community liveability: Impact on ageing in higher density ... · Impact on social connectedness and...

1

The neglected dimension of community liveability: Impact on social connectedness and active ageing in higher density accommodation

Desley Vine

PhD Thesis

3

The neglected dimension of community liveability:

Impact on social connectedness and active ageing in

higher density accommodation

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree

of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Desley Vine

MA(IntStudies) Griffith, BBus(HlthAdmin) QUT, GradCert(RiskMgt)

QUT, GradCert(PubPrivPart) Melb.

Principal Supervisor

Professor Laurie Buys

School of Urban Design

Queensland University of Technology

Brisbane Australia

May 2012

4

Keywords

Liveability, Older People, Ageing in Place, Active Ageing, Age-Friendly, Urban Community,

Urban Neighbourhoods, Walkability, Amenities, High Density, Quantitative Methods,

Qualitative Methods, Global Positioning Systems (GPS), Geographical Information

Systems (GIS), Transport.

5

Abstract

Purpose

This thesis is about liveability, place and ageing in the high density urban landscape of

Brisbane, Australia. As with other major developed cities around the globe, Brisbane has

adopted policies to increase urban residential densities to meet the main liveability and

sustainability aim of decreasing car dependence and therefore pollution, as well as to

minimise the loss of greenfield areas and habitats to developers. This objective hinges

on urban neighbourhoods/communities being liveable places, which residents do not

have to leave for everyday living.

Community/neighbourhood liveability is an essential ingredient in healthy ageing in place

and has a substantial impact upon the safety, independence and well-being of older

adults. It is generally accepted that ageing in place is optimal for both older people and

the state. The optimality of ageing in place generally assumes that there is a particular

quality to environments or standard of liveability in which people successfully age in

place. The aim of this thesis was to examine if there are particular environmental

qualities or aspects of liveability that test optimality and to better understand the key

liveability factors that contribute to successful ageing in place.

Method

A strength of this thesis is that it draws on two separate studies to address the research

question of what makes high density liveable for older people. In Chapter 3, the two

methods are identified and differentiated as Method 1 (used in Paper 1) and Method 2

(used in Papers 2, 3, 4 and 5). Method 1 involved qualitative interviews with 24 inner city

high density Brisbane residents. The major strength of this thesis is the innovative

methodology outlined in the thesis as Method 2. Method 2 involved a case study

approach employing qualitative and quantitative methods. Qualitative data was

collected using semi-structured, in-depth interviews and time-use diaries completed by

participants during the week of tracking. The quantitative data was gathered using

Global Positioning Systems for tracking and Geographical Information Systems for

mapping and analysis of participants’ activities. The combination of quantitative and

qualitative analysis captured both participants’ subjective perceptions of their

neighbourhoods and their patterns of movement. This enhanced understanding of how

neighbourhoods and communities function and of the various liveability dimensions that

6

contribute to active ageing and ageing in place for older people living in high density

environments. Both studies’ participants were inner-city high density residents of

Brisbane. The study based on Method 1 drew on a wider age demographic than the

study based on Method 2.

Findings

The five papers presented in this thesis by publication indicate a complex inter-

relationship of the factors that make a place liveable. The first three papers identify what

is comparable and different between the physical and social factors of high density

communities/neighbourhoods. The last two papers explore relationships between social

engagement and broader community variables such as infrastructure and the physical

built environments that are risk or protective factors relevant to community liveability,

active ageing and ageing in place in high density. The research highlights the importance

of creating and/or maintaining a barrier-free environment and liveable community for

ageing adults. Together, the papers promote liveability, social engagement and active

ageing in high density neighbourhoods by identifying factors that constitute liveability

and strategies that foster active ageing and ageing in place, social connections and well-

being.

Recommendations

There is a strong need to offer more support for active ageing and ageing in place. While

the data analyses of this research provide insight into the lived experience of high density

residents, further research is warranted. Further qualitative and quantitative research is

needed to explore in more depth, the urban experience and opinions of older people

living in urban environments. In particular, more empirical research and theory-building

is needed in order to expand understanding of the particular environmental qualities that

enable successful ageing in place in our cities and to guide efforts aimed at meeting this

objective.

The results suggest that encouraging the presence of more inner city retail outlets,

particularly services that are utilised frequently in people’s daily lives such as

supermarkets, medical services and pharmacies, would potentially help ensure residents

fully engage in their local community.

7

The connectivity of streets, footpaths and their role in facilitating the reaching of

destinations are well understood as an important dimension of liveability. To encourage

uptake of sustainable transport, the built environment must provide easy, accessible

connections between buildings, walkways, cycle paths and public transport nodes. Wider

streets, given that they take more time to cross than narrow streets, tend to

.compromise safety - especially for older people. Similarly, the width of footpaths, the

level of buffering, the presence of trees, lighting, seating and design of and distance

between pedestrian crossings significantly affects the pedestrian experience for older

people and impacts upon their choice of transportation. High density neighbourhoods

also require greater levels of street fixtures and furniture for everyday life to make places

more useable and comfortable for regular use. The importance of making the public

realm useful and habitable for older people cannot be over-emphasised.

Originality/value

While older people are attracted to high density settings, there has been little empirical

evidence linking liveability satisfaction with older people’s use of urban neighbourhoods.

The current study examined the relationships between community/neighbourhood

liveability, place and ageing to better understand the implications for those adults who

age in place. The five papers presented in this thesis add to the understanding of what

high density liveable age-friendly communities/ neighbourhoods are and what makes

them so for older Australians.

Neighbourhood liveability for older people is about being able to age in place and remain

active. Issues of ageing in Australia and other areas of the developed world will become

more critical in the coming decades. Creating livable communities for all ages calls for

partnerships across all levels of government agencies and among different sectors within

communities. The increasing percentage of older people in the community will have

increasing political influence and it will be a foolish government who ignores the needs of

an older society.

8

Publications Vine, Desley and Buys, Laurie (2010) The lived world of older urban Australians: Relating

everyday living to GPS tracking data. In OZCHI '10 Proceedings of the 22nd

Conference of the Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group of

Australia on Computer-Human Interaction. QUT, Brisbane, Australia, 22-26

November, ACM: New York.

Vine, Desley; Buys, Laurie and Aird, Rosemary. (in press). Experiences of neighbourhood

walkability among older Australians living in high density inner city areas.

Submitted 21 January 2011 to Planning, Theory and Practice and accepted for

publication 19 April 2012

Papers submitted and currently under review:

Buys, Laurie; Vine, Desley and Miller, Evonne. What makes inner city high density

liveable? Insight from residents in Brisbane, Australia. Submitted 16 November

2011 to Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban

Sustainability

Vine, Desley; Buys, Laurie and Aird, Rosemary. High density urban neighbourhood

amenities: The experiences of older urban Australians. Submitted 16 October

2011 to Landscape and Urban Planning and revision submitted 17 March 2012

Vine, Desley; Buys, Laurie and Aird, Rosemary. Conceptions of ‘community’ among older

Australian adults living in high density urban areas – An Australian case study.

Submitted 14 April 2012 to Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences

Conference/Symposium Papers Delivered

Vine, Desley and Buys, Laurie (2010) The neglected dimension of community liveability:

Impact on social connectedness and active ageing in higher density

accommodation. Paper presented at Australian Association of Gerontology (Qld

Div.) Cutting Edge Research in Ageing Brisbane, Australia, 25 August 2010.

Vine, Desley and Buys, Laurie (2010) Community liveability: Exploring older people’s

access to services. Paper presented Diversicare – Statewide Special Projects

Annual Symposium Brisbane, Australia, 24 November 2010.

http://www.ozchi.org/

9

Vine, Desley and Buys, Laurie (2011) Understanding neighbourhood liveability for older

Australians. Accepted 16 May 2011 by Gerontology 2011 Congress, Melbourne,

Vic, 24-27 October 2011.

Vine, Desley and Buys, Laurie (2011) Perceptions of neighbourhood liveability among

older Australians living in high density areas. Accepted 30 August 2011 by Aging

and Society: An Interdisciplinary Conference, Berkeley, Ca: USA, 8-9 November

2011.

11

Table of Contents

Keywords .................................................................................................. 4

Abstract .................................................................................................... 5

Publications .............................................................................................. 8

Table of Contents .................................................................................... 11

List of Figures .......................................................................................... 15

List of Tables ........................................................................................... 17

Declaration ............................................................................................. 18

Acknowledgements ................................................................................ 19

Chapter 1: Introduction .......................................................................... 21

Study Population .......................................................................................... 22

Significance and Innovation .......................................................................... 23

Theoretical and International Significance .....................................................................24

Practical Significance - Outcomes ..................................................................................24

Innovation .....................................................................................................................25

The Overall Purpose ..................................................................................... 25

Contributions of Articles to Objectives of the Research Project .................... 27

Papers 1, 2 and 3 ...........................................................................................................27

Papers 4 and 5...............................................................................................................29

Reference List ............................................................................................... 32

Chapter 2: Literature Review .................................................................. 39

Liveability ..................................................................................................... 39

Defining Liveability ........................................................................................................39

Liveability and Quality of Life .........................................................................................39

Historical Review ...........................................................................................................40

12

What to do with Downtown - Research and Policy Trends ............................................. 45

How Liveability Plays Out in Current Practice ................................................................ 53

Liveability, Place and Ageing......................................................................... 55

Demographics ............................................................................................................... 55

Theoretical, International and National Importance ...................................................... 57

Place ............................................................................................................................. 61

Ageing in Place ............................................................................................................. 63

Environment and Participation in Activities ................................................................... 65

Neighbourhood Design and Active Ageing in Place ........................................................ 68

Theoretical Framework for the Research...................................................... 72

Conclusion .................................................................................................... 73

Reference List ............................................................................................... 75

Chapter 3: Methodology ....................................................................... 101

Method 1 for Paper 1 ................................................................................. 103

Participants ................................................................................................................ 103

Procedure ................................................................................................................... 104

Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 104

Method 2 for Papers 2, 3, 4, 5 .................................................................... 105

Participants ................................................................................................................ 106

Case Study Location .................................................................................................... 108

Apparatus - Global Positioning Systems ...................................................................... 109

GIS Data Preparation and Analysis .............................................................................. 109

Daily Diaries................................................................................................................ 110

In-depth Interviews ..................................................................................................... 110

Procedure ................................................................................................................... 110

Data Analysis .............................................................................................................. 111

13

Conclusion .................................................................................................. 112

Reference List ............................................................................................. 113

Chapter 4: Paper 1 - What makes inner city high density liveable?

Insight from residents in Brisbane, Australia ......................................... 117

Abstract ...................................................................................................... 117

Introduction ............................................................................................... 117

Method ...................................................................................................... 121

Results/Discussion ...................................................................................... 122

Conclusion .................................................................................................. 132

References ................................................................................................. 134

Chapter 5: Paper 2 - The lived world of older urban Australians:

Relating everyday living to GPS tracking data. ...................................... 143

Abstract ...................................................................................................... 143

Introduction ............................................................................................... 144

Method ...................................................................................................... 146


References ................................................................................................. 152

Chapter 6: Paper 3 - Conceptions of ‘community’ among older adults

living in high density urban areas – An Australian case study ............... 157

Abstract ...................................................................................................... 157

Introduction ............................................................................................... 157

Methods ..................................................................................................... 159

In-depth Interviews .....................................................................................................162


Conclusion .................................................................................................. 172

References ................................................................................................. 173

14

Chapter 7: Paper 4 - High density urban neighbourhood amenities:

The experiences of older urban Australians .......................................... 179

Introduction ............................................................................................... 179

Methods ..................................................................................................... 184


Results........................................................................................................ 189

Discussion and Conclusions ........................................................................ 199

References ................................................................................................. 204

Chapter 8: Paper 5 – Experiences of neighbourhood walkability

among older Australians living in high density inner city areas ............. 213

Abstract ...................................................................................................... 213

Introduction ............................................................................................... 213

Methods ..................................................................................................... 221


Results........................................................................................................ 226

Discussion .................................................................................................. 235

References ................................................................................................. 240

Chapter 9: Discussion ........................................................................... 249

Significance of Findings .............................................................................. 249

The High Density Agenda ............................................................................................ 249

Understanding Liveability Concepts ............................................................................ 250

The Importance of Proximity for Liveability and Opportunity to Actively Age in Place .. 255

Strengths and Limitations of the Research ................................................. 261

Future Directions ........................................................................................ 263

Conclusion .................................................................................................. 266

Reference List ............................................................................................. 269

15

List of Figures

Page No.

Chapter 1

Figure 1 Structure of the relationship between chapters and publications in the

thesis

Chapter 3

Figure 1 Flow Diagram of Overview of Methodology

Figure 2 Map of the inner city high density areas included in this study

26

105

108

Chapter 5

Figure 1 Examples of two weekly activity maps

148

Chapter 6


Figure 2 Example of a resident’s weekly walking activity map with 5 and 10

minute walking zones indicated

Figure 3 Overhead view of a particularly busy pedestrian section identified by

participants

Figure 4 Map of the retail and trade service activity for CS9 resident

161

164

170

171

16

Chapter 7


Figure 2 Graphical representation of time spent at home/away from home

during tracking period

Figure 3 Weekly travel maps for two residents – one from a neighbourhood with

few available amenities (CS1) and the other from an amenity rich

neighbourhood with access issues (CS7)

Figure 4 Services accessed by CS3 resident who lives within a high amenity

neighbourhood

Figure 5 Services accessed by CS10 resident who lives within a neighbourhood

with few amenities

Figure 6 Aerial view of a dangerous intersection identified by residents

186

189

190

191

192

196

Chapter 8


Figure 2 Proportion of total time travelled by different mode of transport

Figure 3 Map of relative location of participant’s home to her therapy pool

Figure 4 Weekly activity map of CS9 (all travel by car)

Figure 5 Aerial view of a dangerous intersection (swift light changes)

Figure 6 An aerial view of footpath very close to a major arterial road

Figure 7 Map of services accessed by CS4 over seven days

Figure 8 Map of CS2’s walking behaviour within her neighbourhood

223

226

228

229

230

231

232

233

17

List of Tables Page No.

Chapter 3

Table 1 Summary Table of Case Study (CS) Respondents and Location Profile for

all papers

107

Chapter 4

Table 1 Key aspects of individual dwelling, building complex and community that

contribute to attractiveness and liveability

123

Chapter 6

Table 1 Summary Table of Case Study (CS) Respondents and Location Profile

107

Chapter 7


Table 2 Transport mode used in total kilometres over 7-day tracking period

107

198

Chapter 8


Table 2 Essential neighbourhood characteristics: the built environment and

walking

107

227

18

Declaration

I, Desley Vine, the candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, certify that the work

contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted for a degree of diploma at any

other high education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis

contains no material previously published or written by another person except where

due reference is made.

Signed……………………………………………………..

Date………………………………………………………..

19

Acknowledgements

This dissertation evolved from meeting two people. The first was my introduction to

Professor David Buisson, now Emeritus Professor Buisson, who for some reason known

only to himself took an interest in a woman who presented in his office announcing that

she wanted to undertake a PhD by publication in the social science area. I knew from the

experience of others that one of the most, if not the most, important decisions you make

in undertaking a PhD is your choice of supervisor. David was critical in this process as he

introduced me to various members of faculty who he thought would be suitable and the

right personality mix for me given my apparent forthrightness, and then sprouted to

them the virtue of undertaking my PhD supervision. I met many worthy candidates for

my supervisor but it was with David’s referral of Professor Laurie Buys that my PhD

started to really take shape. One of the smartest things I have ever done or perhaps it is

just one of the luckiest is to have met David and to score Laurie as my principal

supervisor. My thesis would not have been possible without Laurie’s academic guidance,

encouragement, patience and support, but it has been her friendship that has made my

PhD journey a rich and rewarding one. I will always remember my PhD journey fondly as

it was the means of meeting and knowing David and Laurie, both of whom I feel

incredibly fortunate to know and to count as friends.

I am indebted to my associate supervisor, Associate Professor Evonne Miller, Kim van

Megen and Steve Snow for their interest in my thesis, encouragement and generosity

with their expertise to help and provide guidance. I am also indebited to my very dear

friends Ha Le, Rosemary Aird and Jeff Sommerfeld for being lifelines in times of despair

and for their unwavering friendship, despite the demands of this at times very needy

friend. Rosemary, your insight, help and generous assistance, with my thesis and

wonderful good cheer during the process will never be forgotten. You are truly a

treasure.

Thank you also to the high density participants who agreed to be part of this study. You

gave so much of your time and provided the study with invaluable information, amazing

insights and stories.

Finally, I wish to thank my family and friends. To my husband, best friend and

confidante, Graeme MacDonald, I could not have done this without you. I will never

20

forget the patience you have shown me, the personal sacrifices you have made for me

and the love and encouragement you have given me. To my son Luke, you are my

inspiration, my torment, my joy, my love. Thank you for all you have taught me and for

growing into such a fine young man and making me look good as a mother. To my

mother, Carmel, my other best friend and sister, Debbie and my brother Pete, I love you.

Thank you for always being there for me and for Luke. I feel blessed being related to you.

Thank you also to all my friends but especially Leonie Lovell, Christine Williams, Kerry Cull

and Jennifer Fleming all of whom helped me raise my boy and gave of themselves asking

nothing in return. I am incredibly grateful for your generosity, great wit, wisdom,

support, love and friendship in good times and not so good, for being very patient with

me and for always being there.

In acknowledgement, I am indebted to you all.

