Planning and quality of life: the case of Canberra, Australia

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

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 ?

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?

4. Assessing Quality of Life: Framework Planning Evaluation Outcome Policy Input Output Over all QoL QoLIs Satisfaction Urban Form/ the built environ’t By Dimension

5. Gungahlin Belconnen City Weston Creek Woden Tuggeranong Y plan

6. Density by neighbourhood type (Lintern, 2012)

7. Five dimensions of Quality of Life Community Safety and Security Prosperity & Diversity Community Well-being Quality Environment & sustainability Culture and Education Higher Demand Quality Environment & sustainability Environment Community Well-being Economy Culture and Education Basic Needs Community Prosperity & Diversity Community Safety and Security Doi, Kii and Nakanishi (2008)

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

9. Integrated model of quality of life

10. weight Stress Concept of QoL 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)

11. 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 – depends on capability S １ ‐― ‐― ｛ -ρ ｝ ρ w QoL =Σ S Satisfaction Level of Indicator k k =1 k X IndividualA γ 1 1 - X γ o - 1 1 Δ γ Individual B 1 X 1 Level of Indicator γ ： elasticity of satisfaction

12. Value (Weight) – relative importance to ‘community safety and security’ ; improved satisfaction level of domain m ; sacrificed satisfaction level of domain k ; current satisfaction level of domains k and m ; value of domains k and m ; substitution parameter between domains

13. QoL indicators for Canberra

14. Quality of life in your city and living environment questionnaire survey in Canberra 2012May – Aug Online questionnaire +mail（sent to appro. 3,000households） 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

15. Stress Map

16. Level of satisfaction by neighbourhood type by domain Y Plan

17. Value (Weight) All

18. Value (Weight) By gender By age group

19. Value (Weight) by neighbourhood type Y Plan

20. Relationship between satisfaction level and weight Y Plan

21. -⊿T Change in Weights Time, Stress, and QoL DS (stress) Policy measures Change in stress DS Duration time ⊿T Time Stress Recognition T Weight Satisfaction level wk=TkDSk /ΣTk’DSk’ Stress Community safety and sec. Prosperity and diversity w3 Culture and education Community well-being Quality environment and sus.

22. QoL by neighbourhood type

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

24. Indicator and policy input mapping Key indicator in Y Plan Neighbourhood Land use → location of facilities Architecture → design and quality of facility building Satisfaction with access to health and social care facilities and quality Social services → quality of health and social care services Transport → public transport Nakanishi, Sinclair & Lintern(2013)

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

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.