time that you have lived in your suburb, have you ever been consulted by the local ..... which have installed solar panels were all outright owners of their home or ...
Urban Sustainability Assessment Final Report for the ARC Linkage Project LP0883493: An integrated model for the assessment of urban sustainability
Prepared by: Associate Professor Jon Kellett Dr Kathryn Davidson Dr Lou Wilson Dr Stephen Pullen Dr Sada Karuppannan Dr Alpana Sivam Dr David Ness
Table of Contents Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ 2 Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... 3 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 4 1.
Background .......................................................................................................................... 5
2.
Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 20
3.
Amenity .............................................................................................................................. 31
4.
Accessibility ....................................................................................................................... 49
5.
Equity ................................................................................................................................ 59
6.
Environmental Performance ............................................................................................... 68
7.
Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 76
References ................................................................................................................................ 83 Appendix 1: Survey Questionnaire ............................................................................................ 86 Appendix 2: Published Research Article .................................................................................. 101
2
Acknowledgements The research team wish to acknowledge the support of Australian Research Council Linkage Grant LP0883493 for this project. We also wish to thank the South Australian Department of Families and Communities, the Department of Transport, Energy and Infrastructure and the Onkaparinga Council for their contributions to the funding of this project.
3
Executive Summary Urban sustainability tools have proliferated in the past decade. Urban developments and redevelopments which are carried out with explicit sustainability objectives demand assessment to validate the success of the designers’ aims. Most of the tools so far developed focus on the performance of individual buildings rather than urban areas and concentrate on quantification of specific performance measures. Often these are modelled at the design stage and less often assessed after completion. Most broader based sustainability assessment techniques rely on categorising their constituent indicators as belonging to the three different domains of social, economic or environmental. Often implicit in their design is the need to prioritise economic concerns. The aim of the research reported here is to test a new approach to such assessment by shifting the underlying paradigm from the economic to the social. It relies in the first instance on modifying a tool developed by Chan & Lee to examine the sustainability of urban redevelopment in Hong Kong. Australian experts then adapted the tool to suit the Australian context as well as reframing the overall design and indicators to better address social concerns. A subsidiary outcome of this approach is to more thoroughly integrate the various indicators and move away from the three traditional domains described above. The report documents the application of the modified tool on a major urban redevelopment scheme in northern metropolitan Adelaide, known as Westwood. The area is historically one of the most socially deprived urban areas in Australia. A sample survey of over 400 households was carried out using the modified tool and the results are reported here. Whilst the survey demonstrates that there was a significant positive improvement in residents’ attitudes to the area post redevelopment, some aspects are assessed as more sustainable than others. Accessibility in particular continues to rely on the private car. The extent to which this is attributable to design, public transport service provision or resident attitudes remains an open question. Readers may view the report as a useful analysis of residents’ perspectives following the redevelopment of the Westwood area but they may also read the report as a critique of the assessment technique itself. The modified tool analyses sustainability under four themes, namely amenity, accessibility, equity and environmental performance. The report suggests that whilst this approach would benefit from further testing, it represents a valuable step in the process of developing a coherent tool which can link the physical performance of urban areas to their residents’ behaviour and attitudes and shift the emphasis in urban sustainability assessment
on to social aspects.
4
1. Background Over the last 15 years sustainability assessment tools have proliferated and those situated within the milieu of urban and regional planning are no exception. However, these tools are often critiqued for drawing on conventional practices. Typically these are typologies that categorise the indicators of sustainability into economic, social, and environmental silos. Many of the indicators that populate these assessment frameworks are in fact developed for other purposes. Nevertheless this is an evolving field of research. Davidson et al. (2012) recently proposed a new thematic approach to categorise indicators to measure sustainable outcomes from urban regeneration projects, Assessing urban sustainability from a social democratic perspective: a thematic approach, of which this paper is attached in full as Appendix 2. This approach represents a shift in political economies from the status quo of most conventional typologies that rest on a liberal political economy, which prioritises economic sustainability, to a social democratic approach entailing greater weighting for the social and environmental dimensions of sustainability. This new approach proposes understanding sustainable urban regeneration in terms of equity, accessibility, amenity and environmental performance.
Data that addresses these concepts was collected from a survey of the Westwood estate in Adelaide’s western suburbs. Westwood is Australia’s largest urban regeneration project. The report will conclude with insights into the strength and weaknesses of our new approach to understanding urban regeneration and how it might be applied to urban renewal projects.
Best practice frameworks for urban sustainability assessment The provision of indicators for the new thematic approach, Assessing urban sustainability from a social democratic perspective: a thematic approach (Davidson et al 2012, see Appendix 2) began with a review of the literature on best practice sustainability assessment for the urban environment. The Sustainable Urban Renewal Project Assessment Model developed in Hong Kong by Chan and Lee (2007) was identified as having a well-developed conceptual framework, a rarity in sustainability assessment and representative of current best practice in the field. The model was completed in 2008 and offers a unique tool for the evaluation of the social, economic and environmental sustainability of urban renewal projects. This model has been well received by the academic community and discussions of the model have been published in the peer-reviewed journals Social Indicators Research; Environment, Development and Sustainability; Property Management, and Sustainable
5
Development. The model, moreover, has been field tested on urban regeneration projects in Hong Kong and in London (see Chan & Lee, 2008b). A key characteristic of Chan and Lee’s sustainable urban assessment tool which differentiates it from other tools is the incorporation of a conceptual framework. The framework is drawn from the research literature on urban sustainability and identifies key attributes that are deemed to be relevant to the measurement of the sustainability of an urban renewal project. This conceptual framework provides an epistemological link between a definition of sustainability and the indicators that measure it (Sumners, 2004; Davidson, 2011a; Davidson & Wilson, 2009). That is, Chan and Lee’s tool provides a conceptual framework that guides the selection of indicators, providing a robust framework to facilitate a critical assessment of urban sustainability (Davidson, 2011a).
The assessment model developed by Chan and Lee (2007) is a hierarchic model ranged across three levels: 1.
goal level
2.
objectives level
3.
design criteria level.
The goal level describes the point at which the model is achieved. When this level is reached it indicates that the most sustainable urban renewal design for an area undergoing urban renewal has been attained. The objectives level has three attributes, namely social, economic and environmental sustainability. The design criteria level consists of 17 attributes, which represent the most important urban design criteria identified in previous studies by the model designers (Chan and Lee 2007a; Chan and Lee 2007b; Chan and Lee 2008). Chan and Lee short listed a total of 46 items from reviews of the literature on sustainability, which were verified through a pilot test of their model. After that, a questionnaire containing 30 urban design items applicable to the context of Hong Kong was prepared. The questionnaire was used for a survey of architects, planners and property development managers involved in urban redevelopment in Hong Kong as well as local citizens. Respondents were asked to rate the importance of individual urban design considerations to the sustainable urban renewal according to a five-point Likert scale (“1” least important to “5” most important). The data collected from the survey was subjected to exploratory factor analysis to derive the major components of the hierarchy in the design criteria level. The sustainability level of an urban renewal project is represented by an overall score which is equal to ten or below, and it is calculated by multiplying the final weight of each design
6
criterion and the score indicating the performance of the project with respect to individual criterion (Chan and Lee 2008).
The attributes of sustainable urban renewal and their indicators were selected and organised by a review of the research literature by Chan and Lee. For example, the headline attributes of the Economic Dimension include efficiency and accessibility, which are associated with indicators of access to public facilities such as schools, colleges, libraries, food centres and health clinics. Accessibility to such facilities is a key determinant of human capital. That is, an educated, healthy workforce is considered to be critical to sustaining economic development.
Likewise the headline attributes of the Environmental Dimension refer to optimisation, recycle and reuse. Hence there are indicators on optimising provision of open space, building form and rehabilitating repairable properties. Similarly the Social Dimension contains attributes such as convenience, health and safety that are linked to indicators of access to open space and the quality of jobs.
Key limitations of the Chan and Lee (2008) approach are that the indicators are organised into conventional silos. The literature drawn upon to develop the conceptual framework, which guided indicator selection, is reflective of the status quo and rests on a liberal political economy. The literature drawn upon to develop the economic dimension in the conceptual framework of Chan and Lee’s assessment tool has a strong focus on the cost efficiencies yielded by higher productivity and associated economic benefits. Accessibility for urban residents is understood as improving economic growth and enhancing investment decision factors. Rehabilitation of existing buildings is valorised in this literature because it is a means of reducing costs as much as it is for the environmental benefits of the reuse of building materials. A variety of different economic activities is understood to be important for both the security of employment of citizens and for sustaining a sufficient level of economic activity. Higher flexibility of building use is considered to be desirable because the building may be quickly and easily adapted to changing circumstances and therefore enhance investor confidence. The social economy is considered as relational to the accessibility of the built environment and the cost effectiveness of rehabilitation programs. It is notable that rehabilitation, accessibility and flexibility tend to be discussed in terms of their capacity to enhance profitability and market value in the literature that Chan and Lee have drawn on, rather than in relation to social or environmental outcomes.
7
The literature drawn on by Chan and Lee to develop their conceptual framework for the environmental dimension of their assessment tool tends to have a similar focus. Waste reduction strategies are suggested such as the re-use of land as well as the encouragement and development of technology such as renewable energy, and water and energy efficient appliances to maximise profit. Smart and passive design strategy practices are also advocated. Reuse along with recycling are both seen as critical to reduce the total amount of wastes generated in the long run. Replacement costs in terms of consideration of the life cycle are understood in this literature to require an increase in upfront costs and are justified in terms of avoidance of future costs. Nevertheless there is some emphasis in this literature on the reduction of environmental harm, and a recognition that natural capital is limited and should be conserved.
As in their discussion of the environmental dimension, urban design considerations are held to sustain communities and societies through more efficient use of natural resources and by providing ecologically supportive urban landscapes. However, there is an emphasis on making the built environment useful and aesthetically pleasing, and an acceptance of the neoliberal argument that profits must be prioritised in urban development rather than an engagement with debates over the role of socio-economic structures, citizen participation in decision making and other matters with implications for social sustainability (Davidson & Wilson 2010).