21

Chapter 1: Introduction

Nationally and internationally, the negative impacts of urban sprawl have become more

evident. These include, greenhouse gas emissions, air and water pollution; loss of

agricultural land and wildlife habitats; a reduction in viable land; community segregation;

a reliance on cars, increased journey times, and insufficient and expensive infrastructure

(Turton and Hamilton 2002). In urban centres, urban consolidation through higher

density living has been adopted as a key strategy to manage urban growth and minimise

the negative impacts of urban sprawl (Queensland Government 2009; Australian

Greenhouse Office 2003; Australian Government, 2002). New Urbanism, Urban Village,

Complete Communities, Smart Growth, Transit Oriented Development, and sustainability

all advocate living more intensely within existing urban areas. While there is value in

high density development, it is not a universal remedy to the challenges of inner-city

living and establishing liveable places. Liveable communities or neighbourhoods are

more than the provision of parking, units and open space. It is the everyday life supports

which supplement density that make urban living desirable. Only limited research,

however, has focussed on the satisfaction of residents living in high-density

accommodation (30 or more dwellings per hectare). There is a need to explore the

viewpoints and experience of current high density urban residents to understand and

identify aspects that might need to be enhanced to make this urban form more liveable

for the wider community.

Liveability, like sustainability, is a driving vision of the 21st century. It is a term commonly

used in practice but appears to lack a single definition due to its use as a “catch all”

concept for a range of ideas about place-based quality of life. The Australian Bureau of

Statistics links liveability to quality of life which is a term that is often strongly associated

or used interchangeably with wellness or well-being. The Victorian Competition and

Efficiency Commission in their Inquiry into Enhancing Victoria’s Liveability (2008)

suggested that liveability can be used in a collective sense to describe how well a society

meets people’s wants and needs.

Community liveability is in large part about the quality of space and the built

environment. It encompasses how safe a place feels and how easy it is to use. A safe

and “enabling environment” has been identified as being critically important to

promoting engagement for people as they age (United Nations, 2003). The hypothesis of

22

this thesis is that liveability is achieved through a focus on meeting everyday life needs at

a social, physical and economic level. It is where members of that community have the

opportunity of meeting a hierarchy of their needs from essential services and security

issues to higher level life-enriching aspects which enhance daily life by making it more

fulfilling.

The liveability aspect of this research therefore has a place-based approach focusing on

issues of everyday life and the functioning of place in meeting daily requirements for

older people, the study population of this thesis.

Study Population

It is generally accepted that ageing in place is optimal for both older people and the state

(Olsberg and Winters, 2005; Judd et al., 2010). The independence, health and well-being

of older people are advanced by ageing in place and remaining active and there is a

reduced economic burden on government through reduced demand for institutionalised

aged care. However, the optimality of active ageing and ageing in place generally

assumes that there is a particular quality to environments in which people age

successfully. The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee (in Smith, 2009)

defines disability not as a physical state, but as a mismatch between what a person can

do and what the environment requires of them. With the associated losses of increasing

age (for example, with health), the quality of the urban environment becomes important

in relation to its effect on well-being and independence (World Health Organisation

(WHO), 2007; Pacione, 2003; Smith, 2009). We have yet to ask if there are particular

environmental qualities that test optimality (Smith, 2009; Olsberg and Winters, 2005;

Judd et al., 2010).

Older people are a significant population group within Australian urban neighbourhoods.

It is likely with their increasing representation in urban neighbourhoods that their

political influence with grow (Judd et al. 2010). By investigating and analysing issues that

impact upon the liveability and sustainability of older people as high density residents,

this research will further the understanding of the specific design factors that make the

urban neighbourhood a more liveable and sustainable environment in which older

people can actively age in place.

23

Significance and Innovation

There is international interest in the demographic profile of older people as populations

around the world are rapidly ageing. By 2050, it is expected that the global population of

people aged 60 years and over will reach two billion (Beard and Petitot, 2010) and it is

projected that 62% of the world’s older people will live in urban areas (United Nations

(UN), 2003). The major and inter-related factors of the projected increase in population

ageing and urbanisation together with growing awarenss that older people are sensitive

to their built environment in terms of its affect on well-being and independence has

increased the need to focus research on older people living in urban areas (Beard and

Petitot, 2010; Zwingle in Smith, 2009; Lui et al., 2009). There is impending global need

for urban neighbourhoods to be liveable age friendly urban forms that facilitate active

ageing in place.

It is widely recognised that an important aspect of positive and healthy ageing is

participation in activities outside the home and that urban design and planning can

influence participation (World Health Organisation (WHO), 2007; Department of Health

and Ageing (DoHA), 2006; Mitchell and Burton, 2006; Inclusive Design for Getting

Outdoors (IDGO), 2007a,b,c). The age friendly cities agenda also intersects with the

recent emphasis on healthy cities, which recognises the important role of planning and

urban design in promoting health and well-being (National Heart Foundation (NHF),

2004). Research and policy development in these areas are still in their infancy, but will

become more critical as the population ages (Judd et al., 2010). This thesis contributes to

the growth of such research in Australia.

A focus on communities, social capital and social connectedness (Council on the Ageing,

2001) is vital in addressing active ageing and ageing in place for Australians. Over the last

25 years, Australian government-initiated policy, research and program development has

set ageing in place as an important priority. Examples include the National Housing

Strategy (NHS) (1992), the New Homes for Old Strategy (Australian Urban Regional

Development Review, 1994) and the National Strategy for an Ageing Australia (Bishop,

2000). Despite implementation of important government initiatives in housing, the role

of neighbourhood design and infrastructure in supporting active ageing and ageing in

place has not been given attention. The optimality of active ageing and ageing in place

assumes the presence of particular qualities within environments in which people

24

successfully actively age in place and this assumption remains both unquestioned and

untested (Smith, 2009; Judd et al., 2010).

Theoretical and International Significance

The theoretical approach for this thesis is inspired by the WHO Active Ageing Policy

Framework (2002), which emphasises health, social participation and security as the key

primary determinants of quality of life for older people. The WHO proposes that these

three areas are targeted for context- and country-specific strategies aimed at fostering

active ageing. The study aligns the framework for active ageing with the concept of

liveable communities: Safe, accessible, affordable housing enables older people to

remain long-term in familiar surroundings, neighbourhoods and communities; Mobility

and reliable transport, safe and secure walkways and/or private or public transport

options support independence and access to services and activities; and Social

engagement is essential for well-being, and links individuals with family/friends,

cultural/community groups and institutions/businesses (Hampshire, 2000). Liveable

communities enable social engagement (Australian Local Government Association

(ALGA), 2006; Kochera et al., 2005) and avoid exclusion of people on the basis of

disability or age (Hugman, 2001).

Practical Significance - Outcomes

Formulating strategies that help older Australians age in place and remain active is of

immense practical significance, given the immediate and long-term economic and social

benefits. In this regard, the link between the “liveability” of communities and social

connections and relationships is vitally important. Despite increasing awareness of the

need for liveable communities in the context of sustainable development and urban

planning (Jay et al., 2007), and health benefits (National Heart Foundation (NHF), 2009),

little research has focussed specifically on older people’s issues. The location and security

of residences, household design, the safety and security of neighbourhood walkways and

transport, the accessibility of services, organisations and social networks, are all vital

ingredients for older people’s continued community engagement into their later years.

Altering the timetable of a local bus, installing rest-stop seating in commercial areas,

providing a mobile library, fruit vendor or dentist, are some examples of changes that are

easier to accomplish than interventions aimed solely at changing people’s behaviours.

Importantly, such neighbourhood changes are likely to have a positive flow-on effect to

all residents.

25

Innovation

The project takes an innovative approach to data collection methods and analysis

(outlined in Chapter 3 as Method 2) through the use of Geographical Information

Systems (GIS), an emerging technique in the social sciences that provides both a visual

and quantitative means of finding, describing and analysing relationships in both time

and space. “One of the strongest arguments for looking at society through a spatial lens –

through maps, GIS, and spatial analysis – is that it provides observations with context:

processes can be examined within their geographic settings” (Goodchild and Haining,

2004). More common to geographical disciplines, GIS techniques was used to analyse and

integrate geospatial data from mapped locations. The incorporation of GIS is an

innovative approach that forms an integral part of the research design, data collection

and analysis procedures, enabling mapping of social, community, and service-use

networks to fully explore community liveability as it impacts upon older people.

Another major innovation of this project is the use of a range of data collection methods

that will support the GIS visual and quantitative time-space mapping. These methods are

also outlined in Method 2 (Chapter 3) and are amenable to in-depth qualitative analysis.

They enabled deeper contextual information to be gathered about participants’ housing,

mobility and transport options, and the attributes of their communities.

The Overall Purpose

This thesis focusses on dense communities/neighbourhoods, their forms, what makes

them liveable and what undermines their liveability. The primary question underpinning

this thesis is: What are high density liveable communities/neighbourhoods and what

makes them liveable for older Australians? Understanding what makes them liveable is

the overarching goal. To achieve this goal, it is important to analyse the key concepts

involved and identify whether or not there are essential aspects of these concepts that

enhance our understanding of liveability. The thesis aims to critically analyse the

definitional attributes and qualities that contribute to the liveability of high density

environments. This analysis will attempt to identify what is comparable and different

between the physical and social attributes of high density communities or

neighbourhoods in general, and then more specifically as they relate to older people and

their everyday life needs. It is also an aim of this thesis to identify key characteristics of

liveability for ageing in place and remaining active within high density environments and

26

to explore relationships between social engagement and broader community variables

such as infrastructure and the built environment, which contribute towards or create

barriers to their liveability. There are five publications which address the core aims of the

thesis. Figure 1 below depicts the structure of the relationship between these

publications, demonstrating that in combination, they form a cohesive research

narrative. This diagram appears throughout the thesis with the section of the

dissertation that follows its inclusion being highlighted.

Figure 1 Structure of the relationship between chapters and publications in the thesis

27

Contributions of Articles to Objectives of the Research Project

Papers 1, 2 and 3

As stated above, the term liveability lacks a single, accepted definition. Liveability has

been defined as neighbourhood or community well-being represented by characteristics

that make a place where people want to live now and in the future (Victorian

Competition and Efficiency Commission, 2008). Politicians use the language of

community, neighbourhood and liveability to win votes and urban planners promote the

development of liveability and a sense of community at the neighbourhood level as a

cure to many social ailments. Like liveability, “community” and “neighbourhood” are

commonly used in everyday conversation in a wide range of contexts; they are the focus

or lens through which planners and others review literature related to liveability. Yet

these concepts are nebulous and slippery and therefore difficult to define. The question

“Are there definitional aspects of these terms that enhance our understanding of

liveability?” was addressed in the first paper of this dissertation.

In attempting to clarify or identify liveability, Paper 1 adopts a system-thinking or holistic

approach due to the complex and multi-variant nature of what makes a place liveable.

Complexity, diversity, density and human scale are the intertwined and interdependent

attributes of liveable neighbourhoods or communities (Jacobs, 1961). Liveable urban

places are a highly integrated collection of organised parts which accomplish the overall

goal of a desirable place to live. The study for Paper 1 utilised a qualitative interview

method outlined as Method 1 (detailed in Chapter 3). The paper describes the residents’

perceptions and experiences of liveability and the ways in which it is broadly

conceptualised. Three main domains and nine key concepts emerged including: the

individual dwelling (thermal comfort, natural light and balconies, and noise mitigation),

the building complex (shared space, good neighbourhood protocols, and environmental

sustainability) and the community (transport, amenities, and a sense of community).

Liveability itself is conceived to rest on attributes that form a web of interconnections

(National Research Council, 2002), and thus theoretically, the complex and multi-layered

nature of Inner City High Density (ICHD) should heighten its potential for being liveable.

By highlighting the aspects current ICHD residents value most about their dwellings,

buildings and communities, these findings help clarify the meanings ascribed to the

concept of liveability and the qualities that contribute to the creation of urban spaces

and dwellings that are more desirable places to live.

28

Papers 2 and 3 identify what is comparable and different between the physical and social

factors within high density communities/neighbourhoods that are related to older

persons and their everyday life needs. ‘Community’ and ‘neighbourhood’ are often

conceived as being synonymous with one another, with each being used interchangeably

to describe both a geographic area and communities of interest (Hillery, 1968). The point

of difference is the ability for communities to exist outside of place (community without

propinquity, Webber, 1963), whereas neighbourhoods are grounded in place within

particular geographical areas. As mentioned above, urban planners use neighbourhood

as their unit of focus in promoting the development of liveability and a sense of

community and yet the different operational definitions of neighbourhoods or

communities used to measure these concepts such as postcodes, school districts or

census allocation bear little resemblance to the types of neighbourhoods or communities

found in urban areas (Ziller, 2004; Coulton et al., 2001; Kusenbach, 2008).

Neighbourhood, like the concepts of liveability and community, is usually studied through

the use of either subjective measures (such as survey items that capture residents’

perceptions) or objective measures of urban environment characteristics. Planning

policies aimed at changing the objective, physical urban neighbourhood environment

assume an improvement in the subjective experience of urban liveability for residents

within that neighbourhood, although there is little empirical evidence that is able to

confirm the validity of this assumption (McCrea et al, 2006). Paper 2 (Chapter 5) is based

on the innovative methodology outlined below in Chapter 3 as Method 2 to investigate

the extent that subjective experiences of urban neighbourhoods are connected to

features of the built environment. Rarely have objective and subjective indicators been

incorporated within the one study in order to understand what constitutes a liveable

urban neighbourhood both spatially and behaviourally. The advantages associated with

using both qualitative and quantitative measures are examined in Paper 2. The use of

both quantitative and qualitative approaches is important for furthering understanding of

human behaviour and the lived world of older urban Australians by enabling a more

comprehensive picture of the urban neighbourhood to emerge than it is possible through

the use of either method alone.

Paper 3 (Chapter 6) investigates the concept of community using the methodology

outlined as Method 2. There has been little exploration of the everyday social networks

of older urban Australians through the place where social interactions occur. In focussing

29

on neighbourhood and community, this study does not rely on a single definition.

Rather, it incorporates the ambiguity of community and neighbourhood boundaries as

part of the analysis. It investigates the everyday social networks of older urban

Australians within the spatial area where social interactions occur. Such an approach is

complex, but is more representative of the reality of urban residents’ lives than

approaches that conceive neighbourhoods or communities as entities with fixed, pre-

determined boundaries. Therefore, place is not pre-conceived as a set territory but is

instead identified through the analysis of the research. The purpose of this paper is to

use closely aligned quantitative and qualitative measures to explore community and its

connection to location and locale in the urban realm for older people. This recognises

the importance of considering both the spatial aspect and the overlay of residents’

subjective perceptions and actual everyday activities when attempting to further

understanding of what makes communities liveable for older people.

Papers 4 and 5

Papers 4 and 5 (Chapters 7 and 8) address the key characteristics of liveability for active

ageing and ageing in place in high density environments. This is achieved by exploring

relationships between neighbourhood or community variables such as infrastructure and

the physical built environments that contribute to or create barriers to their liveability,

and social engagement. If environment matters to the process and experience of ageing,

then we need to better understand the key factors that influence the quality of the

person-environment relationship as people age.

Amenity-rich local environments are necessary for older people to successfully age in

place and will become more critical as the population continues to age. An important

aspect of active ageing is participation in activities outside the home. Recent research

has identified the importance of close proximity to shopping, banking and retail and

health and medical services for older people, particularly those over 70 years old (Judd et

al., 2010). Availability and ease of access to local neighbourhood amenities can

precipitate or inhibit participation (NHF, 2004; WHO, 2007; DoHA, 2006). Paper 4 deals

with the need for high density environments to be amenity-rich spaces that residents do

not have to leave for everyday living. There has been little empirical evidence linking

liveability satisfaction with older people’s use of their urban neighbourhoods. Using the

methodology outlined as Method 2 (described in Chapter 3), Paper 4 explores whether

30

high density settings support liveability and are sustainable for older people to actively

age in place.

Paper 5 investigates older people and their interaction with their urban environment in

terms of their out-of-home mobility. A key component of liveability is the functioning of

place to support and encourage neighbourhood walking. Research in public health,

urban planning and transportation highlights the link between urban form, physical

activity and public health (Frank et al., 2003). Walking has been shown in particular, to

have a positive influence on a range of health outcomes especially for older people -

including chronic conditions such as heart disease, some cancers and diabetes (Prohaska

et al., 2006). Regular walking also contributes significantly to independent lifestyles for

older people as well as their cognitive functioning, reducing the risk of dementia and

benefiting those with established dementia (Karp et al., 2006; Weuve et al., 2004).

There is currently only a small body of empirical evidence of the importance of

neighbourhood walkability to liveability for older urban residents, but research literature

in this area is growing. The healthy cities guidelines advocate “local destinations to

support lively, walkable and rideable neighbourhoods” (NHF, 2004, 13) as a means to

achieve both sustainability and liveability outcomes. The importance of age-friendly

guidelines research and policy development is gaining increased recognition by Australian

and international governments, health and built environment professionals. Two

significant initiatives in this area are the National Heart Foundation’s Healthy by Design

guidelines and the Australian Government’s work on a national planning guide for the

design of healthy Australian built environments (Judd et al., 2010). To encourage uptake

of sustainable transport, the built environment must provide easy, accessible

connections between buildings, walkways, cycle paths and public transport stations.

Paper 5 explores this aspect of liveability within high density neighbourhoods from the

perspective of older Australian people.

Together these five papers address high density liveable communities/neighbourhoods,

what they are comprised by, and the factors that make them liveable for older

Australians. The papers indicate a complex inter-relationship of the factors that make a

place liveable, and in combination, point to the need for the implementation of strategies

aimed at addressing a range of issues that arise for older people living in urban

31

environments. Such strategies are crucial for the meeting of active ageing objectives and

for enabling older people to age in place. Recommendations for policy and interventions

are discussed in detail in the final chapter of this thesis.

The following chapter, Chapter 2, reviews the literature related to the subject matter of

this thesis, then follows Chapter 3, Methodology, prior to the chapters containing the

publications that form the research component of this dissertation (Chapters 2 through

8).

32

Reference List Australian Government. (2002). State of the Environment Report 2001 Retrieved 16

October 2009, from

http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2001/publications/themereports/settleme

nts/settlements04-2.html

Australian Greenhouse Office. (2003). Transport Sector. Canberra: Australian

Greenhouse Office Retrieved from

http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/transport/index.html.

