Liveability Policy Research Update - December 2015 FINAL

Exploring, defining, measuring and
strengthening urban liveability
Milestones and Highlights for 2015: 22 December 2015
Dr Iain Butterworth, Manager Liveability and
Sustainability, Eastern & Southern Metropolitan
Health, Department of Health & Human Services
Dr Hannah Badland, Senior Research Fellow,
McCaughey VicHealth Centre for Community
Wellbeing, University of Melbourne
Figure 1 The seven Liveability domains (Badland, Roberts, Butterworth & Giles-Corti, 2015)

1
Table of Contents
1 PURPOSE................................................................................................................................2
2 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................2
3 THE VICTORIAN LIVEABILITY RESEARCH PROGRAM ...............................................2
3.1 Creating and testing spatial measures and Liveability indicators.........................................................3
3.2 Next Steps: Victorian Liveability Index ................................................................................................4
4 KNOWLEDGE SHARING AND POLICY APPLICATION: 2015 MILESTONES.............4
4.1 Release of key Liveability Report: How Liveable is Melbourne? ..........................................................4
4.2 Victorian Public Health and Wellbeing Plan 2015-2019.......................................................................4
4.3 Plan Melbourne ‘Refresh’....................................................................................................................4
4.4 Centre of Research Excellence (CRE) in Healthy, Liveable Communities ..............................................5
4.5 Presentations, conferences, workshops ..............................................................................................5
4.6 Recognition.........................................................................................................................................5
5 APPLYING THE LIVEABILITY FRAMEWORK: REGIONAL EXAMPLES.....................6
5.1 Liveability Indicators for the Inner Metropolitan Regional Management Forum.................................6
5.2 Boroondara Liveability Demonstration Collaborative..........................................................................6
5.3 Frankston Train Station Precinct Redevelopment................................................................................6
5.4 Eastern Metropolitan Social Issues Council efforts to prevent family violence....................................7
5.5 ‘Let’s get liveable: Developing a population health approach to place-making in the Eastern and
Southern Metropolitan Regions’,.....................................................................................................................8
5.6 Outer East – Upper Yarra Family Centre: Towards a Model of Health Service Integration...................9
5.6.1 Challenges.......................................................................................................................................9
5.6.2 Findings.........................................................................................................................................10
5.6.3 Recommendations.........................................................................................................................10
5.6.4 Opportunity for Liveability discussion ............................................................................................10
5.7 South East – Pakenham Liveability Research.....................................................................................11
5.7.1 Next steps .....................................................................................................................................12
5.8 Aboriginal Health – Bringing a Liveability perspective to the Koolin Balit Initiative...........................13
5.9 ‘Workability’ research: linking to the ‘Employment’ liveability domain ............................................14

2
1 Purpose
This paper provides a detailed overview of the considerable activity that has occurred during 2015 to
map and develop liveability indicators, and also to implement the rich ideas and resources
developed through the partnership between DHHS and the University of Melbourne. The report
details milestones that the Victorian Liveability Indicators Program has achieved towards completing
the Victorian Liveability Index. Numerous case examples are provided of the work that has been
undertaken across the Eastern, Southern and North and Wes Metropolitan Regions. to apply — and
help strengthen — the liveability framework and concepts
2 Background
In January 2015, Dr Iain Butterworth joined Eastern Metropolitan Region Health (EMR) and Southern
Metropolitan Regional Health (SMR) to support colleagues and external partners to implement the
Labor Government’s policy commitment to promote ‘Liveable, Inclusive and Sustainable
Communities. Iain has focussed on helping to strengthen: (i) the department’s population health,
area-based approach; (ii) existing place-based initiatives; (iii) partnership development; (iv) capacity
building on Population Health; (v) regional capability to lead sustainable efforts and ensure long-
term outcomes; (v) methods to document progress.
Now ongoing, Iain’s role aims to build on, and connect to, the work developed at the North and
West Metropolitan Region. Combined, the Eastern, Southern and North and West metropolitan
health regions match the metropolitan footprint of Plan Melbourne, and the Inner, Northern,
Southern, Eastern, and Western Regional Management Forums.
In 2011, whilst working at the department’s North and West Metropolitan Region, Iain helped to
establish the Place, Health, and Liveability (PHL) research partnership with the University of
Melbourne. Throughout 2015, Iain’s major focus has been on connecting EMR and SMR personnel
with the Victorian Liveability Research Program, led by Dr Hannah Badland at the McCaughey
VicHealth Community Wellbeing Unit, University of Melbourne.
3 The Victorian Liveability Research Program
The Victorian Liveability Research Program is a major initiative developed through PHL. This research
aims to: (i) conceptualise, develop, and apply policy-relevant spatial measures of urban liveability
across Victoria; and (ii) examine associations between urban liveability and health and wellbeing in
adults living in Victoria. As noted by the PHL team’s recent article in The Conversation, to help us
create liveable cities, first we must work out the key ingredients. To achieve this, the PHL research
partnership is grounded strongly in: a Victorian policy context; engagement with practitioners and
policy makers; and an exhaustive international review of literature.
Dr Badland’s team has identified several urban planning features that are critical for building liveable
communities in which residents feel safe, socially connected and included. These include: access to
affordable and diverse housing options linked via public transport, walking and cycling infrastructure
to employment, education, local shops, public open space and parks, health and community
services, leisure and culture. “These are the essential ingredients for a liveable community. They are
needed to promote health and wellbeing in individuals, build communities and support a sustainable
society.”1