Moreover, Chan and Lee’s assessment tool also continues the conventional, liberal approach to assessing sustainability though indicators associated with economic, social and environmental performance and tends to prioritise economic indicators. This is unsurprising given that the tool is developed from a widespread review of the literature on urban sustainability assessment and, as has already been noted, much of this mainstream literature is situated within a liberal or neoliberal paradigm which emphasises economic outcomes and market driven solutions to a range of urban problems. Research in this field suggests that the three spheres model is limited in its capacity to address the complexities of sustainability (Gibson, 2005; Spangenberg et al., 2002).
Introduction to the Study Area The Westwood redevelopment is a newly developed area located in the northwest of Adelaide metropolitan area about 9 km. From the Adelaide CBD. The site was originally a mix of industry and housing estates. Gradual decline of the manufacturing sector throughout Australia since 1950s, in particular Adelaide, led to the decline and eventual
8
closure of a large number of industries. The Westwood redevelopment is a brownfield development consisting of five predominantly residential suburbs namely Athol Park, Mansfield Park, Angle Park, Woodville Gardens and Ferryden Park occupied mainly by low and medium income households. The Westwood redevelopment is conveniently located within easy commuting distance of the CBD accessible by two major arterial roads namely Port Road and Torrens Road. It also lies around 3 kilometres distant from stations on both the Port Adelaide and northern rail corridors. Figure 1.1 depicts the study area in the context of Adelaide metropolitan area.
Figure 1.1 Location of the study area in Adelaide metropolitan area
Population The study area shares several similarities with the surroundings suburbs in the immediate vicinity. Median household incomes in 2006 in the five suburbs are among the lowest in the metropolitan area. Median weekly household income in three of the five suburbs did not
9
exceed $500 per week and the area is relatively income poor. The area consists of a mix of private housing and government owned social housing. A large percentage of low income households living in public housing in the study area generally has the tendency of masking suburb level statistics such as median household income. Nevertheless, population in the study area has grown at a faster rate compared to the growth of population in the metropolitan Adelaide and the state. Table 1.1 shows the population of the study area in 2006 and 2011.
Table 1.1 Population of the study area, 2006 and 2011 Population Population Population change 2006Suburb
2006
2011
2011 (%)
Athol Park
1,308
1,664
27%
Mansfield Park
2,754
3,354
22%
581
1,467
152%
Woodville Gardens
1,972
2,383
21%
Ferryden Park
3,652
4,100
12%
Total population
10,267
12,968
26%
Angle Park
Source: Derived from ABS Census of Population and Housing 2006 and 2011.
Population in the study area has grown by a sizable 26% over the five year period from 2006 to 2011. Angle Park has recorded a growth of 152% suggesting rapid development of new housing. Three other suburbs in the study area have recorded population growth exceeding 20%. During the same period population of the South Australia has grown by a mere 5.23%. Higher rates of population growth in the study area suggest that housing development in Westwood redevelopment area is yet to reach a saturation stage. A more nuanced investigation of demographic and income characteristics reveals the subtle differences among the five suburbs. Table 1.2 depicts suburb level statistics derived from the latest 2011 census of population and housing. Athol Park residents are relatively younger, median age 31 compared to 34 in Woodville Gardens and 36 in Angle Park and Ferryden Park.
10
Table 1.2. Median age, income, mortgage repayments and rent, 2011 Average
Suburb
number
Median
Median
of
total
Median
mortgage
Median
Median
Average
11edroo
personal
Household
repayment
rent
age
household
m per
income
Income
monthly
weekly
persons
size
person
weekly ($)
weekly ($)
($)
($)
Athol Park
31
2.8
1.2
406
995
1560
250
Mansfield Park
32
2.8
1.1
373
881
1777
200
Angle Park
36
2.5
1.1
393
902
1925
129
Gardens
34
2.5
1.2
349
712
1400
170
Ferryden Park
36
2.6
1.1
382
852
1655
140
Woodville
Source: Derived from ABS Census of Population and Housing 2006 and 2011.
Average household size of 2.8 in Athol Park and Mansfield Park is about 0.2 higher than the state average. Median weekly total personal income in the study area ranges from $349 to $406 and it is a significant difference pointing to differences in skills and capabilities of the population. Similarly, difference in median household income is significant, ranging from $712 in Woodville Gardens to $995 in Athol Park. The difference in median household income is reflected in corresponding median monthly mortgage repayments. Median mortgage repayment in Woodville Gardens is the lowest at $1400 and it rises to $1925 in Mansfield Park. It should be noted that the median mortgage repayments in the five suburbs are similar to several medium to high income suburbs in the metropolitan area. Compared to median household income, households in the study area probably spend a larger share of household income on mortgage repayments. It is likely that a large percentage of households in the study area have entered the housing market in recent years when house prices have been at an historic high. Median rent ranges from $129 in Angle Park to $250 in Athol Park. Average number of bedrooms per person in the range 1.1 – 1.2 in the study area is comparable to the majority of suburbs in the Adelaide metropolitan area. Average household size and average number of bedrooms per person in developed countries are crude indicators of wellbeing and sustainability.
Income Household income is an important indicator widely used in housing and urban studies. Figure 1.2 depicts weekly median household income for all suburbs in the Adelaide
11
metropolitan area derived from ABS census 2011. It is seen that the five suburbs in the study area are part of a group of suburbs in the northwest part of the city with low to medium household income: Woodville Gardens has the lowest household income of up to $500 per week and the remaining four suburbs fall in the income group $501-$750.
Figure 1.2 Median weekly household income by suburbs, 2011
Comparison of income indicators in the larger context of the metropolitan area helps visualise the relative position of the residents in the study area with respect to housing and the quality of life in general. The quality of life of a person depends not merely on household income but also on various social and physical conditions. The residents of the study area combine the disadvantages of low income and low education achievements and other deprivation indicators.
12
Education Figure 1.3 depicts completion of high school education of population. It allows comparison of the study area with the rest of the city. Education is an important aspect of human capital and social mobility.
Figure 1.3 Completion of high school education by suburbs, 2011
Higher percentage of high school completion by adults (above 50%) is concentrated in part of the inner city areas which are also higher income suburbs. All five suburbs in the study area have high school completion rates of 21-30%. Comparison of this kind, based on education achievements, is important because of the light it throws on inequalities in other aspects of the population.
Migration Migration is a major driver of population growth in Australia. The number of people migrated to Australia during the last decade has exceeded post war migration levels and a large
13
percentage of migrants settle in urban areas. Sydney and Melbourne continue to attract the lion’s share of migrants. On average about 6% of migrants to Australia settle in South Australia and Adelaide attracts a large number of these. Figure 1.4 presents the number of migrants arrived in Australia since 2001 (up to August 2011) as a percentage of the resident population in 2011. It also includes international students residing in Adelaide.
Figure 1.4 Recent migrants by suburbs 2011
Inner and middle suburbs have a sizable percentage of recent migrants compared to outer suburbs. Relatively higher percentages of recent migrants live in the study area. It appears that the study area is a popular choice of recent migrants earning low and medium levels of income. Between 12-18% of the population living in two suburbs in the study area arrived in Australia during the past 11 years and the remaining three suburbs have a much higher percentage of migrants ranging from 19-50%. The statistics also suggest that only a small percentage of residents in the study area are educated to university level. Recent migrants live in almost all suburbs in the metropolitan area. However the concentration of higher percentage of migrants in the study area is likely to reflect in their attitudes towards housing, open space, and access to services etc.
14
The above statistics, however, do not help distinguish differences between recent migrants and the rest of the population in terms of employment opportunities, education achievements, housing and standard of living. It is fair to say a concentration of migrants is generally associated with low levels of household income and gainful employment in the short run.
Unemployment Ability to be gainfully employed depends on several things including education and skills. The Australian Bureau of Statistics defines ‘unemployed’ as persons aged 15 years and over, not working full-time or part-time, or employed away from work. Unemployment is defined as the number of unemployed persons expressed as percentage of the total labour force. Figure 1.5 depicts the suburb level unemployment rate in 2011. The national aggregate unemployment rate was around 5.2% in 2011. A large number of suburbs in the Adelaide metropolitan area have unemployment rates comparable to the national unemployment level. A small number of suburbs clustered in three locations in the north, northwest and southern part of the city have 10% and higher rates of unemployment. A similar pattern existed in the previous census in 2006. The unemployment rate in the study area ranges between 6.6% in Angle Park and 11.2% in Woodville Gardens. All five suburbs have relatively high rates of unemployment when compared to the metropolitan area as a whole, though there are other suburbs in the city with much higher rates of unemployment at over 15%. Figure 1.6 shows the percentage of unemployed persons looking for work. Unemployment rate in different suburbs in Adelaide closely resembles the percentage of unemployed persons actively looking for part-time or full-time employment.
15
Figure 1.5 Unemployment rate by suburbs, 2011
Figure 1.6 Unemployed persons looking for work, 2011
16
The similarities between the unemployment rate and those actively seeking employment could be partly due to conditions attached to receiving unemployment benefits requiring unemployed people to be actively looking for work in order to receive welfare benefits. Nevertheless low household income combined with above average unemployment levels in the study area is an issue in its own right.
Mode of transport for work Car ownership in Australia is among the highest in the world and expenditure on transport constitutes a significant percentage of household income. Public transport in Australian cities has historically served a small percentage of work trips along selected corridors and car remains the dominant mode of transport for work trips. Figure 1.7 presents modal share of car trips for work in Adelaide and figure 1.8 shows modal share of work trips by public transport (bus, train and tram).
Figure 1.7 Percentage car trips for
Figure 1.8 Public transport trips for
work, 2011
work, 2011
Not surprisingly the car is the dominant mode of travel for work in Adelaide. In the inner suburbs, with a few exceptions, over 70% of work trips are made by car and the rate rises to 80% and above in outer suburbs. Public transport is used for about 10-20% of work trips by
17
residents living in inner and some middle suburbs. Public transport is used for a small percentage of work trips. In a large number of inner and middle suburbs about 6-10% of work trips are made by public transport. The modal share of car trips in the study area is high comparable to the majority of suburbs in the metropolitan area. Close proximity to the city and public transport does not seem to have encouraged higher use of public transport. The foregoing investigation merely states income, employment, migration, educational attainment and travel behaviour at a point in time. It does not reflect the trend of these parameters. It serves to position the study area in the broader context of the metropolitan area.
