Urban Design and Social Inclusion

Janet StanleyMonash Sustainability InstituteMonash University

Factors that measure SE:

1. Low income

2. Unemployed

3. Poor civic engagement

4. Poor social support

5. Low participation

No. of factors on which a person is excluded

Melb-ourne

Regional Victoria

Socially includedOne factor Two factorsThree or more factors

45%36%13%6%

36%37%18%10%

What is social inclusion and how common is it in Melbourne?

A multi-faceted construct that refers to risk of exclusion from mainstream society

How does a person achieve good outcomes in these factors?

Issues that impact on social inclusion and wellbeing

Social Infrastructure

education

transport

housing

health

employment opportunities

recreation/ environment

Social Inclusion

income

employment

support

participation

political engagement

Personal Characteristics

cultural and language

age

health/

disability

affect

personality

social capital

living location

Broad trends

Climate change

biodiversity loss

social trends e.g. aging

national economy

prejudce

International events

How do we know which ones should have priority?

Social inclusion and wellbeing is achieved in Victoria through a person having the following attributes:

Stanley, J.K., Stanley, J.R., & Hensher, D. (2012) Mobility, social capital and sense of community: What value? Urban Studies Volume 49 Issue 16 pp. 3595 - 3609.

Urban planning can help

yes

yes

yes

So establishing social inclusion & wellbeing is fairly simple!

It is: Having sufficient income Having accessibility (transport) Having personal relationships and connections Feeling good about yourself Having control over your environment

Where there is insufficient of these items present:

Wellbeing measures Average for those totally included (Victoria)

Average for those with 3-5 social exclusion factors present (Victoria)

Personal Wellbeing Scale(Range 1-10) 7.7 5.5

Satisfaction with Life Scale(Range 1-7) 5.4 3.8

Positive Affect(Range 1-5) 3.7 3.3

Negative Affect (Depression)(Range 1-5)

1.7 4.8

In Australian cities, the levels, mix and distribution of social infrastructure is not evenly planned in urban design.

We are therefore building social exclusion into our cities

Household incomes decrease with distance from the CBD

Median income 2011: residents aged 25-65 (Source: Grattan Institute)

So does:• No. of jobs• Productivity• Education

qualification level• Transport access• Public transport

provision• Housing prices

8

% of jobs available within 60 minutes using PT

(Source: SGS Economics and Planning)

Housing (un)affordability

Median income

P = 30.7%

P+ = 58.5%

J = 18.8%

P = 60.9%

P+ = 28.3%

J = 50.4%

P = 8.4%

P+ = 13.2%

J = 30.7%Legend:P = 2011 population P+ = population growth share 2011-2031 (VIF)J = 2011 job share

PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH AREAS ARE AWAY FROM JOBS-RICH AREAS UNDER ‘BUSINESS AS USUAL’

Outer/fringe areas = substantial jobs shortage

Solutions: Land use planning, social infrastructure before housing, innovation in housing supply

Higher density in middle and inner suburbs

Job creation (service industry, health, education, green manufacturing, trades) in outer suburbs

PT in outer suburbs Heavily supplement market driven

housing – social housing, low interest loans, mixed housing, cross subsided

Social infrastructure concurrent with housing – bus before completion

Urban design can impact on:

Having sufficient incomeHaving accessibility (transport)

• Having personal relationships and connections• Feeling good about yourself

• Having control over your environment

Evidence: All social capital is lower for those who are socially excluded but bridging social capital is particularly lower

Bridging SC – networks beyond family, neighbours and close friends

Low SC Medium SC High SC0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Fully included High SE

Extent of bridging social capital

No.

Sense of Community

strongly disagree

disagree slightly disagree

Neither agree or disagree

slightly agree

agree strongly agree

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Melb fully SI

Rural fully SI

3+ SE

I think my community is a good place to live

%

Developing social capital and connections with the community

Third places Bike paths Walking tracks Parks Cafes Meeting places Asset mix

• Child care/aged residential

• School/theatre/• playground/café

Planting roads Public transport Community gardens Community theatres Local stores

Good design, sense of place, innovation, creativity, green environment Urban forests Strip shopping design, not placed

in a car park Buildings it is a pleasure to be in Absence of industrial and car noise

& pollution Area not split by large road Trucks out of centre of community

& away from schools Re-vitalise urban streams and

surrounds Green cover and tree planting Local food production Home/work/school close-by Local distinctiveness

Even buses generate social capital!