Australian Local Government Association. (2006). Age-Friendly built Environments:

Opportunities for Local Government.

Australian Urban Regional Development Review. (1994). New homes for old : a strategy

to increase the efficiency of existing Australian urban housing stock by creating

increased housing choice for older people (pp. 119 p). Melbourne: Australian

Urban and Regional Development Review.

Beard, J. R., and Petitot, C. (2010). Ageing and Urbanization: Can Cities be Designed to

Foster Active Ageing? Public Health Reviews, 32(2), 1-18.

Bishop, B., and Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA). (2000). The National strategy

for an ageing Australia : attitude, lifestyle & community support : discussion

paper (pp. iv, 58 p). Canberra Department of Health and Ageing.

Coulton, C., Korbin, J., Chan, T., and Su, M. (2001). Mapping Residents' Perceptions of

Neighborhood Boundaries: A Methodological Note. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 29(2), 371-383.

Council on the Ageing. (2001 ). Response to Attitude, Life-style and Community Support:

Discussion paper for the National Strategy for an Ageing Australia. Retrieved

from http://www.cota.org.au/NSattitude.htm

Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA). (2006). A Community for All Ages: Building the

Future: The Findings and Recommendations of the National Speakers Series June

2006. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

33

Frank, L. D., Engelke, P. O., and Schmid, T. L. (2003). Health and community design : the

impact of the built environment on physical activity. Washington, DC ; London

Island Press.

Goodchild, M. F., and Haining, R. P. (2004). GIS and spatial data analysis: Converging

perspectives. Papers in Regional Science, 83(1), 363-385.

Hampshire, A. (2000). Stronger communities and social connectedness - social capital in

practice. Paper presented at the The Council on the Ageing National Congress.

Hillery, G. A. (1968). Communal Organizations: A study of local societies. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Hugman, R. (2001). Looking to the future. Australasian Journal of Ageing, 20(3), 57-64.

Inclusive Design for Getting Outdoors (IDGO). (2007a). Older People and the Outdoors

from http://www.idgo.ac.uk/older_people_outdoors/index.htm

Inclusive Design for Getting Outdoors (IDGO). (2007b). Research Methods and Tools,

from http://www.idgo.ac.uk/theories_and_methods/researchtools.htm

Inclusive Design for Getting Outdoors (IDGO). (2007c). What are the Critical Issues? ,

from http://www.idgo.ac.uk/older_people_outdoors/critical_issues.htm

Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. London: Jonathan Cape.

Jay, S., Jones, C., Slinn, P., and Wood, C. (2007). Environmental impact assessment:

Retrospect and prospect. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27(4), 287-

300.

Judd, B., Olsberg, D., Quinn, J., Groenhart, L. a., and Demirbilek, O. (2010). Dwelling, land

and neighbourhood use by older home owners AHURI Final Report No. 144.

Melbourne, Vic: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, UNSW-UWS

Research Centre.

Karp, J. F., Reynolds, C. F., Butters, M. A., Dew, M. A., Mazumdar, S., Begley, A. E., . . .

Weiner, D. K. (2006). The Relationship Between Pain and Mental Flexibility in

Older Adult Pain Clinic Patients. Pain Medicine, 7(5), 444-452.

34

Kochera, A., Straight, A., and Guterbock, T. (2005). Beyond 50.50, a report to the nation

on liveable communities: Creating environments for successful aging.

Washington, DC: AARP Organisation.

Kusenbach, M. (2008). A Hierarchy of Urban Communities: Observations on the Nested

Character of Place. City & Community, 7(3), 225-249.

Lui, C.-W., Everingham, J.-A., Warburton, J., Cuthill, M., and Bartlett, H. (2009). What

makes a community age-friendly: A review of international literature.

Australasian Journal on Ageing, 28(3), 116-121.

McCrea, R., Shyy, T.-K., and Stimson, R. (2006). What is the Strength of the Link Between

Objective and Subjective Indicators of Urban Quality of Life? Applied Research in

Quality of Life, 1(1), 79-96.

Mitchell, L., and Burton, E. (2006). Neighbourhoods for life: Designing dementia-friendly

outdoor environments. Quality in Ageing and Older Adults, 7(1), 26-33.

National Heart Foundation of Australia. (2009). Blueprint for an Active Australia.

Melbourne: NHF.

National Heart Foundation of Australia (Victoria Division) (NHF). (2004). Healthy by

Design: A Planners Guide to Environments for Active Living. Melbourne: NHF.

National Housing Strategy (NHS). (1992). National Housing Strategy : agenda for action

(pp. xiv, 166 p). Canberra Australian Government Publishing Service.

National Research Council. (2002). Community and Quality of Life: Data Needs for

Informed Decision-Making. Washington, DC: Board on Earth Sciences and

Resources, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council, National

Academy Press.

Olsberg, D., and Winters, M. (2005). Ageing in place: intergenerational and intrafamilial

housing transfers and shifts in later life (pp. 4p). Melbourne, Vic: Australian

Housing and Urban Research Institute.

Pacione, M. (2003). Introduction on urban environmental quality and human wellbeing.

Landscape and Urban Planning, 65(1-2), 1-3.

35

Prohaska, T., Belansky, E., Belza, B., and Buchner, D. (2006). Physical Activity, Public

Health, and Aging: Critical Issues and Research Priorities. The Journals of

Gerontology, 61B(5), S267.

Queensland Government. (2009). Climate Q: Toward a greener Queensland, 2009.

Retrieved 16 September 2009, from

http://www.climatechange.qld.gov.au/pdf/climateqreport/climateqreport.pdf

Smith, A. E. (2009). Ageing in urban neighbourhoods : place attachment and social

exclusion. Bristol, UK ; Portland, OR: Policy.

Turton, H., and Hamilton, C. (2002). Updating per capita emissions for industrialised

countries Retrieved 27 January 2011, from

https://www.tai.org.au/documents/downloads/WP37.pdf

United Nations. (2003). Political Declaration and Madrid International Plan of Action on

Ageing. New York: Department of Public Information.

Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission. (2008). State of Liveability: An inquiry

into enhancing Victoria's liveability

Webber, M. M. (1963). Order in Diversity: Community without Propinquity. In J. Wingo,

Lowdon (Ed.), Cities and Space: The Future Use of Urban Land (pp. 23-56).

Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Weuve, J., Kang, J. H., Manson, J. E., Breteler, M. M. B., Ware, J. H., and Grodstein, F.

(2004). Physical Activity, Including Walking, and Cognitive Function in Older

Women. JAMA, 292(12), 1454-1461.

World Health Organisation (WHO). (2002). Active Ageing: A Policy Framework., from

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2002/WHO_NMH_NPH_02.8.pdf

World Health Organisation (WHO). (2007). Global Age Friendly Cities: A Guide. Geneva:

World Health Organisation.

Ziller, A. (2004). The Community is Not a Place and Why it Matters - Case Study: Green

Square. Urban Policy and Research, 22(4), 465 - 479.

39

Chapter 2: Literature Review

The literature review for this thesis has two main sections: 1) liveability broadly

conceived and 2) liveability, place and ageing. The first section has several components

and provides a review of liveability literature, research and practice. The second section

involves discussion and review of the effect of place in enabling or inhibiting active

ageing and ageing in place. It addresses the significance of liveability to older people’s

ability to age in place and remain active. This review draws on a cross-section of

literature that informs the dual conceptualisation of liveability – the first is used when

investigating place in general, and the second, when examining matters related to ageing

in place.

Liveability

Defining Liveability

As an introductory, denotative or base meaning, liveability simply refers to a place able to

be lived in and supporting the processes of living (Tulloch, 1997). The relative nature of

liveability is implicit in this description, since where people choose to live can be

considered liveable through each individual’s subjective filter. This subjectivity has been

one of the major challenges for researchers attempting to develop a more objective and

community- or neighbourhood-based definition of liveable places (Myers, 1988;

Andrews, 2001).

Liveability and Quality of Life

Ideas about liveability have often been expressed in terms of functional urban form,

urban health, well-being or quality of life and rarely by the term “liveability” itself.

“Liveability” emerged in the late 1950s and has become synonymous with “quality of

life”, often being used interchangeably in the literature (Myers, 1987). In attempting to

differentiate between the two terms, it could be stated that liveability relates to placed-

based possibilities for life, whereas quality of life has broader applications and often has

a connotative meaning relating to the person rather than that of place. Quality of life

measures encompass the basic human requirements for shelter, food and water, as well

as human health, education, employment and environmental quality. There appears to

be agreement in the literature that liveability is a relative concept that is subject to local

meanings across a wide range of social, political and environmental domains, and which

are unique to each place (Myers, 1988; Andrews, 2001). Most liveability research has

40

focussed on either the development of indicators, data collection or attributes of

measurement rather than the application of theory (National Research Council, 2002).

There appears to be little in the literature which discusses how to use or apply liveability

indicators once they have been identified.

Historical Review

Urban liveability and its planning have a very long history. The ability to sustain life

through attention to where a city was situated, and its control of food and water

supplies, capacity to address climate exposure and defend itself against enemies have all

long been considered important to the health of inhabitants (Mumford, 1961). While not

framed in terms of liveability, consideration of the requirements for sustaining life with

some ease represents the first sign of this concept’s emergence (Mumford, 1961). As

long as population density remained stable and small enough to be accommodated by

natural resource supply and sanitation absorption in the countryside, the medieval city

was regarded as being much cleaner and more healthful than the later industrial city

(Mumford, 1961; Gies, 1969; Frugoni, 2005).

Growing urbanisation, capitalism and industrialisation gave rise to concerns with urban

residential health (Mumford, 1961; Benevolo, 1980; Girouard, 1985). Piece-meal physical

and planning improvements had difficulty keeping pace with growing urbanisation and

the pace of technological change (Mumford, 1961; Benevolo, 1980; Girouard, 1985).

Deteriorating physical infrastructure forced public outcry and responses were either

unplanned public works (programs and legislation to improve immediate physical

conditions) or the seeking of utopia elsewhere (fleeing the city and its problems)

(Mumford, 1961; Benevolo, 1971; Girouard, 1985; Maldonado and Cullars, 1991).

Industrial districting and thus the origin of modern town planning started as early as the

renaissance (Mumford, 1961; Benevolo, 1980; Girouard, 1985). Mumford (1961)

observed that from the 16th century onwards, the street became the unit of planning and

not the neighbourhood - as had been the case previously. He conceived that living space

was treated as a left-over after the avenue itself determined the depth of the block and

the shape of the housing plot. Wheeled traffic became an issue as early as the 16th

century but more so of the 17th and 18th centuries (Mumford, 1961; Sitte, 1965).

41

Scientific Rationality

Changes in the process of management and production began to impact on urban

liveability, regulation and planning of the built environment (Friedman, 1987; Hamilton,

1996). The advent of Taylorism established systems of standardisation to streamline

production in manufacturing (Spender, 1996). As a result of its popularity, a campaign of

standardisation was launched that relied on theories of both industrialisation and

scientific rationality (Braham, 1996). The rationale for this program cloaked itself in the

language of the public interest and safeguarding public health and welfare (Hamilton,

1996). The result was the minimum standard which regulated everything from education

merit and transport safety to public health and housing production (Spender, 1996;

Hamilton, 1996).

The public use of standardisation was based on the theory of social homogenisation of

the good arising out of what is normal (Spender, 1996; Hamilton, 1996). Standards were

set by perceptions of desired average quality rather than idealised concepts (Chapin and

Kaiser, 1979). Typically, standards were determined by elites with little input from direct

users or those affected by them (Beall and Fox, 2009) and were therefore, often in

opposition to the needs of urban residents (Jacobs, 1961). Later standards of the post

war period for street design, public housing and neighbourhood sought to regularise new

development to benefit the construction industry, lower costs, minimise risk and ensure

lenders a bankable product (Southworth and Parthasarathy, 1996). Roads were widened

and the suburban model became enshrined including both the cul-de-sac and the super

block development (Southworth and Ben-Joseph, 1997).

Standardisation of physical planning ensured basic physical liveability but did not

consider the social aspects of liveability (Friedman, 2002). The results of scientific

technocratic planning had dire impacts upon urbanism and led to revolts against the

planning establishment; these in turn resulted in liveability coming to the forefront of

planning thought (Jacobs, 1961).

Moving out of the City to Utopia

The utopian movement sought rapid change through grand schemes to decongest the

city and allow people to flee to more liveable suburban environments (Friedman, 2002).

Those drivers of the utopian movement were inspired by new interest in public health

and by technological change enabling new forms of construction and transportation,

42

preferring greenfield areas to the problems of the city (Friedman, 2002). For example,

through the urban parks movement, Frederick Law Olmsted stressed the importance of

nature and greenery as the “lungs of the city”. Olmstedian principles advocated parks,

greenways, streetscaping and the urban forest as design methods for increasing

liveability in tightly packed cities (Friedman, 2002).

The need for a series of satellite cities to be built around an industrial and cultural centre

so as to decentralise the metropolis and provide economically sustainable and

independent employment on cooperatively owned land was suggested by Howard

(1945). Howard (1945) conceived these satellites or “garden cities” as being bounded by

large agricultural tracts and greenbelts of wilderness which would separate them from

the primary regional city, and also allow the recreational enjoyment of nature. While

often credited as the inventor of suburbia, his ideas about decentralisation, segregated

land uses, greenbelts, communal ownership and sustainable economic development laid

the groundwork for much 20th century suburban expansion (Mumford, 1961).

From the public health and social concerns of the “garden city” planners such as Olmsted

and Howard and the need to provide affordable housing to returning servicemen and

servicewomen in Australia and the US, there was a massive expansion of suburban

greenfield development at the end of World War II. Suburbanisation was seen by the

majority as providing the hope of home ownership, economic investment and liveable

environments devoid of the older cities’ environmental and social challenges (Mumford,

1961; Friedman, 2002; Clapson, 2003; Rabinowitz, 2004). With this suburban expansion

came city disinvestment, the flight of the middle-class and continued neglect of the poor

(Friedman, 2002; Clapson, 2003; Rabinowitz, 2004). Suburbia’s liveability benefits were

well understood by most housing consumers – available land for recreation and

children’s play, new housing, greater access to nature and fresh air, and relatively safe

and healthful neighbourhoods (Friedman, 2002; Clapson, 2003; Rabinowitz, 2004). These

characteristics of suburbia have now become components of any liveability definition and

cause problems for planners attempting to apply suburban amenity to dense urban areas

(Friedman, 2002; Clapson, 2003; Rabinowitz, 2004).

Problems in Paradise

In the second half of the 20th century, concerns grew about liveability, emanating out of

criticisms of contemporary urban development as a machine dedicated to through-put

43

and economic gain and efficiency rather than to developing places for living (Webber,

1963). Critics were scathing of the failure of planners to produce cohesive, liveable cities

and neighbourhoods and worse, as having actively contributed to increased social

isolation, economic inequity and ecological deterioration. Critics spoke of injudicious

policy, enforcement of dominant discourses and the power of capitalist elites, the failure

of decision-makers to take community interests into account, as well as the increasing

scale of the new development and its dehumanising design (Jacobs, 1961; Mumford,

1961; Boyer, 1983; Relph, 1987; Ellin, 1996). Despite good intentions, urban planning in

the 20th century has often proceeded in directions that have been profoundly

unsustainable (Jacobs, 1961; Mumford, 1961; Boyer, 1983; Relph, 1987; Ellin, 1996;

Clapson, 2003; Filion, 2003). Freeways and other auto-dependent infrastructure have

been promoted without consideration of their sprawl-inducing impact (Jacobs, 1961;

Ellin, 1996; Filion, 2003). Modern urban environments have also been criticised for being

homogeneous and aesthetically dull, fragmented, regulated and segregated (Jacobs,

1961; Relph, 1987; Ellin, 1996; Rabinowitz, 2004).

Through her seminal work, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs

(1961) awakened concerns about place-based liveability (Gratz, 2003). She promoted

dense urban neighbourhoods but believed that modern city building practices

undermined many of the qualities that encourage pedestrian use of the street,

neighbourhood contacts and a thriving local economy of small businesses (Jacobs, 1961).

Jacobs suggested that cities were more complex creatures than the reductionist and

scientific impressions of planners and she championed community processes, inductive

reasoning rather than generalised prescription, and the “unaverage” (Jacobs, 1961, 574).

Jacobs’ call for diversity, mixed uses, lively and walkable streets, density, safety, urban

amenity and the ability to see the particularity of place is at the heart of liveability today

(Gratz, 2003). Jacobs recognised that cities were unique with unending variation for

which universal prescriptions and solutions were inappropriate (Gratz, 2003). This is an

approach that place-based liveability researchers continue to champion (Flint, 2009).

Jacobs ignited a national discussion on the efficacy of planning, professional education,

architecture and city development practice (Gratz, 2003; Flint, 2009). She pushed for

more liveable urban neighbourhoods and community preservation (Gratz, 2003). Jacobs’

work has inspired many researchers and advocates who asked questions about what

44

makes a ‘good city’ and whether liveable places could be objectively assessed and

promoted through government action (Gratz, 2003; Flint, 2009).

Notions of liveability became popularised in the mid-1970s (McNulty, 2006). Towards

the end of the 1970s, a makeshift committee of committed supporters deeply interested

in urban liveability established a not-for-profit corporation called ‘Partners for Livable

Places’ (later to be renamed ‘Partners for Livable Communities’) (PLC, 2000). Initially,

‘Partners’ were interested in raising awareness of quality of life issues and attempting to

define a liveable community. Even after years of meetings, Partners failed to reach

consensus on a succinct definition due to the relativity of the term to various contexts

and persons (McNulty, 2006). Without an agreed definition and little theory to guide

measurement, the only suitable social indicator agreed upon to guide liveability was

leadership (PLC, 2000). Following a report by the Rand Corporation in 1979 about places

attracting jobs and labour, Partners initiated a liveability study in thirty (30) pilot cities,

which focussed the growing importance of community amenities to economic growth

(PLC et al., 1986). From this new economic focus and results from the pilot cities,

Partners determined that collaboration and cooperation between civic and business

leaders, institutions and communities was necessary to achieve desired liveability

expectations. The economics of liveability substantially grew during the 1980s with the

publication of a number of place-rating guides focussed on community amenity and

resident/business location (Boyer and Savageau, 1985). While narrow in its focus,

economic emphasis continues to drive government and business interest into the 21st

century (Rogerson and Tremblay, 2008).