Background to the Redevelopment of Westwood The Westwood Urban Renewal Project was a $600 million joint venture between developers Urban Pacific Limited and the Government of South Australia’s former Department of Families and Communities to redevelop the suburbs of Ferryden Park, Athol Park, Angle Park, Mansfield Park and Woodville Gardens. The project was to renew the five suburbs located seven kilometres northwest of the City of Adelaide, construct 2,500 new private homes and refurbish approximately 1,000 existing public housing homes (Jensen 2006). A significant number of existing public housing homes were demolished in the process. The Department of Families and Communities sought to relocate public housing tenants to new homes within five kilometres of their former place of residence wherever possible. The project was managed in conjunction with the City of Port Adelaide and the City of Charles Sturt. Westwood was formerly known as The Parks and covers an area of six square kilometres. At the time the urban renewal project began 56 percent of the residents were accommodated in public housing (ABS 1996). The area was referred to as the Parks because the names of four of the five suburbs comprising the area ended in the word ‘Park’. Westwood was previously one of the lowest income regions in Australia, with significant concentrations of poverty and very high indications of social disadvantage. Lloyd et al. (2001) found Ferryden Park to have the highest rate of poverty for a suburb in Australia using the Henderson Half Average Poverty Line, which defines poverty as those having half of the national average disposable income. The visual appearance of The Parks was grim. Housing was predominantly comprised of brick or fibro semi-detached homes built on large blocks by the South Australian Housing Trust in the 1950s and set out in a grid pattern. The area had been developed quickly by the government in the post-war period to meet a severe housing shortage. Dwellings were small, uniformly designed and by the late 1990s many were in a state of considerable disrepair.
18
The developers had a brief to maintain affordable housing in the area but were keen to avoid replicating the social problems associated with The Parks. To create an affordable community where people would choose to live, the partners in the project conducted a charette consultation process with the community that involved developers, the local councils and the residents. The consultations sought ways of creating a public space system that included community elements, mixed use, retail and commercial.
19
2. Methodology Stage 1: Development of indicators The method employed to develop the indicators to populate this new typology is an adaptation of the Delphi approach. The Delphi approach is based on the principle that the analysis of an issue from a structured group of individuals has more validity than those from unstructured groups. It is about applying collective, expert intelligence to a problem or issue (Rowe and Wright 2001, Green et al. 2007). In this case our method was to critique a suite of indicators embedded within liberalism and consider if they could by reorientated and adjusted to fit within a social democratic approach.
We assembled seven key urban experts chosen to bring a range of knowledge and experience to the table from architecture, planning history and policy, transport planning, urban design, economic development, social planning and urban economics. The experts also had experience in life cycle analysis, construction and building management, infrastructure planning and environmental impact assessment. The experts had published in these fields in key international academic journals. The experts were asked to review the literature in their areas of knowledge in relation to this project before the Delphi commenced. Conventional sustainability assessment tools were critiqued as part of this process for example the Sustainable Urban Renewal Project Assessment Model developed in Hong Kong by Chan and Lee (2008a, 2008b, 2008c, 2008d, 2009). The aim of the Delphi was to develop a suite of indicators for the new typology, Assessing urban sustainability from a social democratic perspective: a thematic approach. The Delphi addressed the inability of conventional neoliberal models of sustainability assessment to account for cross-dimensional issues in urban development, the tendency to centre economic development at the expense of other dimensions of sustainability and the neglect in neoliberal approaches of the local cultural and political contexts in which urban development necessarily occurs. Hence the Delphi proposed a suite of indicators to assess urban sustainability that has the capacity to offer critical accounts of urban planning issues in a local cultural and political context. The Delphi comprises predominantly Australian experts and the proposed model has an Australian focus, as is appropriate for an approach that seeks to address a deficit in planning for the local context. However, our model might be adapted to other planning, policy and local cultural settings.
The experts were asked to review the suite of indicators within Sustainable Urban Renewal Project Assessment Model. The review addressed the epistemological link between the key
20
themes of the new typology, their indicators and how the indicators are measured. The experts addressed the following items in their review:
1.
The relationship of each attribute of sustainability to sustainable outcomes
2.
The capacity of the indicators to assess each attribute of sustainability
3.
Suggested improvements
4.
Practical obstacles to implementation
On completion of the experts review their key findings were applied to amend the suite of indicators in turn to populate a new thematic approach, which we have called Assessing urban sustainability from a social democratic perspective: a thematic approach. A published article which discusses this approach is included in Appendix 2. A review of the indicators is available in the Interim Report for this project (Kellett et al, 2010).
Stage 2: Testing the Model Stage two was to test the model developed in Stage 1 by analysis of built urban forms and new and proposed built urban forms in a case study area. The selected case study area was Westwood, Australia’s largest urban regeneration project. Westwood was chosen by agreement of the research team and industry partners because of its suitability in respect of its physical and population size, the fact that the redevelopment is largely complete and that residents have had time to experience the redeveloped environment and contrast this with their previous experience of the area. The questionnaire that was applied to Westwood is attached in Appendix 1.
Harrison Market Research contributed to the final design and
formatting of the questionnaire, Pre-field preparation focused on the geographic region to be surveyed ensuring that the final sample was both random and stratified by the population within each suburb. Using the 2006 Census Data, the following table shows the population within each suburb, the proportion this represents and the number of interviews required in each suburb to ensure a representative sample was achieved.
21
Table 2.1 Population and sampling in the study area
Suburb Angle Pk Athol Park Ferryden Pk Mansfield Pk Woodville Gdns
Popn. #
TOTAL
WESTWOOD REQUIRED SAMPLE ACTUAL SAMPLE Popn. % # in Sample % of sample # in Sample % of sample 582 6 24 6 24 6 1308 13 52 13 52 13 3652 35 140 35 140 35 2754 27 108 27 113 28 1973 19 76 19 75 19 10269 100 400 100 404 101
NOTE: n=400 represents 3.9% of the Westwood area population (as at 2006 Census)
Other aspects were to prepare maps of the area to guide interviewers on not only the boundaries, but where to begin so that they achieve a random, cloverleaf pattern in each geographic area. Randomising not only focuses on the pattern of door-knocking but also includes knocking only on every 3rd house (or 5th, 7th, 9th etc., depending on how many houses are located in the geographic area). The pattern continues regardless of whether the result at the last house was a refusal, an interview or no one at home. In this way, the whole of the suburb (or designated geographic area) is covered by interviewers, making the sample as representative as possible. Each of the suburbs in the Westwood area was included in the sample (as above) and collection of the data in each was randomised using the cloverleaf pattern. In other words, every suburb was surveyed, with the final number of interviews per suburb being up to the proportional population of that suburb within the total population of Westwood. The n=404 total sample size represents 3.9% of the population of Westwood. The total sample has a margin for error of ±4.78% at 95% confidence level, which is rigorous for any research project. However, it should be noted that sub-group analysis will not have the same level of reliability. Pre-preparation also included preparing cards for interviewers - questions within the survey instrument which had “Read Out” instructions were provided with a “Show Card” so that time spent reading out possible responses could be minimised. Prior to interviewing beginning, a full briefing of interviewers and supervisors allocated to the project was conducted. This was conducted at Harrison’s premises in Fullarton Road and was also video recorded to ensure that, if additional interviewers need to be brought into the project, the Project Manager can provide them with the original briefing. The 8 interviewers and 2 supervisors were fully briefed, which entails: a background on the project and the objectives sought by the client, a reading of every question to ensure full understanding of the intent of each question. a question and answer session
22
a review of all paperwork requirements, techniques and materials required for the project (e.g. maps, outdoor wear / sunscreen etc.) a test run through the survey, to check its effectiveness. Some role playing may be required. In this instance, it was also possible to gain feedback on the pilot survey, to discuss barriers and risks to interviewing in that area. The pilot of 20 surveys was undertaken on the weekend of the 19th and 20th November 2011. As a result of the pilot, no changes were required and the survey began on the following weekend of 26th November 2011. Initially, interviewers focused on interviewing during the weekends only, starting on 26th November and due to complete interviewing on Sunday 11th December. However, the success rate was around 1 per hour per interviewer so it was decided to expand the interviewing to weekdays, from 3.00 pm to 7.00 pm (except Thursday and Friday evenings, when many are out shopping or socialising, particularly at this time of year). A total of n=404 completed interviews were used in the final data. Fieldwork was completed on Tuesday 13th December 2011. The statistics for the fieldwork are shown in Table 2.2 below.
Table 2.2 Fieldwork results OUTCOME
NUMBER
%AGE / Success Rate
Completed interviews
404
18.4%
Call backs
228
10.4%
Out / no adults at home
834
38.0%
Refusals
398
18.1%
Not available
61
2.8%
Dog
3
0.1%
Locked gate / unable to enter property
95
4.3%
Vacant property
12
0.55%
Ill health / too sick to complete
8
0.36%
Foreign / ESL / Could not comprehend
154
7.0%
TOTAL
2,197
100.0
23
Surveys were entered into a programmed version of the survey, as they came in to the office to ensure minimal delay in providing the data. One data entry person was used across the whole survey to minimise errors by maximising the data puncher’s understanding of the possible responses. Post-coding of open ended comments was undertaken after verification of the data. This was done in OzPro (statistical analysis program) and then saved into SPSS.
The new approach: Assessing urban sustainability from a social democratic perspective: a thematic approach Taking into consideration the limitations of the conventional approach (relatively separate sets of economic social and environmental indictors) Davidson et al (2012) proposed a new typology for an urban sustainability indicator framework based on a thematic approach, Assessing urban sustainability from a social democratic perspective: a thematic approach. Four thematic themes have been identified that are appropriate for assessing Australian development in a local cultural context. The themes are as follows: amenity; accessibility; equity; and environmental performance. The indicators to assess against each theme are listed after the description of each theme.
