Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Building Inclusive Cities: Planning Tools that promote the Right to the City
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Building Inclusive Cities: Planning Tools that promote the Right to the City

1,768
views

Published on

This presentation looks at the ways in which cities can be inclusive and examines interesting projects happening around the globe. …

This presentation looks at the ways in which cities can be inclusive and examines interesting projects happening around the globe.

Carolyn Whitzman, Professor of Urban Planning
University of Melbourne

Published in: News & Politics

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,768
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
49
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Surveys demonstrate that the most common impairment reported by people with disabilities is difficulty moving, followed by difficulty seeing and then difficulty hearing. Most people with disabilities also report experiencing more than one type of impairment. Psychosocial impairments are reported by 19-28% of people with disabilities, with the higher rates being reported in urban areas.[23] The most commonly reported causes of disability are disease, accidents and aging. Supernatural causes, such as sorcery or evil spirits are also reported as a perceived cause of disability, more commonly in the rural regions. The third most commonly cited cause of disability in Goroka was domestic violence and fights.[22, 23] These findings are consistent with other studies which have demonstrated high levels of domestic and sexual violence against women in Papua New Guinea [24], in some cases causing impairment and disability [25]. Among people with disabilities, those living in rural areas are significantly disadvantaged with up to 25% completing secondary schooling, compared with 50% in urban areas. Two thirds of people with disabilities living in rural areas are dependent upon subsistence farming, whereas a quarter of people with disabilities are committed to home duties in urban areas.[23] There is no data available, however, which compares these proportions with that of the non-disabled population.
  • WRD - The basic features of access in new construction should include:■ provision of curb cuts (ramps)■ safe crossings across the street■ accessible entries■ an accessible path of travel to all spaces■ access to public amenities, such as toilets.
  • PMGSY road program in India engaged village councils (panchayat) in identifying potential roads for rehabilitation, and then local community members in transect walks with engineers (Paul and Katare 2010) District and Feeder Roads project in Tanzania conducted stakeholder workshops with district councils, technical staff, and community representatives to select road networks for rehabilitation and development (Leyland 2003) Western Uganda Road Maintenance Capacity Building Project used workshops with local leaders and road workers to define criteria for ranking roads for rehabilitation or development (Leyland 2003)
  • 7 GWPS kids involved -- there were 3 girls and 4 boys (Samantha, Bennyman, Nelson, Jasmine, Monica, Bruce and Joshua)6 Brunswick East PS kids involved -- there were 4 boys and 2 girls (Ben, Gwendolyn, Stanley, Marta, Jude and Harry)
  • Provides the context for the NW Region of DH and University of Melborune Partnership for the Place, Health and Wellbeing Advisory GroupGroup has been meeting since February 2011?
  • Transcript

    • 1. Building Inclusive Cities:planning tools that promote the right to the city Carolyn Whitzman, A/Professor in Urban Planning, University of Melbourne December 18, 2012
    • 2. Outline of talk • What do I mean by the ‘right to the city’? • What do I mean by ‘planning tools’? • What kinds of research am I talking about? – Gender Inclusive Cities (project in 4 cities in 4 continents, 2009-2011 – see attached book!) – Disability Inclusive Road Development (Papua New Guinea – 2010-2013) – CATCH: Children’s Active Travel, Mobility and Health (Australian project, but focus on Melbourne work – 2010-2013) – Place, Health and Liveability: the impacts of planning on health and wellbeing outcomes in growth areas (2011-)… has led to Getting to Yes – overcoming barriers to family- friendly housing in central Melbourne
    • 3. Outline of current researchgrant partners focus outputsGender-Inclusive Women in Cities Women’s safety and Building InclusiveCities (UN Trust Fun International, 4 local access to the city Cities (Sept. 2012)to Eliminate Violence organizations inAgainst Women Delhi, Dar,2009-2011) Petrovadosk, RosarioCATCH/iMATCH (2 Planning, geography Children’s 2 Conference papersAustralian Research and health independent mobility … 2 articles inCouncil grants (2010- researchers in 5 and health/ wellbeing progress2013) Australian universitiesTravelling Together - Nossal Global Health People with Conference paperDisability Inclusive Institute, disability disabilities’ access to article in Journal ofRoad Development advocacy local spaces and Transport Geography(Australian Research organizations, road services throughDevelopment award builders… roads2010-13)Place, Health, Health, planning and Impact of planning Report and article inLiveability (State engineering/GIS policy on health and progress (liveabilityHealth Department specialists wellbeing outcomes, indicators)and various funders) how to do better
    • 4. The right to the city• The right to the city is always contested – and that is good! (Mitchell 2003)• When ‘community’ is involved in an undifferentiated way, it can reproduce oppression (Mitchell 2003, Fenster 2006)• There are two rights attached to right to the city‘: (1) the right to full and compete access to urban resources (spaces and services); and (2) “the right to change ourselves by changing the city more after our heart’s desire” (Harvey 2003)• “Space (whether public or private) is the scenario for social networks, for social fabric, for resistance and initiatives, all of which are necessary for citizenship” (Vargas 2009: 56)
    • 5. Fincher and Iveson, Planning for Diversity (2008) – 3 ‘social logics’ for planning1. Redistribution: equality of access to public goods like education, employment, housing, open space, social and health services2. Recognition: meeting the needs of particular groups in society (women, children, older people, people with disabilities, new migrants, indigenous people…)3. Encounter: interactions of individuals across difference – city as collection of strangers
    • 6. 1. Why Gender Inclusive Cities• Despite ‘reclaim the night’, Slutwalks, Hollaback and other grassroots feminist activism, the fact that many women are at risk of violence and harassment in public space relatively unarticulated in policy… hidden crimes such as 600 missing and murdered Aboriginal women in Canada or 1000s lost in Central American cities like Ciudad Juarez• Women have right to use public space and lives should not be restricted by fear - a continuum of public/private (and virtual) violence
    • 7. Some global stats…• 11 country survey (2008 – including Australia, Costa Rica, Hong Kong, Italy, Mozambique, Phillippines – most considered ‘safe’!) – 35-60% of women had experienced some form of physical or sexual violence from some man since age 16 – 10-31% sexually assaulted by man other than intimate partner• National Union of Students Australia (March 2011): – 2/3 students said they had had an “unwanted sexual experience” – 86% of women said they had experienced sexual harassment in the form of verbal abuse – 3% had reported these experiences to university authorities and only 2% to the police• A study of 12,000 women in Canada (2000): 80% of women said they had been harassed on the street and that it had had a large and detrimental effect on their safety
    • 8. … and the right to the city• World Social Forum (Brazil, 2004): “ the socially fair use of both urban space and land must be promoted, with gender and environmental equity and with safety” “Everyone has the right to find in the city the necessary conditions for his/her political, economic, social and environmental development while assuming the duty of solidarity”• Violence and insecurity as barrier to this right• Democratic management as an enabler to this right• “The bedrock attribute of a successful city district is that a person must feel personally safe and secure on the street among all those strangers” (Jacobs, 1961)