3
Environmental sustainability is fundamental to all liveability policy domains. To ensure this deeper
connection, the McCaughey Centre collaborates with the Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute2
,
which facilitates and enables research linkages, projects and conversations leading to increased
understanding of sustainability and resilience trends, challenges and solutions.
3.1 Creating and testing spatial measures and Liveability indicators
The creation and testing of conceptual frameworks, spatial measures and indicators for the seven
liveability policy domains has been a core activity throughout 2015. This research has identified
seven key policy domains that address the social determinants of population health and reduce
inequities. As shown in Figure 1 on the cover page, these are: (1) Transport; (2) Walkability; (3)
Food; (4) Housing; (5) Public open space (including the natural environment); (6) Employment; and
(7) Social infrastructure – including local access to health and community services, leisure facilities
and education.
For each policy domain, conceptual frameworks have been constructed to map ‘upstream’ policy
and features of the built environment with people’s behaviour and longer-term, ‘downstream’
health and wellbeing outcomes. This information, along with the indicative spatial measures for
testing, is detailed in “How Liveable is Melbourne? Conceptualising and testing urban liveability
indicators: Progress to date”3
(Badland, Roberts, Butterworth & Giles-Corti, 2015). Figure 2 below
shows the transport policy domain.
Figure 2 Transport policy domain (Badland et al, 2015)
NEIGHBOURHOOD
ATTRIBUTES
BEHAVIOURS INTERMEDIATE
OUTCOMES
LONG-TERM
OUTCOMES
ACCESS TO
PUBLIC
TRANSPORT
Distance to,
density, and
frequency of
public transport
by type
ACCESS TO
CYCLE INFRA-
STRUCTURE
Distance to,
and density of
cycle lanes
CAR USE /
RELIANCE
SOCIAL
INEQUITIES
Car reliance,
household
expenditure stress
TRAFFIC
EXPOSURE
TRANSPORT
COMMUTE
TIME
WALKABILITY
PUBLIC
TRANSPORT
USE
CYCLING
FOR
TRANSPORT
VEHICLE
MILES
TRAVELLED
WALKING
FOR
TRANSPORT WEIGHT STATUS
PHYSICAL
ACTIVITY
ACCUMULATION
CHRONIC
CONDITIONS
TRANSPORTPLANNINGANDPOLICIES
MENTAL HEALTH
UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM

4
Measures for each policy indicator are being selected through a complex process of conducting
multilevel modelling between the liveability indicators and health outcomes, based on the location
at which people live. The Employment indicator set is nearing completion. Analysis is well underway
for the Housing, Transport, Public Open Space, and Walkability domains. Maureen Murphy, PhD
candidate and DHHS staff member is leading the development of measures for the Food indicator.
Dr Melanie Davern (Senior Research Fellow and Director, Community Indicators Victoria) will lead
the Social Infrastructure component in 2016.
3.2 Next Steps: Victorian Liveability Index
Once the measures for each policy domain are validated and confirmed, indicators will be rolled out
onto the Community Indicators Victoria website4
for public dissemination. Development of the
liveability index, which brings the liveability domains together in one measure, will commence in
2016. The challenge then will be to assemble the insights provided by these individual domains to
build an understanding of how precincts function and interact with people’s health and wellbeing,
thus capturing something of the real-life complexity of the built environment.
Collaborators on the Index include Dr Bryan Boruff, spatial analyst from the School of Earth and
Environment at the University of Western Australia, and Professor Jamie Pearce, Professor of Health
Geography from the School of GeoSciences at the University of Edinburgh. Dr Boruff brings expertise
on developing risk and vulnerability assessments from a place based perspective. Prof Pearce brings
expertise in developing geospatial indicators to map disadvantage.
4 Knowledge sharing and policy application: 2015 milestones
4.1 Release of key Liveability Report: How Liveable is Melbourne?
“How Liveable is Melbourne? Conceptualising and testing urban liveability indicators: Progress to
date” was released in March 2015. It has been distributed widely, and has been used in all
subsequent professional development, presentations and engagement. In particular, this report has
informed State policy, as described below.
4.2 Victorian Public Health and Wellbeing Plan 2015-2019
The recently released Victorian Public Health and Wellbeing Plan 2015-20195
has adopted our
definition of Liveability (led by PhD candidate, Melanie Lowe and colleagues). This Victorian Plan
provides the overarching framework to support and improve Victorians’ health and wellbeing.
4.3 Plan Melbourne ‘Refresh’
The Victorian Liveability Research Program is also informing the Plan Melbourne ‘Refresh’6
, and the
development of the ’20-minute neighbourhood’ that is core to the Plan. This work is being led by
Prevention and Population Health Strategy Branch with significant input from EMR/SMR health. The
McCaughey VicHealth Community Wellbeing Unit has submitted a written submission on
recommendations for the Plan Melbourne ‘Refresh’ and the Victorian Cycling Strategy.

