inner-city higher density areas (defined as 30 or more
dwellings per hectare) within five kilometres of the Central Business District. Figure 1
shows the location of the high density areas included in this study.
223
Figure 1. Map of the inner city high density areas included in this study
Procedure
Participants were telephoned prior to them being sent a paper travel diary, a GPS device and
recharger, and a typed set of instructions about the use and re-charging of the GPS devices
(previously trialled for ease of use and comprehension). Completed diaries and GPS devices
and rechargers were posted back to the research team prior to interview. The recorded GPS
data and diary information were analysed and merged using GIS technology for the purpose of
creating individual ‘time/space activity maps’ for use during in-depth interviews with each of
the participants. These maps were then reviewed and compared with information in the
travel diaries to identify any key patterns, issues, missing diary data or anomalies so that these
could be discussed and resolved (where necessary) at interview.
Apparatus
Global Positioning Systems
Objective measures of each participant’s travel over a seven-day period were obtained
via a person-based GPS device (lightweight portable TSI GPS Trip Recorder Model 747A),
which was used to track all of their out-of-home movement. The accuracy of the GPS
device is reported to be +-3 metres (TranSystem Incorporated, 2008); this level of error
can increase significantly however, depending on the level of signal interference caused
by buildings, canopy cover, indoor environments, and so on. Participants placed the GPS
224
device into a handbag or pocket during waking hours and charged the battery each night.
The GPS devices were programmed to record position, time, date, speed and altitude at a
time interval of one minute. This allowed for accurate tracking of each participant’s
outdoor movements, although the GPS would not record points when no signal was
available (for instance, if the participant travelled underground for a period of time).
GIS Data Preparation and Analysis
Data from the GPS devices were downloaded using software specific to the GPS device
(included in the purchased package). Using this software, the raw data were then
exported as spreadsheets using a comma-delineated file format with each row
representing a logged position (one each minute). These spreadsheets were converted to
Google Earth files using an online converter and mapped in Google Earth. The different
tracks of each participant’s travel on the yielded maps were colour-coded by mode of
travel used, according to information entered in participants’ travel diaries (see Daily
Diaries below). The creation of each participant’s time/space activity maps (involving day-
by-day and total weekly travels) took approximately 6 hours per diagram and was
accompanied by tabulated information relevant to each journey and destination. For the
purposes of this research, ‘neighbourhood’ was defined as the area within 10 minutes
walking distance of home.
Daily Diaries
Participants kept a daily diary for the same week that they were using the GPS tracking
device. The diary had space to record their daily travel, destinations, activities and
reflections upon issues pertaining to their environment or any undertaken activity. The
diary also included a brief survey which captured demographic information, use of
transport, volunteering and aspects of community liveability and engagement. The
diaries offered an efficient and affordable way to assess specific details about activity
(i.e., duration, frequency, social context, travel mode, and location), thereby
supplementing information derived from the GPS devices.
In-depth Interviews
As the computer used at interview was large and difficult to move, the semi-structured
interviews were conducted predominantly at a central location (the university) and, on
occasion, in participants’ homes. Each interview took place around two weeks after the
225
GPS device and diary were returned to the research team, and lasted approximately 90
minutes on average. Residents’ perceptions of place were elicited through their
responses to open-ended questions focussed on both the positive and negative
experiences and features of their respective neighbourhoods. The importance of the
‘ordinary knowledge’ of residents for providing insight into local issues and the
functioning of daily life in place is crucial in effective liveability research (Myers, 1987).
The interviews were sequenced so that initial discussion centred on participants’ general
pattern of movement over the tracking period, followed by a day-by-day review of each
participant’s trips and activities. This enabled exploration of the nature and level of
activity of each participant within their respective immediate urban environments. The
diary and map information acted as basis for generating further discussion to examine
participants’ experience of out-of-home mobility and the factors that facilitate and
hinder their walking behaviour (both for transport and leisure purposes). In this way,
their potential and realised out-of-home mobility could be examined. Interviews also
provided an opportunity for the accuracy of the GPS data and created maps to be verified
by participants. All interviews were recorded and subsequently transcribed verbatim.
Data Analysis
With the initial stage of analysis of GPS and travel diary data having been undertaken
prior to interview (as described above), additional analysis of the GPS data was
undertaken in order to assess the proportion of total time spent travelling out-of-home
on foot, relative to other forms of transport. The qualitative data derived from interview
were analysed as individual case studies to determine patterns of travel and activity for
each participant, as well as their experiences within their neighbourhood environments.
The theoretical model of the built environment’s influence on physical activity proposed
by Frank et al. and used subsequently by Rosso et al. (2011) with respect to older
people’s mobility, was used as a basis for exploring the relationship between the built
environment and neighbourhood walkability for each case study. The interview
transcripts were read and re-read, and manually coded with ‘chunks’ of data being
assigned to categories that correspond to the main components of the built environment
that Frank et al. (2003) conceive to act as determinants of physical activity. This method
of aggregating the data enabled detection of similarities and differences between the
experiences of older people when walking in their respective neighbourhood
environments. Findings related to participants’ use of different modes of transport is
226
reported initially in the results section below so as to provide context to the findings from
the qualitative analysis of interview data - which are summarized under the subheadings:
Street networks, transit systems, and non-motorised user systems, Density and mixed
land use, and Urban design characteristics.
Results The majority of older people in this study were found to do little walking as a means of
transport or for either exercise or leisure. Three (CS6, CS8, CS9) did not use any means of
transport other than their motor vehicle, and another four (CS3, CS4, CS10, CS12) spent
most of their travelling time in cars. Use of public transport was low for all of the cases
examined. Only three (CS2, CS7, CS11) spent more time walking than they did using non-
active modes, one (CS1) spent more of his time travelling by public transport or on foot
than by car, and another (CS5) spent the majority of his travel time riding his bicycle. See
Figure 2 below for the proportion of total time each participant spent using different
modes of transport over a seven-day period. Participants’ verbatim comments that
pertain to the various transportation systems in their respective neighbourhoods are
provided below in Table 2.
Figure 2. Proportion of total time travelled by different mode of transport
227
Table 2 Essential neighbourhood characteristics: the built environment and walking
Transport system Identified problem Verbatim comments
Bus services Bus routes do not correspond with intended destinations
They don't all go the right way that you want to go, the busses, but there's nothing that we can do about that (CS8 - female) Most places I would have to go to the city and go and get another bus out (CS6 - female)
Physical accessibility I can get on a bus but I can't get off the bus. It depends how - if it's a good driver and he goes right to the kerb, I can get off easily, but usually they don't (CS6 - female)
Inconsistency in provision of services (under- and over-servicing)
I have heard this place referred to as Kangaroo Island [rather than the suburb name of Kangaroo Point] because of how bad public transport is (CS10 - male) Well, coming in this morning… there were five busses there besides ours …Now, this is absolutely ridiculous (CS8 - female)
Ferry services Proposed cancelling of service by local council (only available public transport in the immediate location)
We have got a thousand signatures because I fought it on the basis that it would prevent older people from going out at night…so we have safety issues and everything else (CS11 – female)
Non-motorised user systems
Conflicting needs of pedestrians and cyclists
Yes, cyclists. They are the biggest one. It's becoming very frightening. A lot of them are very abusive…Most of them don't have bell, so you get frightened for your life, even though you are keeping to the left and everything. What I am really concerned about, is that I feel there's animosity that's developing between walkers and cyclists (CS11 - female)
Timing of traffic light changes
That is the problem, crossing Kingsford Smith Drive…There's lights on the corner with the pedestrian crossing. I try to get across as fast as I can and I can't get across in one change of the lights. People on walking sticks haven't got a hope...we have taken it up with the council. They have increased the time to 2 seconds, but that's still not enough time...Yes, these lights – we have had one [person], at our tower, hit by a truck. (CS12 - male)
Confusion caused by zebra crossings
The inconvenient road crossing, that's outside the bank It's one of these road crossings where, you know, it's not a zebra crossing, not lights; it's where pedestrians give way to traffic but the traffic don't know this. So they stop or they don't stop. So you are never sure if you should cross or not…If they had one or the other, it would be easier. If they put a zebra crossing for people having the rights to cross. Nobody knows what it is (CS12 - male)
Topography of pathways I would do a lot more walking if I could walk uphill and down hills (CS3 - female) The big walkability problem is that…hill. (CS12 - male)
228
Street networks, transit systems, and non-motorised user systems
All participants were found to live within a 5- to10-minute walking distance of a public
transport node. There was however, considerable inconsistency in the amount of available
public transport across the study locations. Some urban neighbourhoods appear to be poorly
serviced, while others appear to be over-serviced. Reaching a preferred destination by public
transport emerged as a particular issue for older people, exemplified by the experience of one
woman who reported that she would need to change busses three times to get to her therapy
pool – despite it being situated in an adjacent suburb. This led to her to cease making trips to
the pool. The relative location of her home to the pool is shown below in Figure 3. The
provision of direct routes to some destinations, but not to others, may help to explain the
finding that any use of public transport among participants was city-centric.
Figure 3. Map of relative location of participant’s home to her therapy pool
Information supplied at interview indicated that choice of travel mode was largely affected by
perceptions of convenience related to time efficiency, seamless journeys and journey
229
destination or purpose. For the most part, it was the car that fulfilled all of these objectives
simultaneously. Having access to a car appeared to remove the need to consider public
transportation as an alternative means of reaching destinations. As CS9 (male) explained:
‘[Using the car] - it's just pleasant; no problem at all. I think there must be busses you [can
catch] but I don't know where they go to.’ See Figure 4 for the weekly activity map belonging
to this participant.
Figure 4. Weekly activity map of CS9 (all travel by car)
The majority of participants appeared to have a strong attachment to their motor vehicles,
and indicated that their vehicles gave them a feeling of freedom and safety. For one male
(CS9, aged 78 years) however, it was the sheer pleasure of driving (especially a large vehicle)
that led to him to using his vehicle for all of his out-of home travel:
[I drive] because I want to. You know, I like my car and I enjoy driving. It's so easy
anyway...so, yes, it's easy and fun and I have got a nice - a ridiculously big car…I like a
big car with lots of spare umph and capacity.