In the latter part of the 20th century (late 1980s to late 1990s), PLC were critical of

academic and statistical liveability approaches that attempted to generalise liveability to

exceedingly large metropolitan areas and regions. They argued that liveability could not

be measured by the number of golf courses, art galleries or stadiums per 100,000 people

or by other indices or benchmarks and that attention needs to be directed instead at

places and the people who work and live in them (PLC, 2000). Their Shaping Growth in

American Communities program between 1988 and 1992 provided community

participation assistance and workshops to over 72 communities interested in social

equity, managing community assistance and the economics of amenity (PLC, 2000). This

provided a greater focus on daily life issues in real places and resulted in a broader

45

definition of liveability which included concepts of essential services, safety, health, jobs,

justice, family concerns, welfare and community level environmental issues (Myers,

1988; Andrews, 2001; McNulty, 2006). This appears to be the beginning of the ensemble

approach in which definitions of liveability are a collection of liveable attributes (Myers,

1988; Andrews, 2001). Partners focussed on liveability as a strategy rather than a luxury,

placing it in the middle of community and neighbourhood planning efforts, encouraging

planners to seek out the participatory involvement of communities (PLC, 2000; McNulty,

2006).

What to do with Downtown - Research and Policy Trends

Urban design has developed from a diverse set of practices and disciplines, including

urban planning, architecture and more recently, anthropology, sociology and

environmental planning, science and psychology (Lynch, 1981; Southworth and

Parthasarathy, 1996). Social and spatial aspects of urban design have been an important

focus for many researchers. Lynch (1960; 1981) focussed on a series of ‘universal’

performance dimensions that are generally conceived to be important for most urban

settings: vitality (sustenance, safety, biologic consonance), sense (place identity,

legibility, transparency), fit (appropriateness, adequacy of uses, adaptability), access

(transportation and circulation), control, efficiency and justice. Other environmental

design research focussed on various elements that affect liveability, including: housing

(Cooper Marcus and Sarkissian, 1986), public space (Gehl, 1987; Cooper Marcus and

Francis, 1998; Whyte, 2001); street design (Jacobs, 1961; Southworth and Ben-Joseph,

1997; Jacobs et al, 2002); physical comfort in the city (Bosselmann et al, 1990); crime

prevention and public safety (Newman, 1973; Zelinka and Brennan, 2001), and physical

aspects of transit use (Cervero and Bernick, 1997; Cervero, 2000). Another group of

researchers focussed more specifically on neighbourhood area liveability, rather than

generalised urban areas or cities. Their work largely focussed on neighbourhood quality

(Marrans, 1979), definitions (Hillery, 1968; van Vliet, 1987), satisfaction (Morrish and

Brown, 1994), planning and community development and empowerment (Keller, 1968;

Banerjee and Baer, 1984; Hester, 1984; Brower, 1996).

A key component of a liveable community according to Oldenburg (1999) is the ‘third

place’. He argues that third places are essential components of a well functioning

democracy, for endowing a sense of identity, developing social cohesion and providing

46

psychological support of life lived in the home (first place) and at work (second place).

Third places provide a sense of compensatory public space, especially in dense urban

settings, where private exterior space and well programmed public spaces are at a

premium. Oldenburg (1999) argues that third places are not necessarily public spaces

but are often private spaces open to the public for socialising, developing friendships,

extending social and support networks and spending leisure time ( for example, coffee

shops, cafes, hotels, bookshops, bars, hairdressers, shops and other affordable gathering

spots) in the heart of the community. Oldenburg’s third place research establishes

important links to considerable research efforts on neighbourhood walkability that have

arisen as a result of recent public health concerns. Walkability has been defined as:

…the extent to which the built environment supports and encourages walking by

providing for pedestrian comfort and safety, connecting people with varied

destinations within a reasonable amount of time and effort, and offering visual

interest in journeys throughout the network (Southworth, 2005, 248).

Some types of third places in close proximity to housing, especially relating to food and

dining, are key determinants in whether people will decide to walk or not (Moudon et al.,

2002). Restaurants/cafes/bars within 1000 feet and grocers within 1500 feet of housing

are important destinations for pedestrians and will influence decisions on walking

(Moudon et al., 2002). Other research supports these findings in suggesting that greater

land use mix, greater street connectivity and higher densities, are key correlates of

walking decisions (Saelens et al., 2003; Kaufmann and Jemelin, 2003; Henson and Essex,

2003; Gertz, 2003; Southworth, 2005; Behan et al., 2008). These and other findings that

highlight the importance of physical built environment conditions in terms of pedestrian

realm comfort and aesthetics inform useful strategy for addressing walkability issues to

advance economic, environmental and social neighbourhood objectives (Maldonado and

Cullars, 1991; Gertz, 2003; Southworth, 2005; Owen et al., 2007; Raco, 2007; Moreno and

Ruiz, 2008).

In more recent times there have been design movements developed in response to poor

urban planning and its negative outcomes of congestion, pollution, sprawl and placeless

design (Porter et al., 2002; Raco, 2007; Behan et al., 2008). These movements include:

New Urbanism and Urban Village Movements, Smart Growth and Compact City

47

Movements. All of these movements are designed to improve place-based liveability and

ensure that any new development delivers environmental, economic and social returns

(McKee, 2007; Behan et al., 2008).

Smart Growth has generally taken a growth management and regulatory approach to

increase density and restrict new greenfield construction (Shaw and Utt, 2000; Bullock,

2005; Moore and Scott, 2005; Eisen, 2009; Dernbach, 2009). Smart Growth’s key

practices include: growth management plans, densification, urban growth boundaries,

adequate public facilities and infrastructure ordinances, zoning reform, limits on new

freeway construction and transit expansion (Freilich, 1999; Porter, 2002; Salkin, 2009).

The Compact City movement is the United Kingdom’s version of the United States’ Smart

Growth (Ewing, 1997; Jenks et al., 1996). Compact City strategies encourage

densification, brownfield redevelopment and conservation of greenfields and agricultural

lands where possible (Moore, 2005; Eisen, 2009). These strategies have usually been

more over-arching policies rather than particularizing local placed issues (Kushner, 2007;

Harmon, 2008).

Urban sprawl, the major driver for the Smart Growth and Compact City movements, has

been defined by McManus (2005, 77) as poorly planned, haphazard, low density

development, with this criticism apparently being applied to the entire suburban realm

whether well planned or otherwise. Critiques of both Compact City and Smart Growth

find fault with arguments against suburbia, low density living, driving, energy use and

congestion, which critics suggest have been vetted by the market, are constantly

improving and whose positive aspects are perceived to outweigh negative externalities

(Gordon and Richardson, 1997; Cox, 2001; Davison, 2006; Gaynor, 2006; Moran, 2006;

Moran and Staley, 2007). Christoff and Low (2000) concluded that it has never been

established scientifically that residential densities reduce the consumption of energy or

greenhouse emissions resulting from travel behaviour. Gaynor (2006) argues that

original suburbia - opposed to the McMansions (Ritzer, 1993) of some more modern

suburbs - is a lot more sustainable than any contemporary ultra-consuming urban

landscape setting. Technological progress (for example, the private vehicle, air

conditioning, standardisation of housing, communication and information technologies)

and market innovations (for example, innovative products, fast food dining) are all based

48

on demand from knowing consumers (Cox, 2001). Suburban living remains popular with

those who choose it over urban amenities and nuisances (Cox, 2001).

New Urbanism within the United States (US) incorporates many of the Smart Growth

practices but focusses more on principles of place-making, traditional urban fabric

making, prescriptive design regulation and imagery from idyllic small town life (Talen,

2005; Duany et al., 2000; Katz, 1994). The United Kingdom (UK) Urban Village movement

was developed in response to city decline and parallels the US New Urbanism in

focussing on creating a village character in high density urban settings (Magnaghi, 2005;

Neal, 2003; Biddulph, 2000). The Urban Village movement has a traditional urban design

orientation by incorporating a local neighbourhood focus (Neal, 2003; Biddulph et al.,

2002).

Urban village concepts have been quickly adopted as key tools in planning and

development guidance in the UK at national and local government levels, with the strong

support of His Royal Highness (HRH) Prince Charles, (Neal, 2003; Biddulph et al., 2002).

”The village in the city” movement has been incredibly popular with local residents, city

officials and property owners in Britain (Savage et al., 2005; McDowell et al., 2006;

Russell et al., 2005; Yabes and Pijawka, 2008; Rohe, 2009). Liveability concepts and

planning models appear to be reinvented with each new generation. It is perhaps most

pertinent now when there appears to be a greater need for a sense of place in an

increasingly isolating world and when planning efficacy is questioned (Madanipour,

2001). The urban village movement has also gained popularity in Australia, New Zealand,

Canada and the US as neighbourhood planning efforts that have adopted the “village”

approach have secured higher levels of liveability (Neal, 2003; Yabes and Pijawka, 2008;

Rohe, 2009).

There are strong similarities between urban village and complete community movements

in terms of their liveability principles. They both espouse varied architecture, mixed

tenures for both housing and employment uses, mixed land uses, walkable and

pedestrian friendly environments, provision of basic shopping, health and educational

needs, and a degree of local self-sufficiency (Neal, 2003; Biddulph, 2000). The focus on

neighbourhood and community planning and improving the quality of urban life is what

makes these movements the closest in spirit to much of the place-based liveability

emphasised in local government planning throughout the western world (Moore and

49

Scott, 2005; Kushner, 2007). The idea of “complete communities” has gained favour in

ensuring neighbourhoods are diverse, choiceful and equipped with a plethora of social

services, institutions and amenities (Perkins, 1995). Active community participation and

a long-term sense and ownership of place emanate from places epitomised by complete

community ideology with meaningful place-based identity, amenities and services

(Morrish and Brown, 1994).

Despite their popularity, neighbourhood and community planning efforts such as the

urban village and complete community movements, are not without their critics. A major

criticism is that modern life has changed cities so much that the relevance of the place-

based neighbourhood community has passed. These changes include: weak social ties

due to rapid demographic change, high levels of mobility, and anonymity and

individualism at the expense of social cohesion (Isaacs, 1948; Webber, 1963; Silver, 1985;

Driskell and Lyon, 2002). Other critics suggest that neighbourhood or community

planning is fraught with difficulty when there is no universal agreement on

neighbourhood and community definitions (Silver, 1985; Webber, 1963; Biddulph, 2000;

Savage et al., 2005). There is also the assertion that residents are primarily concerned

with their immediate home area at the expense of larger neighbourhood or community

issues (Biddulph, 2000; Savage et al., 2005; Butler and Savage, 1995). Further criticism

surrounds the tendency of these planning movements to differentiate and create

tensions between small districts, thus encouraging segregation, social exclusion,

inequitable conditions and a hastening of gentrification (Lynch, 1981; Silver, 1985; Smith,

1996; Madanipour, 2001; Butler and Robson, 2003; Grant, 2006; McDowell et al., 2006).

There is also the cynical argument that neighbourhood planning has grown in importance

because of shared political interests, to protect and encourage strong growth of property

values supporting rent-seeking and development interests and for security and policing

purposes (Logan and Molotch, 1987; Madanipour, 2001). Thus, neighbourhood planning

has been criticised for being anti-urban, largely because it favours self-interested local

places rather than the urban community more broadly (Jacobs, 1961; Etzioni, 1995;

Biddulph, 2000; Wulff and Lobo, 2009).

There is a significant degree of overlap and agreement amongst the commentators and

theorists discussed above with respect to the physical characteristics of what constitute a

liveable city. Pedestrian amenity is universally recognised as being important for the

50

creation of more walkable cities, neighbourhoods or communities with a mix of land uses

in close proximity. All commentators have promoted the benefits that come from mixed

land uses as opposed to segregation and regulatory zoning. Close proximity of housing to

a wide range of retail outlets - especially those selling goods for everyday local use – is a

common recommendation across different theoretical positions. Almost all called for

more compact development patterns utilising brownfield redevelopment and

densification policies. A varied mix of dwelling type, size and price range was

recommended by many. There appears to be less agreement however, on the

importance of accessible and useable public space in terms of whether this space should

take the form of parks, plazas, footpaths or streets. Streets and footpaths were quite

broadly promoted as being shared social space, rather than single-use zones dominated

by vehicles. There was differing opinion on transportation. Many authors sought a

better balance in choice of mode; some suggested a reduction in auto use, while others

sought to accommodate both vehicles and people.

Quality of Life Indicators

Early social indicator research primarily explored concepts of social and personal quality

of life, addressing the well-being of interest groups living with specific conditions, such as

those with chronic medical conditions or diseases (Evans, 1994). Quality of life therefore

tends to deal with the more or less ‘satisfactory’ or ‘good’ nature of people’s lives (Szalai

in Dissart and Dellar, 2000). Notions of quality of life came to be identified with three

main domains of human experience: 1) social norms of what was important for individual

utility; 2) personal experience filtered through psychological filters; and 3) environmental

factors influencing perception (Dissart and Dellar, 2000; Romney et al., 1994). While

most commentators accept that effective liveability/quality of life measurement requires

research into both the analysis of environmental factors and of perceptions of

satisfaction (Grayson and Young, 1994), many researchers have focussed solely on one or

the other.

Two distinctive research directions have evolved within the study of quality of life, with

the bulk of research having focussed on place-based or domain-specific measures at

various scales as predictors of this outcome. This particular research approach involved

substantial work that situated quality of life issues within the context of their emergence

within different geographic settings such as urban areas (Schmandt and Bloomberg,

1969; Turksever and Atilak, 2001), metropolitan areas (Dahman, 1985), and specific cities

51

(Lever, 2000). The other involved universal or overall measures of quality of life with

extensive research being conducted to develop overall quality of life measures outside of

any place-based context (Parmenter, 1994; Friedman, 1987). The goal was to create a

single social indicator to replace gross economic indicators as a basis for comparing

countries and levels of national health (Evans, 1994). The rationale for these country

comparisons was to provide indicators to determine which countries needed

improvement as a precursor to generating programs to enhance quality of life across

general populations (Evans 1994). However, little of this work translated into action

(Evans, 1994).

Social indicators have waning policy relevance due to the difficulty translating social

science findings into actionable local policy (Myers, 1988; Sawicki and Flynn, 1996).

Myers (1988) suggests there are two reasons for this. Firstly, academic research is not

trusted by decision-makers who are suspicious of academic local interpretations,

reductionist problem-frameworks, its language and theory (Myers, 1988). Secondly,

there is often little by way of recommended solutions thereby producing little direct

impact (Myers, 1988). According to Cobb and Rixford (2005), this second reason is

because policy makers have failed to implement the research findings and researchers

have wanted to maintain their objectivity thereby opting to separate themselves from

politics and from operationalising their research. On the other hand, interested parties

have “cherry-picked” indicators to support their particular respective arguments or

positions (Cobb and Rixford, 2005).

Liveability and the Concept of Well-Being

The dominant theory in liveability research has been utilitarian theory, which values the

personal happiness and satisfaction of individuals (Veenhoven 1995; Diener and Lucas

2000). There has been a substantial amount of research into quality of life as “personal

utility”, which indicates that personal income, education, age and gender have little

impact on perceptions of subjective well-being (Veenhoven and Ehrhardt, 1995; Myers

and Diener, 1995; Diener, 2000; Peiro, 2006). Some researchers (Diener et al., 2003;

Myers and Diener, 1995; De Neve and Cooper, 1998; Argyle, 1999; Diener, 2000) have

found wealth to be a key determinant of general well-being up to the level where it

allows for the meeting of basic health and physiological needs, but past that, it no longer

a predictor of happiness. Research findings have also indicated that happier people tend

to have higher levels of self-esteem or optimism, a sense of personal control, and to be

52

extroverts or have strong faith lives (Diener et al., 2003; Myers and Diener, 1995; De

Neve and Cooper, 1998; Argyle, 1999; Diener, 2000).

From his research into residential surveys, Brower (1996) was able to draw a number of

general conclusions about housing satisfaction studies. He found that most satisfaction

and quality of life surveys used random samples of residents to determine the nature of

desirable qualities that exist in place, the reasons for having relocated to a new area or

for obtaining resident ratings of the qualities of a given place. Residents are frequently

asked to indicate their rationale for choosing to live in a place from a list of

characteristics and components typically supplied by the researcher, and less frequently

from open-ended questioning. Tables of attributes are the results of this type of research

and are a primary reason why liveability is described as being an “ensemble concept”

(Myers, 1989; Andrews, 2001).

Placed-based liveability approaches connect objective observations of physical places

with associated behaviour and activity levels that can be viewed and measured (see the

work of Gehl, 1987; Goffman, 1972; Lynch, 1981; Stevens, 2006; Lofland, 1998). Whyte

(2001), the PPS (2005), and a number of environmental behaviour researchers (Gehl,

1987; Goffman, 1972; Lynch, 1981; Stevens, 2006; Lofland, 1998) recommend behaviour

and/or activity observation as an appropriate means of analysing efficacy in public space

design and planning.

According to Andrews (2001) place-based measurements need to combine subjective

survey work reporting on residents’ opinions, perceptions, priorities and satisfaction

together with objective descriptions of the physical, economic and social environments.

This approach combines statistical, observational and empirical methods, supplemented

and vetted by residents’ perceptions, thus providing checks against either researcher or

resident bias (Andrews, 2001). In this way, the data from place-based work tends to form

a more “realistic description of the community’s quality of life, broadly enough based

that all segments of the community can accept it as a basis for subsequent decision

making” (Myers, 1988, 357).