5
4.4 Centre of Research Excellence (CRE) in Healthy, Liveable Communities
The Victorian Liveability Research Program now forms a cornerstone of the five-year, $2.5M
National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Centre of Research Excellence (CRE) in
Healthy, Liveable Communities7
. The CRE will generate and exchange new knowledge about:
 Measuring policy-relevant built environment features associated with leading non-
communicable disease risk factors (physical activity, obesity) and health outcomes
(cardiovascular disease, diabetes) and mental health;
 Causal relationships and thresholds for built environment interventions using data from
longitudinal studies and natural experiments
 The economic benefits of built environment interventions designed to influence health and
wellbeing outcomes; and
 Factors, tools and interventions that help translate research into policy and practice.
The project is being led by the McCaughey VicHealth Community Wellbeing Unit at the University of
Melbourne, with collaborative research nodes at the University of Western Australia, Australian
Catholic University, and University of Queensland. A range of information resources and Infographics
has been developed8
which outlines the Liveability Program – and the CRE – in an accessible format.
A wide range of publications is also available through the McCaughey Unit website9
.
4.5 Presentations, conferences, workshops
Dr Hannah Badland and Dr Iain Butterworth have presented the Liveability Framework for personnel
across state government, local government, Regional Management Forums, private sector and
service sector at seminars and workshops across Victoria, NSW and New Zealand. Liveability formed
the cornerstone of two iterations of the Population Health Professional Development Program
(including CEO Breakfast; half-day introduction to population health for senior managers; and two-
day general short course). The course was delivered in Dandenong in March, and Box Hill in August.
In October, Dr Melanie Davern showcased the interconnections between PHL, Community Indicators
Victoria and the Victorian Public Health and Wellbeing Plan at the 4th Annual NHMRC Symposium on
Research Translation. The theme for this year’s symposium was “Policy and Research: Working
together to improve the health of Australians”10
.
4.6 Recognition
The Place, Health and Liveability Partnership recently received the Melbourne School of Population
and Global Health’s (University of Melbourne) Open Award for Excellence in Knowledge Transfer
Achievements. The CRE was recently shortlisted for the 2015 VicHealth Awards in the ‘Research into
Action” category.

6
5 Applying the Liveability framework: Regional examples
5.1 Liveability Indicators for the Inner Metropolitan Regional
Management Forum
In August 2015, members of the Inner Metropolitan RMF approved the establishment of a Regional
Outcomes Framework under the liveability domains of housing, transport mobility, open space,
economy, cultural vibrancy, and climate change. The project has been developed with the support of
the RMF Project Champions (Regional Director Health and Aged Care ‐ Southern and Easter
Metropolitan Region, Department of Health and Human Services and CEO, City of Melbourne), and a
Steering Group represented by members of the cities of Maribyrnong, Melbourne, Port Phillip,
Stonnington and Yarra, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Treasury
and Finance, and the Metropolitan Planning Authority (MPA). Through our participation, DHHS aims
to maximise engagement between the Inner Metropolitan Regional Management Forum project and
the McCaughey Centre’s liveability research.
5.2 Boroondara Liveability Demonstration Collaborative
An example of an area-based initiative demonstrating the importance and practical application of
liveability indicators is the Boroondara Liveability Demonstration Collaborative. This initiative is led
by the DHHS Inner East Area Team on behalf of the City of Boroondara and a range of key local
service providers and stakeholders. Informed by the Victorian Liveability Research Program, the
Collaborative is utilising liveability indicators from contemporary data sources to (i) deepen our
understanding of concepts of Liveability, and (ii) develop a detailed understanding of how liveability
might vary across Boroondara, and how this impacts on the lives – and health – of the people who
live, work and play there. The Collaborative is examining two areas in Boroondara which experience
elements of disadvantage but receive differing levels of service attention. These are sub-catchments
of Ashburton and Balwyn North. Using the liveability framework, Community Indicators Victoria
conducted a detailed, small area investigation of liveability across Boroondara11
. In August, Dr
Melanie Davern led a detailed presentation and discussion of findings that was well received by the
project steering committee. This quantitative research is now being extended into an additional
qualitative and participatory research project led by CIV that is collecting narratives from service
providers and residents about their experiences of living and working in these suburbs.
5.3 Frankston Train Station Precinct Redevelopment
Throughout 2015, Southern Metro Health has been leading a group of key stakeholders to respond
to drug and alcohol issues and deeper community liveability and sustainability issues in Frankston. A
great deal of media attention has been paid to perceptions about the undesirable impact of
pharmacotherapy services such as methadone provision in the station precinct.
Instigated by the Victorian Government's redevelopment of the Frankston Train Station precinct,
Southern Metro Health funded and assembled a project team comprising a project officer and
Technical Director Dr Nicholas Thomson, a population health alcohol and drugs and crime strategist
from the University of Melbourne. The project team is supported by an Executive Steering
Committee that includes Frankston City Council, Victoria Police, Peninsula Health, Monash
University, Chisholm Institute, Salvation Army, DHHS, and is chaired by the Frankston Business
Network. In turn, this group provides advice to the Frankston Train Station Precinct Taskforce, which