Whether by car or other means, transportation was highlighted by participants as being
essential for maintaining their independence within their respective neighbourhoods, visiting
family and friends, and remaining active within the wider community. The key barriers to
using public transport identified by participants included: public transport services being
perceived as irregular or unreliable; experience of difficulty in physical access onto buses or
ferries; experience of excessive distance or steep topography when travelling to transit nodes;
excessive waiting including transfer times between changes of transport; finding timetable
230
and route information confusing; and health issues such as urinary incontinence because of
the associated fear of not having access to toilets while in transit. In one particular
neighbourhood, residents had banded together to protest the local council’s proposed
cancellation of ferry services in their area. This was of major concern to older residents, given
that this was the only available form of public transport in their immediate vicinity.
Problems with the non-motorised user systems in some locations were identified by
participants as deterring them from walking in their local areas. Hilly topography and conflict
between pedestrians and cyclists on shared pathways were highlighted as being factors that
undermine the walkability of these systems. Places where vehicular transit systems and non-
motorised user pathways merged were found to be particularly troublesome. Insufficient time
being set for older people to cross the road at intersections where traffic lights are situated
was a major concern for one participant (CS12 - male), who reported that there had already
been a fatality at one such intersection in his area (see Figure 5). He also noted that the major
arterial where this intersection is located is earmarked for further widening (another two
lanes), which will exacerbate the problem of crossing the road before the change of lights.
Confusion about right of way protocol among motorists and pedestrians when they meet at
zebra crossings was also cited as an issue in this same neighbourhood. CS1 (male) described
some footpaths in his neighbourhood as being “too narrow” and close to busy roads –
especially when shared by both cyclists and pedestrians (see Figure 6).
Figure 5. Aerial view of a dangerous intersection (swift light changes)
231
Figure 6: An aerial view of footpath very close to a major arterial road
Density and mixed land use
During interviews, participants identified local shops and services as places where they could
walk to get their daily requirements and to meet others and stay active without a car,
highlighting the importance of both mixed land use patterns and proximity to neighbourhood
walkability. Inspection of the individual time/space maps revealed however, that the majority
of participants used very few or no local services and travelled by car well outside a two-
kilometre radius from their homes for both goods (mostly from large shopping centres) and
services. Figure 7 below shows the weekly activity map of CS4 (female), who accessed goods
and services both within and well outside of her local neighbourhood. Separate symbols are
used on the map to distinguish retail and trade services from community/health/leisure
services accessed by her during the week.
232
Figure 7. Map of services accessed by CS4 over seven days
One notable exception to the overall pattern of behaviour with respect to travelling outside of
local neighbourhoods for accessing most goods and services was CS2 (female), who walked
extensively throughout her immediate and surrounding neighbourhood (within 10 minutes
walking distance from home and beyond) for a variety of purposes, including travelling to and
from work, and for leisure, exercise, shopping and accessing services. A map showing her
walking activity over the monitored week is shown in Figure 8. CS2 reported during her
interview, that a lack of local amenities was one of the key reasons for her having moved from
another inner-city area to her present location (‘I used to live at Kangaroo Point…It doesn't
have a heart or soul. It's what I call a dormitory suburb. People go there to sleep. There are no
amenities there’). She also spoke of her belief in the need for people to reduce their reliance
on cars, and that the walkability of her neighbourhood provides her with the lifestyle she
seeks, especially the many opportunities it gives her to interact and keep in touch with others
living in her area.
233
Figure 8. Map of CS2’s walking behaviour within her neighbourhood
Considerable variation was found to exist with respect to locally available amenities across the
study locations. Participants experienced different realities in terms of what high-density
living provides in this regard. Residents from two areas in particular (Kangaroo Point and
Newstead) were found to have minimal amenity choice and were therefore forced to travel
out of their neighbourhoods in order to access most services. This lack of proximity to
amenities appeared to be offset by having homes with river views for those living at Kangaroo
Point however.
Urban design characteristics
Imminent change in the character of their urban neighbourhoods (because of development
aimed at increasing the residential population in their vicinity) emerged as a major concern for
some participants. They voiced this concern within the context of this development already
being underway or their neighbourhoods having been earmarked for future development.
They perceived that changes to the built environment will inevitably compromise the
liveability of their neighbourhoods. Matters that prompted their fears included: loss of what
they consider to be important neighbourhood community infrastructure; the proposed
widening of roads and resultant increase in vehicular traffic; and the exacerbation of existing
difficulties in physically negotiating pedestrian crossings by the presence of even more
expansive and congested roads. They also spoke about increasing density of urban areas
having reduced the amount of local green space and increased the pedestrian and bicycling
234
traffic along shared pedestrian/bicycle paths. As a consequence, residents were finding that
they needed to stagger walking times away from peak times because of the volume of users
on pedestrian paths and within available green-space. This often led them to walk during the
hottest part of the day or after dark – a time about which some held concerns with respect to
their safety.
The lack of necessary green space to meet the needs of a substantially increased local
population was a predominant concern of CS12 (male), who was living in a location where a
new high-rise development was currently underway:
Unfortunately, what’s going to happen, they are widening Kingsford Smith Drive to six
lanes, so they are going to take – that’s a community hall… They are going to put
another [building]…right in front of our place. So we used to meet in that little park
[to protest the development]. That little park is going to be a smaller park...We have
no right of appeal of any planning in that area [immediately abutting the resident’s
building], which frightens me terribly. They are putting 15,000 people in that area,
15,000. They say they have got a park. Yes, they have got a park; you can’t swing a
cat in it. The rest is high-rise (CS12).
Insufficient green space was highlighted as being a current problem in another location by CS2
(female):
There aren't enough parks. Even the German lady that I talk to, she's got a dog. She
said, ‘I have to now take my dog for a walk at 2 o'clock in the afternoon because if I go
early/late, there's just no room. It's just so full’…That personally worries me...You
have got to have green space. Now, they are talking about bringing back community
gardens, which I think are great, but you have got to have green space to even put a
community garden.
While quantitative data gathered from the brief surveys included in travel diaries indicated
that all of the 12 participants “loved” living in their current neighbourhoods, the qualitative
data gathered at interview revealed personal safety was a key factor in constraining their
decisions to walk. Their fears were based on physical characteristics of the built environment
that they believed placed them at risk of injury, such as poorly maintained pedestrian
235
infrastructure and streetscapes. While some of the threats to personal safety mentioned by
participants have already been described (see beginning of Results section), additional issues
were identified that related to upkeep (poorly maintained pavements) and insufficient street
lighting where new non-motorised user pathways were being built:
Street lighting, pavement maintenance; these are the odd things that come
up…Pavement maintenance, in terms of people being likely to have falls and that sort
of thing...I mean, they are not being repaired and they get things wrong with them.
They are building these new footpaths, shared footpaths for cyclists and things, but
not putting the lights up quick enough (CS10 - male).
The quality of pedestrian footpaths varied between urban neighbourhoods. Some were well
maintained with even surfaces and hand rails being provided adjacent to any steps along the
path, while others had uneven surfaces with no handrail support for stairs. Lack of shade and
street seating for those living in Brisbane’s subtropical climate were raised as being issues in
some of the study locations, as was the availability of clean and safe public toilets. One
participant’s comment suggested that he perceived lack of shading and public seating as a
failure to consider the particular needs of older people:
It has got no shade. It's got no seating for older people…so it's for, you know, the 15
to 50 age group, but they forget about the [ages] beyond that (CS12 - male).
Overall, the results indicate that the built environments within each of the six high density
areas in which the study participants resided, presented them with numerous obstacles that
served to either discourage them from walking or to feel unsafe or stressed when they did
walk within their neighbourhoods.
Discussion The purpose of this paper was to investigate older people’s experience of neighbourhood
walkability within high density settings as means to further understanding of the
relationship between this form of neighbourhood and walking behaviour. While the
current study is based on the experiences of a small number of older people, thereby
precluding the generalisability of its findings, all of the factors identified by Rosso et al.,
(2011) as being most likely to impact upon older people’s walking behaviour (namely,
high density intersections, street and traffic conditions, proximity to select destinations,
236
and green space) emerged as having an influence on the walking decisions of the older
people who took part in this research. The current study therefore provides qualitative-
based support for evidence from quantitative studies. Most notable is that this study
found that the impact of problems with traffic and pedestrian infrastructure upon
participants’ travel mode choices was framed in terms of the risks these posed to their
physical safety. Dangerous pedestrian crossings, shared cyclist/pedestrian pathways that
are either overcrowded or too close to busy roads, poorly maintained footpaths, and a
lack of available shading and public seating were all identified as factors that undermine
their sense of safety when venturing out of home on foot. These aspects of the built
environment have been identified previously as issues that affect older people’s out-of-
home mobility (Booth et al., 2000; Weuve et al., 2004; Michael et al., 2006; Jacobs et al.,
2008; Judd et al., 2010). The availability of adequate green space was also highlighted by
several participants as being important to the walkability of their neighbourhoods,
corroborating evidence of the value of green space to older Australians gathered from
previous research based on a large national sample drawn from all Australian states and
territories (Judd et al., 2010).
The current study also found that most of the older people living in high-density locations
within inner-city Brisbane had very low levels of out-of-home activity within walking distance
of their residences, despite the fact that none of them had any disability that prevented them
from walking in their local areas. The out-of-home activities in which they did engage were
predominantly found to take place outside of their local neighbourhoods, thereby requiring
extensive use of their private motor vehicle for transportation. While quality of public
transport and non-motorised user systems, land use patterns, and urban design
characteristics (especially access to public toilets) are all implicated as plausible reasons for
this pattern of behaviour, so too are established norms surrounding driving, and the intrinsic
and instrumental value of cars to older people as a consequence of the pleasure derived from
the act of driving itself, as well as the freedom and convenience of movement they provide.
