Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
CRICOS #00212KCRICOS #00212K
Planning and quality of life: the case of Canberra, Australia
Hitomi Nakanishi
University of Canberra, AustraliaCentennial Canberra - Past, Present and
Future Workshop, 20 August 2013
CRICOS #00212K
Background
• Enhancing quality of life is the most important challenge and role of urban governance (OECD, 2000)
• Higher level of sustainable development
= higher level of well-being, happiness, and thus of quality of life
• Changing urban form and the built environment are associated with lifestyle and behavioural change that affect quality of life
How planning affect resident’s quality of life and sustainability ?
CRICOS #00212K
• Relationship between planning and QoL in Canberra?
• Apply integrated method of measuring QoL• Is there a difference in QoL due to planning
concepts?• Factors that affect residents’ priorities in
QoL in Canberra?
Aims
CRICOS #00212K
Policy Input
Urban Form/the built environ’t
QoLIsSatisfaction
By D
imen
sion
Overall
QoL
Output
Outcom
e
Assessing Quality of Life: Framework
Planning Evaluation
CRICOS #00212K
Legend
Export_Output_6
Urban_Form
Garden City
New Town
New Urbanism
Gungahlin
CityBelconnen
WestonCreek
Tuggeranong
Woden
Y plan
CRICOS #00212K
Density by neighbourhood type
Garden City(North Canberra, South Canberra)
Y Plan(Belconnen, Weston Creek, Tuggeranong, Woden)
New Urbanism(Gungahlin)
Gross population density(person/ha)
7.85 13.54 15.61
Net residential density(person/ha residential land)
30.18 46.93 47.31
Open space density(person/ha open space)
156.92 170.12 173.46
(Lintern, 2012)
CRICOS #00212K
CommunitySafety and Security
Prosperity &Diversity
Culture and Education
CommunityWell-being
Quality Environment & sustainability
Five dimensions of Quality of Life
Community Safety and Security
Prosperity & Diversity
Culture and Education
CommunityWell-being
Quality Environment & sustainability
Higher Demand
Basic Needs
Environment
Community
Economy
Doi, Kii and Nakanishi (2008)
CRICOS #00212K
Mechanism of Individual’s Satisfaction, Value and QoL
Sugiyama, Kuroda, Doi and Nakanishi et al. (2005)
CRICOS #00212K
Integrated model of quality of life
Community safety and security
Culture and education
Community well-being
Quality environment and sustainability
・Annual domestic violence crime reported
•Houses with EER 5 or above
・Access to health and social care facilities
・Per capita greenhouse gas emissions
Quality of life Categories
Satisfaction formula
SX
QoLformula
Indicator Xk
Ski：Individual i’s satisfaction for k
：Attributes of individual iSEi
Ski = Sk (Xk ,SEi)
QoLi=Σ wki Ski
- ρ ρ‐ ―1
k =1
wki ：weight of category k
ρ ：substitution parameter
｛ ｝
Prosperity and diversity
Indicators example
CRICOS #00212K
Concept of QoL
Str
ess
Satisfaction(S)
Community safety and security(k=1)
Prosperity and diversity(k=2)
Community well-being (K=4)
Quality environment and Sus.(K=5)
weight
1
121 ),,,(
m
kkkm SwSSSQQOL
Culture and education (k=3)
CRICOS #00212K
Satisfaction – depends on capability
γ ： elasticity of satisfaction
iXSi
iiXSi
o
Sat
isfa
ctio
nS
Level of Indicator
X1
Individual B
IndividualA-1
1
1
1
1
γγ
γ
Δ-X
X
Capability ： Capabilities are defined derivatively on functioning, and include inter alia all the information on the functioning combinations that a person can choose.