7
makes recommendations to the Minister for Public Transport on where government can best
prioritise its expenditure of $63 million to transform the Frankston Station precinct. Member for
Frankston, Paul Edbrooke MP is Taskforce Chair.
In response to long-standing issues regarding the availability and use of illicit drugs and the
concentration of pharmacotherapy treatment services around the precinct, the Project Team and
Steering Committee developed a population health action framework, called Responding to Alcohol
& Drug use across Frankston and the Mornington Peninsula: mobilising multi-sectoral partnerships
towards a socially inclusive community (‘RAD-FMP’). The project has revealed far more pressing and
deep seated inter-generational issues that need to be addressed.
The RAD-FMP addresses alcohol and drug issues in Frankston to help create a more liveable and safe
community. It does this by: (i) articulating the broader needs of the Frankston community; (ii)
addressing the health and human service needs of vulnerable populations; and (iii) maximising the
socio-economic opportunities for the Frankston Mornington Peninsula (FMP) and the benefits
available to the community from a combined population health response.
Current activity includes a rapid response assessment examining the real drug and alcohol issues of
the community, bringing together business and education to examine employment pathways for
youth at risk of leaving school and providing recommendations around capital and infrastructure
needs of the community to make it a healthier and more inclusive place to live. PHL researcher,
Geoff Browne, has supported the project by conducting a detailed analysis of how local plans and
policies are positioned to enhance liveability.
All four recommendations developed by this group have been endorsed and taken up by the
Frankston Train Station Precinct Taskforce. The recommendations are:
1. Improving access to pharmacotherapy services across the FMP catchment through
increasing the number of geographical locations from which it is dispensed
2. Assessing the changing trends in alcohol and drug use and building an evidence-base for
innovation and recommendations in service design in response to alcohol and drug use
across the FMP catchment
3. Supporting Frankston City Council’s (FCC) and the Mornington-Peninsula Shire’s (MPS)
commitment to liveability and providing input into strategy development where
opportunities present
4. Contributing to and informing the development of Capital Works Plans within the
context of the broader infrastructure and economic development aspirations of the FMP
catchment.
In August 2015, the Taskforce reported its recommendations for guiding investment in the Frankston
station precinct to the Victorian Government. The RAD-FMP project team continues to bring
stakeholders together to progress and deliver on the action framework.
5.4 Eastern Metropolitan Social Issues Council efforts to prevent family
violence
With the active support of Eastern Metropolitan Health, the Eastern Metropolitan Social Issues
Council (EMSIC) was established in 2014. It serves as a senior executive leadership forum in the
Eastern Metropolitan region, committed to working to increase integration and alignment of