These same reasons for reliance on cars among older people have been identified in low and
high density areas in France and Canada (Lord & Luxembourg, 2007). This raises the question
of whether or not a substantial reduction in older people’s reliance on motor vehicles for out-
of-home mobility would naturally follow substantial improvements to the walkability of
neighbourhoods, unless accompanied by campaigns aimed at changing norms around car use.
237
This study’s findings are also consistent with previous research with respect to the nature of
barriers to older people using public transport. The current research revealed that only two of
the five older people who reported using public transport during the monitored seven-day
period travelled by bus, and public transport accounted for only a small proportion of the
overall travel time of each of all five participants. Reasons given for non-use of busses in the
current study are consistent with those found by studies reviewed by Broome et al. (2009).
Continuing improvement in public transport services, access and infrastructure is needed if
older people are to find public transport more attractive and voluntarily abandon use of their
motor vehicle.
The finding that older urban residents had very low levels of locally-based activity and
that they are using their motor vehicles to access everyday goods and services (e.g., retail
shopping, hairdressers, medical services and so on) outside of their local neighbourhood
environment also raises questions about whether or not high density development
provides easy and nearby access to everyday goods and services for older people, and
thus the opportunity to increase their walking activity and reduce their car use. Given
that declines in health and functioning form part of the ageing process, the provision of
nearby shops that stock goods which meet everyday needs as well as medical services
would appear to be essential for high density settings.
Analysis of the experiences of walking for older people living in high density locations in
this study suggest that for most, walking was associated with several stressful or
unpleasant conditions or events. The negative connotations of walking were attributable
to characteristics of the built environment as well as social interactions that took place on
shared pedestrian/cyclist pathways. Given that enjoyment of unstructured physical
activity has been found to be a strong predictor of regular walking (Salmon et al., 2003),
the capacity of these negative experiences to undermine older people’s enjoyment of
walking and thus deter them from walking into the future is a matter for concern.
Attention to the built environment and to community attitudes and behaviour towards
the sharing of pedestrian/cyclist pathways will be needed if older people are to feel safe
when walking in their neighbourhoods. Population density in inner-city suburbs in
Australia and elsewhere is bound to increase, as is active transport (both cycling and
walking) if public health and environmental sustainability objectives are achieved. It is
possible that growing numbers of both pedestrians and cyclists in shared spaces will
238
create new and unforeseen problems. The competing interests of shared spaces between
these two groups, as indicated by the experiences of participants in this study, and
evidence based on hospitalisation data that older people are at increased risk of injury
from collisions with bicycles (Chong et al., 2010) - suggest that this issue warrants
research attention within the sub-field of environmental gerontology in the future. Fears
about using shared pedestrian/cyclist pathways could potentially become an important
determinant of the difference between potential and realised out-of-home mobility for
older people living in settings where these pathways form part of their local
neighbourhoods.
Overall, the findings from this study highlight the salience of objectives outlined by the
National Heart Foundation of Australia if older Australians are to change their behaviour
by walking more and driving less. Specifically, these entail the need to ‘build and retrofit
existing neighbourhoods to increase pedestrian and cyclist access to shops, workplaces,
public transport’ and also to ‘consider the mobility, access and recreational needs of
older adults when planning road crossings, pedestrian infrastructure, public transport
access, public open space and recreational infrastructure’ (NHF, 2009, pp. 12, 27). This
consideration needs to extend beyond the planning phase however, to ensuring that
pavements, intersections, and pedestrian crossings are properly maintained. Their lack of
upkeep has been shown repeatedly to undermine older people’s potential for mobility
(Weuve et al., 2004; Southworth, 2005; Michael et al., 2006; Judd et al., 2010).
Finally, this study used an innovative, mixed-methods approach in investigating the
experiences of older people living in high density suburbs when walking in their
neighbourhoods. The use of GPS tracking and GIS mapping, in conjunction with daily diaries
and in-depth interviews provided a means of gathering objective data on older adults’ walking
behaviour relative to their use of other means of transport. The creation and use of
individualised space/time maps at interview created opportunities for both verifying the data
derived from GPS devices and travel diaries, and exploring the walking experiences of older
people. The visual display of the space/time maps served to prompt interviewees’ recall of
these experiences as well as aspects of the built environment that caused them difficulty as
they moved around their neighbourhoods. For the benefit of other researchers who plan to
use travel diaries to explore the person-environment relationship, it is worth noting that
although participants were asked to write down the nature of built environment features that
affected the walkability of their neighbourhood, they tended not to do so and instead only
239
gave details of the nature of their destinations, activities and the mode of transport used for
each trip. It may be that the need to carry a GPS device, recharge it overnight, and make daily
entries into a travel diary limits the amount of writing participants are prepared (or
remember) to do. The in-depth interviews were therefore found to be essential for gaining
detailed information on aspects of the built environment that help to shape older people’s
walking decisions. GPS and GIS technologies would appear to hold great potential for both
expanding the methodological approaches used for studying the person-environment
relationship and furthering our understanding of out-of-home mobility among older people.
240
References Alsnih, R. & Hensher, D.A. (2003) The mobility and accessibility expectations of seniors in
an aging population. Transportation Research Part A, 37, pp. 903-916.
Alves, S., Aspinall, P.A., Thompson, C.W., Sugiyama, T., Brice, R. & Vickers, A. (2008)
Preferences of older people for environment attributes of local parks: the use of choice-
based conjoint analysis. Facilities, 26, pp. 433-453.
Aspinall, P.A., Ward Thompson, C., Alves, S., Sugiyama, T., Brice, R. & Vickers, A. (2010)
Preference and relative importance for environmental attributes of neighbourhood open
space in older people. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37, pp. 1022-
1039.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2008) Population Projections, Australia, 2006 to 2101. Cat.
No. 3222.0 (Canberra, ABS).
Australian Local Government Association (2006) Age-friendly Built Environment:
Opportunities for Local Government (Canberra, ALGA).
Banister, D. & Bowling, A. (2004) Quality of life for the elderly: the transport dimension.
Transport Policy, 11, pp. 105-115.
Barclays Wealth, 2010, Volume 12: The Age Illusion: How the Wealthy are Redefining
their Retirement. Available at:
http://www.barclayswealth.com/insights/assets/pdf/BW12_UK__ForWeb.pdf (accessed
31 December 2011).
Beard, J.R. & Petitot, C. (2010) Ageing and urbanization: can cities be designed to foster
active ageing? Public Health Reviews, 32, pp. 427-450.
Behan, K., Maoh, H. & Kanaroglou, P. (2008) Smart growth strategies, transportation and
urban sprawl: simulated futures for Hamilton, Ontario. Canadian Geographer, 52, pp.
291-308.
Berke, E.M., Koepsell, T.D., Moudon, A.V., Hoskins, R.E. & Larson, E.B. (2007) Association
of the built environment with physical activity and obesity in older persons. American
Journal of Public Health, 97, pp. 486-492.
241
Besser, L.M. & Dannenberg, A.L. (2005) Walking to public transit: steps to help meet
physical activity recommendations. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 29, pp. 273-
280.
Blackman, T., Mitchell, L., Burton, E., Jenks, M., Parsons, M., Raman, S. & Williams, K.
(2003) The accessibility of public spaces for people with dementia: a new priority for the
'open city'. Disability & Society, 18, pp. 357-371.
Booth, M.L., Owen, N., Bauman, A., Clavisi, O. & Leslie, E. (2000) Social-cognitive and
perceived environment influences associated with physical activity in older Australians.
Preventive Medicine, 31, pp. 15-22.
Brisbane City Council & Queensland Government (2010) River City Blueprint - Background
Paper. (Brisbane, BBC & Queensland Government).
Broome, K., McKenna, K., Fleming, J. & Worrall, L. (2009) Bus use and older people: a
literature review applying the Person-Environment-Occupation model in macro practice.
Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 16, pp. 3-12.
Burton, E. & Mitchell, L. (2006) Inclusive Urban Design: Streets for Life (Oxford,
Architectural Press).
Chaudhury, H., Sarte, A.F.I., Michael, Y.L., Mahmood, A., Keast, E.M., Dogaru, C. & Wister,
A. (2011) Use of a systematic observational measure to assess and compare walkability
for older adults in Vancouver, British Columbia and Portland, Oregon neighbourhoods.
Journal of Urban Design, 16, pp. 433-454.
Chong, S., Poulo, R., Olivier, J., Watson, W.L. & Grzeibieta, R. (2010) Relative injury
severity among vulnerable non-motorised road users: comparative analysis of injury
arising from bicycle-motor vehicle and bicycle-pedestrian collisions. Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 42, pp. 290-296.
Cunningham, G. & Michael, Y.L. (2008) Concepts guiding the study of the impact of the
impact of the environment on physical activity for older adults: a review of the literature.
American Journal of Health Promotion, 18, pp. 435-443.
Day, R. (2008) Local environments and older people's health: dimensions from a
comparative qualitative study in Scotland. Health & Place, 14, pp. 299-312.
242
Day, R. (2010) Environmental justice and older age: consideration of a qualitative
neighbourhood-based study. Environment and Planning A, 42, pp. 2658-2673.
Department of Health and Ageing (2006) A Community for All Ages: Building the Future.
Report on the Findings and Recommendations of the National Speakers Series (Canberra,
Commonwealth of Australia).
Duncan, D.T., Aldstadt, J., Whalen, J., Melly, S.J. & Gortmaker, S.L. (2011) Validation of
Walk Score for estimating neighborhood walkability: an analysis of four US metropolitan
areas. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 8, pp. 4160-
4179.
Ewing, R. & Handy, S. (2009) Measuring the unmeasurable: urban design qualities related
to walkability. Journal of Urban Design, 14, pp. 65-84.
Fonda, S.J., Wallace, R.B. & Herzog, A.R. (2001) Changes in driving patterns and
worsening depressive symptoms among older adults. Journal of Gerontology: Series B,
56B, pp. S343-S351.
Foster, S., Giles-Corti, B. & Knuiman, M. (2011) Creating safe walkable streetscapes: does
house design and upkeep discourage incivilities in suburban neighbourhoods? Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 31, pp. 79-88.
