Healthy, liveable communities:
What are the key indicators?
Thriving Neighbourhoods Conference, Melbourne, 12-14
November 2012
Carolyn Whitzman, Associate Professor of Urban Planning2
Billie Giles-Corti, Professor and Director1
Melanie Lowe, PhD candidate and Research Assistant1&2
Hannah Badland, Postdoctoral Fellow1
Melanie Davern, Research Fellow1
Dominique Hes, Senior Lecturer in Architecture2
Lu Aye, Associate Professor in Infrastructure Engineering3
Iain Butterworth, Manager of Public Health and Western Area 4
1McCaughey
VicHealth Centre for Community Wellbeing, Melbourne School of
Population Health
2Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning
3School of Engineering
4Victorian Department of Health, North West Metropolitan Region
Presentation Outline
• Background and aims
• Literature review methods
• What is liveability? What are the key determinants of
liveability?
• What is an indicator?
• What kinds of liveability indicators are most promising and
useful to our program’s work?
• Feedback from you
(Image: The Age)
Background
• ‘Liveability’ has surfaced as a powerful discourse in urban policy and
the planning literature in Australia and internationally.
• Australian cities tend to fare well in populist measures of liveability,
but there are growing concerns about issues likely to undermine
liveability.
• A diverse range of indicators have been used to measure liveability.
• However, little attention has been paid to the validity of liveability
measures or their usefulness for research, policy and practice.
Project Aims
•
Examine definitions of ‘liveability’ as it is
used in both academic and policy literature.
•
Explore the relationship and overlap between
liveability, sustainability and the social
determinants of health.
•
Identify indicators being used internationally
to measure liveability.
•
Evaluate indicators in terms of their strengths
and weaknesses and their usefulness for the
larger Place, Health and Liveability research
program.
•
Eventually contribute to the development of a
comprehensive, validated and policy-relevant
liveability index.
(Photo sources: Sydney Morning Herald, The Age)
Place, Health and Liveability:
A large research program developed since July 2011
Project 1:
Walkability
AURIN
funding
Project 3:
Link to DH
data
Interdisciplinary
seed grant
Project 2:
Liveability
Community Indicators Victoria,
McCaughey Centre – GIS support.
Two StrAPA scholarships, one APA
and one MIRS scholarship.
Project 4:
Evaluation of
impact of
planning
policies on
health
ARC
Application?
Project 5: NW Region Data Integration Project
AURIN
funding
Inter-disciplinary Research Team
• Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning
• Associate Professor Carolyn Whitzman (Planning)
• Dr Dominique Hes (Architecture)
• Melbourne School of Population Health
•
•
•
•
Professor Billie Giles-Corti (Social and behavioral epidemiology)
Dr Hannah Badland (Social epidemiology, public health)
Dr Melanie Davern (Psychology)
Melanie Lowe (Public health)
• Melbourne School of Engineering
• Dr Lu Aye (Engineering)
• Victorian Department of Health – NWMR
• Iain Butterworth (Manager of Public Health)
Methods
• Electronic databases searched to identify
academic literature plus relevant reports and
websites
• Some ‘snowballing’ (research team and other
experts recommending sources)
• Over 100 indicators identified – two half-day
workshops to sort indicators into key
‘domains’ and select those most promising
Methods: Evaluation Criteria
1. Is the indicator significant to liveability and/or the
social determinants of health in urban areas?
2. Is the indicator specific and quantifiable?
3. Can the indicator be measured at the appropriate
level(s) and scale(s), so that different local areas
can be compared (ie., intracity, not intercity)
4. Is the indicator relevant to Australian public policy?
What is liveability?
• No agreed definition:
– Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission State Enquiry (2008, p.
xxi): “Liveability reflects the wellbeing of a community and comprises the
many characteristics that make a location a place where people want to
live now and in the future”.
– A function of the relationship between the local environment and the social
life it sustains.
• Our conceptualisation, based on the literature:
– A liveable place is one that is safe, attractive, affordable and sustainable,
where people can live in a socially inclusive community with appropriate
housing, and within walking, cycling or rapid and reliable public
transport distance to employment and education, social and health
services, healthy food, and good quality public open space.