8
regional efforts to improve community health and wellbeing. It provides advice to the Eastern
Metropolitan Regional Management Forum on health and social issues. Members and associate
members include senior executives from state and local government departments, NGOs, health
organisations, academia and industry.
Through a collaborative process in early 2015, EMSIC members identified two priority areas for
effort: Violence in Vulnerable Communities and Social Inclusion and Community Connectedness.
In order to inform EMSIC’s approach to these issues, Deakin University was appointed as a research
partner to review current work in these priority areas, identify partnership approaches and make
recommendations for future opportunities. The Victorian Liveability research has played an
important role in identifying how we can reduce the burden and demand for health and human
services by creating liveable neighbourhoods.
5.5 ‘Let’s get liveable: Developing a population health approach to place-
making in the Eastern and Southern Metropolitan Regions’,
During 2015, a Graduate Learning Team (GLT) of five graduates engaged with DHHS EMR and SMR
health teams as part of the learning and development component of the Victorian Public Service
Graduate Recruitment and Development Scheme. The GLT conducted an overview and analysis of
population health initiatives in area teams across EMR and SMR. Graduates worked in the following
areas:
 Inner East team – The Boroondara Liveability Demonstration Collaborative
 Outer East team – Upper Yarra Family Centre: Towards a Model of Health Service
Integration
 Bayside Peninsula team – Frankston Train Station Precinct Redevelopment
 South East team – Pakenham Liveability Research
 Regional Manager for Aboriginal Health in the EMR and SMR – Supporting the Koolin
Balit initiative
The GLT’s final report, Let’s get liveable: Developing a population health approach to place-making in
the Eastern and Southern Metropolitan Regions, has provided important recommendations for how
DHHS can make stronger connections between our regional population health approach, and the
utility of liveability as a framework that can engage all sectors.
In early 2016, Iain Butterworth will be joined for three months by Kerry Smith. Kerry is completing
her Masters of Public Health under the supervision of Prof Trevor Hancock at the School of Public
Health and Social Policy, University of Victoria, Canada. Kerry will work across the EMR and SMR
Area Teams and Aboriginal Health Team, to explore issues and opportunities associated with
implementing the Graduate Learning Team's Recommendations.

9
5.6 Outer East – Upper Yarra Family Centre: Towards a Model of Health
Service Integration1
Provision and utilisation of community spaces provide an important avenue to
facilitate interactions and partnerships within and between civil societies and
more formal governance structures. Such activities build social capital and
promote civic engagement and good health. In this research social infrastructure
has been conceptualised as comprising education, leisure and culture, and health
and social services (Badland, Roberts, Butterworth & Giles-Corti, 2015, p. 22)12
.
The Upper Yarra Family Centre Community Hub (the Hub) was established in 2008 in Yarra Junction,
a township 55 km east of central Melbourne. The Hub delivers services and connects people to
external health and community services. The Hub has provided an important community health
access point for Yarra Junction and surrounding communities.
The department is actively involved in improving health outcomes for communities. The aim of the
graduate project was to provide a case study for managers and decision-makers within the
department to better inform them of how small community hubs can impact on health outcomes for
local communities. Specifically, it attempted to gain a better insight into the reasons behind the
establishment of the Hub and, more broadly, to determine the efficacy of the Hub as a model of
health service integration to improve the health indicators of children in semi-rural localities. It
provided recommendations about the departments’ role in facilitating service delivery integration.
5.6.1 Challenges
Small rural communities do not generate enough demand to warrant continuous service delivery
across a range of service types. In Yarra Junction a wide range of services were being delivered from
a number of sites in the township, however community perception was that the services were closed
more often than they were open. Numerous organisations came together at the Yarra Junction
Community Hub to deliver a diverse range of services. The founding partners included: Yarra Ranges
Council, Anglicare Victoria, Yarra Valley Community Health (YVCH) (Eastern Health), Eastern Access
Community Health (EACH) and Upper Yarra Community House (UYCH).
The objective in establishing the Hub was to move towards an integrated model of service delivery
that would provide positive benefits to both service providers and clients. From the service
provider’s perspective, an integrated service creates an increased capacity and value for money,
improved strategic planning and system integrity, and reduced demand for crisis services. For the
clients, access is simplified, provides holistic and customised support, faster response time,
improved outcomes and user experience (KPMG & The Mowat Centre 2013).
Despite the objective, the move towards a fully integrated service delivery model has not yet been
fully realised. A fully integrated community hub relies on the cooperation and collaboration of
1
This material is an excerpt from the GLT’s final report, Let’s get liveable: Developing a population health
approach to place-making in the Eastern and Southern Metropolitan Regions

10
different levels of government and service providers, as well as overarching policies and systems
that facilitate integration. The challenge is that this can only be realised through a long-term
strategic process that looks at new and innovative ways of funding, service delivery and governance.
The graduate project aimed to look at the way that stakeholders at the Hub have sought to achieve
this ideal as well as the ongoing challenges and opportunities into the future. Based on the
interviews the graduate project made numerous findings in relation to the model of service delivery
at the Hub.
5.6.2 Findings
 The establishment of the Hub has been effective in creating better awareness of the
services offered in Yarra Junction, and providing a common access point and referral
service for a wide range of community and council services.
 A governance model that allows for long term strategic planning and the development
of common objectives is yet to be fully realised.
 Co-location is one important aspect of service integration; however, it can lead to
complacency. A fully integrated health service delivery model needs to go further and
co-location should be the starting point, rather than the end goal.
 Service providers are supportive of increased information sharing and joint programs. A
strategic approach to turn this support into action requires further development.
 The way a building operates plays an important role in the connection that organisations
and the community have with a community space.
 Information and Communications Technology (ICT) coordination and development are
central to an integrated service delivery model.
5.6.3 Recommendations
The GLT recommended the following.
 The department should work with service providers, local councils and the community in
semi-rural areas to determine ways in which it can support the long term strategic objectives
of integrated service delivery.
 The department should support service providers to formulate a governance model that
promotes integration and enables the identification of opportunities to facilitate
cooperation and collaboration amongst service providers, local councils and the community.
 The department should act as a link between different levels of government, service
providers, and government departments.
 The department should look at how integrated services can be more effectively delivered in
line with its policy objectives.
5.6.4 Opportunity for Liveability discussion
This initiative — particularly its peri-urban location — is of direct relevance to the Social
Infrastructure liveability domain, and also to discussion around the ‘20-minute neighbourhood’. As
shown in Figure 3, the conceptual framework for the social infrastructure domain provides a useful
prompt for engaging community stakeholders in a discussion about how social infrastructure — in
combination with the other liveability domains — can enhance liveability.