Frank, L.D., Engelke, P.O. & Schmid, T.L. (2003) Health and Community Design: The
Impact of the Built Environment on Physical Activity (Washington, DC; London Island
Press).
Gabriel, Z. & Bowling, A. (2004) Quality of life from the perspectives of older people.
Ageing & Society, 24, pp. 675-691.
Giles-Corti, B. (2006) The Impact of Urban Form on Public Health. Paper prepared for the
2006 Australian State of the Environment Committee (Canberra, Department of the
Environment and Heritage).
Glaeser, E.L., Kolko, J. & Saiz, A. (2001) Consumer city. Journal of Economic Geography, 1,
pp. 27-50.
Gray, A. (2009) The social capital of older people. Ageing & Society, 29, pp. 5-31.
243
Harrison, A. & Ragland, D.R. (2003) Consequences of driving reduction or cessation for
older adults. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, 1843, pp. 96-104.
Headicar, P. (2003) Land use planning and the management of transport demand, in: J.
Hine and J. Preston (Eds) Integrated Futures and Transport Choices, pp. 205-224 (Ashgate,
Aldershot).
Jacobs, J.M., Cohen, A., Hammerman-Rozenberg, R., Azoulay, D., Maaravi, Y. & Stessman,
J. (2008) Going outdoors daily predicts long-term functional and health benefits among
ambulatory older people. Journal of Aging and Health, 24, pp. 258-272.
Judd, B., Olsberg, D., Quinn, J., Groenhart, L. & Demirbilek, O. (2010) Dwelling, Land and
Neighbourhood Use by Older Home Owners. AHURI Final Report No. 144 (Melbourne,
Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute).
Kendig, H. (2003) Directions in Environmental Gerontology: a multidisciplinary field.
Gerontologist, 43, pp. 611-614.
Kenworthy, J.R. (2006) The eco-city: then key transport and planning dimensions for
sustainable city development. Environment and Urbanization, 18, pp. 67-85.
King, A.C., Sallis, J.F., Frank, L.D., Saelens, B.E., Cain, K., Conway, T.L., Chapman, J.E., Ahn,
D.K. & Kerr, J. (2011) Aging in neighborhoods differing in walkability and income:
associations with physical activity and obesity in older adults. Social Science & Medicine,
73, pp. 1525-1533.
Koepsell, T., McCloskey, L., Wolf, M., Moudon, A.V., Buchner, D., Kraus, J. & Patterson, M.
(2002) Crosswalk markings and the risk of pedestrian-motor vehicle collisions in older
pedestrians. JAMA, 288, pp. 2136-2143.
Lee, C. & Moudon, A.V. (2004) Physical activity and environment research in the health
field: implications for urban and transportation planning practice and research. Journal of
Planning Literature, 19, pp. 147-181.
Li, F., Fisher, K.J., Brownson, R.C. & Bosworth, M. (2005) Multilevel modelling of built
environment characteristics related to neighbourhood walking activity in older adults.
Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 59, pp. 558-564.
244
Lloyd, K. & Auld, C. (2003) Leisure, public space and quality of life in the urban
environment. Urban Policy and Research, 21, pp. 339 - 356.
Lord, S., Després, C. & Ramadier, T. (2011) When mobility makes sense: a qualitative and
longitudinal study of the daily mobility of the elderly. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 31, pp. 52-61.
Lord, S. & Luxembourg, N. (2007) The mobility of elderly residents living in surburban
territories. Journal of Housing for the Elderly, 20, pp. 103-121.
Lui, C.-W., Everingham, J.-A., Warburton, J., Cuthill, M. & Bartlett, H. (2009) What makes
a community age-friendly: a review of international literature. Australasian Journal on
Ageing, 28, pp. 116-121.
Maas, J., Verheij, R.A., Groenewegen, P.P., de Vries, S. & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2006) Green
space, urbanity and health: how strong is the relationship? Journal of Epidemiology and
Community Health, 60, pp. 587 - 592.
Michael, Y.L., Green, M.K. & Farquhar, S.A. (2006) Neighborhood design and active aging.
Health & Place, 12, pp. 734-740.
Mollenkopf, H., Marcellini, F., Ruoppila, I., Szeman, Z., Tacken, M. & Kaspar, M. (2002)
The role of driving in maintaining mobility in later life: a European view.
Gerontechnology, 2, pp. 231-250.
Myers, D. (1987) Community-relevant measurement of quality of life: a focus on local
trends. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 23, pp. 108-125.
National Heart Foundation of Australia (2009) Blueprint for an Active Australia
(Melbourne, NHF).
Phillipson, C. (2004) Urbanisation and ageing: towards a new environmental gerontology.
Ageing & Society, 24, pp. 963-972.
Rosso, A.L., Auchincloss, A.H. & Michael, Y.L. (2011) The urban built environment and
mobility in older adults: a comprehensive review. Journal of Aging Research, 10 pages,
doi:10.4061/2011/816106.
245
Salmon, J., Owen, N., Crawford, D., Bauman, A. & Sallis, J.F. (2003) Physical activity and
sedentary behavior: a population-based study of barriers, enjoyment, and preference.
Health Psychology, 22, pp. 178-188.
Schwanen, T. & Ziegler, F. (2011) Wellbeing, independence and mobility: an introduction.
Ageing & Society, 31, pp. 719-733.
Shendell, D.G., Johnson, M.L., Sanders, D.L., Nowakowski, A.C., Yang, J., Jeffries, C.D.,
Weisman, J.E. & Moulding, M. (2011) Community built environment and mobility around
senior wellness centers: the concept of "safe senior zones". Journal of Environmental
Health, 73, pp. 9-18.
Shoval, N., Wahl, H.-W., Auslander, G., Isaacson, M., Oswald, F., Edry, T., Landau, R. &
Heinik, J. (2011) Use of the global positioning system to measure the out-of-home
mobility of older adults with differing cognitive functioning. Ageing & Society, 31, pp.
849-869.
Smith, A.E. (2009) Ageing in Urban Neighbourhoods: Place Attachment and Social
Exclusion (Bristol, UK, Policy Press).
Southworth, M. (2005) Designing the walkable city. Journal of Urban Planning and
Development, 131, pp. 246-257.
Sugiyama, T., Thompson, C. & Alves, S. (2009) Associations between neighborhood open
space attributes and quality of life for older people in Britain. Environment and Behavior,
41, pp. 3-21.
Takano, T., Nakamura, K. & Watanabe, M. (2002) Urban residential environments and
senior citizens’ longevity in megacity areas: the importance of walkable green spaces.
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 56, pp. 913-918.
Therese, S.A., Buys, L., Bell, L. & Miller, E. (2010) The role of land use and psycho-social
factors in high density residents' work travel mode choices: implications for sustainable
transport policy. World Review of Intermodal Transportation Research, 3, pp. 46-72.
TranSystem Incorporated, 2008, 747 A+ GPS Trip Recorder, User’s Manual. Available at:
http://www.transystem.com.tw/product/59/747%20A+%20User%20Manual%20v1.1.pdf
(accessed 3 March 2010).
246
Turner, R.J. (1981) Social support as a contingency in psychological well-being. Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, 22, pp. 357-367.
Wahl, H.-W. & Weisman, G., D. (2003) Environmental gerontology at the beginning of the
new millennium: reflections on its historical, empirical, and theoretical development.
Gerontologist, 43, pp. 616-627.
Weiss, R., Maantay, J.A. & Fahs, M. (2010) Promoting active urban aging: a measurement
approach to neighborhood walkability for older adults. Cities and the Environment, 3, pp.
1-17.
Weuve, J., Kang, J.H., Manson, J.E., Breteler, M.M.B., Ware, J.H. & Grodstein, F. (2004)
Physical activity, including walking, and cognitive function in older women. JAMA, 292,
pp. 1454-1461.
White, D.K., Jette, A.M., Felson, D.T., Lavalley, M.P., Lewis, C.E., Torner, J.C., Nevitt, M.C.
& Keysor, J.J. (2010) Are features of the neighborhood environment associated with
disability in older adults? Disability and Rehabilitation, 32, pp. 639-645.
Woodcock, J., Edwards, P., Armstrong, B.G., Ashiru, O., Banister, D., Beevers, S., Chalabi,
Z., Chowdhury, Z., Cohen, A., Franco, O.H., Haines, A., Hickman, R., Lindsay, G., Mittal, I.,
Mohan, D., Tiwari, G., Woodward, A. & Roberts, I. (2009) Public health benefits of
strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: urban land transport. Lancet, 374, pp.
1930-1943.
World Health Organization (2002) Active Ageing: A Policy Framework (Geneva, WHO).
World Health Organization (2007) Global Age-friendly Cities: A Guide (Geneva, WHO).
Zeigler, F. & Schwanen, T. (2011) ‘I like to go out to be energised by different people’: an
exploratory analysis of mobility and wellbeing in later life. Ageing & Society, 31, pp. 758-
781.
247
248
249
Chapter 9: Discussion Society has reached a period in history where the population’s demographic profile is
forcing nations to focus on the need to support older people. The ageing of the baby
boom generation is anticipated to have a profound effect on the developed world for
decades to come. Over half the world’s older population currently lives in urban areas
(51%) and the figure is projected to increase to 62% by 2050 (United Nations (UN), 2003).
This research addresses concerns about the age-friendliness of urban areas to meet the
needs of a growing ageing population by investigating older people’s perceptions of the
liveability of their current high density neighbourhoods to ensure that their voices are
heard by planners and policymakers when formulating strategies aimed at them as the
target population.
This research has explored the experiences of older people living in high density
communities/neighbourhoods, to determine what makes them liveable and age-friendly
from the perspective of older people themselves. The five papers presented in this thesis
add to the body of knowledge related to community/neighbourhood liveability and the
factors which make them so. The following discussion brings together the results from
these articles as a means of summarising the key findings from the program of research
undertaken as part of this dissertation. The findings are synthesized according to several
main themes - the high density agenda, understanding liveability concepts, the
importance of proximity, and opportunities for ageing in place and remaining active. The
phenomena encompassed by these themes are inter-related and are integral
components in understanding liveability as it relates to successful ageing in place. The
contribution of this research to knowledge and practice in the field is discussed as are the
strengths and limitations of the research. Finally, this chapter provides
recommendations for future directions in practice which extends from the program of
research.