Myers (1987) connected both objective and subjective data in his “community trend

method” as an illustration of place-based liveability research designed to present a more

53

accurate picture of local quality of life issues. This method requires researchers to

engage in dialogue with local stakeholders to identify characteristics that would

subsequently become the subject of longitudinal study in understanding local trends and

progress over time (Myers, 1989). Rather than researchers bringing a pre-selected set of

metrics to the community, this “negotiation” over indicators allows the research to be

grounded in local reality, and thus be made more pertinent to potential political and

planning action (Myers, 1989). Myers’ (1987) method gave recognition to liveability as a

shifting concept which is characterised by a variety of local issues rather than one over-

arching measure.

How Liveability Plays Out in Current Practice

Despite the absence of a universally accepted definition, liveability as an ideology has

grown in importance. Notions of liveability have risen in importance due to perceived

threats to existing quality of life from loss of agricultural land, congestion, shortage of

affordable housing stock, a growing social divide, and sustained losses of community life,

physical identity and sense of place (Wheeler, 2001). Interestingly, liveability has also

grown in importance because of the needs of an increasingly affluent post-industrial

society seeking amenities and quality of life (Wheeler, 2001; Lofti and Koohsari, 2009).

With growing wealth, comes a growing interest in leisure pursuits and protection of

property values. Demand for housing is closely aligned to the level of desirability of a

neighbourhood – the more desirable, the greater the demand, the greater the demand,

the higher the prices (Markusen and Glasmeier, 2008). While for some, liveability is a

means of improving property values, for most, the value is in improving the

neighbourhood living environment (Morrish and Brown, 2000).

Liveability agendas have reached the highest levels of state and national government

here in Australia (Curtis and Punter, 2004) as well as the United Kingdom, the United

States and Canada (Lambright et al., 1996; Evans, 2002; McCann, 2007; Raco, 2007).

While liveability issues are a major concern of western governments they are also

important to developing country governments although focussed at more basic needs

like good public health, adequate shelter and food (Deshkar et al., 2011). The over-riding

focus for developing countries is on improving basic infrastructure, environmental health

and the physical well-being of places of poverty to bring general economic and quality of

life benefits (Evans, 2002; Das, 2008; Tesfazghi et al., 2009; Deshkar et al., 2011).

54

Liveability Attribute and the Notion of the Everyday

Utilitarian theory dealing with levels of individual satisfaction and personal happiness is

the theory of choice in most liveability research (Veenhoven, 1995; Diener and Lucas,

2000). Personal utility theory, however, has been heavily criticised for not providing

greater social capital or sense of community and for not effectively guiding planning

efforts to improve liveability at the local level (Myers, 1988; Sen, 1993). The focus on

meeting particular satisfaction levels maybe a required goal but it appears to do little to

help planners know what to do to improve places.

Much of the research discussed in this chapter has argued that liveability is the

availability and accessibility of several factors, such as good public health, local serving

land uses, active social settings, specific urban forms, well programmed amenities, social

services and the like. These built environment factors are viewed as essential for day to

day living in place. A theory of the everyday or daily life is particularly useful as it

focusses attention on the required factors for regular functioning and social use of place

and not just on the things that simply make individuals happy or satisfied (Diener et al.,

2003; Chiesura, 2004; Lefebvre, 1991; Maldonado and Cullars, 1991). This requires

understanding through objective observation of the functioning of the urban

environment of what constitutes shared place-based experience as well as an

understanding of the prevailing cultural influences over use of the environment (Cobb

and Rixford, 2005; Myers, 1988). A daily life perspective is a useful framework through

which to review and promote liveability for cities and neighbourhoods to function

physically, socially and economically more effectively (Pacione, 1990; 2003).

A theory of the everyday has a long history. Lefebvre (1991) was a great exponent of an

everday perspective in urban settings. He was concerned that the powerful through

bureaucratic controls and capitalism were destroying everyday life (Lefebvre, 1991). The

power of the everyday however, was highlighted by de Certeau (1984) who asserted that

the practice of daily life – cooking, talking, reading and importantly walking, was a

“victory of the weak over the strong” (de Certeau, 1984, xix). These everday practices,

Mayol (in de Certeau et al., 1998) suggested, are acts of identity creation founded in the

everyday use of space. Regular neighbourhood walking, Mayol (in de Certeau et al.,

1998) argued, produces a sense of ownership of public neighbourhood space drawing it

into into the realm of private domestic life for the enrichment of the neighbourhood

user, thus, expanding one’s home far beyond the walls of the physical house.

55

A focus on the everyday aids understanding of what is vital and necessary for day to day

living (Maffesoli, 1993). Methods for assessing the practice of everyday life involve

objective observation (Highmore, 2002) based on qualitative descriptions of activity and

the space of activity with acknowledgement of the culture of use associated with the

space. Highmore (2002) asserted that everyday practice is largely invisible and has often

been overlooked but because of this, provides a great opportunity for tackling its issues

(Highmore, 2002). However, it should be noted that everyday urbanism has driven much

of the recent interest in the New Urbanism, Urban Village and Complete Communities

movements (Grant, 2006, 2006a; Bakardjieva, 2003) and is providing a serious rationale

for improving the city for regular daily functioning toward the goal of liveability

(Newman, 2008; Grant, 2006; Bakardjieva, 2003).

Liveability, Place and Ageing

Because of the complexity of liveability, place, and ageing, the literature review that

follows focusses on six relevant topic areas. The first topic area is the demographics of

the ageing population and the timeliness and importance of studying liveability and older

adults. The second topic is the theoretical, international and national significance of

understanding the relationship between older people and the quality of the

environment. The third is “place” and the understanding and meaning of place in the

process of ageing. The fourth is “ageing in place” and its impact on urban planning for

older people. The fifth topic area is the environment and older people’s participation in

activities. The sixth deals with neighbourhood design and active ageing in place within an

urban context. These topics are inter-related layers and are integral to understanding

liveability as it is directly related to successful ageing in place.

Demographics

Older populations in developed nations are, in the main, healthier and living longer than

previous generations. This is due to: a rapid increase in life expectancy in developed

nations in the 20th century; associated reductions in infectious diseases and declining

early age and maternal mortality; medical advances in recent decades that led to

declining middle- and old-age mortality; and rapid demographic shifts in the age

structure known as population ageing (Kinsella and He in Olshansky et al., 2011). The

most significant of these demographic shifts involves the ageing of the baby boom

generation. The demographic changes indicate that the ageing of the baby boom

56

generation will have a profound effect on the developed world in the decades to come

with the urgent need to better understand the situation of ageing in place to consider

appropriate policy and practice solutions.

The full effect of population ageing has yet to be experienced ,given that the leading

edge of the baby boom generation (those born mid 20th century) is now only beginning to

reach age 65, the retirement age in many countries (Olshansky et al., 2011). In 2003, the

United Nations (UN) reported that one out of every 10 persons were aged 60 years or

over and this is projected to increase in the proceeding years (Smith, 2009). In Australia,

people aged 55 years and over account for almost a quarter of the total population

(Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2007). By 2021, this is expected to increase to at

least 30%, and by 2051, at least 38% (ABS, 2006). The ageing of the baby boom

generation is playing a significant role in our ageing society, with the first of the

“boomers” already reaching the age of 60 (Judd et al., 2010). Census figures show an

increase of 28.7% in the population aged 55-59 over the last five years, compared to a

6.8% increase in the overall population (ABS, 2007).

The increasing percentage of older people in the community will have increasing

influence on all levels of the political system to achieve more age-friendly

neighbourhoods and transport infrastructure to age in place or make other informed and

appropriate choices (Judd et al., 2010). It must also be recognised that current and

future cohorts of older persons are not homogeneous and their diversity is expected to

grow as the size of elderly cohorts swells (Kinsella and He in Olshanky et al., 2011). Some

will be frail and demanding on existing institutions, many will be healthy (and some

wealthy), and they will continue to serve as resources for their families, communities and

countries (United Nations (UN), 2003). Not only is the ageing population of interest now,

it represents a social, health and economic issue for at least another 30 plus years with

the number and percentage of older people continuing to grow into the middle of the

21st century.

Society has reached an historical period in the population’s demographic profile focusing

nations on the need to support ageing and older people. There is international interest in

the demographic profile of older people in preparing to meet the needs of an older

society (Smith, 2009). Over half the world’s older population currently lives in urban

57

areas (51%) and the figure is projected to increase to 62% by 2050 (UN, 2003). These

trends should raise significant concerns given growing criticism and questioning of the

age-friendliness of urban areas and the ability to meet the current needs of an ever-

increasing urbanised ageing population (Zwingle in Smith, 2009). This impending global

phenomenon holds relevance for urban planning in creating liveable age-friendly urban

form that facilitates active ageing in place.

Theoretical, International and National Importance

In recent years, there has been increasing recognition of the need to improve the quality

of cities and neighbourhoods in reference to supporting an ever-increasing ageing

society. The Second World Assembly on Ageing held in Madrid 2002 adopted an

International Plan of Action on Ageing in response to the challenges and opportunities of

population ageing in the 21st century and to promote a society for all ages (Sidorenko and

Walker, 2004). One of the three key priority areas raised was to create enabling and

supportive environments (Sidorenko and Walker, 2004).

In 2006, the World Health Organisation (WHO) brought together 33 cities in 22 countries

for a research programme to help determine the key elements of the urban environment

that support active and healthy ageing. The result was The Global Age-Friendly Cities

Guide, which outlines a framework for assessing the “age-friendliness” of a city (WHO,

2007) and defines an age-friendly city as: “an inclusive and accessible urban environment

that promotes active ageing”. The WHO identified eight domains of city life that might

influence the health and quality of life of older people and these include:

Outdoor spaces and buildings

Housing

Transport

Social participation

Respect and social inclusion

Civic participation and employment

Communication and information

Community support and health services

Recognition and endorsement by influential international organisations like the WHO and

UN of the need to create a supportive environment for older people encourages

58

discussion of age-friendly communities (Sidorenko and Walker, 2004). For example,

initially through its Healthy Cities Project that commenced in 1986, the WHO emphasised

the relationship between health and the built, natural and social environments as well as

the role of local government in promoting active living for all ages (Edwards and Tsouros

in Lui et al., 2009). The Global Age-Friendly Cities Project has intensified renewed interest

in the concept of an age-friendly community in many countries.

It is widely recognised that an important aspect of positive and healthy ageing is

participation in activities outside the home and that urban design and planning can

influence participation (WHO, 2007; DoHA, 2006; Mitchell and Burton, 2006; Inclusive

Design for Getting Outdoors (IDGO), 2007a; 2007c). The age friendly cities agenda also

intersects with the recent emphasis on healthy cities, which recognises the important

role of planning and urban design in promoting health and well-being (NHF, 2004). These

areas of research and policy development are still in their infancy, but will become more

critical as the population ages (Judd et al., 2010).

While a decent environment is a right requiring no empirical justification, social policy

and social change needs to be driven by a better understanding of what constitutes a

‘decent’ environment in which older people are committed to ageing in place (Lawton in

Smith, 2009). The need to better understand older people’s experiences is in part driven

and supported by research that suggests that environment matters (Atkinson and Kintrea

in Smith, 2009; Brown et al., in Smith, 2009).

The research literature suggests that well-being in later life is closely related to the

physical environment, because environments can have a powerful enabling and disabling

impact on older age (Lui et al., 2009; Smith, 2009). With the increased losses associated

with later life due to the malleable process of ageing, the quality and type of

environment becomes a significant factor in determining the well-being and

independence of older people (Cunningham and Michael, 2004; Phillipson, 2004; House

of Lords Science and Technology Committee in Smith, 2009). Similarly, recent findings

from research undertaken within the discipline of urban studies confirm that the nature

of the neighbourhood has a significant impact on the mobility, independence and quality

of life of older people (numerous authors cited in Lui et al., 2009). Recognising that age

composition is a dimension of diversity, urban planning has moved to include

59

neighbourhood design and sophisticated conceptions of place, emphasising the value of

inclusive design for preserving heterogeneity in the community (Gilroy in Lui et al., 2009).

Environmental gerontology, the application of a multidisciplinary focus to the

relationship between older people and their socio-spatial environment, has been

increasing in importance over the past few decades (Lui et al., 2009; Smith, 2009). This

pluralistic focus has generated a wealth of data, developed a range of theoretical

concepts and frameworks and has encompassed empirical findings and mixed

methodological approaches (Wahl and Weisman, 2003). It therefore, has no standard

methodological or theoretical approach (Kendig, 2003) and thus provides both challenges

and opportunities for studying the environment and ageing (Smith, 2009).

While great gains in knowledge were made in environmental gerontology in the 1970s

and early 1980s, much of the work since has sought to verify and replicate findings

(Smith, 2009). Whal and Weisman (2003, 1) have observed that “environmental

gerontology may be described as a field high in conceptual aspiration (‘world views’) but

low with regard to making research and application-productive use of its theoretical

achievements”. Kendig (2003) identified the “astonishing paucity” of research beyond

the home environment in environmental gerontology theory. Indeed in Australia, the

importance of the role of the urban environment in supporting older people to age in

place has sometimes been overlooked due to the focus on the home itself and the

services provided therein (Quinn et al., 2009). Kendig (2003, 612) highlighted the

importance of extending research to cities and neighbourhoods, particularly in view of

“important macro-dimensions to change, such as aging of the baby boom cohort in post-

war suburbs”.

While research on the relationship between older people and their outdoor

environments is limited relative to work on the design of housing (Mitchell and Burton,

2006), there are a number of projects recently completed or currently in progress with

this topic area as their main focus. For example, the United Kingdom's Inclusive Design

for Getting Outdoors (IDGO, 2007a) research project is investigating how design of the

outdoor environment affects the quality of life of older people (Quinn et al., 2009). In-

depth interviews and focus groups have been conducted with older people across the UK

investigating matters related to their outdoor environments, and nearly 800 older people

60

have been surveyed as part of the project (IDGO, 2007b). This project aims to provide a

list of quality of life criteria relating to outdoor environments for older people as a guide

for the best design of outdoor environments to enhance older people's quality of life

(Mitchell and Burton, 2006).

Another research project run by the Well-being in Sustainable Environments (WISE)

research unit at the Oxford Centre for Sustainable Development has investigated

perceptions, experience and use of the outdoor environment by older people with

dementia, and identified design factors that influence their ability to successfully use and

negotiate their local neighbourhoods (Mitchell and Burton, 2006). Prior to this research,

little empirical attention had been given to the design of outdoor environments for

people with dementia. Earlier studies concentrated on designing supportive institutional

environments and, more recently, dementia-friendly housing (Quinn et al., 2009).

However, as there is a general desire among people with dementia to remain living at

home for as long as possible, and most do so, it is important that the design of their local

community supports their independence. The familiarity of their home and local

neighbourhood has been shown to assist them to better cope with their mental and

physical symptoms (Mitchell and Burton, 2006; Teri et al., 2003; Weuve et al., 2004).

In their positioning paper entitled Dwelling, land and neighbourhood use by older Home

Owners for the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Quinn and her

colleagues (2009) identified work on the design of the outdoor environment for older

people currently underway in Australia. This work respresents progress made in response

to a recommendation from the 2005-06 National Speakers Series A Community for All

Ages: Building the Future for the development of a planning guide for the design of

healthy Australian built environments. Development of this guide is being undertaken

jointly by the Planning Institute of Australia, the National Heart Foundation of Australia

(NHF) and the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA), along with the

Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA), and is using the NHF’s Healthy

by Design: A Planners Guide to Environments for Active Living as its starting point (Quinn

et al., 2009).

Spatial contexts where older people live and the meaning they attach to these spaces is a

critical component of studying the ageing process (Becker, 2003). Research into

61

environmental ageing is important because places can affect many aspects of daily life,

for example, feelings of safety and comfort, levels of independence, physical and mental

well-being, and social support (Lawton, 1985; 1986). According to McPherson (cited in

Smith, 2009) the type and quality of the environment can determine the level of personal

well-being and independence of older people who experience changes in marital status,

health or income.

Place

The meaning of place

The Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus (Tulloch, 1997, 674) defines place as “a particular

position or point in space: a location”. Cutchin (2005, 121) defines place as “a concept

that broadly refers to the ensemble of social, cultural, historic, political, economic and

physical features that make up the meaningful context of human life”. The literature

related to concepts of place that relate specifically to ageing presents a complex picture.

First, place has a physical dimension that can be seen and touched. It is spatial and

material with measurable dimensions. Second, place contains a social dimension

involving relationships with people, and the ways in which individuals remain connected

to others in various places. Finally, there is an emotional and psychological reaction to a

place, which has to do with a sense of belonging and attachment. The physical places of

community, neighbourhood and home are closely linked to social relationships with

associates, friends and family that exist within a specific place, creating the emotional or

psychological world where issues are resolved, challenges are met or a sense of

belonging is created or strengthened.

The terms place, neighbourhood and community are used interchangeably in popular

parlance to describe both a geographic area and area of interest (Hillery, 1968). No

single or widely agreed definition applies to any of these three terms. Scholars have

attempted to distinguish between neighbourhood and community through the concept

of place. Webber (1963) argued that the point of difference between community and

neighbourhood is that communities exist outside of place (community without

propinquity), whereas neighbourhoods are grounded in place within particular

geographical areas. Tuan (1990) considered place from the perspective of the user. He

found that place symbolised security and that it was created when space had undergone

human modifications, and people have experience within that place. Because this

section looks at liveability and older people’s ability or otherwise to age in place, it draws

62

on literature that reviews ageing in place through the use of either place, community or

neighbourhood. Therefore, for the purpose of the discussion on liveability and place, and

ageing in place, the terms place, neighbourhood and community are used either

collectively or individually for this review.