• Very similar to the social determinants of health - “circumstances in
which people are born, grow up, live, work and age” (WHO 2012)
Liveability and the Social Determinants
of Health
Source: Barton and Tsourou (2001), drawing on Dahlgren and Whitehead (1993)
What is an indicator?
• “An indicator is a measure, or set of measures, that
describes a complex social, economic or physical reality,
and a measure is one data point that acts as a gauge to
tell us how well or poorly we are doing with respect to an
indicator” (Balsas, 2004, p. 104).
• Can be objective (eg., GIS data or crime rates) or
subjective (eg., fear of crime).
• Can be measured at the individual or community/built
environment level.
• Can measure an input (eg., pedestrian infrastructure) or
an intermediary outcome (eg., walking rates).
Determinants and intermediary
outcomes of liveability
11 Policy Areas
• Community
Development
• Crime and Safety
• Education
• Employment and
Income
• Entertainment,
Leisure and
Recreation
• Food and Shops
• Healthcare and Social
Services
• Housing
• Natural Environment
• Public Open Space
• Transport
Crime and safety indicators
• Objective:
– Crime rates (total crime rates, or separated into
violent and property crime rates)
• Subjective:
– Perceptions of public or personal safety (during
the day and night)
• Less relevant indicators for Australia include:
– Threat of military conflict
– Lighting standards
Education indicators
• Objective:
–
–
–
–
People aged 20-24 years with year 12 or higher qualification
% aged 15-19 years old not engaged in work or study
Test scores for reading and maths
Proximity to secondary schools and higher education
• Subjective:
– Are there opportunities in your community where older adults
can continue learning?
– Are school available within walking distance?
• Less relevant:
– Availability of private education
Employment and income
indicators
• Objective:
– Employment/unemployment rates
– Number of retail businesses
– Income levels (lots of indicators to choose from)
• Subjective:
– E.g., Variety of employment opportunities (needs
further development)
• Less relevant:
– Job growth percentage change
– Average cost per job created
Entertainment, leisure and
recreation indicators
• Most indicators need further development
• Majority of measures are concerned with the amount
of entertainment and recreational opportunities and
venues
• Can we measure actual participation in particular
activities (instead of ‘are there enough opportunities’
or ‘# of venues or activities’)?
• Gambling indicators?
Food Indicators
• Objective:
– Density of fast food restaurants
(especially useful if compared to the
density of fresh food outlets)
– Shopping basket costs
– Urban agriculture measures (need further
development)
• Subjective:
– Have there been any times in the last 12
months when you have run out of food?
• Alcohol outlets?
Healthcare and social services
indicators
• Again, not great indicators
• Objective:
– Number of GPs/population (Number of bulk billing GPs is
also relevant)
– Elderly day care places/population over 65
– Number of hospital beds
• Subjective indicators (these mostly need further
development):
– Access to public toilets
– Access to childcare and youth services
– Quality of telecommunications
Housing indicators
• Objective:
– Median house price
– Households with housing costs
30% or more of gross income
– Population density (people per
hectare)
– Land use mix measured by GIS
– Homelessness rates?
• Subjective measures:
– Generally need further
development
Natural environment indicators
• Objective:
– Air quality (eg., concentration of CO2)
– Water quality and quantity
– Climate
– Biodiversity
• Weeds, pests and soil quality?
Public open space indicators
• Objective:
– Amount of green and open space (total acreage
measured by GIS)
– Distance to open space, or walking access to open
space
• Subjective:
–
–
–
–
Perception of access to public open space
Perception of quality of public open space
Are there parks that cater to youth?
Are there are safe play spaces for children?
Social cohesion and inclusion
indicators
• Almost exclusively subjective indicators
• Most need further development
• Subjective:
– I feel like I belong in my community
– Does your local government provide adequate
opportunities for input into planning?
– Do you know your neighbours?
Transport indicators
• Objective:
– Journey to work - mode share
– Percentage of the population that
regularly cycles or walks
– Density of street connectivity
– Travel time to work
– Traffic accident rates
• Subjective:
– Perception of public transport
accessibility and affordability
– Perception of pavement quality
Over to you
• Any questions?
• What kinds of indicators are most useful
to your work?
• How would you like to use indicators to
better model outcomes?
For more information:
A/Prof. Carolyn Whitzman
whitzman@unimelb.edu.au
Melanie Lowe
mdlowe@unimelb.edu.au