Significance of Findings
The High Density Agenda
The high density agenda adopted by governments of major developed cities around the
world is designed to meet the main liveability and sustainability goal of decreasing car
dependence, traffic congestion, local air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as well
as abating urban sprawl and minimising the loss of greenfield areas and habitats to
250
developers. While there is value in high density development, it is not a universal
remedy to the challenges of inner city living (Gordon and Richardson, 1997). For
example, Christoff and Low (2000) argue that it has not been scientifically established
that residential densities reduce the consumption of energy or greenhouse emissions.
Relatively high densities can be attained through various means to either the benefit or
detriment of urban liveability. Liveable high density communities or neighbourhoods are
more than the provision of parking, units and open space. It is the level of support for
everyday life provided by higher density, which makes urban living desirable.
There have been various development strategies popular with western governments that
advocate living more intensely within existing urban areas. These strategies include: New
Urbanism and Urban Village Movements, Smart Growth and Compact City Movements,
Complete Communities and Transit Oriented Development. They have all been
developed as key responses to unsatisfactory urban policy and its negative externalities:
congestion, pollution, sprawl, freeway blight, impoverished public housing and placeless
design and the like (Filion, 2003; Kushner, 2007; Dernbach, 2009). These movements
focus on issues of place-based liveability and on ensuring that new development provides
environmental, economic and social returns. Indeed, notions of liveability have become
important to cities, government agencies and citizens around the world because of the
positive synergies associated with high quality residential places that operate holistically
on social, economic and environmental dimensions to provide secure and fulfilling life
experiences (Douglass, 2002).
Understanding Liveability Concepts
A range of perspectives on liveability are discussed in this thesis as there is little
agreement on a universal definition. Liveability is an ensemble concept that is defined
differently by virtue of place and social group, and is typically comprised of attributes
that are important to local populations and elected leaders (Myers 1988; Andrews 2001).
Because liveability should be contextualised to place and population, a hierarchy of
needs approach can inform local liveability strategies; from essential physiological,
security and health needs as a foundation to more life-enriching attributes once these
basic needs have been met. However, addressing the everyday is the necessary starting
point, as an everyday life approach to liveability can aid in focusing attention on those
things that can improve regular neighbourhood function (Mayol in de Certeau et al.,
1998), use attractiveness (Mayol in de Certeau et al., 1998; Maffesoli, 1993), community
251
formation (Diener et al 2003; Maffesoli, 1993) and economic health (Jacobs, 1961;
Pacione, 2003).
Due to its complexity, liveability is best understood through place-based research that
incorporates both objective place measurement as well as measures of subjective
satisfaction and perceptions of place to provide more holistic understandings of what
liveability means. Two approaches to data collection were used in this thesis. In Chapter
3, the two methods are identified and differentiated as Method 1 (used in Paper 1) and
Method 2 (used in Papers 2, 3, 4 and 5). The participants from both studies were from
inner city high density Brisbane neighbourhoods. Participants in the study based on
Method 1 were from a broader age range (25 to 79 years) than those who formed the
sample for the research based on Method 2 (57 to 80 years). In general, participants
(Method 1 and Method 2) were very positive about their neighbourhoods as indicated by
their responses to survey items. Problems experienced within their environments
emerged from qualitative data derived at interview from questions asked by researchers
(Methods 1 and 2) and from discussion prompted by review of each participant’s
time/space activity maps (Method 2). In most cases, the inner city high density areas
examined in both studies had something special about them that attracted residents to
these locations. Most of the neighbourhoods have access to parks, natural areas,
waterfronts and/or recreational areas. What becomes clear from the findings is that no
generalisable formula could be devised for the purpose of ensuring liveability that could
be usefully applied to all communities. While there were dimensions of liveability that
were commonly highlighted by participants, there were also aspects that were particular
to location. The challenges faced by participants that threatened the quality of everyday
life for high density urban residents were of concern for both the present and the future.
Papers 1, 2, 3
The first steps taken in exploring whether or not high density settings are liveable for
older Australians, involved examination of key concepts - liveability (Paper 1),
neighbourhood (Paper 2) and community (Paper 3) - and determinations about
definitional aspects that might enhance our understanding of liveability. Collectively,
there is an attempt to identify what is comparable and different between the physical
and social factors of high density communities generally and then more specifically as
they relate to older people and their everyday life needs.
252
Attributes and qualities that contribute to the liveability of high density environments are
explored in Paper 1. While it is intrinsically tempting to focus on the immediacy of the
present day liveability rather than the sustainability of some distant future, I argue that
efforts to attain liveability and sustainability need not be at cross-purposes with one
another. Rather, they can work in tandem to ensure the needs of the present are viewed
more expansively and proactively in effecting preferred future outcomes. Considerable
synergy between the aspirations of residents and those of society were identified. The
data showed that urban features that reflect current societal pressure for greater
sustainability such as lower energy use and more use of public transport are the same
features sought by residents in describing the liveability of a particular community.
The key concepts of “neighbourhood) (Paper 2) and “community” (Paper 3) are analysed
in time and space to identify the essential aspects that enhance our understanding of
these terms as well as that of liveability. ‘Neighbourhood’ and ‘community’ are usually
measured by either subjective indicators using surveys of residents’ perceptions or by
objective means using secondary data or relative weights for objective indicators of the
urban environment. Rarely, have objective and subjective indicators been related to one
another to come to a clearer understanding of what constitutes a liveable urban
neighbourhood or community both spatially and behaviourally. The experience and
perception is represented as a joint function of the objective physical conditions (for
example, state of the footpaths, etc.) and the subjective interpretation of these
conditions to the individual.
Analysis of the data exposed a weak link between the subjective perceived use of the
local neighbourhood by older urban residents and the objective indicators of their actual
use. Older residents reported using their local neighbourhoods regularly, however the
subjective assessment was not concordant with information derived from the GPS
tracking and GIS analysis indicating that they have very little local neighbourhood activity.
Similarly, there is disparity between the subjective and objective indicators on their
neighbourhood meeting all their needs. The final dissimilarity between the objective and
subjective related to the geographic concept of local neighbourhood which goes some
way to explaining the first two contradictions. The concept of local neighbourhood and
community is discussed below.
253
Many factors, including personal and social characteristics such as age and health status
interfere with an individual’s subjective interpretation of their objective physical world
and these may act as noise in distorting objective conditions (Pacione, 2003). A universal
objective, for instance reducing car dependence, can be transformed by individual
perceptions of, for example, how they view the extent of their personal use of the motor
vehicle. Individual experience is also a factor that will affect the perception of a specific
domain (Pacione, 2003). Experience of cyclists’ rage along a shared pedestrian track
(discussed in Papers 4 and 5), for example, is likely to have a lasting effect on the
individual’s perception of safety and enjoyment of his or her neighbourbood walkways.
Another factor which may be of importance in the subjective-objective relationship of
neighbourhood liveability is the aspiration level or expectations of the individual. This
helps explain the relatively high satisfaction with neighbourhood liveability expressed by
individuals whose neighbourhoods do not appear to be meeting their everyday needs.
The notion of accommodation is another variable that may influence the relationship
between objective and subjective conditions. This suggests that in a fixed situation an
individual’s satisfaction with a condition may increase over time by accommodation to
that situation (Pacione, 2003). A final factor is the problem of scale discordance between
the objective territorial measures of the researcher and the subjective territorial base of
the individual which appears to be the case with this study.
The concept of community for older urban Australian people was also explored (Paper 3).
There has been little exploration of how this considerable group living in high density are,
and have been, engaged in communities and the extent that this aspect of liveability
contributes to to decisions about remaining in place. In identifying neighbourhood and
community, this study did not rely on a single definition. It incorporates the ambiguity of
community and neighbourhood boundaries as part of the analysis. Such an approach is
more complex but is more representative of the reality of urban residents’ lives.
Therefore, place is not pre-conceived territorially but identified through the analysis of
the research.
There is a sectioning of communities that manifests in the everyday perceptions and
experiences of older urban residents. The data show urban residents have territory in
common, including their building, the space immediately surrounding their building, their
walkable neighbourhood and the broader district. All four zones distinguish themselves
254
through the residents’ everyday practices and perceptions. When asked about their
community, most residents immediately started discussing their immediate environment
– the community of the building in which they were living. What is interesting is that
when asked to identify their community geographically on a map, the majority of the
residents referred to a much larger area, the district beyond their respective walkable
neighbourhoods. The residents thus clearly and easily identified the community of the
building zone and the district community zone as being part of their neighbourhood.
Only one resident identified her walkable neighbourhood geographically as her
community and she was able to speak at length about the people who lived within this
community. There is considerable literature on the walkable neighbourhood and it is
interesting that only one resident identified it as her community. Data revealed during
the qualitative, semi-structured interviews highlighted the importance of the community
zone immediately surrounding the building. While places in and of themselves are not
communities, they are a useful lens through which to review different levels of urban
community participation engaged in among older urban Australian people.
In conclusion to this section, the first three papers are an attempt to understand the key
concepts – liveability or a liveable place, neighbourhood and community and determine
whether there are definitional aspects that enhance our understanding of these terms. A
liveable place, a neighbourhood, a community are all complex concepts, very personal
and often therefore difficult to articulate. It is argued that liveability, neighbourhood and
community should be contextualised to everyday activity, use or needs. It is through the
focus of the everyday that these terms are most clearly understood in relation to their
function, their use, their formation and either their state of health or their effect on
residents’ well-being. Liveability is a multi-faceted concept capturing many attributes
which interact and operate dynamically within and between the immediate living
environment, the building and the community. These attributes provide the essential
services, as well as life enriching amenities and experiences within close proximity for its
residents and visitors.