    • 9. Gender-Inclusive Cities Research Program• $1 million 3 year UN Trust Fund to Eliminate Violence Against Women project (in conjunction with UN Women) – January 2009 to December 2011• Goal: Enhancing women’s inclusion and “right to the city” – Based on the understanding that creating safer and secure cities is a process of changing the nature of cities, the ways they are conceived, designed, planned – Working with 4 cities – Rosario, Argentina (pop. 1 million); Petrozavodsk Russia (300,000); Delhi India (19 million); Dar es Salaam Tanzania (3 million) – all with previous experience in women’s safety - to develop and evaluate tools to integrate violence into local policy and programs
    • 10. Partnerships• Women in Cities International: action research network based in Montreal, Canada, that focuses on gender equality and the participation of women and girls in urban development – administered the project• Jagori (Delhi, India): feminist organization that has been around 35 years – ran the project• Information Centre of the Independent Women’s Forum (Russia)• International centre and Network for Information and Crime (Tanzania)• Red Mujer y Habitat – Women in Habitat Network (Latin America)
    • 11. Gender Inclusive Cities and me• 20 years of work (10 as local government policy planner working on integrated violence prevention at City of Toronto, 10 as an academic) – focus on empowerment tools• Design guidelines, grants program, women’s safety audits all widely disseminated internationally• Co-Founder of Women in Cities International, an exchange network for researchers and activists concerned with gender equality issues and the place of women in cities on the five continents.• I wrote the first draft of the grant: ideas from previous research (eg., Gender, Local Governance, Violence Prevention ARC Linkage grant 2006-09)• But project intended as a Women In Cities International/Jagori community development project – I was ‘advisor’ rather than CI
    • 12. The story so far…• Initial meeting Montreal Feb 2009 -> 4 methodologies to gather baseline information 1. Street surveys - between 500-1000 – in a variety of sites, with emphasis on low income districts 2. Focus group discussions (older women, sexual diversity, councillors, students, domestic workers, hawkers, visually disabled, call centre workers, homeless people, journalists, public transport workers, hospital staff, young men, grassroots women leaders…) 5-10 in each site 3. Women’s Safety Audits (5 or 6 sites – same as above) 4. Review of policy, legislation and initiatives: nature of intervention and ‘logic model’
    • 13. Violence experienced by women in Rosario•Robbery, purse snatching, extortion for passing throughcertain places (Added violence for being women)•Stalking, especially of young women and elderly women,kidnapping•Sexual violence: rape, sexual abuse, staring, touching•Verbal violence, “eve teasing”•Physical aggression: towards transsexuals and transvestites•Aggressions by the police Unsafe places for women •Plazas at night and during siesta •Buses, bus stops, and bus-stop shelters •Bridges •Train tracks •Irregular settlements •Dance clubs •Industrial areas and desolate places
    • 14. KINDS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT FACED What kind(s ) of s exual haras s ment/ as s ault hav e you fac ed S urv ey Area in public plac es in this area in the pas t year All Delhi Univ ers ity L ajpat Nag ar, Ajmeri G ate - and B hog al, Delhi g ate Neig hbourhood Niz amudinS l. Haras s ment B as e = 998 B as e = 512 B as e = 335 B as e = 151 F req % F req % F req % F req % 1 Verbal (c omments , whis tling etc .) 442 44% 244 48% 158 47% 40 26% 2 P hys ic al (touc hing, feeling up etc .) 126 13% 74 14% 49 15% 3 2% 3 Vis ual (s taring, leering) 160 16% 103 20% 41 12% 16 11% 4 F las hing 19 2% 8 2% 4 1% 7 5% 5 S talking 145 15% 72 14% 47 14% 26 17% 6 Violent phys ic al attac k 8 1% 3 1% 0 0% 5 3% 7 O thers 1 0% 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 8 None 447 45% 208 41% 149 44% 90 60%•Most common form of sexual harassment: Verbal(44%) followed by Visual (16%) and physical form(13%).•447 respondents reported of not having faced any form of sexual harassment.
    • 15. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONFGD GROUPS1. Women working at night  JOURNALIST  CALL CENTRE WORKERS2. Women from a lower socio-economic background  DOMESTIC WORKERS  HOMELESS  HAWKERS Domestic worker3. Women with disabilities  VISUALLY DISABLED4. TRANSGENDER and MSM5. NORTH-EASTERN state students6. DELHI UNIVERSITY Call Centre/ BPO worker
    • 16. EXCERPTS FROM FGDs Women from lower socio-economic background; domestic workers, hawkers, homeless women and other women working in the informal sector.  Poverty an overarching factor towards vulnerability.  They felt more comfortable negotiating spaces within their neighborhoods but less safe in other spaces.  Fear men in groups and especially men who are intoxicated. FGD with Homeless Women  Greater harassment from policemen“Sometimes when we are asleep,  Lack of access to basic amenities, like clean and safesome men come around drunk and public toilets, drinking water and shelter homesif they see that we are alone, they  Acute vulnerability of women and children towardstry to harass us…we have to shoutand tell them to go away” sexual violence - homeless women(FGD with homeless women)
    • 17. Transgender people ; stigmatized, ridiculed Northeastern states Students – “Are we not• Face violence both from the public and Indians?” police  Face discrimination due to different ethnic• Feel no place is safe once they step out of features their homes.  Are perceived as ‘easy and available’ to• Police too harass them both sexually and sexual favors otherwise - feel no protection from them.  Men traveling in cars often slow down, pass comments stalk them to figure out where they live – landlord a menace too. “We cannot trust anyone, no man on the street. Whenever Ive faced harassment on a bus, like brushing of bodies, and if Ive raised my voice, no one has done anything about it, neither the conductor or the men or the women." (FGD with women from north east) Visually Disabled Women –  Hard to trust people in public and are often wary when strangers offered to help.  lack of maintenance of public spaces is a huge concern North East Student to mobility  People often misbehave (touching in offensive manners etc) in pretext of helping them.
    • 18. DELHI UNIVERSITY SITE•Chattra Marg (Starting Point: Temple opposite Institute of Economic Growth-Delhi University Metro station)•Starting point: Maurice Nagar Police station-End point: Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur Khalsa College•Delhi School of Economics to Vijaynagar connecting canal over-bridge Auditors Students, DSE Resident and campus campaigns GIC – JAGORI team
    • 19. FINDINGS AT DELHI UNIVERSITY STRETCH• Not a closed university campus - speedy car traffic / transient commuters• Unsafe Ridge area• Verbal harassment was the most common form, experienced by 44% of the women.• The pavements were not walk-able ; open or raised sewer holes and broken stretches - occupied by vendors, small shops - unlit. One audit site stretch had dug-up pavements - Commonwealth games construction.• Public toilets for men, constructed on the pavement ;maintenance low. No public toilets for women• Adequate and well maintained street lights only in certain stretches.• The authority should also look into regular trimming of trees so that they do not affect visibility.
    • 20. RECOMMENDATIONS• Well maintained, well lit, disabled friendly pavements• Visible sign boards, with names of roads/ institutions and directions, should be put up all over the campus.• Clean and regular maintained public toilets for both men and women to be constructed• Proper lighting and maintenance was also recommended.• Installing more public phone booths especially open 24 hrs• Opening eateries (24hrs) which will increase use of space• Raising awareness on the issue of safety with people using the area.