Place in Ageing

Place in ageing is concerned with understanding the meaning of place in the process of

ageing (Rowles, 1978; 1980; 1981; 1983). Connected to place in ageing is the idea of

emotive connection to place or place attachment (Wahl, 2001). Whereas ageing in place

focuses on the physical familiarity or process underlying the physical attachment to

place, place in ageing relates to the psychological reason underlying people’s desire to

stay in their present locality (Smith, 2009). Such understanding might be particularly

useful when trying to understand the reasons why people might desire to remain in

place.

Numerous studies have sought to understand place in relation to the development and

creation of meaning (Smith, 2009). Terms such as attachment to place, place attachment

and sense of place have all been used to denote the creation of positive experience and

memories (Rowles, 1980; 1983). Attachment to place has been defined as a “set of

feelings about a geographical location that emotionally binds a person to that place as a

function of its role as a setting of experience” (Rubinstein and Parmelee, 1992, 139).

Brown and Perkins (1992, 284) describe it differently, saying that:

…place attachment involves positively experienced bonds, sometimes occurring

without awareness, that are developed over time from the behavioural, affective

and cognitive ties between individuals and/or groups and their socio-physical

environment.

Place is argued to provide an individual with a rich tapestry of experiences and

memories; as one ages and possible health problems challenge identity, place can work

to reinforce one’s life and help the individual manage their present or future self

(Rubinstein and Parmelee, 1992). Disruption to place attachments can happen quickly

but create a “long-term phase of dealing with the loss and repairing or re-creating

attachments to people and places” (Brown and Perkins, 1992, 284). The physical

environment can present a backdrop against which the individual chooses to accept or

63

reject the self (Howell, 1983) and this is why place in the ageing process might be

particularly significant (Smith, 2009).

Rowles (1980) framed ideas of attachment within the term “insideness”. He identified

physical insideness, social insideness and autobiographical insideness. Physical

insideness relates to ageing in place which is discussed below in the next section. The

other two types of insideness (social and autobiographical) proposed by Rowles relate to

the emotive or sentimental meaning given to place in ageing (Smith, 2009). Social

insideness relates to the proclivity to form social affinity with a place or “integration

within the social fabric of the community” (Rowles, 1983, 302). This includes for

example, daily routines, rules and norms that operate and develop between others in the

household or outside the home with neighbours. Individuals are enabled to develop a

sense of belonging through participation in local culture, and through sharing in nurturing

the neighbourhood’s sense of group identification with place (Rowles, 1978; 1980; 1983).

Autobiographical insideness relates to our images of self and sense of identity as we grow

older, and as those around us age, we are inextricably intertwined with the places of our

lives. These places are selectively recalled as we reinforce our image of who we are

(Smith, 2009).

Ageing in Place

Ageing in place is about preference and self-determination (Sherman and Dacher, 2005;

Gabriel and Bowling, 2004; Godfrey et al., 2004). The research literature related to

ageing in place confirms that older people desire to age in place even when faced with

increased frailty (Wister, 2005; Rowles, 1978; 1980; Organisation for Economic Co-

operation and Development (OECD), 2003; Godfrey et al., 2004; Gabriel and Bowling,

2004;). It also confirms the benefit of liveable places, neighbourhoods or communities in

fostering safe and independent living for ageing adults (Lawton, 1985; Rowles, 1983;

Olsberg and Winters, 2005; Smith, 2009; Judd et al., 2010). Ageing in place is concerned

with understanding the physical process of ageing in a familiar environment – the

physical insideness (Rowles, 1980; 1983; Smith, 2009). Older people are able to benefit

from and remain more independent as a result of ageing in familiar environments,

especially as they become more frail (Heuman and Bold, 1993; Rowles, 1980; 1983). This

has largely attracted the attention of policy makers interested in assessing the economic

64

costs of housing an ageing society (Wister, 2005; Cutchin, 2003; OECD, 2003) and

meeting social care needs (Wanless, 2006).

It is generally accepted that ageing in place is optimal for both older people and the state

(Olsberg and Winters, 2005; Judd et al., 2010; Heuman and Bold, 1993). The

independence, health and well-being of older people are advanced by ageing in place and

there is a reduced economic burden on government through reduced demand for

institutionalised aged care. Ageing in place is increasingly endorsed by governments, not

just in Australia but also in New Zealand, North America, the United Kingdom,

Scandinavia and elsewhere in Europe, where there seems to be a general consensus that

the state’s role in welfare provision needs to be curtailed (De Vaus and Qu, 1997).

Government-provided services for the elderly were once viewed as an inviolable social

right, but there is now pressure on governments to reduce spending imposed by

economic globalisation (OECD, 2003).

Two reasons that could be important for ageing in place include physical necessity and

spatial restriction (Smith, 2009). There is pragmatism in ageing in place in a location

where one is fully cognisant of and integrated within a local service network and can

receive practical assistance from friends and neighbours (Rowles, 1981; 1983). Physical

attachment is one of the principal reasons underlying a need to age in place (Rowles,

1978; 1980; 1981; 1983; Rubinstein, 1989; Lawton, 1982; 1983; 1985; 1986). Acute

physical awareness of one’s own environment is most advantageous in cases of declining

functional health for maintaining independence and maximising physical function

(Rowles, 1978; 1981).

Successful adaption to increased spatial restriction brought about by declines in

functional health could be another underlying reason to age in place (Smith, 2009).

Environmental barriers and health restrictions have been found to increase spatial

restriction with ageing (Lawton, 1985; Rubinstein, 1989; Rowles, 1978). Such research

highlights that the process of ageing is made easier if one remains in place when spatial

restriction occurs (Smith, 2009). One benefit of ageing in place when this kind of

restriction occurs, relates to the role played by fantasy in terms of adaption and well-

being (Rowles, 1978). Rowles (1978) defined fantasy as the recollection of the past. It

can liberate an individual from any spatial considerations as fantasy supports personal

65

identity in the face of changes and adaption to health decline. It is achieved by locating

the person in the past as a healthy, active, independent person, thereby creating a

continuity of self (Rowles, 1978). It is suggested that fantasy and environmental

restructuring might not be achieved outside a familiar environment (Rowles, 1978). If

this is the case, ageing in place might be a prerequisite for successful adaptation to

increased spatial restriction and therefore physical attachment. It could also be argued

that urban environments fuel such fantasy due to their high energy nature, the culture of

the street and the sense of being at the centre of things all characteristic of postmodern

urban sensibility (see Ellin, 1996; Smith, 1996; Dear, 2000; Gratz, 2003).

Environment and Participation in Activities

There has been growing attention given to the neighbourhood environment and older

people’s everyday out-of-home mobility both in environmental gerontology (Day, 2010)

and across a wide range of disciplines including geography, urban studies, transport

studies and public health (Spinney et al., 2009; Burton and Mitchell, 2006; Feldman and

Oberlink, 2003; Sugiyama and Ward Thompson, 2007; Banister and Bowling, 2004;

Shendell et al., 2011; King et al., 2011). There is the recognition that well-being and

independence are positively correlated to out-of-home mobility in later life (Spinney et

al., 2009; Wahl et al., 2007; Sugiyama et al., 2009) and this relationship is embedded in

the discourse around healthy and active ageing (Ziegler and Schwanen, 2011; World

Health Organisation, 2002; 2007). Healthy ageing and active ageing differ from each

other in subtle ways, but they both highlight vitality, activity and resisting the negative

consequences of biological ageing (Schwanen and Ziegler, 2011). Various studies have

found that older people who are unable to move around freely because of a physical

disability or through environmental limitations have a lower quality of life (Wahl et al.,

2007; White et al., 2010).

A high level of accessibility in the outside environment (as well as the inside

environment) is required to age in place well. Building and maintaining liveable places,

neighbourhoods or communities is a core component of a positive approach to

supporting the increasing population of older people (Lui et al., 2009). Liveable places,

neighbourhoods or communities include availability of affordable and appropriate

housing, opportunities for civic engagement, provision of supportive place,

neighbourhood or community features and services, safe pedestrian environments, and

expansion of transportation options for residents (Hwang et al., 2008). While residing in

66

a liveable place, neighbourhood or community is an ideal that people aim to realise, it

takes a lot of hard work, diligence, and time by policy makers and residents to transform

the ideal into tangible reality. It is nearly impossible for individuals to change their

outside environments as easily as they are able to modify their own homes. Promoting

liveability requires the attention of local civic leaders, policy makers, service providers,

and advocates.

The need to create liveable environments is essential as poor neighbourhood features

are linked to lower levels of engagement and less successful ageing (Smith, 2009).

Neighbourhoods can significantly impact upon the mobility, independence, and quality of

life of ageing adults (Lui et al., 2009). Engagement and use of outdoor environments

have various benefits for people through participation in physical activity, exposure to

outdoor elements, and social interaction (Sugiyama and Ward Thompson, 2007). Jacobs

et al. (2008) found a link between the frequency with which older adults leave their

homes and subsequent functional health. Those who have a risk of falling are more likely

to stay in their homes and restrict their activity in the community because of their fear,

even before a fall occurs (Rubenstein, 2006; Anders et al., 2007; Sugiyama and Ward

Thompson, 2009). But when older people reduce their activity and mobility, they are

actually placing themselves at an increased risk for falling (Rubenstein, 2006). Routine

walking improves the gait and reduces the risks of falling which leads to broken bones,

social isolation and declining physical and mental health (Frumkin et al, 2004; McGuire et

al, 2004). Another implication of limiting activity is that it can lead to declining fitness

and health. Therefore, creating and sustaining a neighbourhood or community

environment conducive to an active lifestyle - where ageing adults can get around safely -

is beneficial to both their health and well-being. Eliminating potential hazards in the

outdoor environment and ensuring low levels of crime in the community assist in

providing a safe pedestrian environment. Ageing in place implies an enabling and

supportive environment (WHO, 2007; Smith, 2009).

The provision of services is especially important for older people as they need access to

shopping medical services, support services and transportation in order to continue to

age in place. In their study entitled Dwelling, land and neighbourhood use by older home

owners for the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Judd and his colleagues

(2010) confirmed that the design of the neighbourhood and provision of neighbourhood

67

facilities can enhance or inhibit participation (Judd et al., 2010). They found that

participation in shopping, banking and retail stood out as the most frequent (one or more

times per week) and important activities to be located near to the home. Although less

frequent, having medical and health facilities close to the home was also considered

important by a high percentage of their respondents. Other activities considered as

important to have in close proximity by more than half of their respondents included

visiting family and friends, having family and friends visit, sport and recreation,

volunteering, dining out and religious services (Judd et al., 2010).

Findings from research undertaken by Judd and colleagues’ (2010) suggest that older

Australian home owners wish to live in areas that are well serviced by a combination of

facilities. This aligns with the incorporation of mixed-use neighbourhoods within most

metropolitan strategic plans of major Australian cities — for example, the South East

Queensland Regional Plan (Office of Urban Management (OUM), 2004); the Sydney

Metropolitan Strategy (Department of Planning (DoP), 2005); and the Melbourne 2030

(Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE), 2005). This approach co-locates

residential and other uses around transport nodes, thus providing pedestrian access to

local retail, commercial, community and cultural facilities with related public open space.

This is also advocated in the healthy cities guidelines (NHF, 2004), which promotes “local

destinations to support lively, walkable and rideable neighbourhoods” (NHF, 2004:13).

Public health, urban planning and transportation research highlights the link between

urban form, physical activity and public health (Frank et al., 2003). Walking in particular

has been shown to have a positive influence on a range of health outcomes especially for

older people - including chronic conditions such as heart disease, some cancers and

diabetes (Prohaska et al., 2006). Walking is the main form of exercise for older

Australians, and in the context of public health, walking is the behaviour that is most

likely to be amenable to influence (Siegel et al., 1995). Older people are more likely to

participate in the recommended level of physical activity, improving their health and

increasing life satisfaction, when the design of their neighbourhood is safe and pleasant

so that it is easy and safe to go outdoors (IDGO, 2007a).

Walkability is prominent in Australian government policy for environmental, social and

economic objectives and substantial investment is being directed to increase walking for

68

transport, mixed-use neighbourhoods and pedestrian accessibility (Lee and Moudon,

2004). The importance of physical conditions, aesthetics, and comfort of the pedestrian

realm itself provide a useful strategy for tackling walkability issues in support of

environmental, social and economic goals within neighbourhoods (Maoh and

Kanaroglou, 2009).

Public transportation is vital for liveable places, neighbourhoods or communities to allow

older adults to remain independent and more actively engaged with neighbours and

friends, fostering ageing in place. Social ties to neighbours and friends grow initially in the

outdoor environment through repeated visual contacts, greetings, and short

conversations (Sugiyama and Ward Thompson, 2007). Gray (2009) found a positive link

between social support scores and neighbourhood contacts. He found that accessible or

liveable neighbourhoods or communities are those that are walkable and/or can provide

transportation (formally or informally), are safe, well-lit environments that help maintain

friendships, sustain social networks, and ensure continued opportunities to actively

participate in their neighbourhood or community (Gray, 2009).

Healthy ageing and successful ageing in place is a notion that encompasses a broad

spectrum of factors, well beyond physical health or freedom from disease. Successful

ageing is dictated by internal beliefs, viewpoints and highly individualised approaches to

healthy living. It also is dependent upon external dimensions that include social

networks, community services, public policies, and the built and natural environment

(National Council on Aging (NCOA), 2004).

Neighbourhood Design and Active Ageing in Place

The design of the urban environment has a major influence on older people’s

involvement in the community: access to social activities, services and amenities. It is not

just accessing facilities that is important. Access to amenities, diverse activities,

residential density and street connectivity have all been correlated with a person’s

decision to walk, rather than to drive or to stay home (Siegel et al., 1995; Saelens et al.,

2003). People who engage in physical activity are at least 20% more likely to consider

replacing car journeys with other modes of transport than sedentary respondents

(Badland and Schofield, 2006). As a matter of routine, this group is healthier, chooses to

drive less and also choose to live in Activity Friendly Communities, recognising the link

between environmental design and opportunities for physical activity and health

69

maintenance (Librett et al., 2007). People are attracted to destinations that are clusters

of mixed activities (Frank et al., 2003; Sallis, 2008), conscious of the importance of the

wider neighbourhood to their capacity to age in place and remain active as they age

(Judd et al., 2010; Quinn et al., 2009). Older people value convenient access to public

transport, retail, medical, community, cultural and recreational facilities; they require

well maintained and safe pedestrian networks, crossings and lighting at night, places to

walk, sit, have a cup of coffee and read the paper; and they need good seating, bus

shelters and public toilets (Judd et al., 2010). Leslie et al. (2005; 2007) found that

proximity and easy access to such amenities influence walking behaviour, as does

environmental aesthetics and perceptions of safety.

Approaches to planning the built environment enable or obstruct physical activity and

hinder or promote a healthy lifestyle (Powell, 2005; Lloyd and Auld, 2003). According to

Powell (2005), our built environment moulds our behaviours. Judd et al (2010) found that

some interviewees in their study were very satisfied with the design and facilities in their

neighbourhood and this encouraged their participation in activities outside the home. In

other areas where interviewees expressed concerns about the design of the public realm,

this did appear to discourage participation (Judd et al., 2010). Inadequate provision or

poor quality of paths of travel, transport nodes, public open space, access to public

buildings, street furniture, local cafes and public toilets were issues raised by some

interviewees, along with fear of crime and anti-social behaviour (Judd et al., 2010). With

mounting evidence that good neighbourhood design is associated with walking and more

physically active lifestyles, strategies to increase land-use mix while reducing time in a car

can be effective as health interventions (Frank et al., 2003).

Implications for policy and wellness maintenance programs are amplified as a public

health challenge as populations of developed countries like Australia and the US grow

increasingly more sedentary and obese (Sallis et al., 2004; Moudon et al., 2005).

Environmental or neighbourhood design has an important role to play in improving

physical activity and overall health in all segments of the population (Frank et al., 2007).

With the number of adults over 65 expected to double worldwide (UN, 2003), a

community that enables ageing in place through pedestrian friendly neighbourhoods,

streets and walkways will become even more desirable.

70

Community design that strategically supports active ageing by facilitating regular physical

activity has become a national focus and goal for many developed countries. Urban

design and land use policies and practices that are married with street and sidewalk

connectivity, lighting and aesthetic streetscapes promote walking, as do co-locating

compatible activities, such as schools, community centres and parks (Frumkin et al.,

2004; Heath et al., 2005). Policy initiatives that seek to enforce the permanent removal of

impediments to walking, including street crossings that do not allow older people or

disabled enough time to cross, deteriorating sidewalks or other physical barriers will be

instrumental in the older adult’s ability to age in place (Frumkin et al., 2004; Heath et al.,

2005). These issues also feature strongly in the healthy cities and age friendly cities

agenda (WHO, 2007; NHF, 2004; IDGO 2007a,c; Ritter et al., 2002) for improving the

design of cities and neighbourhoods, a task that needs to involve all levels of

government. In Australia, the Federal Government has already taken a lead in identifying

the design of urban environments as an important response to an ageing population via

DoHA’s National Speaker Series A Community for All Ages (DoHA, 2006). The importance

of the role of local government has been recognised by the Australian Local Government

Association (ALGA) which, with the support of DoHA, has published Age Friendly Built

Environments: Opportunities for Local Government (ALGA, 2006) and established the

website Planning for an Ageing Community which includes material on age-friendly built

environments for local government.