Amenity is broadly understood as relating to place and necessarily must be assessed by an evaluation of human responses to qualities specific to that place. It remains nevertheless broad in its interpretation in that it can be determined by any quality condition or factor. It appears that this definition places emphasis on the aesthetic, but to the extent that enjoyment of place is derived, at least in part, from its accessibility, ease of function and levels of service provision, such factors are not excluded. The concept of amenity displays a long history within the conceptualisation of urban planning and is valuable in that it seeks to attach human value to place from a broad range of perspectives. As such it presents an opportunity in respect of the development of a framework for assessing urban sustainability in that it is multidimensional, presenting an opportunity to aggregate a range of factors within the urban environment under a single unifying principle. As a measure of social satisfaction with the physical environment it is a powerful linking mechanism.
The indicators of amenity are: Satisfaction with residential environment; Compatibility with neighbourhood; Conservation/improvement of local distinctiveness; Provision of open space; and Convenient, efficient and safe environment for pedestrians and public transport users. 24
Accessibility is defined as the ease with which any land use activity can be reached from a location using a particular transport system including pedestrians. It can therefore be viewed as a function of opportunities weighted by impedance (Koenig 1980). Opportunities can be viewed in terms of transport options and impedance as distance. Transport cost, availability, frequency and comfort all need to be considered under opportunities. The broader the range of transport opportunities and the less impedance so the greater is the accessibility. In respect of amenity as a measure of convenience, there are clear links between accessibility and amenity as measures of the sustainability of a development. The indicators of accessibility are: Access to public facilities; Access to open space; Access to work; Convenient, efficient and safe environment for pedestrians and public transport users; Access to public facilities.
Equity refers to an equitable share of public and social goods. That is, equitable access to social goods such as paid work, education, health services, community services, child care, recreational facilities and sporting facilities, as well as making space for the unpaid labour of carers (a social good) and the provision of non-excludable public goods such as roads, street lighting and parks. Social goods (egg education, community services and health facilities) are sometimes described as merit goods and have social benefits. Both social and public goods are associated with public interest issues that involve private benefits and public costs in regard to matters such as land use. For example, an urban expansion project built on the periphery of a city that is poorly located in relation to transport, jobs, education, recreation and health services might provide inequitable access to public and social goods for occupants of the estate. Equity is associated with an extension of urban planning into issues of inclusiveness, social justice, sustainability and environmental enhancement, but it also relates to spatial aspects of accessibility and amenity and to concepts of fairness and justice and to concepts of fairness and justice.
The indicators of equity are Availability of local employment; Access to work; Provision for meeting special need of the disability, elderly or children; Provision of open space; Community involvement; and Sense of community.
Environmental Performance is understood to relate to issues of resource and energy efficiency, through principles of optimisation, recycling, re-use, reduction and replacement (Chan and Lee 2008). Hence, in addition to the normal green design features such as passive design, appropriate building form and density, renewable energy supply, water efficiency and green construction, there is a strong emphasis on the re-use of materials and
25
buildings. In addition, a life cycle approach is taken which considers adaptability in design for future use and the life cycle impact of energy and greenhouse gas emissions. The use of environmental resources for urban development has a wider social dimension in that nonrenewable environmental resources are finite and hence there are implications for intergenerational equity. In our model the perception of the designers and users of urban renewal projects are sought to better understand how projects can be made more sustainable in terms of equity, amenity, accessibility and environmental performance. We are particularly interested in developing an understanding of the inter-relationships between the attributes of social, economic, and environmental sustainability. In this sense environmental performance as rated by experts in the design of urban renewal projects is an area of assessment that carries significant implications for social equity, cost of living, amenity and resource efficiency. For residents of urban renewal projects there are also considerations relating to comfort and quality of life and their capacity to pay for the alteration of their environment and/or other circumstances that might enable or constrain them. . The indicators of environmental performance are: Green design; Green construction; Re-use of existing buildings, Infrastructure and sites; and Adaptability of non- domestic development to the changing needs. Please see Appendix 2 for further explanation of the four key themes of this new assessment framework.
The assessment framework for urban sustainability Four themes are offered for the construction of a new typology for sustainable urban renewal assessment that are appropriate for assessing Australian development in a local cultural context that is amenity, accessibility, equity and environmental performance. A thematic approach offers a means of addressing the limitations of the conventional approach based on relatively separate sets of economic social and environmental indictors and follows the approach taken in the development of new sustainability reporting tools such as the Indicators for Sustainable Development 2007 developed by the United Nations, and the United Kingdom Government’s Securing the Future 2005 sustainability assessment model. A summary of the typology appears in Figure 2.3 of which the thematic themes are listed on the y-axis. The adapted indicators from Lee and Chan are listed on the x-axis. Relevance of indicators to the identified key themes is depicted by shading in Figure 2.3. It is notable that three of the indicators are highlighted under more than one key theme. The indicators are access to work, provision of open space, and convenient, efficient and safe environment for pedestrians & public transport users. For example, the indicator, access to work, is listed underneath the
26
key attributes of accessibility and equity. These indicators provide measures of more than one attribute of urban sustainability and are listed accordingly.
The detailed interpretation of these indicators may vary with each key theme. So Access to work could refer to the physical accessibility of workplace from home under the Accessibility theme, but be taken to reflect job opportunities relative to skills and qualifications when considered under Equity. Similarly, Provision of Open Space under the Amenity theme relates to quality, design and appearance and size of open space provision, whilst under Equity it could relate to the quality of provision relative to other locations. The overlap of indicators between themes is a positive indication of the interconnectedness of the themes themselves and stands in contrast to the conventional approach to sustainability assessment which separates indicators into silos.
The expert review process which sought to make the original Chan & Lee framework more Australian focussed, identified that minor changes were required to two of the indicators. The indicator Rehabilitation of repairable properties was modified to Re-use of existing buildings, infrastructure and sites. The original indictor referred to dilapidated buildings i.e. buildings that are decayed, deteriorated, or fallen into partial ruin especially through neglect or misuse. The continuing use and renovation of existing properties (as opposed to demolition and rebuilding) normally reduces the demand on new resources and clearly improves health, safety and welfare for occupants and residents.
Given the very different population densities and
residential urban form between Hong Kong and Australian cities, it is considered that the reduction in demand for new resources is particularly important in urban redevelopment in the Australian context. The efficient use of resources such as land, materials, energy and water in producing services, value and welfare is crucial in minimising environmental impact. It is an underpinning dimension of environmental sustainability and indirectly supports social and economic sustainability. Resource efficiency is synonymous with the themes of optimization, recycle, reuse, reduction and replacement mentioned in the theoretical framework of the Chan & Lee’s model. However, when interpreted at the indicator level in the Australian context, a more comprehensive measure is considered to be the proportion of materials, building elements, infrastructure and sites retained (rather than percentage of existing properties being retained) and this can be assessed by considering the use of land, material, energy and water avoided by not using new materials and construction components. The estimation of greenhouse gases not emitted due to the re-use and recycling of existing construction materials offers one metric for this indicator. Alternative indicators include the quantities of materials not extracted or manufactured for similar reasons.
27
The indicator Provisions for facilitating establishment of different businesses was changed to Satisfaction with the residential environment. In its original conception this indicator can be viewed as essentially concerned with economic development. It is more applicable to the Hong Kong context, where a mixed approach to land use integrating small businesses into residential environments is more commonly practiced than in Australia. It is also unusual when set against the other indicators in Chan & Lee’s framework in that it is forward looking and concerned with regulatory issues rather than existing physical attributes of the urban environment. An argument for this change is that the outcome of such amalgamation of land uses can be neighbour disturbance from noise and smells. Thus if the goals based approach inherent in both the original and modified framework is to be consistent, then an indicator which tests satisfaction with the outcome of such provisions is preferable to interrogation of the existence of such provisions. The indicator the Built form was merged into two indicators Green Design and Compatibility with the neighbourhood.
28
Figure 2.3 A New Typology for Sustainable Urban Renewal Assessment Environmental Performance
Equity
Accessibility
Amenity
Satisfaction with residential environment Compatibility with neighbourhood Conservation/improvement of local distinctiveness Provision of open space Convenient, efficient and safe environment for pedestrians and public transport users Access to public facilities Access to open space Access to work Availability of local employment Provision for meeting special need of the disabled, elderly or children Community involvement Sense of community Green design Green construction Re-use of existing buildings, infrastructure and sites Adaptability of non-domestic development to the changing needs
29
Testing the new model: Westwood Data collected through the questionnaire will be reported against the four key themes of the new assessment model: amenity, accessibility, equity, and environmental performance.
The Sample A total sample of 404 households were interviewed over a three week period in late November early December 2011. This represents a 3.9% sample of the total Westwood population. In all the five suburbs of Angle Vale, Athol Park, Ferryden Park, Mansfield Park and Woodville Gardens were sampled with the final interview numbers per suburb being proportional to the population of the suburb relative to the total Westwood population. A full report on the survey approach is available from Harrison Research who conducted the interviews. The gender split between respondents was exactly 50% male and 50% female. Just over half of all respondents (54%) were born in Australia, indicating a high proportion of migrants in the area, which is consistent with the broader census profile. 17% left school at age 15 or less and 22% had a Bachelor degree or higher qualification. 55% of respondents were in full or part time employment, with around 6% unemployed and 30% retired. The unemployment rate is again consistent with the broader census data for the area. Of those in employment 44% claimed to be working in a professional, management or associated professional role. The spread of household income was 26% of households earning less than $25,000 per annum, and a total of 45% of households earning less than $50,000 which is below the median household income for Adelaide. Just over 20% of households earned more than $75,000 per annum. Around 20% did not know or refused to answer the question relating to income. The tenure of the sample population shows 26% as renting public housing, and 17% as private renters. 34% of responding households were spending more than 30% of their household income on housing (either mortgage or rent), which is indicative of a degree of housing stress.
30
3. Amenity The concept of amenity is a long standing and pervasive principle of urban planning. Its origins lie in the public health roots of urban planning which related specifically to those physical attributes of the built environment such as inter block spacing, capacity for cross ventilation and access to daylight which were seen as important in preventing diseases such as tuberculosis and rickets and formed some of the precursors of modern urban design (Smith 1974). But over time the concept of amenity has broadened to encompass ideas of aesthetic value, functionality and levels of service provision. So, in addition to reference to amenity in terms of the impact on quality of life that might result from noise or smells in the urban environment, it is now common to discuss access to amenities such as shops and schools and to refer to loss of amenity when, for example a critical view is threatened by new development or the efficient functioning of an urban system such as a footpath or a road is compromised.
