2 What is social inclusion and how common is it in Melbourne?A multi-faceted construct that refers to risk of exclusion from mainstream society No. of factors on which a person is excluded Melb-ourne Regional Victoria Socially included One factor Two factors Three or more factors 45% 36% 13% 6% 37% 18% 10% Factors that measure SE: Low income Unemployed Poor civic engagement Poor social support Low participation SE is a multi-faceted problem – therefore solutions need to be inter-connected – no one solution will do the trick Consumption (income = household <$500 pw) Production (employment or unemployed and not retired, volunteer etc) Political engagement (= involvement in selected “political” activities over last 12 months (broadly interpreted) Participation (engagement in selected social/recreational activities over last month) Social support (extent of help from family, extended family, close friends and neighbours when needed) How does a person achieve good outcomes in these factors?
3 Issues that impact on social inclusion and wellbeingSocial 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 A lot of items here – what can be improved by urban planning? How do we know which ones should have priority?
4 Social inclusion and wellbeing is achieved in Victoria through a person having the following attributes: yes yes yes Urban planning can help Stanley, J.K., Stanley, J.R., & Hensher, D. (2012) Mobility, social capital and sense of community: What value? Urban Studies Volume 49 Issue 16 pp
5 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
6 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) 1.7 4.8
7 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
8 Household incomes decrease with distance from the CBDMedian 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
9 % of jobs available within 60 minutes using PT(Source: SGS Economics and Planning)
10 Housing (un)affordabilityMedian income Bob – people are moving to peri-urban areas.
11 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% PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH AREAS ARE AWAY FROM JOBS-RICH AREAS UNDER ‘BUSINESS AS USUAL’ Legend: P = 2011 population P+ = population growth share (VIF) J = 2011 job share Outer/fringe areas = substantial jobs shortage If the work trip is the one with the most divergence from a 20 minute target, where should we focus our efforts in trying to move towards 20 minutes. If you look at the balance of population and jobs, what you see is THREE MELBOURNES, not the two that The Age talk about. The third Melbourne is the seldom discussed Middle Suburbs. This is where 60% of people live and 50 % of the jobs are found. The outer suburbs have 30% of population, almost 60% of projected population growth but under 20% of jobs. If we want to work towards a 20 MC, we must look at the middle suburbs carrying a higher share of population growth, so people can live closer to where they work. We need to encourage job growth in outer suburbs but a faster rate of population growth in the middle suburbs is central to moving towards a 20 minute city.
12 Solutions: Land use planning, social infrastructure before housing, innovation in housing supplyHigher 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 Figure for social housing At present we do it the wrong way around
13 Urban design can impact on:Having sufficient income Having accessibility (transport) Having personal relationships and connections Feeling good about yourself Having control over your environment Feeling good about yourself (self-esteem) is in large part a factor of having good connections with other people
14 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 Remember SC was directly related to SI Bonding SC – getting by Bridging SC – getting on Extending SC, particularly bridging SC is important for SI. All social capital (bonding and bridging) is lower for those who are socially excluded when compared with those people who are not experiencing any aspects or dimensions of SE. However, those who are very SEed have much lower levels of bridging social capital than bonding social capital (- over 60% are low on bridging SC, while about 12% are low on bonding SC. It would seem that the participating that is happening for SEed people is around bonding networks rather than bridging networks.
15 Sense of Community
16 Developing social capital and connections with the communityThird 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
17 Good design, sense of place, innovation, creativity, green environmentUrban 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 Heat island effect
18 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”
19 Urban design can impact on:Having sufficient income Having accessibility (transport) Having personal relationships and connections Feeling good about yourself Having control over your environment
20 Having control over your environmentAtkinson's Ladder of participation 1962 This is in a number of ways: Really being part of the decision-making process Having choice in life Able to respond to climate change eg. Distributed renewable energy and water systems Need processes in place – top-down/bottom up
21 Choice is very important to social inclusion and wellbeingLocus 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%) Locus of Control scale (Rotter 1966), a 29 item questionnaire which examines the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events that affect them. A high internal sense of control suggests that the person believes events result primarily from their own behaviour and actions. Those with a high external sense of control believe that powerful others, fate, or chance primarily determine events. Those with a high belief in external Locus of Control were more likely to be at risk of social exclusion (significant at 1%). There was also a strong association (significant at 1%) between high internal Locus of Control and well-being as measured by Satisfaction with Life. A weaker association (significant at 5%) was found between internal Locus of Control and Bridging Networks.