As concepts, “community” and “neighbourhood” are also multi-faceted and often used
interchangeably. Mayol (in de Certeau et al., 1998) argued that regular use of
neighbourhood space allows appropriation of that space into the realm of domestic life.
The community and neighbourhood identified by the participants was much larger
255
geographically than the usual measures of postcodes, school districts or census allocation
but was in keeping with their regular everyday practice - travelling by motor vehicle -
and therefore extended more broadly than these usual measures. This demonstrates
that participants’ subjective perceptions of these entities are variable. In attempting to
understand community, the data show that a zonal approach best reflects the
community activity actually undertaken by older urban people. It is argued that to not
adopt a zonal approach to understanding urban community risks missing the diversity of
impacts on such wide-ranging things as gentrification, support, enjoyment, feelings of self
worth, etc. at different spatial scales. Due to their complexity, these key concepts are
best understood through place and population based research that incorporates
bothobjective place measurement as well as subjective satisfaction and perception
measurement to provide more holistic understanding. This has implications for theory
building as well as practical application in areas such as urban planning and design,
community building and policy development.
The Importance of Proximity for Liveability and Opportunity to Actively Age in
Place
Papers 4 and 5
Some older people wish to live in high density urban areas because they perceive urban
areas as enhancing their opportunity to actively age in place in low maintenance
apartment living in an authentic urban environment (Olsberg and Winters, 2005). Such
an environment promises proximity to a plethora of amenities for local self-sufficiency
and a more vital and stimulating living environment. An essential ingredient of this urban
dream is the easy access to everyday activities which significantly adds value to liveability
for the individual and the broader community. Proximity characteristics of access to
everyday activity is an integral attribute of the complex commodity called
neighbourhood. Neighbourhoods are comprised by residence and home-related facilities
that are in close proximity and which serve residential needs (Brower, 1996; Forrest and
Kearns, 2001). Characteristics of proximity to access everyday needs, influenced by both
distance and transport infrastructure, is a widely acknowledged definitional attribute of
neighbourhood liveability (Paper 4). Physical approaches to neighbourhoods and
neighbourhood liveability are often discussed relative to their walkable proximity,
measured by either walking distance or walking time, to some form of centre
(institutional, educational, retail or other public facility) (Paper 4). The findings from this
study suggest however, that there is a gap between the rhetoric that surrounds the high
256
density living policy agenda and the reality of life within these settings for older
Australian people, particularly in relation to the proximity to available and accessible
neighbourhood amenities and walking and public transport infrastructure within local
urban neighbourhoods that directly affects opportunity to actively age in place.
While all residents identified the importance of having facilities and activities within their
urban neighbourhood (consistent with high density policy agendas), the GPS tracking and
GIS mapping revealed these participants have very low levels of locally-based everyday
activity within walking distance and that they relied on vehicle transport for the majority
of trips made outside of their homes. Almost all residents undertook their everyday
activities outside of their walkable neighbourhood, and when asked to identify their
neighbourhood and community on the Google Earth map during their interviews,
residents indicated a much wider geographic region than their immediate walkable
neighbourhood (defined as being five to fifteen minutes walking distance from their
residence). The neighbourhood identified was in keeping with their everyday activity
base which relied on the use of a motor vehicle. This suggests an extended
neighbourhood based physically and subjectively on spaces reflective of use.
An important aspect of active ageing is participation in activities outside the home
(Smith, 2009; World Health Organisation, 2007). The opportunity for physical activity in
older populations holds the promise of promoting health and reducing the risk of
disablement, since decreases or non-participation in physical activity including walking
are known to negatively affect functional independence (Paper 5).
A liveable neighbourhood is one that provides its residents and users with essential
services and life enriching amenities within the immediate place. Amenity-rich local
environments are necessary for liveability and for older people to successfully age in
place and will become more critical as the population continues to age. A finding of this
research is that Australian urban areas are not homogenous and differ considerably in
the availability and accessibility of neighbourhood amenities. The mixed-use
neighbourhood outcomes and high quality public transport systems that are strategies
for liveability and best supports an ageing population are not uniform across Brisbane’s
urban neighbourhoods. The data show that some urban neighbourhoods in Brisbane
257
have minimal facilities or services, while others have the necessary facilities but lack ease
of access.
Most concerning is the absence in many high density neighbourhoods of local services
that are necessary for fully functioning neighbourhoods - especially for older people.
One participant described one suburb as a dormitory suburb, rather than a
neighbourhood or community. The housing function was accommodated in this
particular location, but residents had to leave the area to find everyday life supports,
such as pharmacies, bakeries, grocers, supermarkets, hardware stores and public
services. There are a number of positive externalities of having such services locally
available, including reduced car use, increased exercise levels, sense of place and
community and neighbourhood development which could be thought of as economic
development strategies in themselves. In creating complete and liveable
neighbourhoods - especially for older people to enable them to actively age in place - a
list such as this can be a useful tool in neighbourhood planning.
Amenity supply and place qualities are unique to each neighbourhood and difficult to
compare. Newer, redeveloped neighbourhoods are generally disadvantaged in
comparison to a long established residential urban neighbourhood in terms of available
amenities (Paper 4). Some of the urban areas covered in this study, for example,
Kangaroo Point and Newstead, began as warehouse and light industrial districts. These
areas have undergone massive residential development. Development of necessary
infrastructure (such as amenities and public transport) that keeps pace with the needs of
residents in such high growth areas represents a major challenge, given that
neighbourhoods usually develop incrementally as social, physical and economic
structures (Banks and Shenton, 2001). There is power in the passage of time in helping to
create amenities and develop strong social and place images.
Proximity problems with access to neighbourhood amenities do not appear to lead to
older adults being dissatisfied with life within high density contexts (Paper 4). It is
apparent that overall, participants believe that their neighbourhoods meet their needs
and that they “love” their respective neighbourhoods/communities (Papers 2, 3, 4 and 5).
Nevertheless, these positive perceptions arise within the context of them having access
to and extended use of private motor vehicles, as evidenced by the objective map data
258
documenting their driving behaviour. Problems with availability of or access to amenities
may explain the lack of local walking undertaken by the majority of participants.
Access to amenities that facilitate participation in everyday type activities (eg retail
shopping, hairdressers, medical services and the like) appears to be made easy through
the availability and use of the private motor vehicle. Older people often lose their ability
to drive completely and become entirely reliant upon public transportation (Frumkin et
al., 2004). The loss of a driving licence will limit older people’s opportunity to participate
in activities outside their home given the availability and access issues with amenities and
public transport in their local neighbourhood, thereby jeopardising their ability to age in
place and remain active. Older people will therefore require more appropriate service
provision within their local urban neighbourhood in order to remain living in their own
homes and familiar neighbourhoods for as long as possible.
A widely acknowledged definitional attribute of liveable neighbourhoods is walkable
proximity, measured in either distance or time spent walking, to satisfy everyday needs.
Increasing walkability of neighbourhoods is an aim of Australian local and state
government policy and is in accordance with public health initiatives recognising the
important health benefits of regular walking activity, especially for older people (Paper
5). The key research question set for this study was whether or not high density
neighbourhoods support liveability for older residents. Liveability, sustainability and
public health initiatives are supported by local walkability. As stated above, the data
have shown that the older people in our study are not active outside their homes and
that those activities they do undertake are predominantly outside of their local
neighbourhoods, thereby requiring extensive use of their private motor vehicle for
transportation.
Many factors conspire against walking in contemporary urban Australia and a car-
dependent landscape is but one of these factors. A number ofey issues associated with
walkability were identified in Paper 5. One of the major findings was not only the
condition but also the experience of the neighbourhood walking paths for these
residents. Experience related to enjoyment is an important predictor of the level of
physical activity (Paper 5). If walking along pedestrian infrastructure is an enjoyable
activity, it is likely to promote more walking activity. However, the experience of the
259
walk for these residents included unpleasant experiences which they expect to
exacerbate as density is increased in their urban neighbourhoods. The increasing volume
of people traffic using pedestrian paths (especially bicyclists and runners) cause problems
for many local urban walkers also sharing this infrastructure. The problem appears to be
that bicyclists and runners travel at high speeds along these paths and do not slow down
as they approach the high density neighbourhoods. Bicyclists also appear not to indicate
their presence with the use of a bell for the benefit of others using these paths and
behave aggressively and inconsiderately toward others whom they perceive to be in their
way and forcing them to slow down. This behaviour was identified by participants as
being both threatening and disconcerting to older residents who have well developed
and rational fears of falling.
The experience of the walk for these residents was also negatively affected by issues
related to traffic, streetscape and public transport. Weather conditions and hilly
topography were also mentioned and need consideration to further enhance our
understanding of how built environments influence travel (Cervero and Duncan, 2003).
The proximity of walking paths to major roads was identified as a significant issue as
older people report being shaken by the noise and the movement of traffic. Previously,
researchers found that attentional resources are drained by the demands placed by
nearby traffic noise (Kaplan and Kaplan, 2003). Similarly, as mentioned above, the
residents identified inadequate numbers of pedestrian crossing opportunities, ambiguous
crossing cues or insufficient time to cross at traffic lights on very busy roads (Papers 3, 4
and 5). One resident reported that this has resulted in pedestrian fatalities. Participants’
claims about the dangers posed to them by inadequate pedestrian crossings are
supported by previous research identifying older people as having a relatively high risk
for fatalities and injuries from motor vehicle accidents at crossings (Koepsell et al., 2002).
The streetscape was also identified as being fraught with problems in relation to lack of
shade, missing handrails beside steps, inadequate or damaged public seating and toilets
and little or no access to drinking water along footpaths. Several of these issues like
shade and drinking fountains are particularly pertinent given the sub-tropical weather in
the study area. These factors negatively impact on older people’s desire to walk around
their local neighbourhood and increase reliance on motor vehicles.
260
Local availability of public transport options can help shape patterns of physical activity
by either encouraging or discouraging walking and cycling choices (Berke et al., 2007;
Leslie et al., 2007). Proximity of the neighbourhood to desirable destinations including
easy access to convenient, affordable and speedier public transport is a good predictor of
increased use of sustainable modes of transport including walking. It follows therefore,
that places with poor transit connections or no mass transit have lower rates of use.