11
Figure 3 Conceptual framework for the Social Infrastructure liveability domain (Badland, Roberts,
Butterworth & Giles-Corti, 2015)
5.7 South East – Pakenham Liveability Research2
In April 2015, Cardinia Shire Council adopted the Pakenham Structural Plan, a 20-year blueprint for
the Pakenham Activity Centre (Cardinia Shire Council 2015). Located 55 km from Melbourne,
Pakenham is a central transport, community and employment hub within Cardinia Shire, and is
expected to grow from a population of 27,000 in 2011 to over 59,000 in 2036 (Cardinia Shire Council
2015).
The exceptional growth presents many challenges in service delivery, economic development, and
social and urban planning. It was determined that these domains would benefit from a population
health approach. Three small-scale, local interventions were suggested to improve the liveability of
the new estates (i) building BBQ facilities in public spaces; (ii) improving pathways; (iii) adding public
toilets to parks. These interventions would encourage local social events, foster a sense of
community and enable residents to partake in outdoor activities for longer periods.
2

12
Figure 4 Pakenham's forecast population growth (Graduate Learning Team, 2015)
The Graduate Learning Team’s demographic analysis identified that whilst Cardinia Shire residents
tended to be blue collar workers, the residents of new estates were more likely to be white collar
workers. They recommended that moving beyond individual estates to take a broader geographical
focus on the sociocultural interplay between residents of new and old estates would provide a
deeper understanding of life (and priorities) across the Shire.
5.7.1 Next steps
Cardinia Shire Council has a strong emphasis on population health, with a well-resourced team of
four focused solely on improving social and community planning. A broader meeting with
representatives from all levels of the department’s South East area team and Cardinia Shire Council
revealed multiple opportunities for collaboration. Cardinia Shire Council staff were keen to build
their knowledge of liveability and discuss how the area team could assist their work. A range of
practical, feasible actions were identified, including:
(i) hosting a local community engagement event on ‘building Pakenham’s liveability’
(ii) advocacy by Cardinia Shire Council to Plan Melbourne regarding liveability issues facing high
growth areas
(iii) creating links between the department and Cardinia Shire council on Communities that Care,
the Australian Urban Research Infrastructure Network (AURIN), and CIV, with Public Health
Manager Sarah Ong
(iv) connecting Cardinia Shire Council with postgraduate students whose skills or research may
assist the Council’s work.
Commencing early in 2016, the South East area team will continue to build upon the relationships
and opportunities with the Cardinia Shire Council team as this project evolves.

13
5.8 Aboriginal Health – Bringing a Liveability perspective to the Koolin
Balit Initiative3
In 2012, the Victorian Government Department of Health released ‘Koolin Balit: Victorian
government strategic directions for Aboriginal Health 2012-2022’. It set out what the Department of
Health, together with Aboriginal communities, other parts of government and service providers,
would do to achieve the government’s commitment to improve Aboriginal health.
The primary aim of Koolin Balit is to make a significant and measurable impact on improving the life
expectancy and quality of life of Aboriginal Victorians in this decade. The key priorities of Koolin Balit
for Aboriginal Victorians are: (i) a healthy start to life; (ii) a healthy childhood; (iii) a healthy
transition to adulthood; (iv) caring for older people; (v) addressing risk factors; (vi) managing illness
better with effective health services. The key enablers are identified as:
 Improving data and evidence
 Strong Aboriginal organisations
 Cultural responsiveness
A number of resources have been developed to assist service providers and community groups to
plan and evaluate their Aboriginal health programs. The department has developed a set of
indicators to measure progress in achieving improvements in relation to core outcomes and
objectives, as well as a program-planning template for all projects funded through the Koolin Balit
investment, both in the regions and state-wide program areas. The project-planning template
includes a requirement to outline how the project will utilise at least four of the eight principles of a
population health framework (in this case the Health Canada framework).
As with the Victorian population as a whole, the health status and outcomes for the Aboriginal
population can differ depending on where they live. Access to key health services, education, public
transport, fresh food, and the walkability and safety of neighbourhoods all have an impact on the
health of the population.
In order to achieve better health outcomes for Aboriginal Victorians, government and service
providers need to better understand the demographic make-up of the Aboriginal population in the
areas for which they have responsibility. To do this, it is important to have access to recent, reliable
data, evidence and statistics about the demographic characteristics of the population in question.
The Regional Manager for Aboriginal Health in the EMR and SMR is responsible for coordinating with
all of the area teams in those regions on Aboriginal programs and planning. One of the principles in
the Health Canada Population Health Framework is to base decisions on evidence. Aboriginal health
project planners are asked to consider what quantitative and/or qualitative evidence on the
determinants of health for the Aboriginal population in their area signifies the need for their project
work.
As part of the GLT project, it was identified that it would be useful to develop a resource that could
be utilised by the Regional Manager for Aboriginal Health when communicating with internal and
3