22 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
23 Average annual use of CO2 (tonnes) by poor households in Melbourne LGAs 2006Inc of PT in these areas The average carbon use for poor people ranges from 25.9 to 34.9 tonnes annually between LGAs. The highest carbon use tends to be in the outer metropolitan areas of Melbourne, particularly Melton, Brimbank, Yarra Ranges and Cardinia. Poor residents of Whittlesea have CO2 use 10 % higher than the state average. Carbon use is lower in LGAs closer to the City of Melbourne. A possible explanation for this is the variability of accessibility to public transport. The poor residents of LGAs with high carbon use, with the exception of Brimbank, have a relatively low expenditure on public transport, but a correspondingly greater expenditure on private vehicles. It is also worth noting that within these areas there are fewer high order service centres such as hospitals, medical specialists, government offices and technical specialists, necessitating travel to obtain these services. The six LGAs with average carbon expenditures for poor households 10% or more below the state average are Boroondara, Stonnington, Yarra, Bayside, Port Phillip and Melbourne. All are inner middle suburbs with good access to high-quality public transport. In these areas, expenditure on petroleum products, motor vehicles and mechanical repairs tends to be well below the average for this household type, suggesting that they are using public transport. This underscores the importance of public transport in reducing the household use of carbon. While households in Boroondara and Bayside have below average expenditure on road transport, Darebin and Maribyrnong residents have a relatively high expenditure on road transport but relatively low totals for consumption of carbon. Given that Darebin and Maribyrnong are fairly well served by public transport, the reasons for this need further investigation. It may be that there are public transport gaps for some essential trips, necessitating car ownership, but as is the general pattern with car ownership in poorer families, fewer car trips are made than in wealthier car-owning households, thus reflecting the lower carbon usage. Cause? Lack of PT (car use) Need to travel to work and services 23
24 1. Good urban design not only helps individual wellbeing, it helps societal wellbeingChange in deviation about the mean 1992 to 2012 for headline gross regional product per hours worked (Source: NIEIR) Economic productivity is reducing in areas where social exclusion is highest The centre is gaining ground in productivity relative to the fringe (Melbourne example) Negative productivity trend y is reducing more rapidly
25 Example of impact of social infrastructure on local economies Total loss for each LGA by year 15 as a result of reduction of TAFE funding for Chisholm Institute ($30 million p.a.) - NIEIR 2013 Assumption: The all people get jobs.
26 Overarching solution: Neighbourhood planning and 20 minute cityWell-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 PT Big 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
27 Urban design for a 20 minute city and a neighbourhood modelUrban design for a 20 minute city and a neighbourhood model. - A transport illustration 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 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) One new route; three improved routes, with extended hours weekdays/Saturdays; no Sunday services Resulted in increased mobility/accessibility, participation, self-reliance, choices, independence Increased mobility was linked with feeling good about the community in which people lived Travel purposes on improved services were Work – 16%; health services – 8%; education - 8% Sport, community activity - 20% Just under 50% - leisure and socialising (networking) Over half said they would use Sunday bus service if available New services need to reach a threshold of service frequency, & good links at transport nodes
28 Shopping/Personal businessCurrent resource allocation of Community Transport according to activity: A tacit hierarchy of ‘worth’ Under-utilisation of capital resources 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
29
30 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 Seminar 2 (28 April): Making Ends Meet: Jobs And Housing