South Australia is exceptional in defining the concept of amenity in its planning legislation. The Development Act (1993 (Part 1:4)) defines the amenity of a locality or building as ‘any quality condition or factor that makes, or contributes to making, the locality or building harmonious, pleasant or enjoyable’. So amenity as thus defined is specifically related to place and necessarily must be assessed by an evaluation of human responses to qualities specific to that place. It remains nevertheless broad in its interpretation in that it can be determined by any quality condition or factor. It appears that this definition places emphasis on the aesthetic, but to the extent that enjoyment of place is derived, at least in part, from its accessibility, ease of function and levels of service provision, such factors are not excluded.
Whilst it remains flexible in terms of definition, the concept of amenity displays a long history within the conceptualisation of urban planning and is valuable in that it seeks to attach human value to place from a broad range of perspectives. As such it presents an opportunity in respect of the development of a framework for assessing sustainability in that it is multidimensional, presenting an opportunity to aggregate a range of factors within the urban environment under a single unifying principle. As a measure of social satisfaction with the physical environment it is a powerful linking mechanism. However it does not in itself provide a measure of resource efficiency within the urban environment which is clearly a further important consideration if sustainability is to be comprehensively assessed.
31
Justification for Survey Design In the survey which forms the basis of this report we have asked a number of questions in an attempt to identify residents’ perceptions of the amenity of the regenerated Westwood development. The questions cover a range of aspects from testing residents’ concerns about disturbance from external noise, for example from traffic, nearby industry or neighbours, their reactions to the form of the surrounding built environment, the availability of public facilities such as open space, shops, schools, community facilities aged and child care and public transport. Residents were also asked about the image of the redeveloped area and whether they felt this to represent a positive identity. A range of questions were also asked concerning accessibility to facilities and transport but, whilst these could be considered as relating to the overall concept of amenity, they are reported upon separately in a subsequent section. In this section of the report we concentrate on amenity in the aesthetic sense. How do residents view the area in which they live in terms of its physical characteristics and attractiveness and the presence or absence of disturbance? How does the physically redeveloped environment impact on their perceptions of place? Does it provide a positive sense of satisfaction or is their response one of concern and unease as result of problems of disturbance and poor design? Whilst this may be viewed as restricted definition of amenity in the light of the discussion above, we have structured the report in this way to avoid repetition since accessibility and equity are reported upon separately later. In the Discussion section we revisit the concept of amenity and seek to demonstrate how it links with these other aspects and assists in defining a broad and integrated approach to assessing the sustainability of the built environment.
Disturbance from neighbours NB: In all the reported Tables a five point semantic differential scale is used which ranges from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree.
Table 3.1 Disturbance by neighbours Q1 NOISE/SMELL RATING - I am never disturbed by noise/smells from my neighbours Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
1
66
16.3
16.3
16.3
2
40
9.9
9.9
26.2
3
87
21.5
21.5
47.8
4
83
20.5
20.5
68.3
Valid
32
5
128
31.7
31.7
Total
404
100.0
100.0
100.0
The response to the question about disturbance from neighbours suggest that whilst the majority (52%) agreed or strongly agreed that they are never disturbed by noise or smells from their neighbours, 26% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with this proposition. 22% of respondents were neutral. Overall the response suggests that neighbour disturbance is an issue which can be seen to be impacting on the amenity of the area for a substantial minority of households. There appears to be no correlation with age or tenure in concern about disturbance from neighbours.
Figure 3.1 Disturbance by neighbours
Disturbance from the outside environment Table 3.2 Disturbance from outside environment Q1 NOISE/SMELL RATING - I am never disturbed by noise/traffic/smells from the outside environment Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
1
62
15.3
15.3
15.3
2
59
14.6
14.6
30.0
3
81
20.0
20.0
50.0
4
82
20.3
20.3
70.3
5
120
29.7
29.7
100.0
Total
404
100.0
100.0
Valid
Slightly more respondents (30%) agreed or strongly disagreed that they were disturbed by external traffic noise and smells than by their neighbours (26%). 50% of respondents agreed
33
or strongly agreed that they were never disturbed by external factors and 20% were neutral. The results are so similar to the responses in respect of disturbance from neighbours they suggest that location and layout design of the buildings are likely to be key causal factors. Future redevelopments may wish to investigate the precise circumstances where disturbance might occur and consider mitigation measures such as redesign or sound insulation.
Figure 3.2 Disturbance from outside environment
Positive Impact The redevelopment of the Westwood estate aimed to improve the negative image of the former Parks area. Questioning therefore was designed to assess whether residents displayed a positive attitude to the redesigned estate. Questions measured the residents’ views on the landscape of neighbouring properties, in essence the views and “feel” of the immediate surroundings of their homes, their perspectives on the impact of the redevelopment on their lifestyle and whether they consider the redevelopment has had a positive impact on property values in the surroundings. All of these factors may be viewed as central to the concept of amenity in that they shed light on resident’s image and general sense of satisfaction with their home area.
In each case the response suggests that there is a significant level of satisfaction with these aspects of amenity. Only 12% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that the Westwood redevelopment has had a positive effect on the landscape of properties neighbouring their home. 63% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed and 16% were neutral. In respect of whether the impact of the redevelopment on the lifestyle of
34
residents in the suburb was negative, 47% disagreed or disagreed strongly with this proposition and only 19% agreed or agreed strongly. 21% were neutral. In respect of the redevelopment’s impact on property values, 64% agreed or strongly agreed and only 5% disagreed or strongly disagreed. 19% did not know and 12% were neutral. If we can consider property values a reliable proxy for attitudes to a housing area, these results suggest that there has been a positive shift in attitudes from the previous situation. It is less clear whether residents were convinced of the positive impact of the redevelopment on their lifestyle, but of course many other factors, notably income, are critical in respondents’ views on this issue.
Figure 3.3 Positive impacts
35
Visual appearance of the development Four questions relating to the appearance of the redeveloped environment tested respondent’s views on its visual appearance, the height of individual buildings, the bulk of individual buildings and the density of the development. Satisfaction with the aesthetics of the built environment, as opposed to its functionality, has always formed a central aspect of the concept of amenity in planning analysis. A critical aspect of the redevelopment is its increased density and the appearance of two storey houses as well as a proportion of flats in low rise (up to four storeys) blocks. It is clear in respect of all four questions that a substantial majority are satisfied with the visual appearance of the development. In respect of overall visual appearance 76% agree or strongly agree and only 5% disagree or strongly disagree that the development is satisfactory. In respect of building height 64% of respondents disagree or strongly disagree with the premise that the height of individual buildings is not appropriate. 15% agree or strongly agree. In respect of building bulk, 76% agree or strongly agree that the bulk of individual buildings in the suburb is appropriate and only 7% disagree or strongly disagree. In respect of density the majority approve though around a quarter of respondents do not. 58% of respondents disagree or strongly disagree with the contention that the number of homes in the block where they live is not acceptable and 23% agree or strongly agree. The results suggest that the height and bulk of the redeveloped buildings has created an environment which is acceptable in amenity terms, and the density increase is broadly acceptable, though the greater sense of discontent with the number of homes on the block than with the other aspects suggests that should density increase much more, amenity could be compromised.
Figure 3.4 Visual appearance, height, bulk and density
36
Various Amenity Issues Question 4 deals with a range of amenity ranging from residents views on whether special architectural features which reflect local characteristics have been retained, whether unique local businesses have been retained, whether the redevelopment has sought to incorporate new attractive landmarks and overall whether the suburb is a good place to live.
Figure 3.5 Other amenity factors
37
The response in respect of whether special architectural features which reflect local characteristics have been retained was inconclusive with 36% answering that they did not know and the other opinions relatively evenly spread. This result may reflect unfamiliarity with the previous environment before redevelopment or it may imply that there are few, if any such features, which respondents note as reflective of local culture. Perhaps for similar reasons 34% of respondents had no knowledge of whether locally unique businesses had been retained in the redeveloped suburb and 17% were neutral. However 35% did agree or strongly agree with the view that such businesses had been retained in contrast to only 12% who disagreed or strongly disagreed, which suggests that some locally unique businesses had been retained. The analysis of employment in chapter 4 below suggests that resident knowledge of employment opportunities and actual numbers employed locally are scant. A quarter (25%) of respondents expressed no knowledge of whether new attractive landmarks had been built and opinion on this question was again relatively evenly spread between those who agreed and those who disagreed, suggesting either a lack of knowledge of the new environment or more likely, a feeling that any landmarks that have been constructed are regarded equivocally by the residents. On the question of whether the suburb has become a good place to live there was much more clarity.
Table 3.3 Is the suburb a good place to live? Q4 STRUCTURE/INDUSTRY RATINGS - This suburb has become a good place to live Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
1
9
2.2
2.2
2.2
2
24
5.9
5.9
8.2
3
67
16.6
16.6
24.8
4
131
32.4
32.4
57.2
5
138
34.2
34.2
91.3
33
8.2
8.2
99.5
2
.5
.5
100.0
404
100.0
100.0
Valid Don't know 999 Total
67% of residents agreed or strongly agreed with this statement and only 8% disagreed or strongly disagreed. 17% were neutral and 8% did not know.
38
Characteristics and Identity Question 6 asks residents about their sense of the suburb’s characteristics and positive identity. As a general question about an overall response of residents to their home area we would expect a similar response to the question (4.4), namely that the suburb is a good place to live, though Q5 may of course be taken to reflect respondents’ feelings concerning external opinion about the area. The charts below show the response to Q5 and Q4.4 adjacent, the responses to both questions displaying a similar profile.
Figure 3.6 Identity and characteristics of the suburb.
55% of respondents agree or strongly agree that their suburb has a positive identity, whilst only 12% disagreed or strongly disagreed. In the case of don’t knows and neutral opinions both categories were slightly higher at 11% and 22% respectively than for Q4.4.