14
external stakeholders about the demographic characteristics of the Aboriginal populations in their
areas.
Utilising data taken primarily from the 2011 Census, the Graduate Team developed a PowerPoint
document that outlines statistics about the Aboriginal population in the EMR and SMR (Appendix
13). The regions are broken down at the departmental area team level, and in some instances, by
LGA. Data for the following area teams in the two regions was included: (i) Eastern Metropolitan
Region: Inner East and Outer East; (ii) Southern Metropolitan Region: Bayside Peninsula and South
East. The presentation outlines characteristics of the Aboriginal population in the EMR and SMR,
such as the population in 2006 and 2011, age and gender profiles, and personal and household
income. Data was presented at an area team level for rates of unemployment and Year 12
completion. Information is also provided regarding the Aboriginal population in Victoria as a whole
for self-assessed health status, and lifestyle risk factors such as smoking, obesity and fruit and
vegetable intake.
Drilling down into a fine-grain SA1-level of geographic detail can present ethical challenges when
attempting to understand the complex interplay between liveability features of the built
environment and small (and therefore identifiable) numbers of minority residents such as Aboriginal
people. The Graduate Team’s work added weight to our intention to engage Aboriginal communities
and organisations in discussing Liveability from an Aboriginal perspective, by sharing resources and
local evidence about liveability measures generated through the Victorian Liveability Indicator
program, Community Indicators Victoria and AURIN. This will allow us to facilitate knowledge sharing
and generate community action by using qualitative, narrative approaches. This approach not only
will respect local privacy, but it will enable a shared understanding built on local experience and
expertise.
5.9 ‘Workability’ research: linking to the ‘Employment’ liveability domain
The Work Ability Model was pioneered in the early 1980s at the Finnish Institute of Occupational
Health. The original purpose of the Finnish model was to predict retirement age, so the instrument
has a strong health component. However, after 30 years of research, it also captures factors relating
to an individual’s abilities and knowledge relating to work, and their sources of motivation in work
life. It also recognises broader social and environmental factors that impact on a worker’s ability to
work13
As shown in Figure 5, the dimensions of work ability can be depicted in the form of a work ability
house, its floors, and the surrounding environment 14 15
As described by the Finnish Institute of
Occupational Health,
The resources of the individual form the first three floors. The first floor of the work
ability house is comprised of human resources such as health and physical, mental,
and social functioning. The second floor of the house is constructed from
knowledge and skill and their continual updating through, for example, life-long
learning. The third floor depicts the inner values and attitudes of persons as well as
factors that motivate them in their work life. The fourth floor (i.e., work and all of
its dimensions) is the largest and heaviest floor of the work ability house. It actually
sets the standards for the other floors.16

15
Figure 5 Finnish model of Workability17
Surrounding the workability ‘house’ is the immediate social environment and the external operating
environment. In the immediate surroundings of the work ability house are the organizations that
support work (e.g., occupational health care and safety), as well as the family and the close
community (relatives, friends, acquaintances), for example. The outermost layer is society, whose
infrastructure and social, health, and occupational policies and services form the macro environment
of work ability18
In this regard, therefore, Workability has direct connections to the Liveability
domains.
Associate Professor Elizabeth Brooke is a gerontologist at Swinburne University19
, with expertise in
researching the effects of the ageing global population on workforce demographics, policies and
practices. Dr Brooke is currently leading a project on ‘Workability’ for Eastern Metro Health, in
collaboration with NWMR Health.
The broad Goals of the EMR/NWMR Workability Program are to: (i) apply the Workability
employment demonstrator as a place-based dataset, intervention & policy tool; (ii) assemble
accessible, integrated data that can inform policy priorities guiding interventions at local, regional,
state and federal level; (iii) align Workability with Liveability conceptual domains, and WHO Age-
Friendly Cities.
In particular, the project aims to: (i) Produce an integrated high-level data set, which mobilises key
data sources aligned with the Workability multidimensional framework for use in health workforce
planning and interventions; (ii) Identify population-based vulnerabilities substantiated by datasets
linked with outcomes; (iii) Assemble a body of performance indicators to explain dynamic
demographic and socio-economic changes as the basis for planning responses; and (iv) Demonstrate
how a data test bed can be used to support interventions across the employment lens of Liveability.