Neighbourhoods that limit the mobility of the elderly, people who use walkers or

wheelchairs or other persons with disabilities can hinder opportunities for physical

activity, reduce independence and compromise quality of life. Environmental design and

planning policies have the potential to immediately and positively affect the lives of a

significant proportion of these groups within the population, making this a reality that

demands due political attention (International City/County Managers Association (ICMA),

2005). Public health interventions that enhance physical activity and enable access to

destinations are recommended by ICMA (2005) and the Center for Disease Control and

Prevention (2009). Two Australian cities have participated in the WHO Age Friendly Cities

Project — Melbourne, Victoria, and Melville in the Perth metropolitan area, Western

Australia. The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) has also collaborated with the

Council of the Ageing (COTA) and the McCaughey Centre at Melbourne University in the

WHO project (MAV, undated, retrieved 1 July, 2010). A number of individual Local

71

Government Areas have adopted age-friendly planning, transport and housing strategies

(ALGA, 2006; MAV, undated, retrieved 1 July, 2010). Smart Growth, New Urbanist, Eco-

Village, Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and similar models serve the widest range

of citizens, with older people and people with disabilities being particularly poorly served

by urban sprawl (Frumkin et al., 2004). While the interests of older people intersect with

healthy city, urban design, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) and

sustainable city concepts and guidelines, there has been no systematic appraisal to date,

of how comprehensively these represent the interests and needs of older people — for

example, those with mild dementia (Mitchell and Burton, 2006). Whether a stand alone

set of guidelines or systematically incorporated into other broader guidelines, this is an

important task that is yet to be undertaken and would require the cooperation of all

levels of government (Judd et al., 2010).

There will be unprecedented pressures on communities as the growing population of

older people demand greater services and infrastructure. However, these challenges

could very well be overshadowed by the enormous share of social and human capital that

will be available by the largest, healthiest, best educated and most affluent generation of

older adults in history (Koff, 2008). Ageing in place is a widely held lifestyle preference

and a comprehensive strategy that ensures that communities are designed and equipped

to allow older adults to age with dignity in their own homes and still maintain an active

social life in their communities. However‚ making a community ageless requires the

collaboration of numerous players from the public, private and non-profit sectors

(Campoli and MacLean, 2007).

This review has revealed that the relationship between ageing, health and the design of

the urban environment is a relatively new area of research and policy attention linked to

the healthy cities (or healthy planning) debate. Its importance has been recognised by

governments, health and built environment professionals both overseas and in Australia

and work is underway on a national planning guide for the design of healthy Australian

built environments as recommended in DoHA’s National Speakers Series report. The

other significant initiative is the National Heart Foundation’s Healthy by Design

guidelines, which is supported by the Planning Institute of Australia.

72

This review has established that the design of the urban environment influences older

people's access to community facilities, amenities and transport, socialising with friends

and family, and participation in recreational activities, particularly walking for exercise.

The design of the urban environment can, therefore, like the design of the home,

enhance or limit older people’s safety and independence. Conversely, a poorly designed

environment can provide considerable barriers for older people. The literature review

has demonstrated that mixed use design for amenities and design of paths of travel,

transport, public buildings, open spaces, street fixtures and furniture and measures to

ensure easy wayfinding and safety and security are all important in contributing to a safe

and accessible urban environment for older people.

Theoretical Framework for the Research

One way to consider liveability and ageing in place is according to Maslow’s Hierarchy of

Needs Pyramid (Maslow, 1999) which begins with essential needs as the base and as

these are met, progressing through to more life enriching elements at higher levels of the

pyramid. Using this model, liveability is not achieved without the essential needs of

adequate shelter, nourishment and good public health conditions. Once these basic

survival needs are met, concerns for safety and security within the urban environment

become the focal point (Yuen, 2004; Lang, 1994; Lynch, 1981). Lang (1994) argued two

dimensions of safety and security needs in places – the physiological need and the

psychological need. He argued that safety needs in places involve physical, social and

economic security, including the need to dispel fears over material wants, social

vulnerability, inequity and injustice threats. When economic conditions are challenging

people are concerned with basic needs such as employment, food, shelter and security,

however, in strong economic times the focus switches to more life enriching

opportunities (Andrews, 2001). The need to belong, to establish and enjoy social

networks, community formation and cohesion and have settings which are conducive for

social activity has been recognised as important by many researchers and advocacy

groups (Jacobs, 1961; Whyte, 2001; Myers, 1987; 1988; Hampshire, 2000; PLC et al.,

1986). Needs for self-actualisation (Maslow, 1999) might include spiritual and personal

fulfilment needs. Understanding the role of built environments with regard to the

hierarchy of needs is important to improving place-based liveability.

73

Measures of age-friendliness (van Vliet, 2008; WHO, 2002; 2007; Neal and DeLa Torre,

2009) and liveability (Myers, 1987; Stevens, 2006; NRC, 2002) guided by local knowledge

and place-based cultures of use tend to be more relevant and are more likely to be

actioned than abstract generalities about liveability and age-friendliness requirements.

With the recognition that places are dynamic and in the constant process of evolving,

placed-based issues like liveability and age-friendliness then are usually best understood

by those embedded within place (Jacobs, 2004; van Vliet, 2008; Neal and DeLa Torre,

2009). Public consultation and participation can help make liveability and age friendly

cities research relevant and timely (NRC, 2002). Working with stakeholders, communities

and local governments in a participatory manner can also help build support and a sense

of ownership for findings and provide stimulus for change (WHO, 2007; Neal and DeLa

Torre, 2009; COTA, 2001). Attention to local patterns can help make liveability

measurement relevant for local planners and decision makers, who can then translate

findings into actionable and implementable policies, programs and designs (NRC, 2002).

Conclusion

This review of literature provides a range of perspectives on liveability, age-friendliness

and ageing in place. Much of it begins to overlap, pointing to similar conclusions. While

neighbourhood liveability is a complex multi-layered concept encompassing many

attributes, in its most basic form liveability comes down to place-based well-being for all

citizens. Considering liveable, age-friendly places through a theory or lens of daily life

requires addressing a few criteria to derive accurate definitional attributes to measure

those things that are truly important to the functioning of everyday life for older people.

A theory of the everyday or daily life has the great advantage of focussing attention on

the required elements, regular functioning and social use of place (Lefebvre, 1991; Diener

et al., 2003; Chiesura, 2004). This is reinforced by much of the research, discussed above,

which views liveability as the availability and accessibility of several key elements, such as

basic needs, local serving land uses, well programmed amenities, social services, specific

urban forms, and active social settings. These elements are perceived to be essential for

the regular daily activities associated with living in a particular place.

A liveable, age-friendly neighbourhood is one that provides its residents and users with

essential services and life enriching amenities within the immediate place. Great

liveable, age-friendly neighbourhoods operate holistically on social, economic and

74

environmental dimensions to enable successful ageing in place with secure and fulfilling

life experiences. To use the motto of the Birmingham Centre for Applied Gerontology

(first coined by its founding director, the late Bernard Isaacs), ‘Design for the young and

you exclude the old; design for the old and you include the young” (quoted in Haigh,

1993, 9). It is argued that this applies to all forms of design including urban design. To

determine these criteria, the work of the World Health Organisation (WHO, 2002; 2007)

and the National Research Council (NRC, 2002) provided information on gathering data

and measurements necessary for informed local decision making. This work has been

useful in guiding selection of liveability characteristics and methods that can lead to

effective policy and planning action within an everyday life focus or agenda for older

people.

The methods for the program of research of this thesis are outlined in the following

chapter. The research undertaken through this methodology explores and expands on

the major issues raised in this literature review and significantly contributes to the body

of knowledge related to community/neighbourhood liveability, age-friendliness and

active ageing in place for older high density residents.

75

Reference List Anders, J., Dapp, U., Laub, S., and von Renteln-Kruse, W. (2007). Impact of fall risk and

fear of failing on mobility of independently living senior citizens transitioning to

frailty: Screening results concerning fall prevention in the community. Zeitschrift

für Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 40(4), 255-267. doi: 10.1007/s00391-007-0473-z

Andrews, C. J. (2001). Analyzing Quality of Place. Environment & Planning B: Planning &

Design, 28, 201-217.

Argyle, M. (1999). Causes and correlates of happiness In S. Kahneman, E. Diener & N.

Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundation of hedonic psychology. New York:

Russell Sage Foundation. .

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2006). Population Projections 2004-2021, Cat No.

3222.0, from

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/3222.0Explanatory%20Not

es12004%20to%202101

Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS]. (2007). General Social Survey (GSS): Summary

Results Australia 2006 (Cat. No. 4159.0). Canberra Australian Bureau of Statistics,

[ABS]

Australian Local Government Association (ALGA). (2006). Age-Friendly built

Environments: Opportunities for Local Government. Canberra: ALGA.

Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB). (2004). Road Safety in Australia: A Publication

Commemorating World Health Day 2004, from

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/2004/pdf/Safety_A

ust.pdf

Badland, H., and Schofield, G. (2006). Perceptions of replacing car journeys with non-

motorized travel: Exploring relationships in a cross-sectional adult population

sample. Preventive Medicine, 43(3), 222-225.

Bakardjieva, M. (2003). Virtual Togetherness: an Everyday-life Perspective. Media Culture

Society, 25(3), 291-313. doi: 10.1177/0163443703025003001

Banerjee, T., and Baer, W. C. (1984). Beyond the Neighborhood Unit: Residential

Environments and Public Policy. New York: Plenum Press.

76

Banister, D., and Bowling, A. (2004). Quality of life for the elderly: the transport

dimension. Transport Policy, 11(2), 105-115. doi: 10.1016/s0967-070x(03)00052-

0

Beall, J., and Fox, S. (2009). Cities and development New York: Routledge.

Becker, G. (2003). Meanings of place and displacement in three groups of older

immigrants. Journal of Aging Studies, 17(2), 129-149.

Behan, K., Maoh, H., and Kanaroglou, P. (2008). Smart growth strategies, transportation

and urban sprawl: simulated futures for Hamilton, Ontario. The Canadian

Geographer, 52(3), 291-308.

Benevolo, L. (1980). The History of the City. London: Scolar Press.

Berke, E. M., Koepsell, T. D., Moudon, A. V., Hoskins, R. E., and Larson, E. B. (2007).

Association of the Built Environment With Physical Activity and Obesity in Older

Persons. American Journal of Public Health, 97(3), 486-492.

Biddulph, M. (2000). Villages Don't Make a City. Journal of Urban Design, 5(1), 65-82.

Biddulph, M., Franklin, B., and Tait, M. (2002). The Urban Village: A Real or Imagined

Contribution to Sustainable Development? Cardiff, Wales: City and Regional

Planning Cardiff University.

Bosselmann, P., Arens, E. A., Dunker, K., and Wright, R. (1990). Sun, Wind, and Pedestrian

Comfort: A Study of Toronto's Central Area. Toronto: City of Toronto,

Department of Planning and Development.

Boyer, C. (1983). Dreaming the Rational City. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Boyer, R., and Savageau, D. (1985). Places Rated Almanac: Your Guide to Finding the Best

Places to Live in America (2nd ed.). New York: Rand McNally.

Braham, P. (1996). Ch. 9: Divisions of Labor. In S. Hall, D. Held, D. Hubert & K. Thompson

(Eds.), Modernity: An Introduction to Modern Societies (pp. 307-342). Oxford, UK:

Blackwell Publishers.

Brower, S. (1996). Good Neighborhoods: A Study of In-Town and Suburban Residential

Environments. Westport, Conn: Praeger Publishers.

Brown, B. B., and Perkins, D. D. (1992). Disruptions in place attachment. In I. Altman & S.

Low (Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 279–304). New York: Plenum.

77

Buck, N. H., Gordon, I., and Hall, P. (2002). Working Capital: Life and Labour in Greater

London. London: Routledge.

Bullock, C. (2005). Higher density or open space : the future role of green space / In N.

Moore & M. Scott (Eds.), Renewing urban communities : environment, citizenship

and sustainability in Ireland Aldershot, England: Ashgate.

Burton, E., and Mitchell, L. (2006). Inclusive Urban Design: Streets for Life. Oxford:

Architectural Press.

Butler, T., and Robson, G. (2003). London Calling: The Middle Classes and the Remaking of

Inner London. Oxford: Berg.

Butler, T., and Savage, M. (1995). Social Change and the Middle Classes. London:

University College London Press.

Campoli, J., and MacLean, A. S. (2007). Visualizing Density. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln

Institute of Land Policy.

Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2009). National Center for Health

Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/otheract.htm.

Cervero, R. (2000). The Transit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry. Washington, DC: Island

Press.

Cervero, R., and Bernick, M. (1997). Transit Villages in the 21st Century. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Chapin, F. S., Jr, and Kaiser, E. J. (1979). Urban Land Use Planning (3rd ed.). Urbana:

University of Illinois Press.

Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban

Planning, 68(1), 129-138.

Christoff, P., and Low, N. (2000). Recent Australian urban policy and the environment:

green or mean? In N. Low, B. Gleeson, I. Elander & R. Lidskog (Eds.), Consuming

Cities (pp. 241-264). London: Routledge.

Clapson, M. (2003). Suburban century : social change and urban growth in England and

the United States Oxford ; New York: Berg.

Cobb, C., and Rixford, C. (2005). Historical background of community indicators. In R.

Phillips (Ed.), Community indicators measuring systems. Aldershot, Hants,

England: Ashgate.

78

Cooper Marcus, C., and Francis, C. (1998). People places: design guidelines for urban

open space (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Cooper Marcus, C., and Sarkissian, W. (1986). Housing as if People Mattered: Illustrated

Site Planning Guidelines for Medium-Density Family Housing. Berkeley: University

of California Press.

Council on the Ageing. (2001 ). Response to Attitude, Life-style and Community Support:

Discussion paper for the National Strategy for an Ageing Australia.: Retrieved

from http://cotaover50s.org.au/acota/cotaAust/NSattitude.htm.

Cox, W. (2001). Livability: The How-It-Never-Was-New-Urbanist Illusion. Demographia.

Retrieved from http://demographia.com/dbc-livability.htm

Cunningham, G. O., and Michael, Y. L. (2004). Concepts guiding the study of the impact of

the built environment on physical activity for older adults: A review of the

literature. American Journal of Health Promotion, 18, 435-443.

Curtis, C., and Punter, J. (2004). Design-led sustainable development: The Liveable

Neighbourhoods experiment in Perth, Western Australia. The Town Planning

Review, 75(1), 31-65.

Cutchin, M. P. (2003). The process of mediated aging-in-place: a theoretically and

empirically based model. Social Science & Medicine, 57(6), 1077-1090.

Cutchin, M. P. (2005). Spaces for inquiry into the role of place for older people's care.

Journal of Clinical Nursing, 14(8b), 121-129.

Cutter, S. (1985). Rating Place: A Geographer's View on Quality of Life. Washington DC:

American Association of Geographers.

Dahmann, D. C. (1985). Assessments of Neighborhood Quality in Metropolitan America.

Urban Affairs Review, 20(4), 511-535.

Das, D. (2008). Urban Quality of Life: A Case Study of Guwahati. Social Indicators

Research, 88(2), 297-310.

Davison, A. (2006). Stuck in a Cul-de-Sac? Suburban History and Urban Sustainability in

Australia. Urban Policy and Research, 24(2), 201 - 216.

Day, R. (2010). Environmental justice and older age: consideration of a qualitative

neighbourhood-based study. Environment and Planning A, 42(11), 2658-2673.

79

de Certeau, M. (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley, CA: University of California

Press.

de Certeau, M., Giard, L., and Mayol, P. (1998). The Practice of Everyday Life, Volume 2:

Living and Cooking. Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota Press.

De Vaus, D., and Qu, L. (1997). Intergenerational transfers across the life course in

Australia. Bulletin on Ageing, 2&3, 12-18.

Dear, M. J. (2000). The postmodern urban condition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

DeNeve, K. M., and Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137

personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 197-

229.

Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA). (2006). A Community for All Ages: Building the

Future: The Report on the Findings and Recommentations of the National

Speakers Series Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Department of Planning (DoP). (2005). City of Cities: A Plan for Sydney's Future,

Metropolitan Strategy Supporting Information Sydney: NSW Department of

Planning.

Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE). (2005). Melbourne 2030 —

Planning for Sustainable Growth. Retrieved from

www.dse.vic.gov.au/melbourne2030online

Dernbach, J. C. (2009). Sustainable Development and the United States In J. C. Dernbach

(Ed.), Agenda for a sustainable America. Washington, D.C: ELI Press,

Environmental Law Institute.

Deshkar, S., Hayashia, Y., and Mori, Y. (2011). An alternative approach for planning the

resilient cities in developing countries. International Journal of Urban Sciences,

15(1), 1-14.

Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a

national index. American Psychologist, 55(1), 34-43.

Diener, E., and Lucas, R. E. (2000). Explaining Differences in Societal Levels of Happiness:

Relative Standards, Need Fulfillment, Culture, and Evaluation Theory. Journal of

Happiness Studies, 1(1), 41-78.

80

Diener, E., Oishi, S., and Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, Culture, and Subjective Well-

Being: Emotional and Cognitive Evaluations of Life. Annual Review of Psychology,

54(1), 403-425.

Dissart, J. C., and Deller, S. C. (2000). Quality of Life in the Planning Literature. Journal of

Planning Literature, 15(1), 135-161.

Downs, A. (2004). Growth management and affordable housing : do they conflict?

Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Driskell, R. B., and Lyon, L. (2002). Are Virtual Communities True Communities?

Examining the Environments and Elements of Community. City & Community,

1(4), 373-390.

Duany, A., Plater-Zyberk, E., and Speck, J. (2000). Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl

and the Decline of the American Dream. New York: North Point Press.

Eisen, J. B. (2009). Brownfields Development: From Individual Sites to Smart Growth In J.

C. Dernbach (Ed.), Agenda for a sustainable America Washington, D.C: ELI Press,


Ellin, N. (1996). Postmodern Urbanism. Oxford UK: Blackwell.

Etzioni, A. (1995). The Spirit of Community: Rights, Responsibilities and the

Communitarian Agenda. London: Fontana Press.

Evans, D. R. (1994). Enhancing Quality of Life in the Population at Large. Social Indicators

Research, 33, 47-88.

Evans, P. (2002). Livable Cities? Urban Struggles for Livelihood and Sustainability.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

Ewing, R. (1997). Is Los Angeles Style Sprawl Desireable. Journal of the American Planning

Association, 63(1), 107-126.

