Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Centennial canberra - quality of life and urban planning workshop presentation

3,407 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology, Real Estate
  • Be the first to comment

Centennial canberra - quality of life and urban planning workshop presentation

  1. 1. Planning and quality of life: the case of Canberra, Australia Hitomi Nakanishi University of Canberra, Australia Centennial Canberra - Past, Present and Future Workshop, 20 August 2013 CRICOS #00212K
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. Aims • Relationship between planning and QoL in Canberra? • Apply integrated method of measuring QoL • Is there a difference in QoL due to planning concepts? • Factors that affect residents’ priorities in QoL in Canberra? CRICOS #00212K
  4. 4. Assessing Quality of Life: Framework Planning Evaluation Outcome Output Policy Input QoL QoLIs Satisfaction By Dimension Urban Form/ the built environ’t Over all CRICOS #00212K
  5. 5. Gungahlin Belconnen City Weston Creek Woden Legend Export_Output_6 Urban_Form Garden City Y plan New Town Tuggeranong New Urbanism CRICOS #00212K
  6. 6. Density by neighbourhood type Garden City (North Canberra, South Canberra) Gross population density (person/ha) Net residential density (person/ha residential land) Open space density (person/ha open space) New Urbanism (Gungahlin) 7.85 Y Plan (Belconnen, Weston Creek, Tuggeranong, Woden) 13.54 30.18 46.93 47.31 156.92 170.12 173.46 15.61 CRICOS 2012) (Lintern,#00212K
  7. 7. Five dimensions of Quality of Life Community Safety and Security Prosperity & Diversity Culture and Education Community Well-being Quality Environment & sustainability Higher Demand Quality Environment & sustainability Community Well-being Environment Culture and Education Basic Needs Economy Prosperity & Diversity Community Community Safety and Security CRICOS #00212K Doi, Kii and Nakanishi (2008)
  8. 8. Mechanism of Individual’s Satisfaction, Value and QoL CRICOS (2005) Sugiyama, Kuroda, Doi and Nakanishi et al.#00212K
  9. 9. Integrated model of quality of life Quality of life Categories Indicator Community safety and security Culture and education Satisfaction formula S Prosperity and diversity SEi :Attributes of individual i Quality environment and sustainability Indicators example Ski = Sk (Xk ,SEi) Ski :Individual i’s satisfaction for k Community well-being ・ Annual domestic violence crime reported ・ Access to health and social care facilities •Houses with EER 5 or above ・ Per capita greenhouse gas emissions Xk X QoL formula 1 ‐― ρ -ρ QoLi =Σ {wki Ski k =1 } wki :weight of category k ρ :substitution parameter CRICOS #00212K
  10. 10. Concept of QoL weight Stress Satisfaction(S) Community safety and security(k=1) Prosperity and diversity(k=2) Culture and education (k=3) Community well-being (K=4) Quality environment and Sus.(K=5) 1  m     QOL  Q( S1, S 2 ,  , S m )     wk  k    S      CRICOS #00212K  k 1 
  11. 11. 1 -ρ ‐― ρ QoL =Σ wk S k { k =1 } Affected by individual’s capability 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 Satisfaction S Satisfaction – depends on capability Level of Indicator o X1 Si  X i Level of Indicator   X  i  i  S i γ : elasticity of satisfaction CRICOS #00212K
  12. 12. Value (Weight) – relative importance to ‘community safety and security’ wk S 0k(1  ) S m   S k (1  ) k  m wm S 0 m S m ; improved satisfaction level of domain m S k ; sacrificed satisfaction level of domain k S 0k S 0 m ; current satisfaction level of domains k and m wk wm ; value of domains k and m  ; substitution parameter between domains CRICOS #00212K
  13. 13. QoL indicators for Canberra Dimension Community safety and security Prosperity and diversity Culture and education Community well-being Quality environment and sustainability QoL Indicators num. of domestic crimes per 1,000 households in Canberra, % of residents who feel ‘fairly safe’ or ‘very safe’ after dark, num. of new affordable housing in Canberra access to service facilities accessible by disabled people in Canberra, job availability in Canberra, % of people agree that people from different backgrounds get on well, access to broadband network, cost of living, walking distance to the closest bus stop, quality of public transport system English language skills of immigrants in Canberra, % of young people (1624 yrs old) in full-time education or employment in Canberra, access to cultural facilities, student/staff ratio in higher education in Canberra access to health and social care facilities and service quality, residents who feel they have ability to influence decisions in Canberra, amount of green space within walking distance, % of people who are overweight or obesity in Canberra, illegal drug use in Canberra EER (energy efficiency rating) of house, num. of wild birds in neighbourhood, amount of household waste recycle in Canberra, residents concerned about the impact of climate change, air quality (air pollution) in Canberra CRICOS #00212K