    • 21. GICP: years 2 and 3• Meeting to discuss baseline findings Feb. 2010• Work on policy development, including developing logic models• Meeting in June 2011 to discuss progress in policy development: – Public transport (Delhi) – 2 low income neighbourhoods (Rosario) – Housing policies (Petrovadosk) – 3 low income neighbourhoods (Dar)• Evaluation and ‘toolkit’ by end of project Jan. 2012
    • 22. Delhi – Multi-pronged interventions Crime Prevention and Urban Planning and Design enforcement •Lighting •Improve police-community relations •Road design through joint activities •Public market design •Provision of gender desks in university •University campus – promote mixed •Recommendations to improve uses programme with women police officers Social prevention Anti VAW campaigns Addressing youth and boys Urban governance and Social Street children and homeless Prevention service delivery Education initiatives •Public awareness targetting different populations •Training with bus drivers and subway staff •Education initiatives Recreation •Partnerships to improve access to •Empowerment activities with women basic services Livelihood and vulnerable populations •Help develop neighbourhood safety committees with government
    • 23. Making public transport safe and inclusive “We cannot trust anyone, no man on the street. Whenever Ive faced harassment on a bus, like brushing of bodies, and if Ive raised my voice, no one has done Delhi Transport anything about it, neither the conductor or the men or corporation the women." (FGD with women from north east) Delhi MetroWe boarded the Metro from Rajeev Chowk around 9:30pm .Inside the womens only compartment, there were many male Rail Servicepassengers. They wouldnt budge. We knocked on the driversdoor. The driver asked the men in the womens section tomove out but to no avail!" said a regular commuter Women Taxi Service
    • 24. Towards Institutionalisation: DTC ‘Training 40, 000 work force through 47 instructors’ • ‘Women’s Safety in bus’ sessions in Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) training curriculum • Pool of trained instructors in DTC • Appointment of Women Conductors & Drivers • CCTV cameras in DTC Buses • Awareness campaigns engaging the public • Policy on Sexual harassment at workplace for DTC • Safety guidelines for bus terminals and bus stops
    • 25. Engagement through Sensitisation and Awareness Cab drivers in session on safety in public spaces and laws Mending the gap with DMRC
    • 26. PROJECT TO IMPROVE WOMEN’S SAFETY IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT Women do not feel safe or comfortable as they experience sexual harassment and sexual assault in public transport PROBLEM Public awareness Campaign on women’s ‘rights Training of different to city’/ safety- dissemination of information and Engagement with senior management transport service providers strategies/ redressal mechanism through posters to effect strategic policy change ACTIVITIES / sticker on buses, bus stops, terminals, autos, etc. • 45 Delhi transport Corporation 15 women private taxi (DTC) instructors trained on drivers in partnership with More users of skills to conduct gender Azad Foundation sensitized public transport Guidelines •Development •Gender of safety sensitization training on SH, legal provisions and (men, women) onOUTPUTS sensitization guidelines • Development of training and skilled to deal with become aware of women’s sessions as from the reading materials for situations of women’s the problem of safety for part of DTC perspective of instructors and staff safety and needs of other sexual harassment private taxi Curriculum women’s and • DTC Instructors to conduct marginalized groups, like and women’s rights service for staff disabled gender sensitization / disabled people, elderly, and the available providers trainings with 40000 staff etc redress strategies groups Trained women taxi DTC staff better drivers feel confident informed and pro-active Women public Men recognize forms of Improved design about being able to Women’s safety is OUTCOMES in handling incidents of deal with violent transport users feel violence against women and and better consistently violence against women confident about actively participate to make maintenance of situations. Thus feel incorporated/ in buses confronting sexual public transport spaces safe public transport safer performing their mainstreamed into harassment for women spaces job duties. policies IMPACT Sexual harassment and assault of women in public transport reduced; women feel safe and confident to access public transport
    • 27. Womens concerns about situations of violence andinfrastructure deficits that are obstacles for womens daily routes. Design of a safe path for women Local government support for some of the actions developed. Difficulties in the coordination with local government because of the differences in timeframes and agendas. Participation in trainings with women from other districts. Bonds and debates that begin to build the Women’s Agenda for the city as a tool for political incidence.
    • 28. Northwest District Intervention Proposal Women fear and experience sexual harassment and abuse at bus stops and in the streets leading to themPROBLEM Encouragement, support and Design, planning, and Awareness-raising campaign Activities to strengthen bondsACTIVITIES training of women to organise development of a safe corridor about violence against women among community and act on women’s safety for women in public spaces organisations and actors Increase in knowledge of Greater communication and Women trained in matters of Presentation and acceptance general public and coordination betweenOUTPUTS gender and safety and have of the safe corridor planning government institutions community organisations to skills to organise to the district government. about women’s safety in improve sense of community public spaces Commitment by the Improvements in Local residents and Women see themselves as decentralised government to infrastructure and community organizations capable of dialogue with the sustaining the actions throughOUTCOMES local government to address maintenance of streets and articulation with recognise the safe corridor as public spaces in the safe a space free from violence the issue together organisations and women’s corridor. against women groups. IMPACT Decrease in the level of sexual harassment and abuse that women experience in the area of the safe corridor.
    • 29. Dar es Salaam workshop (June 2011)• 20 people: coordinator (Delhi), administrative person (Montreal), evaluator (London), Advisor (Melbourne); 2-4 people each from the 4 sites• Skype meetings every 6 weeks, but first time most had met F2F• Purpose: evaluation and final product of project (toolkit) – agreed on summary 10 points
    • 30. Where we started from… mutual understandings about right to the city• “Recognizing that different forms of GBV are a barrier to women’s right to the city, including women’s ability to freely access and enjoy public spaces and participate in decision-making processes.”• “Partnering among stakeholders including women, local government, women’s organisations and others is an effective mechanism to bring about positive changes in public spaces to make it inclusive and safe for all.”• “Engaging with a wide range of stakeholders provides an opportunity to deepen understanding and commitment to the creation of safe and inclusive cities.”
    • 31. Learning from GICP: research as an empowerment tool• Legitimation of knowledge: Importance of institutionalizing and legitimizing tools as ‘research’, not only community development – All had done WSA, ¾ had done FGD, 0/4 had done street surveys but they hadn’t published findings or compared methods with other places…“Analyzing this data, and data from reviewingexisting policies and programmes in each contexthas given us the basis to develop effectiveinterventions using a Right to the City approach –asserting that everyone has an equal right to publicspace and to decision-making around public space”
    • 32. policy analysis as an empowerment tool• Partnerships between governments and community-based women’s organizations depend on the ability of the latter to understand how policy processes work…“Empowering women, girls and other stakeholdersthrough increasing public awareness of the issues ofviolence in public space, engaging women at theneighbourhood level to take leadership, advocatingfor policy changes to budgets and to public spacesand using media has created a strong support basefor our organisations and for local politics.”
    • 33. Evaluation as an empowerment tool• Questions about how to evaluate interventions – partnership development? It is too early and too simplistic to try and measure impact in terms of violence but you can measure changes to public space in some cases…“Planning interventions so that the problems areaddressed through activities with clear outputs andoutcomes, leading to desired impacts, have madeour work stronger.”
    • 34. Peer to peer knowledge exchange as an empowerment tool“Mutual support between community-basedwomen’s organizations globally through theinternet, face- to -face meetings, which encouragedlearning and reflection has helped develop aninternational community of practice that will makeour own work, and the work of others, morepowerful.”• Lessons from GICP have informed new UN Women program working with 5 cities 2010-2016• All 4 local leaders are now in their 20s!
