urban design and social inclusion janet stanley monash sustainability institute monash university
TRANSCRIPT
Urban Design and Social Inclusion
Janet StanleyMonash Sustainability InstituteMonash University
Factors that measure SE:
1. Low income
2. Unemployed
3. Poor civic engagement
4. Poor social support
5. Low participation
No. of factors on which a person is excluded
Melb-ourne
Regional Victoria
Socially includedOne factor Two factorsThree or more factors
45%36%13%6%
36%37%18%10%
What is social inclusion and how common is it in Melbourne?
A multi-faceted construct that refers to risk of exclusion from mainstream society
How does a person achieve good outcomes in these factors?
Issues that impact on social inclusion and wellbeing
Social Infrastructure
education
transport
housing
health
employment opportunities
recreation/ environment
Social Inclusion
income
employment
support
participation
political engagement
Personal Characteristics
cultural and language
age
health/
disability
affect
personality
social capital
living location
Broad trends
Climate change
biodiversity loss
social trends e.g. aging
national economy
prejudce
International events
How do we know which ones should have priority?
Social inclusion and wellbeing is achieved in Victoria through a person having the following attributes:
Stanley, J.K., Stanley, J.R., & Hensher, D. (2012) Mobility, social capital and sense of community: What value? Urban Studies Volume 49 Issue 16 pp. 3595 - 3609.
Urban planning can help
yes
yes
yes
So establishing social inclusion & wellbeing is fairly simple!
It is: Having sufficient income Having accessibility (transport) Having personal relationships and connections Feeling good about yourself Having control over your environment
Where there is insufficient of these items present:
Wellbeing measures Average for those totally included (Victoria)
Average for those with 3-5 social exclusion factors present (Victoria)
Personal Wellbeing Scale(Range 1-10) 7.7 5.5
Satisfaction with Life Scale(Range 1-7) 5.4 3.8
Positive Affect(Range 1-5) 3.7 3.3
Negative Affect (Depression)(Range 1-5)
1.7 4.8
In Australian cities, the levels, mix and distribution of social infrastructure is not evenly planned in urban design.
We are therefore building social exclusion into our cities
Household incomes decrease with distance from the CBD
Median income 2011: residents aged 25-65 (Source: Grattan Institute)
So does:• No. of jobs• Productivity• Education
qualification level• Transport access• Public transport
provision• Housing prices
8
% of jobs available within 60 minutes using PT
(Source: SGS Economics and Planning)
Housing (un)affordability
Median income
P = 30.7%
P+ = 58.5%
J = 18.8%
P = 60.9%
P+ = 28.3%
J = 50.4%
P = 8.4%
P+ = 13.2%
J = 30.7%Legend:P = 2011 population P+ = population growth share 2011-2031 (VIF)J = 2011 job share
PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH AREAS ARE AWAY FROM JOBS-RICH AREAS UNDER ‘BUSINESS AS USUAL’
Outer/fringe areas = substantial jobs shortage
Solutions: Land use planning, social infrastructure before housing, innovation in housing supply
Higher density in middle and inner suburbs
Job creation (service industry, health, education, green manufacturing, trades) in outer suburbs
PT in outer suburbs Heavily supplement market driven
housing – social housing, low interest loans, mixed housing, cross subsided
Social infrastructure concurrent with housing – bus before completion
Urban design can impact on:
Having sufficient incomeHaving accessibility (transport)
• Having personal relationships and connections• Feeling good about yourself
• Having control over your environment
Evidence: All social capital is lower for those who are socially excluded but bridging social capital is particularly lower
Bridging SC – networks beyond family, neighbours and close friends
Low SC Medium SC High SC0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Fully included High SE
Extent of bridging social capital
No.
Sense of Community
strongly disagree
disagree slightly disagree
Neither agree or disagree
slightly agree
agree strongly agree
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Melb fully SI
Rural fully SI
3+ SE
I think my community is a good place to live
%
Developing social capital and connections with the community
Third places Bike paths Walking tracks Parks Cafes Meeting places Asset mix
• Child care/aged residential
• School/theatre/• playground/café
Planting roads Public transport Community gardens Community theatres Local stores
Good design, sense of place, innovation, creativity, green environment Urban forests Strip shopping design, not placed
in a car park Buildings it is a pleasure to be in Absence of industrial and car noise
& pollution Area not split by large road Trucks out of centre of community
& away from schools Re-vitalise urban streams and
surrounds Green cover and tree planting Local food production Home/work/school close-by Local distinctiveness
Even buses generate social capital!