  14. 14. Quality of life in your city and living environment questionnaire survey in Canberra 2012 May – Aug Online questionnaire + mail(sent to appro. 3,000 households) 648 responses collected ( on-line: 278; mail: 370) Male 230: 37.4%; Female 385: 62.6% 4 % more Garden City residents and 4 % less New Urbanism residents compared to Census 2011 CRICOS #00212K
  15. 15. Stress Map CRICOS #00212K
  16. 16. Level of satisfaction by neighbourhood type by domain Quality environment and sustainability Community well-being New Urbanism Culture and education Y Plan New Town Garden City Prosperity and diversity Community safety and security 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 CRICOS #00212K
  17. 17. Value (Weight) Safety and security 0.4 0.3 Quality environment and sustainability 0.2 Prosperity and diversity 0.1 0 Community well-being Culture and education All CRICOS #00212K
  18. 18. Value (Weight) Safety and security 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Quality environment and… Prosperity and diversity Male Female Safety and security 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Quality environment and… Prosperity and diversity - 30s 40s - 50s 60s - Community well-being Culture and education By gender Community well-being Culture and education By age group CRICOS #00212K
  19. 19. Value (Weight) by neighbourhood type Quality environment and sustainability Safety and security 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Community well-being Garden City Prosperity and diversity Culture and education New Town Y Plan New Urbanism CRICOS #00212K
  20. 20. Relationship between satisfaction level and weight New Urbanism Y Plan New Town Garden City 60 60 Safety and security 40 Prosperity and diversity Satisfaction Satisfaction Safety and security Culture and education 20 Community well-being 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Weight 0.4 0.5 20 Community wellbeing Community well-being 0 0 Culture and education 40 Prosperity and diversity Culture and education 20 Prosperity and diversity Satifsfaction 60 40 Safety and security Quality environment and 0 0.1 0.2 sustainability 0.3 Weight 0 0.4 0.5 Quality environment and 0 sustainability 0.1 0.2 0.3 Weight 0.4 0.5 Quality environment and sustainability CRICOS #00212K
  21. 21. Time, Stress, and QoL DS (stress) Policy measures Change in stress DS Duration time ⊿T T -⊿T Time Stress Recognition Weight Satisfaction level Stress w3 wk=TkDSk /ΣTk’DSk’ Community safety and sec. Prosperity and diversity Culture and education Community well-being Quality environment and sus. Change in Weights CRICOS #00212K
  22. 22. QoL by neighbourhood type Quality of Life Level Garden City 50.1 Y Plan 49.5 New Urbanism 49.9 CRICOS #00212K
  23. 23. Discussion and policy implication QoL by neighbourhod – influenced by value Latent factors that affect the priorities in QoL -gender, age, occupation, with/without dependent children, period of living in current neighbourhood Garden City neighbourhod – achieved high QoL, majority of residents have high value on environment, but not affordable for everyone Y Plan neighbourhood – community well-being is the area for improvement New Urbanism neighbourhood - accessibility is the key issue, need strategic approach to integrated land use and transport planning CRICOS #00212K
  24. 24. Indicator and policy input mapping Key indicator in Y Plan Neighbourhood Satisfaction with access to health and social care facilities and quality Land use → location of facilities Architecture → design and quality of facility building Social services → quality of health and social care services Transport → public transport Nakanishi, Sinclair & CRICOS #00212K Lintern(2013)
  25. 25. Canberra can be top QoL city… Thank you! Questions and comments hitomi.nakanishi@canberra.edu.au CRICOS #00212K
  26. 26. 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. CRICOS #00212K

×