    • 35. 2. Travelling Together: DisabilityInclusive Road Development projectHow can people with disability influence decision-making about road development in PNG? (Australian Research Development Award, 2010-2013)
    • 36. Project Partners• CBM-Nossal Institute Partnership for Disability Inclusive Development• Cardno Emerging Markets• Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, University of Melbourne• PNG Assembly of Disabled Persons• Divine Word University• Funded through Australian Development Research Awards Descriptor: Buluminsky Highway New Ireland - a section of the highway which (ADRA) program by AusAID – is currently under maintenance. There are eight road workers and a truck. They Australian Agency for International are fixing potholes and widening the road itself. (Photo: Disability Inclusive Development Road Development project)• Other people with disabilities and organisations
    • 37. Research Aims1. Prioritize appropriate responses to access needs of people with disability in PNG2. Contribute to the evidence base for disability inclusive infrastructure development in the Asia-Pacific region3. Develop guidelines to support disability inclusive infrastructure consultation, planning and development for use by various stakeholders involved in road decision-making and construction4. Develop a training package on disability inclusive road planning and development, to be conducted by disability organisations for infrastructure stakeholders5. People with disabilities (women and men) have ownership of the research and the capacity to utilise the findings in their advocacy and rights-based work with the PNG government and development sector
    • 38. Research questions1. What are the perceived barriers and facilitators for people with disability accessing road infrastructure and services in rural and urban PNG?Outline of Research2. What are the perceived outcomes of selected rural and urban infrastructure developments on the lives of people with disability and their families (changes to social participation, livelihoods, education, health)?3. How have people with disability participated in selected rural and urban road infrastructure planning and development?4. What are the recommended approaches in disability inclusive consultation and participation in road infrastructure planning and development in PNG?
    • 39. People with disabilities in PNG PNG National Policy onDisability reports 10-15% ofthe population havedisabilities Most common impairmentsare movement, seeing andhearing impairments Common causes aredisease, accidents and aging Some people also believein supernatural causes Violence, ethnic clashes, Descriptor: People with hearing impairments give information to theand road accidents are also data collectors, Hekoi Igo, who is visually impaired, and Mary Ikupucommon causes of disability who is a wheelchair user. (Photo: Disability Inclusive Road Development project)(Byford & Veenstra 2004; Thornton & Pirpi2008; Stubbs & Tawake 2009)
    • 40. PNG context: road development• 85% of people live in rural areas – 35% live over 10 km from a road which would link them to a major city - 17% have no road access at all• Up to 85% of roads are impassable during wet season (because of islands and mountains, boats and planes also important forms of inter-urban transport)• Incidence of poverty doubled for households living more than 60 minutes from a road• Primary means of transport is still walking (photos: Disability Inclusive Road Development)
    • 41. Roads: Necessary but Dangerous Road development can reduce poverty in developing countries by improving:  Access to essential services like schools & healthcare,  Social networks  EconomicDescriptor: Children using a road to get to school in Lae opportunities(Photo: Disability Inclusive Road Development project) (Barrios 2008; Estache 2010)
    • 42. Roads: Necessary but DangerousRoad traffic is a source ofdisability and canexacerbate disabledpeople‟s marginalizationNairobi, Kenya: roadevaluation with pedestriancrossing observations foundthat elderly and disabledpeople looked stressed andnervous traversing majorroad with inadequatecrossings, in contrast toother adults using the Descriptor: Ismael Leanave, a data collectors and is a personcrossing with a movement impairment, is crossing a road in Madang during a break in the traffic. (Photo: Disability Inclusive Road(Mitullah and Makajuma 2009) Development project)
    • 43. Community participation in planning means better results Road infrastructure planning is mostly led by governments – But community participation can improve results (Paul & Katare 2010)  India: village councils prioritized roads for improvement, community members led walkabouts with engineers to prioritize improvements (Paul & Katare 2010) Tanzania and Uganda: group discussions with councils, engineers and community representatives to prioritize roads for improvements (Leyland 2003)Descriptor: A poster from a community activity highlighting things they likeabout a road. (Photo: Disability Inclusive Road Development project)
    • 44. How we will answer these questionsStretches of roads infive sites: 2 urban sites (PortMoresby & Goroka) 3 rural sites (Lae,Madang & NewIreland)Combination ofroads which arecompleted and thoseunder re- Descriptor: Consultations with different stakeholders on site selection. There are a group of people looking at a map of PNG.development or These people represent PNG Assembly of Disabled Persons, themaintenance National Board of Disabled Persons, and the National Disability Advocacy and Resource Centre. (Photo: Disability Inclusive Road Development project)
    • 45. How we will answer questions: Tools 9 Interviews with local road decision- makers Group discussions with people with disabilities “Moveabouts” Photo elicitation and poster making Descriptor: Data collectors and participants from the pilot of the group discussion and poster making tool. There are women and men with different types of impairments, children with disabilities and their parents. (Photo: Disability Inclusive Road Development Project)
    • 46. How are people with disabilities involved in the research? Five pairs of data collectors:Descriptor: This is a photo of the data collection team! From left to right at the back there is: Mary Ikupu, Joyce Christian, IsmaelLeanave, Joseph Lapangot, Hekoi Igo, Elina Seko, Demond Beng and Babra Peter. In front is Ipul Powaseu, PNG ResearchOfficer, Rachel Tararia seated, and Benedict Hipom, seated. (Photo: Disability Inclusive Road Development project)
    • 47. Project PrinciplesProject principles: Full participation of people with disabilities in every phase Accessibility Capacity development Inclusion of all Descriptor: People with disabilities congratulate each other at groups the close of a group discussion with clapping in sign language. (Photo: Disability Inclusive Road Development Project) Partnership building
    • 48. Why consult with people with disabilities?• UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)• People with disabilities can have additional access needs to other road users• Accessible roads are accessible for everyone! Children, older people, pregnant women ...• Cheaper to plan it in than to fix later!