16
Liveability indicators are integral to the achievement of Workability, while conversely Workability
can support thinking around the Employment domain of Liveability. Thus the project will align with
Liveability with the potential for joint indicators. Similarly, the Age-Friendly Cities domain of
Employment in the Social Environment forms an outcome. The project will also align its outcomes
with active ageing indicators. The priority demographic groups are the ageing population and
unemployed youth in the Eastern Metropolitan region.
Activities led by Dr Brooke during 2015 have included: (i) forging partnerships with DHHS regions and
stakeholders to implement the project; (ii) identifying population-based challenges and
vulnerabilities; (iii) establishing a multidimensional dataset incorporating conceptual models of
workability and liveability; (iv) identifying potential interventions with regional partners, based on
the conceptual models developed.
The Australian Urban Infrastructure Research Network (AURIN)20
provides the data interrogation
platform to inform decision-making by policy makers and practitioners enabling insights into local
systems. AURIN will provide geospatial tools to assemble the data based on Workability and
examine alignments between ageing demography, aged care workforces and ‘active ageing’
outcomes. Dr Brooke has worked closely with AURIN to examine potential data sources for measures
across each ‘floor’ and broader context of the workability model, with a view to developing an online
Workability tool.
Dr Brooke’s work has involved detailed interviews with a wide range of agencies across the Eastern
metropolitan region. To date, agencies consulted have been concerned about maintaining their
ageing workforces in a changing demographic and aged care policy context. Retaining the ageing
workforce has been the most common challenge. Across the agencies, there is a potential common
supply/demand alignment project based on Workability. Family violence also emerged as a key
priority in some agencies. Less was known about the vulnerabilities of youth; this was identified as a
gap in data collection and interventions.
Potential projects identified to date include:
(i) Community Health Centres: A CHC Workability project linked with the ageing workforce
project is underway with Manningham, Carrington, Inner East, and MonashLink matching
Workability domains of supply and demand;
(ii) Municipal Councils: Three Councils have expressed interest in exploring an intergenerational
workforce development model with age-related inputs and outputs. This workforce
development model would include youth entrants and retaining older workforce across the
life course.
(iii) A workforce development-planning framework across the CHCs and municipal councils
would take a life course approach of integrating the workforce at youth and older ends of
the lifespan.
Discussions are currently being held with NWMR Health and a major regional vocational education
and training provider to explore collaborating in the longer-term.

17
1 From The Conversation: http://theconversation.com/how-do-we-create-liveable-cities-first-we-must-work-out-the-key-ingredients-50898
2 http://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/
3 http://www.communityindicators.net.au/files/docs/How%20liveable%20is%20Melb%202015_Final.pdf
4 http://www.communityindicators.net.au/
5 https://www2.health.vic.gov.au/about/health-strategies/public-health-wellbeing-plan
6 http://refresh.planmelbourne.vic.gov.au/
7 http://mccaughey.unimelb.edu.au/programs/cre#about-us
8 http://mccaughey.unimelb.edu.au/programs/cre#resources
9 http://mccaughey.unimelb.edu.au/
10 https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/media/events/2015/2015-nhmrc-symposium-research-translation
11 https://www.dropbox.com/s/zg3w6gp7unwmphx/Boroondara - Indicators of Liveability.pdf?dl=0
12 http://www.communityindicators.net.au/files/docs/How%20liveable%20is%20Melb%202015_Final.pdf
13 http://www.comcare.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/127428/The_Work_Ability_approach_PDF,_212_KB.pdf
14 Ilmarinen, J. (2009). Work ability—a comprehensive concept for occupational health research and prevention. Scandinavian journal of
work, environment & health, 1-5
15 http://www.ttl.fi/en/health/WAI/multidimensional_work_ability_model/PublishingImages/work_ability_house_large.png
16 http://www.ttl.fi/en/health/wai/multidimensional_work_ability_model/pages/default.aspx
17 http://www.ttl.fi/en/health/WAI/multidimensional_work_ability_model/PublishingImages/work_ability_house_large.png
18 http://www.ttl.fi/en/health/wai/multidimensional_work_ability_model/pages/default.aspx
19 http://www.swinburne.edu.au/business-law/staff-profiles/view.php?who=lbrooke
20 http://aurin.org.au/

Liveability Policy Research Update - December 2015 FINAL

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (7)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (18)

Similar to Liveability Policy Research Update - December 2015 FINAL

Similar to Liveability Policy Research Update - December 2015 FINAL (20)

Liveability Policy Research Update - December 2015 FINAL