Analysis of open space provision Urban public space is highly valued for its contribution to the quality of life and improving sustainability in cities (Sivam et al 2012, Madanipour 1999, Burgess et. al 1988, Tenkel 1963). Open space in residential areas serves multiple objectives such as visual pleasure, passive and active recreation opportunities, social activities, stormwater detention and drainage, opportunities for community or ceremonial events, extension of domestic activities, provision of habitats for wildlife and creation of sense of identity (Karuppannan and Sivam 2012, Sivam et. al 2012, Tibbalds 1992,). Open space also protects physical resources, affects economic growth decisions (Pasaogullari and Dorati 2004) and acts as a place for building community (Freestone and Nichols 2004, Karuppannan and Sivam 2011). Good public- and semi-public spaces can positively contribute to social cohesion through providing opportunities for encounter. Therefore, provision of appropriate location, size,
39
facilities and design of open spaces is relatively more important than private open space for improving social interaction leading to social sustainability.
The aim of the Westwood redevelopment project was to develop places for people that are sustainable and liveable. It is evident from the literature that open space plays an important role in creating sustainable and liveable space and therefore the Westwood redevelopment was selected as a case study to obtain the opinion of the residents on provision and access of open space that relates to three of the four identified themes of this study. The purpose of this section is to explore whether amenity, accessibility and social equity have improved as evidenced by resident’s satisfaction on the provision and access of open space.
Provision of open space The ‘provision of open space’ indicator measures the role of open space at various levels such as public, semi public and private in terms of social interaction and open spaces for active and passive recreation for the community. It covers factors such as size, quality, location, and design of open spaces. Green open space not only functions as ‘natural lungs’ for the city but good open space promotes interaction between people and promotes health, social capital and social inclusion and hence is central to the themes of amenity and equity.
Access to open space The purpose of the ‘access to open space’ indicator is to assess residents’ attitudes to open space accessibility using average walking distances to the nearest open space as a measure.
Attractive, safe, well designed and accessible open spaces are beneficial to the
community because they induce and promote physical activity and contribute to reducing obesity, cardiovascular diseases and improve social inclusion. Therefore this indicator is relevant to the theme of amenity, accessibility and equity. Accessibility of public open space is reported in the equity section (Table 5.1)
The household survey included questions which sought information about: 1. Outdoor public space provision 2. Adequate number, location and design of open spaces 3. Public outdoor space to play an outdoor game, walk a dog, sit on park bench, picnic and go to playgrounds 4. Needs for recreation met by these outdoor spaces 5. Opinions on why provision and access to open space are not being met using both open and few close ended questions such as park nearby/need more park, safety
40
concerns/dangerous, appropriate/needs more facilities e.g. playground, toilets, shade etc, don’t know and others.
Public open space provision Question 6 of the survey asked residents to rate the amount of public open spaces in their suburb. The results indicate a spread of opinion ranging from ‘poor’ (rating 1) to ‘excellent’ (rating 5). Refer figure 1.
Table 3.4 Public outdoor space Rating
Frequenc Percent
Valid
Cumulative
y
Percent
Percent
1
19
4.7
4.7
4.7
2
30
7.4
7.4
12.1
3
92
22.8
22.8
34.9
4
142
35.1
35.1
70.0
5
113
28.0
28.0
98.0
7
1.7
1.7
99.8
999
1
.2
.2
100.0
Total
404
100.0
100.0
Don't know
Figure 3.7 Public outdoor space
41
The majority of respondents (63%) rated provision of public space provision as excellent or good, and 12% rated it poor or very poor. This finding suggests that the majority of the residents are happy with the provision of public open space in their neighbourhood. Question 7 was designed to assess residents’ views on number, appropriate location and design of open space. The result suggests that whilst 68% agreed or strongly agreed that an adequate number of public spaces exists in their area. About 13% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with this proposition and 16% of respondents were neutral (see figure 3.5)
Table 3.5 Adequate numbers of public open spaces are provided in the area.
Valid
Frequenc Percent
Valid
Cumulative
y
Percent
Percent
1
14
3.5
3.5
3.5
2
37
9.2
9.2
12.6
3
64
15.8
15.8
28.5
4
150
37.1
37.1
65.6
5
125
30.9
30.9
96.5
14
3.5
3.5
100.0
404
100.0
100.0
Don't know Total
61% respondents disagree or strongly disagree that location of the open space is not appropriate, whereas only a small percent (15%) agree or strongly agree that location of open space is not appropriate. 16% respondents were neutral.
Table 3.6 The location of open spaces is not appropriate. Frequenc Percent
Valid
Cumulative
y
Percent
Percent
1
104
25.7
25.7
25.7
2
142
35.1
35.1
60.9
3
66
16.3
16.3
77.2
4
36
8.9
8.9
86.1
Valid
42
5
26
6.4
6.4
92.6
28
6.9
6.9
99.5
999
2
.5
.5
100.0
Total
404
100.0
100.0
Don't know
Again the majority of the respondents (59%) were satisfied or strongly satisfied with the design of open space in term of size, material used, facilities provided and vegetation growth. Only 16% of respondents were unsatisfied or strongly unsatisfied with the design of open space and 20% were neutral.
This shows that in general the majority of the Westwood residents are happy with the number, location and design of open spaces.
Table 3.7 The design of the open spaces in terms of size, material used, facilities provided & vegetation growth is satisfactory. Frequency Percent
Valid
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
1
25
6.2
6.2
6.2
2
38
9.4
9.4
15.6
3
83
20.5
20.5
36.1
4
132
32.7
32.7
68.8
5
106
26.2
26.2
95.0
20
5.0
5.0
100.0
404
100.0
100.0
Don't know Total
43
Figure 3.8 Open space ratings
Question 8 measured the residents’ view on provision of outdoor space for various activities such as active recreation areas (play an outdoor game and go to playground), passive recreation areas (sit on a park bench, have a picnic) and walk a dog. In each case, more than 70% respondents were happy with the provision of open spaces and 19 to 29% respondents were not happy with the provision of open space for various activities.
Table 3.7 There is space to play an outdoor game (e.g. kick football, play cricket)
No Valid Yes Total
Frequenc Percent
Valid
Cumulative
y
Percent
Percent
94
23.3
23.3
23.3
310
76.7
76.7
100.0
404
100.0
100.0
44
Table 3.8 There is space to walk a dog
No Valid Yes Total
Frequenc Percent
Valid
Cumulative
y
Percent
Percent
91
22.5
22.5
22.5
313
77.5
77.5
100.0
404
100.0
100.0
Table 3.9 there is space to sit on a park bench
No Valid Yes Total
Frequenc Percent
Valid
Cumulative
y
Percent
Percent
68
16.8
16.8
16.8
336
83.2
83.2
100.0
404
100.0
100.0
Table 3.10 There is space to have a picnic
No Valid Yes Total
Frequenc Percent
Valid
Cumulative
y
Percent
Percent
118
29.2
29.2
29.2
286
70.8
70.8
100.0
404
100.0
100.0
Table 3.11 There is space to go to a playground
NO
Frequenc Percent
Valid
Cumulative
y
Percent
Percent
87
21.5
21.5
21.5
Valid YES
317
78.5
78.5
100.0
Total
404
100.0
100.0
45
Figure 3.9 Open space assessments
Response to question 9 demonstrates that 73% respondents are happy that their needs for recreation for outdoor space in their neighbourhood are met. However, 20% are not happy and 7.2% don’t know.
Table 3.12 Need for outdoor recreation space is met Frequenc Percent
Valid
Cumulative
y
Percent
Percent
Yes
295
73.0
73.0
73.0
No
80
19.8
19.8
92.8
29
7.2
7.2
100.0
404
100.0
100.0
Valid Don t know Total
46
Figure 3.10 Need for outdoor recreation space is met
To capture the reasons for dissatisfaction with the provision of open spaces an open ended question (Q10) was asked of the respondents who were not happy with recreational facilities. It should be noted that these represent 20% of the total sample. The results indicate an even spread of opinions on five themes such as park nearby/need more park, safety concerns/dangerous, appropriate/needs more facilities e.g. playground, toilets, shade etc., don’t know and others. These are illustrated in Figure 3.11 below.
Figure 3.11 Why recreation needs are not met.
Why are they not being met? 50 Percent
40 30 20 10 0
Why not met
47
Of the 20% of respondents who were dissatisfied with open space provision, just under half (47%) stated that the provision and access to open space is not appropriate and needs more facilities. This was followed by no park nearby/need more park and (19%), other such as not user friendly, age friendly, need more parks, not enough space for dog walk, no cycle track etc by 16%. About 11% respondents feel it is not safe.
Discussion The questions which relate to the amenity of the area, loosely defined in terms of residents’ feelings about the physical layout and design of the redevelopment, its external image, their own image of it as either positive or negative and their experiences of the environment around their homes in terms of noise and disturbance from neighbours and traffic, broadly suggest a reasonably high degree of satisfaction and a perception that the area has improved as result of the redevelopment. There is less certainty about some details of the changes, which may reflect residents’ lack of familiarity with the previous situation (Q4.14.3). Also there may be evidence that the physical design of the neighbourhood is lacking in landmarks, which residents regard as positive statements which add value to the locale. The results of the survey on the provision and access to open space indicate that most residents (over 60%) are satisfied or strongly satisfied with the provision and access to open space. At the same time a sizable 20% of residents were unsatisfied. The analysis has identified the reasons for the dissatisfaction of Westwood residents. Overall, the results indicate positive outcomes on indicators developed to evaluate open space provision and accessibility in the Westwood redevelopment. The data on the provision and access to open space is especially valuable as it is relevant across the three themes of amenity, accessibility and equity and serves to integrate these in a way that the conventional silos of economic, social and environmental fail to do. The questions used to test resident’s views may, perhaps with the exception of question 4.14.3, be viewed as eliciting valuable and meaningful responses. Amenity is not a concept that can be measured objectively. It is a function of people’s subjective feelings about satisfaction, comfort and overall fit with their home environment. The questions used, seek to unpack this broad satisfaction measure by focussing on different aspects and elements, which combined, may be seen to contribute to the overall sense of satisfaction with their home area. It would be useful to add a layer of detail in respect of exactly which features are positively regarded and what aspects residents feel could be improved upon. A focus group would provide one mechanism for doing this.
48
4.