    • 49. The 5 data collection sites Road How many? Who? ImpairmentsPort Moresby Boe Vagi in Hanuabada. It was 10 people: 6 women, 4 2 speech and hearing, 1 completed within last 2 years. It is men. Between age 10 and speech, 4 intellectual currently being rehabilitated 56, mostly between 18-30. impairment, 2 wheelchair (repaired). users, 1 partially sighted.Madang Talidig Market to Talidig school 8 people for most activities: 2 wheelchair users, 2 users stretch of Madang- Bogia National 5 women, 3 men, all under of crutches, 1 vision Highway, in rural part of Madang 30 impairment plus balance, province. It was completed 12 years hearing impairment agoLae Zifasing stretch of Okuk Highway 7 people: 2 elderly( 1 man 2 amputees, 1 hearing (Highlands Highway). The road was 1 woman ), 1 teenaged boy, impairment, 4 movement resealed over the last 3 years 4 girl children aged 6-8 impairment with parentsKavieng Buluminsky Highway between 11 people: 8 youths (under Visual, intellectual, hearing Kavieng and Lemakot in New 25) and 3 adults; 6 women, impairments; no mobility Ireland. Road was created 18 years 5 men impairment other than data ago but there is routine maintenance collector. going on, including resealing, bridge upgrading and drainage constructionGoroka Highlands highway from Rotary Park 12 people: 2 women, one Mostly mobility impairment, to the National Sport Institute in 40 year old, others men, 1 speech/hearing town. There is a plan to upgrade and mostly students aged 20-30 impairment, multiple reseal the road by the end of 2012 disability,
    • 50. Learning from DIRD-PNG training: research as an empowerment tool• Low cost qualitative data collection tools = effectiveness as a lobbying tool with local and senior government• In contrast to GICP, where project workers had uni backgrounds, only 2 of the PNG researchers have uni qualifications, most are year 10 – but they picked up tools quickly and were able to analyse results and create advocacy plans
    • 51. Gender mainstreaming• Why one woman and one man in each site? – Comfort – Under- representation – Employment and leadership opportunities
    • 52. Next Steps• Research is now ‘owned’ within PNG – have hired new PNGADP person to support advocacy in the provincial sites and to organize a summary workshop in Port Moresby March 2013• Training guide for DPOs is being developed for new sites in PNG (including buildings as well as roads) and across the Pacific region• Consultation protocol and engineering guidelines have been developed in conjunction with Cardno and will be launched at the workshop – these are integrated within AusAID’s new disability inclusion guidelines
    • 53. Partnerships• The biggest challenge (as it is in so many projects) is to get NGOs comfortable in confronting planning power- road decision- makers… and also to get road decision-makers to take grassroots organizations seriously• The notion in both GICP and DIRD-PNG is that we researchers ‘leave behind’ tools and partnerships to create safer and more inclusive communities
    • 54. Children’s Independent Mobility (10 year old boy, private housing, Southbank)• The freedom of those under 18 to move around in public space without adult accompaniment (Hillman et al 1990): walking, cycling, public transport (active transport)• Usually a focus on primary school children 6-12
    • 55. My Research on Children’s independent mobility1. Institutional Enablers to Children’s Independent Mobility (VREF) Phase 1: rationale and policy scan 2006-2007 Phase 2: do Child Friendly Cities have the capacity to promote CIM? 2008-20092. The diffusion/ de-fusion of Walking School Bus (VREF 2008)3. Vertical Living Kids: creating supportive high rise environments for children in Melbourne, Australia (Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, 2008-2009)4. Social Capital and Children’s Journey to Catholic Schools (PhD candidate Pat Love) 2009-20125. iMATCH and CATCH: Independent Mobility, Active Travel and Children’s Health - two national studies with 4 other universities (Australian Research Council and ‘industry partners’ 2010-2013) – CATCH will roll out the Vertical Living Kids methods to a national study of environmental influences on CIM and AT – iMATCH will evaluate policies and programs on CIM in Victoria and Queensland
    • 56. The Problem: Huge Generational Shift in Active Travel and Independent Mobility (Harten and Olds 2004, Garrard 2009; photos: Jana Perkovic)• Melbourne 1970, 55.3% 6-18 walked to school, 14.3% took car; 1994, 22.2% walked, 43.9% took car• Melbourne 1994-1999, children aged 0-14 years made an average of 23.1 trips/week, 71% as car passenger, 22% as a pedestrian (22%)• This problem is much greater in rich Anglo-American countries than in other cultures (Japan, Germany, Finland)
    • 57. Huge Generational Shift in CIM: why?(McMillan 2004)• Main reason: Traffic safety and ‘stranger danger’: perceptions• Other reasons: Increasing car ownership (why not drop off child on way to work?), increasing sprawl (distances to amenities), decreasing neighbourhood activities (decline of milkshop, fewer and bigger schools), ‘turbo charged childhoods’ (less time to walk or cycle)• Vicious circle: more traffic around schools means less safe• Road safety education and ‘risk management’: “Always hold the hand of a child under 11” says Pedestrian Council in Australia, while the norm in Japan is that children as young as 4-5 travel to school on their own
    • 58. Impacts (photo: K. Malone)• Child overweight and obesity: 25% of Australian kids now, 5% in 1960 (Australian Society for Study of Obesity 2004)• Social and mental development of children, anxiety and depression, readiness to learn, environmental knowledge, development of spatial, motor and analytic skills, number of local friends and acquaintances (Tranter and Pawson 2001, Prezza et al 2005, Malone 2007)• 2/3 of pedestrian accidents in Victoria involving children occurred in relation to cars doing school drop off and pick up (Morris et al 2001)• Driving children to school, recreation, friends, etc. a significant source of traffic congestion eg., ‘the school drive’ accounts for 17% of traffic 8.30-9 a.m. in Melbourne (DOI 2005); airborne pollutants are higher around some schools than in the surrounding neighbourhoods (Kingham and Ussher 2007); in car pollution worse than outside cars (Internatonal Centre for Technology Assessment in Tranter 2004)
    • 59. Children and Rights (image: UNICEF)• Traditionally, children • UN Convention on seen as “undeveloped, Rights of Child: "social lacking even basic actors who shape their capacities for identities, create and understanding, communicate valid communicating and views about the social making choices... world and have a right powerless within their to participate in it" (ibid, p. 460). families and often voiceless and invisible within society" (MacNaughton et al., 2007, p. 458). 59
    • 60. UN Convention on Children’s Rights 1989• Article 3: “In all actions concerning children… the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration”• Article 12: “States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own view the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child”• 31: “States Parties shall respect and promote the right of the child to participate fully in cultural and artistic life and shall encourage the provision of appropriate and equal opportunities for cultural, artistic, recreational, and leisure activity”• Ratified by all UN Nations, with exception of US, Somalia, and South Sudan – Australia one of first signatories 60
    • 61. UN Child-Friendly Cities initiative 1990• “promotes the implementation of the Convention… at the level where it has the greatest impact on children’s lives”: local government (UNICEF, 2004, p. 1)• CFC outcomes “policies, resource allocations and governance actions are made in a manner that is in the best interests of children and their constituencies”• “safe environments… with opportunities for recreation, learning, social interaction, psychological development, and cultural expression” are provided• “children have the right to participate in making decisions that affect their lives and are offered opportunities to express their opinions” (Malone, 2006, p. 21). 61
    • 62. Barriers to CFC (safenetwork.org, derbycounty-mad.org.uk)• Preschool and primary school children are often portrayed as ‘angels’, needing protection from strangers as well as traffic• In contrast, teenagers using public space are often portrayed by the media as ‘devils’ outside parental control denied “legitimate (Valentine, 1996), user status” in semi-private shopping centres and recreation complexes (Malone and Hasluck 1998, p. 34)
    • 63. From Battery Reared to Free Range Children (2007-08)Safety through restrictions Safety through independence• Risks of traffic safety and • Giving children power to talk stranger danger greater about what they like and than risks of physical dislike, and recommend inactivity and fear changes• Parents are to blame if • Emphasizes the responsibility something bad happens to of government and civil children – including blame society in encouraging for children’s inactivity children’s access• Role of experts is to tell • Role of experts is to listen to children and parents what children and act on to do suggestions
    • 64. Walking the Walk 2008-2009• Like 1st phase, funded by Australasian Centre for the Governance and Management of Urban Transport (GAMUT)• Comparison of 5 ‘intervention’ councils in Victoria who were pursuing CFC policies in 2008 (Melbourne, Port Philip, Bendigo, Brimbank, Ballarat) with 2 matched ‘control’ councils to determine whether there are changes in policies and practices that could promote CIM• Policy review plus interviews with 2 council officers in each council 64
    • 65. CFC planning policy framework1. Policies: explicit recognition of children as a diverse interest group with rights – not trickle down from family-friendly policies2. children’s rights to all public space, not only those designated as ‘child- specific’ spaces such as playgrounds or schools3. achievable targets, strategies and implementation mechanisms that name lead departments, and provide a whole of government response. (eg., an increased number of children reporting use and comfort in public spaces)4. Policies that consult with and support children must be integrated into other local government policies, such as health and land use plans.5. Practices: Social and land use planners, local councillors and senior managers, must be trained in a rights based approach to planning for children – not just one champion6. Planners must be equipped with the skills that allow them to interact with children, including the ability to transform complex plans into simple diagrams, and complex ideas from children into planning policies
    • 66. Walking the Walk findings• Policies: Focus on children’s rights filtering into Municipal Early Years Plan and possibly, Health and Wellbeing Plans in CFC sites• Not reflected in Municipal Strategic Statements or other land use planning/ design documents that might influence CIM outcomes• Practices: CFC has a positive impact on planning practices: children as ‘current citizens’ rather than ‘future citizens’• However, uncertainties about how to move ‘consultation findings’ into practical input in strategic planning and development approval – focus on ‘children’s spaces’ (playgrounds) rather than entire public realm 66
    • 67. Good policies – recognition of children as a group with rights• City of Port Phillip, in its Creating a Child-Friendly Port Phillip Implementation Plan (2005, p. 1), committed to developing a Child Impact Assessment tool for policies and services and also committed to including in council report templates a requirement to state the effects of any proposal on children – Green Light campaign to lower speed limits and increase traffic stopping times along major roads, particularly those used to travel to schools• The City of Melbourne has recognized, in its recent long term strategy plan (2009, Connected City section- goal 3 Walking City): “whether or not children are safe to walk is a real test of a walking city”.• In contrast, a planner interviewed in a control site said: “We speak with parents, and I’m a parent myself”.