However, this study and other research indicate that access to sustainable modes of
transport does not necessarily guarantee use. While greatly affected by location and
proximity to destinations for everyday needs transportation mode choices have been
linked to other factors, besides accessibility, including perceptions of convenience,
practicality, safety, comfort, individuality and cost (Chatman, 2008; Vredin et al., 2006).
A number of barriers to public transport use were identified for older people living in
Brisbane and include: a lack of services in some urban neighbourhoods; terrain or
distance to transport nodes; inconvenient bus routes or connections; queues, crowding
and lack of seating on buses and at bus stops; problem with negotiating steps onto public
transport and difficulties with walking supports on buses (Papers 4 and 5). Continuing
improvement in public transport services, access and infrastructure are all necessary for
encouraging older people to voluntarily abandon their motor vehicle and find public
transport an attractive alternative option.
In conclusion to this section, participation, interaction and physical activity hold the
promise of promoting health, independence and reducing the risk of disablement for
older people. Social participation, interaction and physical activity are better
accommodated where streets, building transition spaces and footpaths are well
programmed, furnished and maintained in terms of seating, hand-rails, shade, toilets,
available drinking water and the like. Where these are plentiful they offer spaces for
people to walk, sit, people watch and relax in the public realm around their home. The
benefit of these amenities in high density neighbourhoods cannot be overstated as they
perform a necessary function for participation and interaction in public.
The key research question posed by these two papers was whether high density
neighbourhoods support liveability for older residents. Liveability is supported by local
walkable access to amenities. This research has shown that many of the everyday
activities for older urban residents are predominantly outside of their local
261
neighbourhoods, thereby necessitating their use of private motor vehicle for
transportation. Secondly, it has identified issues with neighbourhood walkability and
availability of and access to local amenities - which thereby inhibits local participation.
Thirdly, it has highlighted the importance of these issues being addressed for older
Australian people in order that they age in place and remain active.
Strengths and Limitations of the Research
This research is both pertinent and timely. The study is grounded in local reality and
highlights pertinent built environment challenges for potential policy and planning
action. It is particularly timely given the expected profound effect that the ageing of the
baby boom generation will have on both the developed and developing worlds in the
decades to come.
A strength of this thesis is that it draws on two separate studies to address the research
question of what makes high density liveable for older people. Both studies’ participants
(in Method 1 (Paper 1) and Method 2 (Papers 2, 3, 4 and 5) were from inner city high
density areas of Brisbane, Australia. The Method 1 study drew on a wider age
demographic than the Method 2 study. The Method 1 study provided a review of
liveability for high density residents more generally than just how it applies to or affects
its older adult residents. Acknowledging perceptions and satisfaction levels is a first step
in dealing with shortcomings that might threaten local liveability. The most typical
method of gauging perceptions and satisfaction has been with surveys and the use of
ordinal ranking tools involving direct questioning about personal experience. The
problem is that residents typically speak positively about their home and residents and
therefore require greater levels of investigation to explore issues and understand the
complexity of experiences. Method 1 was a qualitative study and it involved in-depth
open-ended interviews that allowed perceptions and satisfaction levels to be
acknowledged and explored to identify issues and shortcomings that might threaten local
liveability. This information was then able to inform the remaining papers and research.
The major strength of the current research is the innovative methodology outlined as
Method 2 (used for papers 2, 3, 4, and 5). The combination of quantitative and
qualitative analysis captured both participants’ subjective perceptions of their
neighbourhoods and their patterns of movement. This enhanced the understanding of
262
how neighbourhoods and communities function and contributed to various liveability
dimensions for active ageing in place for older people living in high density environments.
Previous research has tended to measure urban liveability via objective indicators that
capture different aspects of the urban environment or subjective indicators using surveys
of residents’ evaluations, satisfaction and perceptions with urban living (Keller, 1968;
Hillery, 1968). Rarely are objective and subjective indicators analysed in conjunction with
one another (McCrea et al., 2006), thereby precluding consideration of the subjective
dimensions of life within neighbourhoods and the actual movement and participation of
residents that occurs within them simultaneously. The breadth of information gathered
from the objective and subjective measures used in this study strengthens the case for
using both and thus acknowledging the importance of the subjective when investigating
the objective environment (Pacione, 2003). The information each method provides has
the potential to inform policy strategies associated with high density environments.
A key limitation of both studies (Method 1 and Method 2 research) was that they were
based on small, non-random samples of Australians living in inner urban areas of one
capital city - Brisbane, Australia. Nevertheless, both studies’ results provide insight into
the lived experience of residents in high density settings and their experiences are likely
to have relevance to other high density contexts elsewhere. The Method 2 study
provided insight into the lived experience of older people living in high density. The
sample size used in Method 2 contributed to the feasibility of the innovative approach
taken in this study. Method 2 was an innovative and unusual approach involving the
gathering of information from multiple sources and the undertaking of analyses linking
and relating both subjective (perceptions of behaviour obtained through the interviews)
and objective (actual behaviour gathered from the GPS and GIS and expanded through
the individual diaries) indicators. As Method 2 research is based on the feelings,
interactions and everyday practices of a sample of a dominant urban population group, it
provides a useful example of a methodological approach for furthering investigation into
important issues like liveability, walkability, neighbourhood, community, participation,
interaction, gentrification, active ageing and ageing in place.
Studies of individual interaction with the environment are more challenging but
potentially more valuable than the study of the role of the built environment or the
individual alone in the promotion of liveability, participation, interaction, physical activity
263
and active ageing and ageing in place. By highlighting issues that impact on the liveability
and sustainability of high density residents generally and then more specifically for older
people, this research furthers understanding of the specific design factors that make the
urban neighbourhood more liveable and sustainable for older people. It also has the
potential to inform actionable and implementable policies, programs and urban
development design to help promote liveability, social engagement and active ageing and
ageing in place in high density neighbourhoods to preserve the independence and
function of this population.
Future Directions
While the data analysis of this research provides insight into the lived experience of high
density residents, further research is warranted. Further qualitative and quantitative
research is needed to explore in more depth, the urban experience and opinions of older
people living in urban environments. In particular, more empirical and theoretical
research is needed to understand and guide the particular environmental qualities that
enable ageing in place in our cities. Future research should explicitly explore the extent
to which characteristics of the built environment either facilitate or hinder high density
localities being accessible and socially inclusive places for all members of the community.
The timeliness and immediacy of the findings of this research in light of inner city
renewal, the increasing number of older people living in high density with the ageing of
the population and urban densification development means that remedies and
applications that support liveability and active ageing and ageing in place for older people
hold great potential for further exploration and action.
Sustainability and community dividends arising from better design of high density
dwellings, buildings and urban areas identified in Paper 1 suggest the need for regulators
to re-examine building codes and guidelines. Future building codes or guidelines could
incorporate “best practice” in sustainability in order to make dwellings, buildings and
urban areas more liveable from a user and community perspective.
If we were to simply ensure that our neighbourhoods properly functioned to meet daily
needs for older people then we would have accomplished a great deal. This is still the
necessary starting point. Many of the issues raised by the participants of the Method 2
264
study are linked to issues of walkability and available and accessible amenities, which can
be improved upon in both the short- to medium-term (e.g. furnishing neighbourhoods
with wider walk paths, more shade, seating and public toilets, and hand-rails on steps).
Some urban areas had little pedestrian activity by older people because there were
limited retail and service offerings. Others had issue with having to cross major arterial
roads with fast moving traffic, little pedestrian amenity and a poor selection of
commercial offerings. The footpaths or pedestrian walkways were uncomfortable
because the older people had to compete with volumes of runners and cyclists using the
same pedestrian infrastructure. While streetscape design is important in fostering more
walkable places it is proximity to everyday needs that is essential to active ageing and
ageing in place in high density.
For older people to actively age and age in place, they need to do more than sleep, eat,
bath and watch television. This is the interior life of their unit. They need to live
elsewhere in their neighbourhood. They need to have leisure space choices, be able to
get a haircut, do their banking, buy groceries, or flowers for a loved one. Presently older
urban Australians appear to hop in their cars and drive to another neighbourhood to
undertake these activities and meet these needs. Neighbourhood liveability for older
people is about active ageing in place. It is about bringing their interior life and their
exterior life into the same setting as much as possible. The results suggest that
encouraging more inner city retail, particularly services which are utilised frequently in
people’s daily lives such as supermarkets and pharmacies, would potentially help ensure
residents fully engage in their local community and also attract a more diverse local
population.
The connectivity of streets, footpaths and their destinations are well understood as an
important dimension of liveability. To encourage uptake of sustainable transport, the
built environment must provide easy, accessible connections between buildings,
walkways, cycle paths and public transport stations. Street widths, their number of lanes,
the frequency and volume of traffic and the traffic controls determine whether
transportation modes conflict and all can significantly affect personal safety. Wider
streets given that they take longer to cross than narrow streets tend to be less safe
especially for older people. Similarly, the width of footpaths, the level of buffering, the
presence of trees, lighting, seating and design of and distance between pedestrian
265
crossings significantly affects the pedestrian experience for older people and impacts on
their choice of transportation.
The Method 2 data show that high density neighbourhoods require greater levels of
street fixtures and furniture for everyday life to make places more useable and
comfortable for regular use. Literally this requires:
a wide variety of places for people to sit, enjoy being out in public, and watching
people. Useable seating rather than having to sit on the grass is especially
important for older people as rest stops or destinations given their declining
levels of flexibility
hand rails on stairs and steep paths for safety and confidence;
drinking fountains and trees to provide shade and comfort given Brisbane’s sub-
tropical climate; A tree canopy provides comfort and weather protection from
intense heat, humidity and sun exposure which is especially important in a sub-
tropical climate.
plentiful and clean public toilets given how debilitating the lack of such facilities
can be to the enjoyment of the public realm for sections of older people;
safer buffers between pedestrian paths and high traffic roadways. In some areas
footpath and streetscape treatments would provide opportunity for improving
safety by buffering pedestrians from traffic with trees and parking lanes.
safer and clearly posted pedestrian crossings on busy thoroughfares to avoid or
reduce the risk of pedestrian and motorist confusion that currently exists at some
intersections;
clearer delineation between areas for cyclists and runners and those who tend to
move more slowly on pedestrian walkways like older people and children. These
findings also indicate the importance of public information campaigns to
promote the formulation of attitudes and behavioural intentions that work to
discourage speed and discourteous behaviour by bicyclists and runners to
pedestrians along shared pedestrian/bicyclists pathways.