“We’ve got a regular crowd of our own (on the bus), we just talk all the time and I think that we might plan a do at the end of the year, around Christmas, we might just go out somewhere and have, about half a dozen of us, and have a few drinks and a meal…”
“It’s always a great old conversation when you see someone on the bus, you know I talk a lot to the drivers too … they’re quite friendly”
Urban design can impact on:
Having sufficient incomeHaving accessibility (transport)Having personal relationships and connectionsFeeling good about yourself
• Having control over your environment
Having control over your environment
This is in a number of ways: Really being part of
the decision-making process
Having choice in life Able to respond to
climate changeeg. Distributed
renewable energy and water systems
Atkinson's Ladder of participation 1962
Choice is very important to social inclusion and wellbeing Locus of Control questionnaire Measures belief about controlling events
High external sense of control – powerful others, fate or chance determine events
High internal sense of control – events occur from their own actions and behaviour
Social exclusion = high external control (1%)
High Bridging SC = high internal control (5%)
Socially excluded households lack the capacity to have choice & limited ability
to respond to climate change They have little discretionary
spending They lack the financial
resources needed to invest in energy efficiency or upgrade energy-using appliances at home
They lack access to information on behavioural changes that can help them reduce their use of energy
Low price elasticity of necessities, such as fuel, electricity and food
Average annual use of CO2 (tonnes) by poor households in Melbourne LGAs 2006
Cause?Lack of PT (car use)Need to travel to work and services
Change in deviation about the mean 1992 to 2012 for headline gross regional product per hours worked (Source: NIEIR)
The centre is gaining ground in productivity relative to the fringe (Melbourne example)
Negative productivity trend y is
reducing more rapidly
1. Good urban design not only helps individual wellbeing, it helps societal wellbeing
Example of impact of social infrastructure on local economiesTotal loss for each LGA by year 15 as a result of reduction of TAFE funding for
Chisholm Institute ($30 million p.a.) - NIEIR 2013
-300.0
-250.0
-200.0
-150.0
-100.0
-50.0
0.0
-89.3
-232.4
-250.5
-32.6-40.2
-217.0
-78.9$
millions
Loss due to a reduc-tion of funding flow to areas & a reduc-tion in labour pro-ductivity reflected in a reduction in wages
Overarching solution: Neighbourhood planning and 20 minute city
Well-resourced and well-functioning neighbourhoods which offer essential needs
Essential needs are accessible within 20 minutes by PT or active transport
% of jobs available within 60 mins by PTBig projects tend to be transport projects (such as road tunnels) and
tend to focus on the inner city and distort investment priorities, excluding other investments which would improve urban design
Urban design for a 20 minute city and a neighbourhood model.
- A transport illustration
Community Transport can be socially excluding:
In – people with a disability, aged; Out – children/youth, new
migrants, low income people
Exclusive/restrictive eligibility and inflexibility
• Availability (time)• Type of use – eg priority
given to medical appointments
Underuse of capital assets (vehicles)
Placed based transport social enterprise
2 paid staff + volunteers Coordinates all local transport –
PT, community transport, local government & private vehicles
Targets transport poor Small charge Trip sharing Door to door service Extra support as needed All trip purposes – recreation
encouraged
www.conectu.org.au
Current resource allocation of Community Transport according to activity: A tacit hierarchy of ‘worth’
Medical
Structured
Activity
Shopping/Personal business
Social/recreational
Education/employment
Just getting out
Aged care, 2 vehicles, each used up to 8 hours a week
Aged care, mini-bus used 9 to 16 hours a week
Disability welfare, mini-bus used 17 to 30 hours a week
Health services, 3 buses each 17 to 30 hours a week
Under-utilisation of capital resources
Can this be done?Conditions to achieve this:
An integrated vision – across sectors Doing a range of changes at the same
time –housing/transport/urban design A willingness to take risks and accept
change – different from traditional ways of doing things – old style coal generating stations
Resource the change – community, offset future costs in the present.
Plan Melbourne didn’t do it – maybe it can be led by local government, the community and business
Future Melbourne network
http://www.futuremelbournenetwork.org Seminar 2 (28 April): Making Ends Meet: Jobs And Housing