    • 68. Good policies- children belong everywhere• The City of Greater Bendigo’s Playspace Strategy (2009, p. 7) provides an inclusive definition of play spaces as “the entire site where play can occur”, including elements such as “landscaping, paths, lighting, fencing, open space… seating, shade structures, barbeques” as well as natural features such as boulders or logs. The ultimate aim is to “provide a broad range of high quality play opportunities and experiences which stimulate the imagination and can be enjoyed by the whole community, regardless of age or ability”• In contrast, the control sites’ policies were still focused on the management of child-specific spaces like child care centres and maternal and child health centres. When issues of accessibility for children were raised, they were usually destination focused, such as access to schools or playgrounds. There was no notion that children can and do walk and play everywhere.
    • 69. Vertical Living Kids (2008-09)• Qualitative and exploratory study of 22 children aged 8-12 living in privately-owned housing, and 18 children living in public housing, all in high rises (4+ storeys) within 4 km of CBD• Like the CAPABLE project in the UK (Mackett et al, 2008), we sought to investigate children’s perceptions and use of local environments through global positioning system devices (GPS), activity (heart) monitors, parent and child surveys and travel diaries with children in years 4-6 over 4 days (two weekday and two weekend days). We also used ‘photo voice’ and collages to ask children about likes and dislikes in local environments• We were seeking to uncouple ‘public housing’/SES effects from high rise housing effects and see whether CIM and AT results were different for children in high rise housing
    • 70. Results: Significant differences between public and private housing kids (10 year old boy, public housing, Carlton; 12 year old girl, private housing, St. Kilda )- 62% of public housing kids journeyed alone or with other kids, v. 17% of private housing kids (latter average for suburbs)- 83% of public housing kids created collages dominated by estate play spaces, despite the fact that over half frustrated with quality of spaces. Only 44% identified commercial spaces they frequented, none mentioning downtown shopping (mostly milk bars)– Only 50% of private housing kids identified play spaces at all, and 86% identified commercial spaces they liked, mostly downtown shops; 81% liked aspects of living downtown
    • 71. Matrix of CIM (Kytta 2004)Child-Friendly City: Lots of things to do Wasteland: few things to do; but lots ofand explore; children are autonomous kidsGlasshouse: Lots of things to do and Prison: Very few things to do; children areexplore but children are discouraged from discouraged from explorationexploration
    • 72. Results (8 year old girl, private housing, Southbank; 10 year old girl, public housing, Carlton)• Reinforces King’s (1974) studies of public/private housing in Sydney: apartment children are “embedded in more encompassing, social, cultural and spatial systems” (Vliet 1986) that mediate their environments… don’t conflate high rise housing with public housing!• Kids want “social space… to be a part of the city’s life” (Ward 1977), not only purpose built “child spaces” (Freeman 2006) within a “sea of adult- centric space” (Fincher and Iveson 2008)
    • 73. The CATCH/iMATCH project• 2 Australian Research Council grants July 2010-Dec. 2013• CATCH (Children’s Active Travel, Connectedness and Health)-Children’s perspectives on local environmental likes and dislikes and how that influences their independent mobility, active travel, and sense of community• iMATCH (Independent mobility, active travel and children’s health) - effectiveness of policy interventions in increasing children’s independent mobility and active travel• Same research team – Carey Curtis (Curtin- Perth) and Matt Burke (Griffith – Brisbane), transport planners – Carolyn Whitzman (Melbourne), social planner – Paul Tranter (UNSW/ADFA – Canberra), social geographer – Mitch Duncan (Central Queensland – Rockhampton) and Christine Armit (Merri Community Health Centre), public health
    • 74. CATCH/iMATCH Methods• 6 public school-based sites spread out across 3 states: – 1 inner city – 2 middle suburbs – 2 outer suburb/ master planned communities – 1 regional town• 3 intervention site with ATS program, 3 control sites• ~40 children in grades 4-7 (senior primary) and their parents in each school, using same methods as Vertical Living Kids (week with camera, child and parent surveys, travel diary, GPS, heart monitor)• Rockhampton and Melbourne have completed data collection, Brisbane and Perth in 1st half 2012
    • 75. 2 Melbourne sites
    • 76. Brunswick (photos: homes.ninemsn.com.au; pubcrawl.blogspot; melbourneproject.com; todaymelbourne.blogspot.com)• an inner suburb, 5 km north of CBD, dating from the 1880s, that has undergone the transition from industrial neighbourhood to post- industrial gentrification• Upper middle class, large proportion of artists and academics – excellent tram connections to CBD, train line and busses• East Brunswick is adjacent to Merri Creek, popular bike and pedestrian trail, and CERES Environmental Park and market
    • 77. Glenroy (photos: realestateview.com.au; flickr.hivemind.net, mooneevalleyleader.com.au;• A ‘middle suburb’, 15 km to the northwest of the city, mostly dating from the 1950s – with a rail station and trains but no trams• While having a higher proportion of new migrants and higher unemployment, it is lower middle class rather than poor• Glenroy West is adjacent to Moonee Ponds Creek, quite different from Merri Creek…
    • 78. Sampling Total students Surveys returned Collage activityGlenroy 111 45 (41%) 35 (39%)Brunswick 104 30 (29%) 26 (25%)
    • 79. Child Survey• AT: ‘usual’ modes of travel to school, parks, shops, friends’ houses, other local destinations• IM: whether the child was accompanied by an adult or journeyed alone or with other children• Satisfaction with IM: “do you wish you had more freedom to go outside?” – “if you answered yes, what would you like to do outside? Why would you like to do this?” – “if you answered no, why?”