Accessibility
Residents’ opinion on qualitative aspects of accessibility was captured through questions about pedestrian walkways, safety and location and availability of public transport in the local area. The respondents were asked to rate the following six aspects. 1. Pedestrian walkways in my suburb are convenient and safe for all 2. The nearest public transport stop is located within walking time (5-10 minutes)? 3. Footpaths and walkways in my suburb do not connect well to public transport 4. The public transport system nearby is safe 5. The public transport system is infrequent 6. My suburb is poorly served by public transport
Ratings of pedestrian walkways Well maintained and well-connected pedestrian walkways in residential areas positively contribute to liveability. Design of streets and walkways induce walking and social interaction in the community. Perception of safety relates to both physical aspects of the built environment as well the behaviour of people. Figure 4.1 depicts ratings on pedestrian walkways. In general people in the study area consider pedestrian walkways in their surroundings as safe and convenient for all. The percentage of people who strongly agree outweighs the percentage who strongly disagree that pedestrian walkways are convenient and safe for all.
Figure 4.1 Ratings on pedestrian walkways
49
32.7% of respondents rate at 5 (strongly agree) followed by 29.5% rating at 4. Only 18.6% rate at 1 and 2. The ratings suggest that majority of people feel that pedestrian walkways in their suburb are convenient and safe for all. In total one third of respondents (33.9%) rate between 1 and 3 and do not think pedestrian walkways are convenient and safe. 4% do not know and did not respond.
Location of public transport Respondents were asked to rate the location of public transport stops within 5-10 walking distance in their locality. Figure 4.2 depicts the ratings.
Figure 4.2 Ratings on location of public transport
An overwhelming majority (71.3%) agree or strongly disagree that public transport is located within walking distance. Only a small proportion of respondents (3.9%) rate between strongly
50
disagree to neutral. The difference between the ratings on convenience and safety of walkways and location of public transport stop is worth discussion. Convenience and safety of walkways is subjective. Depending on age, gender and health people may perceive the same environment differently. By contrast location and distance are objective in the sense that people easily work out the walking distance to bus and train stops without taking into account the safety aspects of walkways. Use of public transport depends not only on the walking distance to the public transport stop but also on the perceived safety of walking during different hours of the day. Moreover, frequency and connectivity of public transport to work and schools determine use of public transport. Cross tabulation of the above two ratings shown in table 4.1 reveal some interesting features.
Table 4.1 Cross tabulation of ratings on safety and convenience of pedestrian walkways and location of public transport stops within walking distance RATINGS - The nearest public transport stop is located within walking time (5-10 minutes)? Don't 1
2
3
4
5
know
Total
%
RATINGS -
1
3
1
1
4
17
0
26
6.4%
Pedestrian
2
0
0
0
15
31
3
49
12.1%
walkways in
3
0
0
3
20
38
1
62
15.3%
my suburb
4
1
3
1
41
71
2
119
29.5%
are
5
2
1
0
7
118
4
132
32.7%
convenient
Don't
and safe for
know
0
0
0
1
13
2
16
all Total
%
4.0% 6
5
5
88
288
1.5
1.2
1.2
21.8
71.3
%
%
%
%
%
12
404
100.0 %
100.0 3.0%
%
26 respondents (6.4%) strongly disagree (rating 1) ‘pedestrian walkways are convenient and safe’. 65% of the same 26 respondents strongly agree (rating 5) the ‘nearest public transport stop is located within walking distance’. Only a small percentage of respondents rate both of the aspects low. In general responses to safety of walkways and location of bus stops have high correlation. 58.6% of the total 404 respondents positively rate the two characteristics at 4 or 5. It also suggests that improving safety and convenience of walkways has potential to
51
improve the usage of public transport. Caution should be exercised in interpreting the result. Given that the share of public transport trips in several well designed suburbs in Adelaide does not exceed 10% of total trips the potential of improving safety and convenience of walkways is only a part of the broader issue on improving the use of public transport.
Connectivity to public transport The survey also asked respondents to rate the statement ‘footpaths and walkways in my suburb connect well to public transport’. Figure 4.3 shows the ratings. Two third of respondents either strongly disagree or disagree and the ratings of the remaining one third is evenly distributed from neutral to strongly agree.
Figure 4.3 Ratings on connectivity of footpaths and walkways to public transport
The rating is quite the opposite of the ratings on the previous two aspects namely, convenience and safety of the pedestrian walkways and location of public transport stops within walking distance. Poor connection to public transport has a strong tendency to encourage use of private cars and the general perception of public transport itself. Out of all six ratings, connection to public transport has the highest percentage of negative rating. This issue directly relates to neighbourhood design and it is hard-to-change connectivity in the short term without massive redesigning of street layouts and realignment of bus routes.
Safety of the public transport system Figure 4.4 depicts ratings on safety of the nearby public transport system. A majority of people (33.4%) strongly agree that public transport system nearby is safe and a slightly smaller percentage of people (30.2%) agree that it is safe.
52
Figure 4.4 Ratings on safety of nearby public transport system
Slightly under 10% respondents either strongly disagree or disagree that public transport is safe. 13.4% rate at 3 suggesting a neutral opinion and another 13.4% do not know indicating possibly they seldom use public transport and do not know much about the safety of the nearby public transport system.
Frequency of public transport and service Respondents were asked to rate two negative statements namely ‘public transport is infrequent’ and ‘my suburbs poorly served by public transport. Figure 4.5 below depict the two ratings.
Figure 4.5 Ratings on public transport frequency (left) and public transport service in the local area (right)
It should be noted that strong disagreement to negative statements (rating 1) represents positive feeling about frequency and service of public transport in the suburb. On the frequency issue the opinion is more or less even. 13.1% strongly agree that public transport system is infrequent and ratings on ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘agree’ did not exceed 18.8%. In other words, a mere 40% agree or strongly agree that frequency of public transport nearby is
53
frequent. A very high percentage of respondents (21.3%) do not know about frequency of nearby public transport implying that about one in five were unfamiliar with nearby public transport. In contrast about half of respondents strongly disagree or disagree that their suburb is poorly served by public transport and they feel that their suburb is better served by public transport. About one third (34.4%) are either neutral or agree or strongly agree that their suburb is poorly served by public transport. 16.1% do not know about the service of public transport in their suburb. In summary ratings on various aspects of public transport is divided. Opinion on location of public transport stops is unanimous with over 70% strongly feel public transport stops are located within walking distance. Rating on footpath and walkways connectivity to public transport is just the opposite; the majority do not rate them highly. The majority of respondents feel nearby public transport is safe but are not satisfied with the frequency and service of nearby public transport.
Travel to work Assess to transport and ownership of car are indicators of mobility. Car ownership level in Australia is among the highest in the world and households spend a sizable fraction of household income on transport. Household travel by private cars contributes to about 40% of household carbon emissions in Australia. Travel to work closely is related to location, car ownership, availability of convenient transport and socioeconomic characteristics of population. Figure 4.6 indicates that out of the 404 respondents 42% were not in paid employment. It is not clear whether 42% households did not have a working member in the household.
Figure 4.6 Percentage of respondents not in paid employment
As discussed above the unemployment rate in the study area is slightly higher than the metropolitan level unemployment rate. It is quite possible that the relatively high percentage of respondents not in paid employment merely indicates that other members of the household might be in paid employment. 57% of respondents travel to work and about 1% work from home. Figure 4.7 shows mode of travel to work.
54
Table 4.7 Mode of travel to work
As expected car is the dominant mode of travel to work and 78.8% of respondents drive to work and another 3.4% travel to work by car as co-passenger. Use of car for travel to work is comparable with nearby suburbs and also comparable with some of the high income suburbs in the Adelaide. Based on the statistics alone it is hard to measure the impact of low household income on use of car for travel to work. Slightly less than one in ten travel by public transport to work without combining car or other modes of travel. Journeys involving combinations of car and public transport represent 3%. Walking and cycling together account for 1.5% of work trips and 0.4% of work trips are made by motor cycle. The above pattern suggests that the propensity to use public transport for work is not entirely dependent on household income and socioeconomic characteristics of population.
Figure 4.8 Average journey time to work
55
Figure 4.8 depicts that one in four people spend about 45-60 minutes to travel to work and 28.1% spend more than one hour suggesting that a large percentage of workers living in the study area are employed in middle or outer suburbs. Only 10.8% of work trips involve maximum 30 minutes travel and about one in five travel 30-45 minutes. Figure 4.9 depicts average journey time to work by car. One in three car trips are short distance trips of not more than average 15 minutes travel and 41% of car trips involve 15-30 minutes.
Figure 4.9 Average journey time to work by car
The average travel time of 92% of trips is within 45 minutes. Average travel time by car suggests that public transport can attract more patronage provided frequency and reliability of public transport and safety of walkways is improved in the study area. The response to average travel time to work is also somewhat inconsistent. Given that 82.2% travel to work
56
by car and 68% travel more than 45 minutes or more to travel the average journey time by car seems to be understated.
Mode of travel for leisure and non-work trips Information on mode of travel for leisure and non-work purposes was collected in the household survey. Figure 4.10 shows mode of travel for leisure and non-work purposes which include recreation, shopping and other social purposes.
Figure 4.10 Mode of travel for leisure and non-work trips
Car is the dominant mode of travel for leisure and non-work purposes and it constitutes 63% of trips. In addition, about 4% of trips involve a combination of car and public transport. In other words, 67% of travel for leisure and non-work purposes involves use of the car. It general trips for leisure and non-work purposes do not happen on a daily basis. Public transport accounts for one tenth of leisure and non-work trips. Walking or cycling combined with public transport account for a negligible 1.7% of trips and cycle trips 1.5%.
Local employment Availability of local jobs is a strong indicator of sustainability as it implies reduced need to travel and promote walking, social interaction and sense of community. The study area is predominantly occupied by residential land uses and generally lacks in local employment. It should be noted that the presence of employment in the local area does not directly correlate to employment of local residents in the local area. Employment depends on appropriate education and skills of the local population. Figure 4.11 depicts opinions on the
57
presence of local employment opportunities and the availability of a variety of employment opportunities within the local area.
Figure 4.11 Ratings local employment opportunities in the local area (left) and, variety of employment opportunities within the local area (right).
