Transcript Janet Stanley Presentation

Urban Design and Social
Inclusion
Janet Stanley
Monash Sustainability Institute
Monash University
What is social inclusion and how common is it in
Melbourne?
A multi-faceted
construct that refers to
risk of exclusion from
mainstream society
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
Melbourne
Regional
Victoria
Socially included
One factor
Two factors
Three or more
factors
45%
36%
13%
6%
36%
37%
18%
10%
How does a person achieve good outcomes in these factors?
Issues that impact on social inclusion and wellbeing
Social
Infrastructure
Personal
Characteristics
Climate
change
education
cultural and
language
income
biodiversity
loss
transport
age
employment
social trends
e.g. aging
housing
health/
disability
support
national
economy
health
affect
personality
participation
prejudce
employment
opportunities
social capital
political
engagement
Broad trends
International
events
recreation/
environment
Social Inclusion
living location
How do we know which ones should have priority?
Social inclusion and wellbeing is achieved in Victoria through a
person having the following attributes:
yes
yes
yes
Urban
planning
can help
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.
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
PROJECTED
POPULATION
GROWTH AREAS
ARE AWAY FROM
JOBS-RICH AREAS
UNDER ‘BUSINESS
AS USUAL’
Outer/fringe
areas =
substantial
jobs
shortage
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
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 income
Having 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
180
160
Fully included
140
High SE
120
100
No.
80
60
40
20
0
Low SC
Medium SC
Extent of bridging social capital
High SC
Sense of Community
60
50
Melb fully SI
40
Rural fully SI
3+ SE
% 30
20
10
0
strongly
disagree
disagree
slightly
disagree
Neither
agree or
disagree
slightly
agree
agree
I think my community is a good place to live
strongly
agree
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 income
Having accessibility (transport)
Having personal relationships and connections
Feeling 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 change
 eg. 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
1. Good urban
design not only
helps individual
wellbeing, it
helps societal
wellbeing
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
Negative
productivity relative to the
productivity
fringe (Melbourne example)
trend y is
reducing more rapidly
Example of impact of social infrastructure on local economies
Total loss for each LGA by year 15 as a result of reduction of TAFE funding
for Chisholm Institute ($30 million p.a.) - NIEIR 2013
MP
Casey
Frankston Kingston
Cardinia Dandenong Bass coast
0.0
-32.6
-50.0
-40.2
$
-100.0
m
i
l
-150.0
l
i
o
-200.0
n
s
-250.0
-78.9
-89.3
-217.0
-232.4
-250.5
-300.0
Loss due to a
reduction of
funding flow to
areas & a
reduction in labour
productivity
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
60tend
mins by
Big projects
to PT
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
Under-utilisation of
capital resources


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
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