    • 80. ‘Week with a Camera’/Photo collage• “The idea is to get an idea of how children see their neighbourhood… Think of places around your neighbourhood that you either REALLY LOVE or REALLY HATE… but it would help us a lot if you could take some photos of the following: – a photo on your way to school: – a photo on your way home from school – a photo of a place you go in your neighbourhood, outside of school – a photo of something you like to do or a place you like to go without adults (or would like to, if you were allowed)”• Created 3 collages: things I LOVE and HATE about neighbourhood and a PERFECT neighbourhood to explore
    • 81. Findings: satisfaction with IM60% of Brunswick kids Only 30% of Glenroy kidssatisfied with IM, no relation satisfied with IM, no relationwith whether they live in with whether they live insame neighbourhood as same neighbourhood asschool or not (and many live school or not (fewer liveoutside suburb) outside suburb) live in Brunswick (13) Live outside suburb (18) live in Glenroy (30) Live outside suburb (13) Satisfied with IM (9) (4) (13)Satisfied (9) (9)with IM (18) Unsatisfied with (21) (9)Unsatisfied (4) (9) IM (30)with IM (13)
    • 82. Satisfaction with IM: Brunswick• In general, the Brunswick students answered that they get lots of “outdoor time” by themselves and with friends• Even those who were dissatisfied with their outdoor freedom reported high levels of active travel, but wanted more independence from parental supervision – ‘Dan’, a 9 year old boy in year 4 living in Brunswick, says he usually walks to school and other local destinations by himself. He says he is satisfied with his independent mobility because he can go outside “even when it is dark”. He walks a lot with his dog near the creek
    • 83. Dissatisfaction with IM: Brunswick• ‘Max’, a 10 year old year 4 student living in Coburg, the suburb immediately north of Brunswick, bikes with adult supervision to school, shops and friends’ houses. He wishes he had more freedom to “walk my dog, go to friends’ houses and go to park with my brothers” so “I would get used to growing up”.• Debbie, a 10 year old year 4 girl living in Northcote (the suburb immediately east of Brunswick), is driven to school, but walks with adult supervision to local shops and parks. She wishes he had more freedom to independently “ride my bike/scooter, play with friends, play/walk dog’ because “its fun” and to “feel like I have more responsibility”.
    • 84. Satisfaction with IM: Glenroy• ‘Laura’, a 13 year old girl in year 6 who lives in Sunshine (a suburb 2-4 km west of Glenroy), walks 15-30 minutes alone to school and also walks to local parks and friends’ houses. She says she has “enough freedom already”.
    • 85. Dissatisfaction with IM: Glenroy• ‘Grace’, a 10 year old girl in year 4 living in Glenroy, is driven to schools and friends’ houses, and doesn’t go to local shops. She’d like more freedom to “go places with friends and see what it is like”. She has no suggestions for change, took no photographs of public spaces, and her sole neighbourhood dislike was “I hate *garbage+ bins”.
    • 86. Nature in Brunswick and Glenroy• Specific natural areas are mentioned much more by Brunswick students and photos also highlight both natural areas and nature on streets (eg., “the tree 11 houses from where I live”)• One Glenroy student, ‘Britney’, a 12 year old year 6 girl who lives very close to the school, talks about a “paddock” (which is actually a building site) next to the school, and in which she plays despite the fact that “you aren’t meant to go in it”. She calls it a “park without a park”.• The absence of perceived nature areas appears particularly acute in Glenroy, despite a creek being in equal distance• 7 Glenroy students wanted more and better spaces for active play: more parks, water slides and pools, playgrounds, sports clubs, and in general, “more fun stuff”.
    • 87. Is there more violence in Glenroy?• 9 Glenroy students mention violence or scary people (plus 4 mention ‘pit bulls) v. 2 in Brunswick• Data collection period October-December 2011• June 28, 2011: one man shot on Glenroy residential street in suspected gang feud, one day after shooting in adjacent suburb Jacana• August 16, 2011: two men dead and one injured on Brunswick residential street – also longstanding feud• November 28, 2011: one man shot next to busy shopping centre in Brunswick• So why was violence such a big issue in Glenroy and not in Brunswick?
    • 88. Perceived lack of social capital in Glenroy• 5 Glenroy students focused on more and better interaction with other children and adults: “more kids”, “everyone should walk or cycle to work one or two days a week”, “everyone should wear nametags”, “people should mow their lawns and pick up rubbish”. Laura, the Glenroy student who walked several kilometres alone to school, wanted “ people you could meet up with”• Brunswick kids were far more likely to make recommendations about built environment concerns such as traffic• Fear may be bound up with less intimate environmental knowledge, but also with sense of empowerment – ability to change communities
    • 89. Perfect neighbourhood; 9 year old girl, Brunswick
    • 90. Perfect neighbourhood, 9 year old girl, Glenroy
    • 91. Children’s Likes, Dislikes, and Ideas for Change• Appear to be related to different AT and IM responses• Brunswick: concerns about car traffic, and to a lesser extent, maintenance issues like rubbish and lighting and inappropriate new apartment development creating further traffic BUT also knowledge and pleasure from natural areas, sports fields and other facilities that promote physical activity, local shops, and the streetscape itself• Relative satisfaction leads to concrete ideas for change: eg., specific street corners that need longer traffic crossing times• Glenroy: much less satisfaction with urban destinations and amenities such as natural areas, playgrounds and sports facilities, and shops AND much less local environmental knowledge to draw upon, in terms of ideas for positive change• Relative dissatisfaction leads to fear of strangers, fauna (pit bulls, spiders, crawly things)… avoidance of public space
    • 92. Right to the City• Focus of Andrea Cook’s PhD Thesis “Citizen Kid” is a replicable consultation tool for children related to changes to public space• Children are, at best, ‘citizens in waiting’, with limited rights (Fincher and Iveson 2008)• Concern about ‘risk’ becomes a way to limit children’s rights… but risks from stranger danger are very low in Australia and have not increased – resilient children become resilient adults (Koskela 1997)• There is a journey from dependence to autonomy and it is different for every child… notion of ‘graduated licences’ to walk to school, other neighbourhood destinations, bike, cross major street, go downtown (Hillman et al 1990)
    • 93. who was involved in the CKPG…The University of Melbourne(as facilitators/researchers)Moreland City Council(as partners and participants)Merri Community HealthService (as partners and participants)Glenroy West Primary School(48 CATCH/iMATCH kids and 7 CKPG kids)Brunswick East Primary School(32 CATCH/iMATCH kids and 6 CKPG kids)
    • 94. Our two ‘live project’ sites… MORGAN COURT SPARTA PLACE
    • 95. the four CKPG sessions…Session 1: site visits(where we investigated the two sites andwhat they were like now for kids)Session 2: dreaming the future(where we imagined the ‘perfect’ future)Session 3: ‘design in’(where we discussed priorities and howdifferent ideas could see the light of day)Session 4: reflections(where we talked about what was mostimportant to take away from this process) …plus follow up activities
    • 96. Sparta Place, Brunswick… The walk took longer than expected (Q: Is Q: Is it a place for that a good or bad kids? Not yet… thing?) A good thing…There isn’t anything It needs a big really bad… but sign at thethere isn’t anything entrance, like atreally good either … CERES There is no one here. Would be better if there were more people in general
    • 97. we saw kids climbing…
    • 98. Morgan Court, Glenroy…I love the wall… it’s Its a good The tin shed fun and it makes place to sit ruins the whole me feel good … look of the place …The paving is notgood for scooters The new flag and the terrain poles are notwrecks the wheels even good for climbing because they There are too are too slippery many mean people
    • 99. we saw kids making art…
    • 100. Sparta Place & Morgan Court visions…
    • 101. the model for Sparta Place… creating an ‘Epic’ more people, brand for kid- especially kids… friendly shopstrees for shadeand climbing more colour, more attractive things that kid-friendly move (like activities electronic go- carts)
    • 102. the model for Morgan Court…fun lighting moreand colour… attractive happy people around the place…a festival where there is music, different clinicspeople and fun and activities things to do that kids can try – sports, crafts, food and drink cooking, etc and places to eat (e.g. a café)
    • 103. great messages for people to hear… we can do things and work it is well in a team important to make it fun it shows that to be in all kids have places ideas… even kids have a we got to voice and if they experience use it, they can kids are working with the change things citizens! Council
    • 104. Next and final steps, CATCH/iMATCH• Some gender and age differences, but the site differences are coming up as the most significant• What physical and social aspects of local environments makes children more likely to be given ‘licenses’ to autonomously explore? (collages, child/parent surveys, GIS mapping)• Are the children who use active travel to school getting better physical and social health outcomes (accelerometer, travel diaries)?