The ratings on availability of local employment opportunities suitable for the local population and availability of variety of employment opportunities within the local area are roughly identical. Respondents strongly disagree on these two aspects. About 30% strongly disagree and 12.6% agree that there are local employment opportunities for them in the local area. Fewer than 10% strongly agree. About a quarter of respondents do not know. 20% strongly disagree that there is a variety of local employment opportunities within the local area and fewer than 10% disagree. About one third respondents do not have sufficient knowledge of the variety of employment opportunities within the local area.
58
5. Equity The Westwood redevelopment of former public housing estates in Adelaide’s western suburbs was meant to increase the equity that residents have in their neighbourhoods. Equity is bound up with social processes that include or exclude residents from active participation in the life of the community, such as whether they feel that they are consulted by governments and developers and whether they have the income, time and cultural resources to access public facilities and participate in the life of their communities. Participation is affected by the capacity to engage in community activity. Capacity to engage in activity is affected by income, class and cultural factors as well as the location of public facilities. The Westwood redevelopment significantly increased local housing densities, placing more people within walking distance of public facilities and services. However public facilities and services may be located nearby but if residents cannot afford to access them, or their access is limited by income, employment or care commitments then they are of less value (Wilson 2009, Wilson 2006). It is also quite difficult to take part in community activities or to access public facilities without social support. There are time and transport costs involved in accessing schools, libraries and community centres. Child care commitments can inhibit participation as can family obligations to elders (Wilson 2009, Wilson et al. 2006). In this sense socio-economic status, location, the presence of dependent others and access to social support can have a bearing on how residents access facilities and social services, what facilities and services are accessed and how local people cooperate with each other relative to facilities and services in the life of the community (Wilson et al. 2009, Wilson et al. 2006). Such matters have an impact on how much social equity residents have in their local community.
This section seeks to explore if social equity was increased by the Westwood redevelopment in terms of whether residents were consulted about the development, whether their concerns were addressed, whether their community is cohesive and has social capital, and whether the respondents are satisfied with life in their community relative to these matters and other social and economic variables. Social equity can be defined as “fair, just and equitable distribution of public services and implementation of public policy” and the commitment to promote “fairness, justice, and equity” (Fredrickson 2010, p. xiii). On this matter, McKenzie (2004, p. 120) defines social sustainability as “a life-enhancing condition within communities, and a process
59
within communities that can achieve that condition”. The condition incorporates equity of access to key services (including health, education, housing and recreation), as well as the relationship between governments, developers and communities. Where this relationship is tense, social equity might decline with implications for the sustainability of a community (Wilson and Davidson 2011).
Social equity is associated with a willingness on the part of government and developers to consult. A higher commitment contributes to providing residents with a sense of ownership of their community that contributes to social sustainability. Such processes tend to be ignored in the conventional neoliberal articulation of urban sustainability, which focus on macro economic variables and policy settings rather than the nuts and bolts of local urban culture and governance.
In this section we examine the availability of public facilities to Westwood residents in relation to whether they were consulted about their needs prior to the redevelopment, how well their concerns were addressed and how satisfied they are by life in their community. Our study is premised on the understanding that the presence of services and public facilities is not by itself an indication of social equity. Public facilities and services are more likely to meet the needs of residents if they are consulted about their needs and have their concerns addressed by governments and developers. Table 5.1 Access to local public facilities Local Public Facilities Within Walking Distance
N
%
Local shops
311
77
Supermarket
240
59
Clinic/ medical centre
205
51
School
233
58
Library
196
49
Community centre/library
234
58
Sport facilities
251
62
Social services centre
161
40
Post office
279
69
Open public space
342
85
Childcare
213
53
Age care facilities
172
43
Other
2
1
Not stated
10
3
60
Public facilities in Westwood seem relatively accessible to local residents. More than 75 percent of residents are within walking distance of local shops, 85 percent to open space and 69 percent are in walking distance of a post office. Sport facilities (62 percent), schools (58 percent), community centres (58 percent) and libraries (58 percent) are also within walking distance for many residents.
As discussed however, the presence of public facilities and associated services is just part of the picture. Social ownership of these facilities, and hence their use, is likely to be affected by whether residents were consulted about the facilities they need and want. Whether the available public facilities are those that residents were concerned about at the time of the redevelopment is also a significant indicator of social equity. It was notable that close to 90 percent of the respondents were living in the area when the Westwood redevelopment took place. By examining whether residents felt that they were consulted about the development and whether their needs were subsequently met will give an indication of a local sense of equity in the project. Table 5.2 Consulted by the local council Valid Response
Frequency
Percent
Percent
Yes
101
25
25
No
248
61.4
61.4
Don t know
13
3.2
3.2
before the redevelopment
42
10.4
10.4
Total
404
100
100
Not applicable - not living in this area
Residents were asked “Thinking back to when this area was being redeveloped, or in the time that you have lived in your suburb, have you ever been consulted by the local council about the redevelopment process that has occurred in your neighbourhood?” Approximately two thirds of our respondents said that they had not been consulted by the local council about the redevelopment process.
61
Table 5.3 Consulted by the developers Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Yes
85
21
21
No
265
65.6
65.6
Don t know
12
3
3
Not applicable
42
10.4
10.4
Total
404
100
100
Likewise more than two thirds of local residents did not feel that they had been consulted by the developers of Westwood before the redevelopment took place. The responses of residents who said they had been consulted, either by the council or developers, were grouped together for the purpose of this report. Their responses were crossed with those who said that the concerns of the local people about the redevelopment were welladdressed. Table 5.4 The concerns of the local people were well-addressed by consulted Consulted No
Yes
Total
241
88
329
87.30%
68.80%
81.40%
35
40
75
12.70%
31.20%
18.60%
276
128
404
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Concerns well addressed
No
Yes
Total
Residents who were consulted about the redevelopment of Westwood were more than twice as likely to say that their concerns were well addressed by the redevelopment of their neighbourhood. In all, about one third of the people who said they were consulted about the redevelopment said that their concerns were well addressed. Conversely close to 90 percent of those who were not consulted said that their concerns were not addressed by the Westwood redevelopment. These results suggest the value of prior consultation by government and developers about redevelopment in addressing community concerns and building social equity. Community support for a redevelopment seems linked to whether residents are consulted about their concerns prior to the development taking place.
62
The extent to which the redevelopment built social equity might also be examined with reference to the residents who said they felt included and satisfied with life in their community. Our survey of urban sustainability asked six questions of residents about whether their suburb was a good place to live and work, whether it was inclusive, newcomers were welcomed, local people could be trusted and whether they felt safe and satisfied with their life in their community. Positive answers to one or more of these questions were placed in an index of satisfaction with life in this community with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction with life in their local community. Scores on the index were correlated with those who said that their concerns about the redevelopment were addressed on a scale of 1 to 5, using Spearman’s rho for correlations of ordinal data. The Spearman’s rho revealed a statistically significant relationship between the residents who said that their concerns had been well addressed by the redevelopment and the index of satisfaction with life in this community where r (404) = .478, p < .001). The effect size of this relationship was large (Cohen 1988). Squaring the correlation coefficients (r2 = 0.228) indicated that 22.8 percent of the variance in the index of satisfaction with life in this community could be explained by the percent of residents who said their concerns were addressed by the redevelopment. This suggests a correlation between satisfaction with life in a community that has undergone redevelopment and addressing the concerns of residents by government and developers.
Satisfaction with life in a neighbourhood that has been redeveloped might also reasonably be expected to be affected by other variables such as age, gender, employment, household income, the presence of children in the household and disability. These variables are likely to affect perceptions of social equity and the capacity to access services and public facilities. A linear regression analysis was used to illustrate the strength of the correlation between satisfaction with life in their community and a set of factors that might affect satisfaction. Age, gender, employment, household income, presence of children in the household and disability were placed in a regression model with the variables of whether respondents had been consulted about the Westwood redevelopment, whether their concerns were well addressed by the redevelopment, and an index of social capital.
63
The index of social capital was the sum of answers to four questions on social capital, which asked respondents to indicate the extent to which they helped their neighbours with household tasks, received help from neighbours, received support from parents, children or relatives and gave support to parents, children or relatives. The answers to these questions are also indicators of social cohesion and it is reasonable to expect that respondents who were satisfied with life in their community might also score high on the index of social capital since the latter indicates the extent to which respondents gave and received help from neighbours and family. Higher levels of giving and receiving help are generally associated with cohesive communities and higher satisfaction with community life (Putnam 2000). Table 5.5 Regression model of satisfaction with life in the community
Model Summary Mo
R
del
R
Adjusted
Std. Error
Squar
R Square
of the
e 1
.597a
Estimate
.356
.316
1.69536
Predictors: (Constant), Age, Gender, Employed, Disability, Income, Consulted, Concerns Well Addressed, Social Capital.
ANOVAa Model
Sum of
df
Mean
Squares 1
Regressi
F
Sig.
Square
226.063
9
25.118
Residual
408.141
142
2.874
Total
634.204
151
8.739
.000a
on
a. Dependent Variable: Satisfied with life in the community b. Predictors: (Constant), Age, Gender, Employed, Disability, Income, Consulted, Concerns Well Addressed, Social Capital. Coefficientsa
64
Model
Unstandardized
Standardi
Coefficients
zed
t
Sig.
Coefficien ts B
Std.
Beta
Error 1
(Constant)
39.199
21.161
1.852
.066
Age
-.020
.011
-.166
-1.801
.074
Gender
-.420
.288
-.103
-1.457
.147
Employed
-.009
.412
-.002
-.022
.982
Disability
-.788
.458
-.128
-1.721
.087
Income
-.161
.140
-.106
-1.147
.253
.262
.346
.064
.758
.450
-.171
.290
-.042
-.591
.556
Social Capital
.136
.034
.281
4.032
.000
Concerns Well
.607
.106
.414
5.750
.000
Presence of Children Consulted
Addressed a. Dependent Variable: Satisfied with life in the community
The model suggests a strong, positive correlation with the dependent variable (R = .597). The combination of the predictor variables in this model explained approximately 36 percent of the variance in the index of satisfaction with life in this community (R2 = .356, F (9, 142) = 8.739, p
