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. 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. 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. 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. Gungahlin
Belconnen
City
Weston
Creek
Woden
Legend
Export_Output_6
Urban_Form
Garden City
Y plan
New Town
Tuggeranong
New Urbanism
CRICOS #00212K

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. 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. Mechanism of Individual’s Satisfaction, Value and QoL
CRICOS (2005)
Sugiyama, Kuroda, Doi and Nakanishi et al.#00212K

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Stress Map
CRICOS #00212K

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. QoL by neighbourhood type
Quality of Life Level
Garden City
50.1
Y Plan
49.5
New
Urbanism
49.9
CRICOS #00212K

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. 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. Canberra can be top QoL city…
Thank you!
Questions and comments
hitomi.nakanishi@canberra.edu.au
CRICOS #00212K

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