    • 105. Place, Health, Liveability• Gender Inclusive Cities is done• Travelling Together is in dissemination/ final report stage• CATCH/iMATCH is in analysis stage• Starting on new Australian-based research programme
    • 106. Affordable housing (Monash University, the end of affordable housing in Melbourne? 2012)
    • 107. Housing density and affordable living (State of Australian Cities 2012, Dodson and Sipe 2008)
    • 108. Social infrastructure where peopleneed it most - proportion of people on social assistance(Melbourne Social Atlas 2006)
    • 109. Causal pathways?
    • 110. Origins of Partnership• Planning liveable and sustainable communities in urban growth corridors project – Conceived at workshop December 2010• Place Health & Wellbeing Advisory Group – Began meeting in February 2011• Consultations for the NW RMF – July-August 2011• Current research program developing since then
    • 111. Partners - Government• Department of Health – NWM Region• Regional Management Forum – Department of Transport – Department of Planning and Community Development – Department of Justice – Department of Human Services• Growth Areas Authority• Places Victoria• VicHealth
    • 112. University of Melbourne collaborators on various projects(indicated in superscript)– Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning • Associate Professor Carolyn Whitzman (Planning)1 2 3 4 • Associate Professor Chris Pettit (Planning, Geography, GIS)4, 5 • Dr Dominique Hes (Architecture)2 • Dr John Stone (Transport)4 • Dr Jennie Day (Urban economist)5 • Dr Marcus White (Agent-based pedestrian modelling)5– Melbourne School of Engineering • Dr Lu Aye (Engineering)2 • Dr Mohsen Soltaneih (Spatial data infrastructures)5– Melbourne School of Population Health • Professor Billie Giles-Corti (Social and Behavioral Epidemiology)1 2 3 4 5 • Dr Hannah Badland (Sports Science)3 4 5 • Dr Melanie Davern (Psychology)2 • Professor Dallas English (Epidemiology)4– Melbourne Medical School • Dr John Furler (General Practice: Socioeconomic disadvantage and chronic health conditions)5
    • 113. National collaborators• University of Western Australia – Dr Bryan Boruff (Geography and GIS)1, 4 – Professor Fiona Bull (Exercise Science and Population Health)1• Queensland University of Technology – Professor Gavin Turrell (Social epidemiology)4
    • 114. Place, Health Liveability: To create evidence to inform planning for healthy, liveable and sustainable growth areas• Safe, attractive, affordable and sustainable…where people can live in appropriate housing, within walking, cycling or rapid and reliable public transport distance to employment and education, social and health services, healthy food, and good quality public open space(Photo sources: Sydney Morning Herald, TheAge)
    • 115. Place, Health, Liveability: three research areas1. How liveability can be defined and measured from a health perspective (Indicators project, Walkability project, Master‟s project on age-friendly service access indicator, Community Indicators Victoria)2. The impact of current planning policies on the health of people living in Melbourne‟s growth areas (Data Integration Project, PhD on planning and access of health services in growth areas, )3. How integrated planning can work to improve health and liveability outcomes across Melbourne (Getting to Yes: increasing family- friendly affordable housing in central Melbourne project, PhD on evaluating the planning and accessibility health services in growth areas, PhD on Developing a complex model for evaluating current urban development in Melbourne‟s outer suburbs, PhD on evaluating the extent of state policy integration for planning healthy and liveable neighbourboods, PhD on the applicability of shophouses in central and outer Melbourne growth areas)
    • 116. Indicators project• The University has supported a Community Indicators Victoria project since 2005 that informs local government health planning• But little data available at a smaller scale than local government area (about 50-100,000 people) and very little data is mapped• Before we do this, we wanted to see what new literature was available
    • 117. Indicators Project: Policy Areas• Crime and Safety • Healthcare and Social• Education Services• Employment and • Housing Income • Natural Environment• Entertainment, • Public Open Space Leisure and • Social Cohesion and Recreation Community Engagement• Food and Shops • Transport
    • 118. Indicators Project preliminary conclusions• Much of the indicators work does not rely on a strong evidence base• Much of it compares cities rather than inequalities within cities• We are looking at both objective (eg., census) and subjective (eg., survey) data – What is available – What is policy relevant• Some domains have well established indicators (crime and safety, transport), while others are very underdeveloped (entertainment, leisure and recreation) or are the opposite of „one measure fits all‟ (social services; open space)• Will be testing indicators against health data in next phase
    • 119. Getting to Yes: overcoming barriers to affordable family friendly housing in central Melbourne (2013-2014)• Urban Development Institute,• Places Victoria (urban renewal authority),• City of Melbourne• Department of Planning,• Planning Institute,• MGS: prominent social housing architecture firm• SGS: prominent planning and economics firm• Housing Choices Australia• Researchers in geography, urban design, construction economics and social planning• 18 month „seed grant‟ (1 Research fellow) to develop larger grant
    • 120. What will we do?1. Literature review and online survey of planners, developers, social housing providers to identify perceived barriers and good practices in Australia and abroad2. 3 local and 3 intl case studies in terms of financial as well as planning/governance measures that created success (Vancouver? NYC? London? Maybe somewhere „foreign‟ like Berlin?), plus design studio3. Final report and research dissemination workshops
    • 121. Lessons from Research• 3/4 Started small (1 researcher, small grant) and grew (who can I learn from?) – strategic long term thinking about research programs, not projects – this model can be replicated• All theoretically informed by a rights-based, empowerment partnership approach to applied policy-relevant social research• All interdisciplinary (3/4 health partners, also criminology, geography, political science, engineering, architecture, visual arts, social work)• All partnerships with community organizations as well as government, 3/4 private sector• All mixed methods, all have elements of policy analysis (integrated policy, place management approach, partnerships, indicators and evaluation), 3/4 quantitative as well as qualitative
    • 122. Consistent set of easy, cheap tools1. Focus group discussions2. Walkabouts/ moveabouts coupled with photo-voice3. Interviews with decision- makers4. Policy analysis: where is the money? Where is the potential for partnerships?
    • 123. Think Globally, Act Locally• Although there are huge wealth and power disparities, some things remain constant in my travels: – Cities are places of opportunity and positive as well as negative encounter – People appropriating public space – both through formal and informal activities and also through activism (formal and informal) – is essential to the right to the city – It is impossible and undesirable to divide objective built environment measures from the perceptual and subjective social lens through which we view the city – EVERYONE has the potential to exercise right to the city

    ×