266
These things are necessary in activating public space for older people to make the public
realm more welcoming, comfortable, and active. This should not just be a goal for parks
and programmed leisure spaces, but also for the large land area of streets in every
neighbourhood. Precedence of pedestrian thoroughfares over vehicular areas provide
the foundation for walkability. Rather than conceptualising the street as a place
dedicated primarily for vehicular movement and parking, it could also double as a social
space as well (e.g., sidewalk cafes). Humanising and calming the major arterial roads that
impair the daily life experience of many older urban people would go a long way in
making urban neightbourhoods more liveable. Each neighbourhood had within it at least
one example of a dangerous and unappealing thoroughfare that could be made friendlier
and more accommodating. Furnishing neighbourhoods need not be expensive; a simple
line of trees can be effective and useful. The importance of making the public realm
useful and habitable for older people cannot be over-emphasised. In the case of the
recommendations mentioned here, more is better.
Participation, interaction and physical activity hold the promise of promoting health and
reducing the risk of disablement for older people. Social participation, interaction and
physical activity are better accommodated where streets, building transition spaces and
footpaths are well programmed, furnished and maintained in terms of seating, hand-
rails, shade, toilets, available drinking water and the like. Where these are plentiful they
offer spaces for people to walk, sit, people watch and relax in the public realm around
their home. The benefit of these amenities in high density neighbourhoods cannot be
overstated as they perform a necessary function for participation and interaction in
public. They act as supplements to the life in home and function as personal escapes of
respite from the hectic pace of urban life. The success or otherwise of the public realm is
largely determined by the degree of programming for human use. The degree of
programming for everyday use and comfort is a useful indicator for their potential
success. Successful public spaces become well-used venues for extending daily life
beyond the home.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the most liveable neighbourhoods are programmed and furnished to meet
the everyday needs of residents in concentrated spaces. The liveability dimensions used
throughout this research provide a set of ideas about the functioning of everyday life
267
especially for older people enabling active ageing in place: making density work,
encouraging walkable proximities and providing choice in retail, transportation and
leisure spaces. The key ideas are density, proximity and opportunity. Each reinforces the
other and allows older people to access those things necessary for living and ageing in
place. Density alone is insufficient without the supports and compensatory leisure
spaces that allow close living. The idea of high density is the liveability and sustainability
goal of increasing pedestrian activity and reducing the need and use of the motor vehicle.
For this goal to be achieved, there needs to be mixed-land uses in close proximity to each
other so residents have greater opportunity to become pedestrians. This unburdens
society on a number of fronts ,including reducing pollution and urban sprawl more
broadly and more specifically in terms of older people, by providing an environment
which is conducive to ageing in place and remaining active thus reducing or delaying their
need for institutionalised aged care. Opportunity in terms of available amenities, safe
and well appointed pedestrian infrastructure and access allows a richer experience,
greater degrees of satisfaction, caters to a more diverse population and provides the best
opportunity for active ageing and ageing in place.
Neighbourhood liveability is not a fixed end game with winners and losers, but rather a
constantly moving target demanding focussed attention. The findings from this thesis
confirm the importance of the research to focus, not merely on the dwelling and
associated land where most previous research on ageing in place has concentrated, but
on the design of the surrounding urban environment and on the accessibility to amenities
including public transport. It is possible that these could be as important as the design of
the dwelling in enabling older people to remain living independently in their own home.
Planning and development of a wide range of facilities can have significant impact on the
quality of life of older people and can influence the way they enjoy and participate in
their local community. The climate of inclusiveness is one of the most important aspects
of liveable, age-friendly urban environments. A liveable, age-friendly environment is not
just a space with a range of services but also a place that facilitates and honours the
participation and contributions of older people. Consistent with this, most of the
literature examined acknowledged the need to construct an environment where all social
and physical facilities and services are integrated and mutually enhancing to support
people to age well. As the world continues to urbanise, stakeholders from various levels
of government, the private sector and the community will need to work together to
268
respond to the genuine needs of older people for supportive social and physical
environments. Presently, many barriers exist in the current planning and development
processes towards the provision of age-friendly infrastructure. Issues of ageing in
Australia and other areas of the developed world will become more critical in the coming
decades. Given the increasing percentage of older people in the community and
therefore their increasing political influence, it will be a prudent and successful
government who responds to the needs of an older society.
269
Reference List
Andrews, C. J. (2001). Analyzing Quality of Place. Environment & Planning B: Planning &
Design, 28, 201-217.
Banks, S., and Shenton, F. (2001). Regenerating Neighbourhoods: A Critical Look at the
Role of Community Capacity Building. Local Economy: The Journal of the Local
Economy Policy Unit, 16(4), 286-298.
Berke, E. M., Koepsell, T. D., Moudon, A. V., Hoskins, R. E., and Larson, E. B. (2007).
Association of the Built Environment With Physical Activity and Obesity in Older
Persons. American Journal of Public Health, 97(3), 486-492.
Brower, S. (1996). Good Neighborhoods: A Study of In-Town and Suburban Residential
Environments. Westport, Conn.: Praeger Publishers.
Cervero, R., and Duncan, M. (2003). Walking, Bicycling, and Urban Landscapes: Evidence
From the San Francisco Bay Area. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1478-
1483.
Chatman, D. G. (2008). Deconstructing development density: quality, quantity and price
effects on household non-work travel. Transportation Research A, 42, 1008-1030.
Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 68(1), 129-138.
Christoff, P., and Low, N. (2000). Recent Australian urban policy and the environment:
green or mean? In N. Low, B. Gleeson, I. Elander & R. Lidskog (Eds.), Consuming
Cities (pp. 241-264). London: Routledge.
de Certeau, M., Giard, L., and Mayol, P. (1998). The Practice of Everyday Life, Volume 2:
Living and Cooking. Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Dernbach, J. C. (2009). Sustainable Development and the United States In J. C. Dernbach
(Ed.), Agenda for a sustainable America. Washington, D.C: ELI Press,
Environmental Law Institute.
Diener, E., Oishi, S., and Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, Culture, and Subjective Well-
Being: Emotional and Cognitive Evaluations of Life. Annual Review of Psychology,
54, 403-425.
270
Filion, P. (2003). Towards Smart Growth? The Difficult Impleemntation of Alternatives to
Urban Dispersion. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 12(1), Supplement pages
48-70.
Filion, P. (2003). Towards Smart Growth? The Difficult Implementation of Alternatives to
Urban Dispersion. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 12(1), Supplement pages
48-70.
Forrest, R., and Kearns, A. (2001). Social Cohesion, Social Capital and the Neighbourhood.
Urban Studies, 38(12), 2125-2143.
Frumkin, H., Frank, L. D., and Jackson, R. (2004). Urban sprawl and public health :
designing, planning, and building for healthy communities. Washington, DC:
Island Press.
Gordon, P., and Richardson, H. W. (1997). Are Compact Cities a Desirable Planning Goal?
Journal of American Planning Association, 63(1), 95-106.
Hillery, G. A. (1968). Communal Organizations: A study of local societies. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. London: Jonathan Cape.
Kaplan, S., and Kaplan, R. (2003). Health, Supportive Environments, and the Reasonable
Person Model. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1484-1489.
Keller, S. (1968). The Urban Neighborhood: A Sociological Perspective. New York:
Princeton University Press / Random House.
Koepsell, T., McCloskey, L., Wolf, M., Moudon, A. V., Buchner, D., Kraus, J., and Patterson,
M. (2002). Crosswalk Markings and the Risk of Pedestrian-Motor Vehicle
Collisions in Older Pedestrians. JAMA, 288(17), 2136-2143.
Kushner, J. A. (2007). Healthy cities : the intersection of urban planning, law and health
Durham, N.C: Carolina Academic Press.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). Everyday Life in the Modern World. New Brunswick NJ: Transaction
Publishers.
271
Leslie, E., McCrea, R., Cerin, E., and Stimson, R. (2007). Regional Variations in Walking for
Different Purposes: The South East Queensland Quality of Life Study.
Environment and Behavior, 39(4), 557-577.
Maffesoli, M. (1993). Everyday Life. In W. Outhwaite, T. Bottomore & e. al (Eds.), The
Blackwell Dictionary of Twentieth Century Social Thought. Oxford, UK: Blackwell
Publishers.
Maldonado, T., and Cullars, J. (1991). The Idea of Comfort. Design Issues, 8(1), 35-43.
McCrea, R., Shyy, T.-K., and Stimson, R. (2006). What is the Strength of the Link Between
Objective and Subjective Indicators of Urban Quality of Life? Applied Research in
Quality of Life, 1(1), 79-96.
Myers, D. (1988). Building Knowledge about Quality of Life for Urban Planning. Journal of
American Planning Association, 54(3), 347-358.
Pacione, M. (2003). Introduction on urban environmental quality and human wellbeing.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 65(1-2), 1-3.
Smith, A. E. (2009). Ageing in urban neighbourhoods : place attachment and social
exclusion. Bristol, UK; Portland, OR: Policy.
United Nations. (2003). Political Declaration and Madrid International Plan of Action on
Ageing. New York: Department of Public Information.
Vredin, J. M., Heldt, T., and Johansson, P. (2006). The effects of attitudes and personality
traits on mode choice. Transportation Research A, 40, 507-525.
World Health Organisation (WHO). (2007). Global Age Friendly Cities: A Guide. Geneva:
World Health Organisation.