“We’ve got a regular crowd of our own (on the bus), we just talk all the time and I think that we might plan a do at the end of the year, around Christmas, we might just go out somewhere and have, about half a dozen of us, and have a few drinks and a meal…”

“It’s always a great old conversation when you see someone on the bus, you know I talk a lot to the drivers too … they’re quite friendly”

Urban design can impact on:

Having sufficient incomeHaving accessibility (transport)Having personal relationships and connectionsFeeling good about yourself

• Having control over your environment

Having control over your environment

This is in a number of ways: Really being part of

the decision-making process

Having choice in life Able to respond to

climate changeeg. Distributed

renewable energy and water systems

Atkinson's Ladder of participation 1962

Choice is very important to social inclusion and wellbeing Locus of Control questionnaire Measures belief about controlling events

High external sense of control – powerful others, fate or chance determine events

High internal sense of control – events occur from their own actions and behaviour

Social exclusion = high external control (1%)

High Bridging SC = high internal control (5%)

Socially excluded households lack the capacity to have choice & limited ability

to respond to climate change They have little discretionary

spending They lack the financial

resources needed to invest in energy efficiency or upgrade energy-using appliances at home

They lack access to information on behavioural changes that can help them reduce their use of energy

Low price elasticity of necessities, such as fuel, electricity and food

Average annual use of CO2 (tonnes) by poor households in Melbourne LGAs 2006

Cause?Lack of PT (car use)Need to travel to work and services

Change in deviation about the mean 1992 to 2012 for headline gross regional product per hours worked (Source: NIEIR)

The centre is gaining ground in productivity relative to the fringe (Melbourne example)

Negative productivity trend y is

reducing more rapidly

1. Good urban design not only helps individual wellbeing, it helps societal wellbeing

Example of impact of social infrastructure on local economiesTotal loss for each LGA by year 15 as a result of reduction of TAFE funding for

Chisholm Institute ($30 million p.a.) - NIEIR 2013

-300.0

-250.0

-200.0

-150.0

-100.0

-50.0

0.0

-89.3

-232.4

-250.5

-32.6-40.2

-217.0

-78.9$

millions

Loss due to a reduc-tion of funding flow to areas & a reduc-tion in labour pro-ductivity reflected in a reduction in wages

Overarching solution: Neighbourhood planning and 20 minute city

Well-resourced and well-functioning neighbourhoods which offer essential needs

Essential needs are accessible within 20 minutes by PT or active transport

% of jobs available within 60 mins by PTBig projects tend to be transport projects (such as road tunnels) and

tend to focus on the inner city and distort investment priorities, excluding other investments which would improve urban design

Urban design for a 20 minute city and a neighbourhood model.

- A transport illustration

Community Transport can be socially excluding:

In – people with a disability, aged; Out – children/youth, new

migrants, low income people

Exclusive/restrictive eligibility and inflexibility

• Availability (time)• Type of use – eg priority

given to medical appointments

Underuse of capital assets (vehicles)

Placed based transport social enterprise

2 paid staff + volunteers Coordinates all local transport –

PT, community transport, local government & private vehicles

Targets transport poor Small charge Trip sharing Door to door service Extra support as needed All trip purposes – recreation

encouraged

www.conectu.org.au

Current resource allocation of Community Transport according to activity: A tacit hierarchy of ‘worth’

Medical

Structured

Activity

Shopping/Personal business

Social/recreational

Education/employment

Just getting out

Aged care, 2 vehicles, each used up to 8 hours a week

Aged care, mini-bus used 9 to 16 hours a week

Disability welfare, mini-bus used 17 to 30 hours a week

Health services, 3 buses each 17 to 30 hours a week

Under-utilisation of capital resources

Can this be done?Conditions to achieve this:

An integrated vision – across sectors Doing a range of changes at the same

time –housing/transport/urban design A willingness to take risks and accept

change – different from traditional ways of doing things – old style coal generating stations

Resource the change – community, offset future costs in the present.

Plan Melbourne didn’t do it – maybe it can be led by local government, the community and business

Future Melbourne network

http://www.futuremelbournenetwork.org Seminar 2 (28 April): Making Ends Meet: Jobs And Housing