by Amartya Sen
Affected by individual’s capability
QoL =Σ wk S-ρ ‐―
１ρ
‐―
k =1 k｛ ｝
Level of Indicator
CRICOS #00212K
mk
km
k
m
km S
S
S
w
wS
)1(0
)1(0
mS ; improved satisfaction level of domain m
kS ; sacrificed satisfaction level of domain k
kS0 mS0 ; current satisfaction level of domains k and m
kw mw ; value of domains k and m
; substitution parameter between domains
Value (Weight) – relative importance to ‘community safety and security’
CRICOS #00212K
QoL indicators for Canberra
Dimension QoL IndicatorsCommunity safety and security
num. of domestic crimes per 1,000 households in Canberra, % of residents who feel ‘fairly safe’ or ‘very safe’ after dark, num. of new affordable housing in Canberra
Prosperity and diversity
access to service facilities accessible by disabled people in Canberra, job availability in Canberra, % of people agree that people from different backgrounds get on well, access to broadband network, cost of living, walking distance to the closest bus stop, quality of public transport system
Culture and education
English language skills of immigrants in Canberra, % of young people (16-24 yrs old) in full-time education or employment in Canberra, access to cultural facilities, student/staff ratio in higher education in Canberra
Community well-being
access to health and social care facilities and service quality, residents who feel they have ability to influence decisions in Canberra, amount of green space within walking distance, % of people who are overweight or obesity in Canberra, illegal drug use in Canberra
Quality environment and sustainability
EER (energy efficiency rating) of house, num. of wild birds in neighbourhood, amount of household waste recycle in Canberra, residents concerned about the impact of climate change, air quality (air pollution) in Canberra
CRICOS #00212K
Quality of life in your city and living environment questionnaire survey in Canberra
2012 May – AugOnline questionnaire + mail （ sent to appro. 3,000 households ）648 responses collected ( on-line: 278; mail: 370) Male 230: 37.4%; Female 385: 62.6%4 % more Garden City residents and 4 % less New Urbanism residents compared to Census 2011
CRICOS #00212K
Stress Map
CRICOS #00212K
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Community safety and security
Prosperity and diversity
Culture and education
Community well-being
Quality environment and sustainability
New Urbanism
New Town
Garden City
Level of satisfaction by neighbourhood type by domain
Y Plan
CRICOS #00212K
Value (Weight)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Safety and security
Prosperity and diversity
Culture and education
Community well-being
Quality environment
and sustainability
All
CRICOS #00212K
Value (Weight)
00.10.20.30.40.5
Safety and security
Prosperity and diversity
Culture and education
Community well-being
Quality environment
and … Male
Female 00.10.20.30.40.5
Safety and security
Prosperity and diversity
Culture and education
Community well-being
Quality environment
and …- 30s
40s - 50s
60s -
By gender By age group
CRICOS #00212K
Value (Weight) by neighbourhood type
00.10.20.30.40.5
Safety and security
Prosperity and diversity
Culture and educationCommunity well-being
Quality environment and sustainability
Garden City New Town New UrbanismY Plan
CRICOS #00212K
0
20
40
60
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Satis
factio
n
Weight
Garden City
Safety and security
Prosperity and diversity
Culture and education
Community well-being
Quality environment and sustainability
0
20
40
60
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Satisfa
ction
Weight
New Town
Safety and security
Prosperity and diversity
Culture and education
Community well-being
Quality environment and sustainability
0
20
40
60
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5Sa
tifsfac
tion
Weight
New UrbanismSafety and security
Prosperity and diversity
Culture and education
Community well-being
Quality environment and sustainability
Relationship between satisfaction level and weight
Y Plan
CRICOS #00212K
Community safety and sec.
Culture and education
Prosperity and diversity
Community well-being
Quality environment and sus.
w3
T
DS (stress)
Time
wk=TkDSk /ΣTk’DSk’
Weight
Stress
Time, Stress, and QoL
Change in stress DS
Satisfaction level
Stress Recognition
Duration time ⊿T
Policy measures
-⊿T
Change in Weights
CRICOS #00212K
QoL by neighbourhood type
Quality of Life Level
Garden City 50.1
Y Plan 49.5
New Urbanism
49.9
CRICOS #00212K
Discussion and policy implication
QoL by neighbourhod – influenced by value
Latent factors that affect the priorities in QoL- gender, age, occupation, with/without dependent children, period of living in current neighbourhood
Garden City neighbourhod– achieved high QoL, majority of residents have high value on environment, but not affordable for everyoneY Plan neighbourhood– community well-being is the area for improvementNew Urbanism neighbourhood- accessibility is the key issue, need strategic approach to integrated land use and transport planning
CRICOS #00212K
Satisfaction with access to health and social care facilities and quality
Transport → public transport
Land use → location of facilities
Architecture → design and quality of facility building
Social services → quality of health and social care services
Indicator and policy input mapping
Key indicator in Y PlanNeighbourhood
Nakanishi, Sinclair & Lintern(2013)
CRICOS #00212K
References
- Doi, K, Kii, M & Nakanishi, H 2008 ‘An integrated evaluation method of accessibility, quality of life, and social interaction’ Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol.35, pp.1098-1116. - Sugiyama, I, Kuroda, K, Doi, K, Nakanishi, H, Ikegame, K, Ikejima, K, Nishida, J & Tanaka, M 2005 ‘A rating system for realizing sustainable urban space with a focus on quality of life and quality of space’, Proceedings of the 2005 World Sustainable Building Conference in Tokyo, Institute of International Harmonization for Building and Housing, Tokyo, Japan, 27-29 September, 2005, pp. 3708-3715.- Nakanishi, H, Sinclair, H & Lintern, J 2013, ‘Measuring Quality of Life: an Integrated Evaluation of Built Environment’, Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computers in Urban Planning and Urban Management, Universiteit Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands, 2-5 July, 2013. paper no. 70.