Feldman, P. H., and Oberlink, M. R. (2003). The AdvantAge initiative: developing

community indicators to promote the health and well-being of older people.

Family & Community Health, 26(4), 268-274.

Filion, P. (2003). Towards Smart Growth? The Difficult Implementation of Alternatives to

Urban Dispersion. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 12(1), Supplement pages

48-70.

81

Flint, A. (2009). Wrestling with Moses: How Jane Jacobs Took On New York's Master

Builder and Transformed the American City New York: Random House.

Frank, L. D., Engelke, P. O., and Schmid, T. L. (2003). Health and community design : the

impact of the built environment on physical activity. Washington, DC: London

Island Press.

Frank, L. D., Saelens, B. E., Powell, K. E., and Chapman, J. E. (2007). Stepping towards

causation: Do built environments or neighborhood and travel preferences explain

physical activity, driving, and obesity? Social Science & Medicine, 65(9), 1898-

1914.

Freilich, R. H. (1999). From sprawl to smart growth. Chicago Section of State and Local

Government. Law, American Bar Association.

Friedman, A. (2002). Planning the new suburbia : flexibility by design Vancouver: UBC

Press.

Friedman, J. (1987). Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton,

NJ: Princeton University Press.

Frugoni, C. (2005). A day in a medieval city. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Frumkin, H., Frank, L. D., and Jackson, R. (2004). Urban sprawl and public health :

designing, planning, and building for healthy communities. Washington, DC:

Island Press.

Gabriel, Z., and Bowling, A. N. N. (2004). Quality of life from the perspectives of older

people. Ageing & Society, 24(05), 675-691.

Gaynor, A. (2006). Harvest of the Suburbs Crawley: The University of Western Australia

Press.

Gehl, J. (1987). Life between Buildings, using Public Space. New York: Von Nostrand

Reinhold Company.

Gertz, C. (2003). Lessons from a landmark US policy for transportation, land use and air

quality, and implications for policy changes in other countries. International

Social Science Journal, 55(176), 307-317.

Gies, J. (1969). Life in a medieval city. London: Barker.

Girouard, M. (1985). Cities and People: A Social and Architectural History. New Haven:

Yale University Press.

82

Godfrey, M., Townsend, J., and Denby, T. (2004). Building a Good Life for Older People in

Local Communities: the experience of ageing in time and place Retrieved from

http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/socialcare/014.asp.

Goffman, E. (1972). Interaction ritual: essays on face-to-face behaviour. London: Allen

Lane.

Gordon, P., and Richardson, H. W. (1997). Are Compact Cities a Desirable Planning Goal?

Journal of American Planning Association, 63(1), 95-106.

Gottdeiner, M. (1985). The Social Production of Urban Space. Austin, TX: University of

Texas Press.

Grant, J. (2006). Planning the good community : new urbanism in theory and practice.

London ; New York: Routledge.

Grant, J. (2006a). The Ironies of New Urbanism. Canadian Journal of Urban Research,

15(2), 158-174.

Gratz, R. B. (2003). Authentic Urbanism and the Jane Jacobs Legacy. In P. Neal (Ed.),

Urban Villages and the Making of Communities. London/New York: Spon Press.

Gray, A. (2009). The social capital of older people. Ageing & Society, 29(01), 5-31.

Grayson, L., and Young, K. (1994). Quality of Life in Cities: An Overview and Guide to the

Literature. London: The British Library/London Research Centre.

Haigh, R. (1993). The ageing process: a challenge for design. Applied Ergonomics, 24(1), 9-

14.

Hamilton, P. (1996). Ch. 1: The Enlightenment and the Birth of Social Science. In S. Hall, D.

Held, D. Hubert & K. Thompson (Eds.), Modernity: An Introduction to Modern

Societies (pp. 19-54). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.

Hamnett, C. (2003). Gentrification and the Middle-class Remaking of Inner London, 1961-

2001. Urban Stud, 40(12), 2401-2426.



Harmon, D. E. (2008). Al Gore and Global Warming. New York: Rosen Publishing Group.

83

Healey, P. (2000). Planning Theory and Urban and Regional Dynamics: A Comment on

Yiftachel and Huxley. International Journal of Urban & Regional Research, 24(4),

917.

Heath, C., vom Lehn, D., and Hindmarsh, J. (2005). Rethinking interactivity: Design for

participation in museums and galleries. Retrieved from

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/schools/sspp/mgmt/research/wit

Henson, R., and Essex, S. (2003). The development, design, and evaluation of sustainable

local transport networks. International Social Science Journal, 55(2), 173-174.

Hester, R. (1975). Neighborhood Space. Stroudsburg PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.

Hester, R. (1984). Planning Neighborhood Space with People. New York: Van Nostrand

Reinhold.

Heumann, L., and Bold, D. (1993). Ageing in Place with Dignity: International Solutions to

the Low-income and Frail Elderly. London: Praeger.

Highmore, B. (2002). Introduction: Questioning Everyday Life. In B. Highmore (Ed.), The

Everyday Life Reader. London, UK: Routledge.



Howard, E. (1945). Garden Cities of Tomorrow. London: Faber & Faber.

Howell, S. C. (1983). The meaning of place in old age. In G. D. Rowles & R. J. Ohta (Eds.),

Aging and milieu: Environmental perspectives on growing old (pp. 97-107). New

York: Academic Press.

Hwang, E., Glass, A. P., Gutzmann, J., and Shin, K. J. (2008). The Meaning of a Livable

Community for Older Adults in the United States and Korea. Journal of Housing

For the Elderly, 22(3), 216-239.

Inclusive Design for Getting Outdoors (IDGO). (2007a). Older People and the Outdoors,


Inclusive Design for Getting Outdoors (IDGO). (2007b). Research Methods and Tools,

from http://www.idgo.ac.uk/theories_and_methods/researchtools.htm

Inclusive Design for Getting Outdoors (IDGO). (2007c). What are the Critical Issues, from

http://www.idgo.ac.uk/older_people_outdoors/critical_issues.htm

84

Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.

International City/County Managers Association (ICMA). (2009). Getting To Smart

Growth: 100 Policies for Implementation. Prepared for ICMA by the Smart

Growth Network, from http://www.smartgrowth.org/pdf/gettosg.pdf

Isaacs, R. R. (1948). The Neighborhood Theory: An Analysis of its Adequacy. Journal of

American Institute of Planning 14(2), 12-23.

Jacobs, A. B., Macdonald, E., and Rofé, Y. (2002). The boulevard book : history, evolution,

design of multiway boulevards Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.


Jacobs, J. (2004). Dark Age Ahead. New York: Random House.

Jacobs, J. M., Cohen, A., Hammerman-Rozenberg, R., Azoulay, D., Maaravi, Y., and

Stessman, J. (2008). Going Outdoors Daily Predicts Long-Term Functional and

Health Benefits Among Ambulatory Older People. Journal of Aging and Health,

20(3), 259-272.

Jenks, M., Burton, E., and Williams, K. (1996). Compact Cities: A Sustainable Urban Form?

London: E & FN Spon.

Judd, B., Olsberg, D., Quinn, J., Groenhart, L. a., and Demirbilek, O. (2010). Dwelling, land

and neighbourhood use by older home owners AHURI Final Report Melbourne,

Vic: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, UNSW-UWS Research

Centre.

Katz, P. (1994). The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Community. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Kaufmann, V., and Jemelin, C. (2003). Coordination of land-use planning and

transportation: how much room to manoeuvre? International Social Science

Journal, 55(2), 295-305.

Keller, S. (1968). The Urban Neighborhood: A Sociological Perspective. New York:

Princeton University Press / Random House.

Kendig, H. (2003). Directions in environmental gerontology: A multidisciplinary field. The

Gerontologist, 43(5), 611.

85

King, A. C., Sallis, J. F., Frank, L. D., Saelens, B. E., Cain, K., Conway, T. L., . . . Kerr, J. (2011).

Aging in neighborhoods differing in walkability and income: Associations with

physical activity and obesity in older adults. Social Science & Medicine,

73(10), 1525-1533.

Koff, R. (2008). Engaging Older Adults Through Arts and Culture. Report for Partners for

Livable Communities and National Association of Area Agencies on Aging.

Washington, DC: Metlife Foundation.

Kushner, J. A. (2007). Healthy cities : the intersection of urban planning, law and health

Durham, N.C: Carolina Academic Press.

Lambright, W. H., Chjangnon, S. A., and Harvey, L. D. D. (1996). Urban reactions to the

global warming issue: Agenda setting in Toronto and Chicago. Climatic Change,

34(3), 463-478.

Lawton, M. P. (1982). Competence, environmental press, and the adaptation of older

people. In M. P. Lawton, Windley, P.G., Byerts, T.O. (Ed.), Aging and the

environment: theoretical approaches (pp. 33-49). New York: Springer.

Lawton, M. P. (1983). Environment and Other Determinants of Well-Being in Older

People. The Gerontologist, 23(4), 349-357.

Lawton, M. P. (1985). The Elderly in Context. Environment and Behavior, 17(4), 501-519.

Lawton, M. P. (1986). Environment and Aging. New York: Springer.

Lee, C., and Moudon, A. V. (2004). Physical Activity and Environment Research in the

Health Field: Implications for Urban and Transportation Planning Practice and

Research. Journal of Planning Literature, 19(2), 147-181.

Lefebvre, H. (1991). Everyday Life in the Modern World. New Brunswick NJ: Transaction

Publishers.

Leslie, E., McCrea, R., Cerin, E., and Stimson, R. (2007). Regional Variations in Walking for

Different Purposes: The South East Queensland Quality of Life Study.

Environment and Behavior, 39(4), 557-577.

Leslie, E., Saelens, B., Frank, L., Owen, N., Bauman, A., Coffee, N., and Hugo, G. (2005).

Residents' perceptions of walkability attributes in objectively different

neighbourhoods: a pilot study. Health & Place, 11(3), 227-236.

86

Lever, J. P. (2000). The Development of an Instrument to Measure Quality of Life in

Mexico City. Social Indicators Research, 50(2), 187-208.

Librett, J. J., Yore, M. M., Schmid, T. L., and Kohl Iii, H. W. (2007). Are self-reported

physical activity levels associated with perceived desirability of activity-friendly

communities? Health & Place, 13(3), 767-773.

Lloyd, K., and Auld, C. (2003). Leisure, public space and quality of life in the urban

environment. Urban Policy and Research, 21(4), 339 - 356.

Lofland, L. (1998). The Public Realm. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Logan, J. R., and Molotch, H. L. (1987). Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place.

Berkeley CA: University of California Press.

Lotfi, S., and Koohsari, M. (2009). Analyzing Accessibility Dimension of Urban Quality of

Life: Where Urban Designers Face Duality Between Subjective and Objective

Reading of Place. Social Indicators Research, 94(3), 417-435.

Lui, C.-W., Everingham, J.-A., Warburton, J., Cuthill, M., and Bartlett, H. (2009). What

makes a community age-friendly: A review of international literature.

Australasian Journal on Ageing, 28(3), 116-121.

Lynch, K. (1960). Image of the City. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Lynch, K. (1981). Good City Form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Madanipour, A. (2001). How Relevant is 'Planning by Neighbourhoods' Today? Town

Planning Review, 72(2), 171-189.

Maffesoli, M. (1993). Everyday Life. In W. Outhwaite, T. Bottomore & e. al (Eds.), The

Blackwell Dictionary of Twentieth Century Social Thought. Oxford, UK: Blackwell

Publishers.

Magnaghi, A. (2005). The urban village : a charter for democracy and local self-

sustainable development. London: Zed Books.

Maldonado, T., and Cullars, J. (1991). The Idea of Comfort. Design Issues, 8(1), 35-43.

Mannheim, K. (1992). Essays on the sociology of culture. London; New York: Routledge.

Maoh, H., and Kanaroglou, P. (2009). A Tool for Evaluating Urban Sustainability via

Integrated Transportation and Land Use Simulation Models. Environnement

Urbain/Urban Environment, 3, a-28- a-46.

87

Markusen, A., and Glasmeier, A. (2008). Rejoinder: History, Leadership, Place Prosperity,

Rationales, Competitiveness, Outcomes: A Response to Drabenstott, Finkle, John,

and Singerman. Economic Development Quarterly, 22(2), 115-118.

Marlin, J. T., Avery, J. S., and Collins, S. T. (1983). The Book of American City Rankings.

New York: Facts on File.

Marrans, R. W. (1979). The Determinants of Neighborhood Quality: Institute for Social

Research, Univ. of Michigan / US Dept of Housing and Urban Development -

Office of Policy Development and Research.

Maslow, A. H. (1999). Toward a psychology of being New York J. Wiley & Sons.

May, D. (2007). Determinants of Well-being. Retrieved from

http://www.neighbourhoodaccounts.ca/communityaccounts/onlinedata/pdf_file

s/DeterminantsOfWellBeing-06.pdf

McCann, E. J. (2007). Inequality and Politics in the Creative City-Region: Questions of

Livability and State Strategy. International Journal of Urban and Regional

Research, 31(1), 188-196.

McDowell, L., Ward, K., Perrons, D., Ray, K., and Fagan, C. (2006). Place, Class and Local

Circuits of Reproduction: Exploring the Social Geography of Middle-class

Childcare in London. Urban Stud, 43(12), 2163-2182. doi:

10.1080/00420980600936509

McGuire, F. A., Boyd, R. K., and Tedrick, R. E. (2004). Leisure and aging. Champaign, IL:

Sagamore.

McKee, G. A. (2007). Blue Sky Boys, Professional Citizens, and Knights-in-Shining-Money:

Philadelphia's Penn Center Project and the Constraints of Private Development.

Journal of Planning History, 6(1), 48-80.

McManus, P. (2005). Vortex Cities to Sustainable Cities: Australia’s urban challenge

Sydney: UNSW.

McNulty, R. H. (2006). Measuring Creativity, Happiness and Wellbeing, from conference

link: http://www.accfhk.org/eng/2006_open_forum.htm transcript link:

http://www.accfhk.org/ACCF2006%20Transcript/Session%203/Robert%20HOLM

ES%20McNULTY.pdf

88

Mitchell, L., and Burton, E. (2006). Neighbourhoods for life: designing dementia-friendly

outdoor environments. Quality in Ageing, 7(1), 26-33.

Moore, N. (2005). Re-greening brownfields : land recycling and urban sustainability. In N.

Moore & M. Scott (Eds.), Renewing urban communities : environment, citizenship

and sustainability in Ireland Aldershot, England Ashgate.

Moore, N., and Scott, M. (2005). Towards a sustainable future for Irish towns and cities

In N. Moore & M. Scott (Eds.), Renewing urban communities : environment,

citizenship and sustainability in Ireland Aldershot, England: Ashgate.

Moran, A. (2006). The Tragedy of Planning Melbourne: The Institute of Public Affairs.

Moran, A., and Staley, L. (2007). Locked Out: How Victoria’s land supply laws are keeping

young people out of the housing market, Occasional Paper. Melbourne: The

Institute of Public Affairs.

Moreno, M., and Ruiz, J. P. (2008). Sustainability of Urban Transport: Common Strategies

and Individual Actions / In L. C. Heberle & S. M. Opp (Eds.), Local sustainable

urban development in a globalized world Aldershot, England: Ashgate.

Morrish, W., and Brown, C. (1994). Planning to Stay: Learning to See the Physical Features

of your Neighborhood. Minneapolis, MN: Milkweed Editions.

Moudon, A. V., Lee, C., Cheadler, A.D., Collier, C.W., Johnson, D., Schmid, T.L. Weather,

R.D. . (2005). Cycling and the built environment, a US perspective. Transportation

Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 10(3), 245-261.

Moudon, A. V., Hess, P. M., Matlick, J., and Pergakes, N. (2002). Pedestrian Location

Identification Tools: Identifying Suburban Areas with Potentially High Latent

Demand for Pedestrian Travel. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the

Transportation Research Board, 1818(-1), 94-101.

Mumford, L. (1961). The City in History: Its Origins, Its Transformation, and its Prospects.

New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.

Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV). (undated). Age Friendly Environments: WHO

Global Age-Friendly Cities Project Retrieved from http://www.mav.asn.

Myers, D. (1987). Community-Relevant Measurement of Quality of Life: A Focus on Local

Trends. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 23(1), 108-125.

89

Myers, D. (1988). Building Knowledge about Quality of Life for Urban Planning. Journal of

American Planning Association, 54(3), 347-358.

Myers, D. (1989). The Ecology of 'Quality of Life' and Urban Growth. In D. J. Brower & D.

R. Godschalk (Eds.), Understanding Growth Management: Critical Issues and

Research Agenda. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.

Myers, D. G., and Diener, E. (1995). Who is Happy? Psychological Science, 6(1), 10-19.

National Association of Area Agencies on Aging (n4a), Partners for Livable Communities,

and MetLife Foundation. (2007). A Blueprint for Action: Developing a Livable

Community for All Ages, from http://www.n4a.org/pdf/07-116-n4a-

blueprint4actionwcovers.pdf

National Council on Aging (NCOA). (2004). Improving the Lives of Older Americans.

Washington CD: NCOA Retrieved from

http://www.ncoa.org/content.cfm/content.dfm?sectionid=131.

National Heart Foundation of Australia (Victoria Division) (NHF). (2004). Healthy by

Design: A Planners Guide to Environments for Active Living. Melbourne: NHF.




Academy Press.

Neal, M. B., and DeLaTorre, A. (2009). The WHO Age-Friendly Cities project: a global

effort to understand what works locally. Generations, 33(2), 74-75.

Neal, P. (2003). Urban Villages and the Making of Communities. London: Spon Press w/

the Prince's Foundation.

Newman, D. M. (2008). Sociology : exploring the architecture of everyday life Thousand

Oaks, Calif: Pine Forge Press

Newman, O. (1973). Personal Space. New York: Macmillan.

Office of Urban Management (OUM). (2004). Draft South East Queensland Regional Plan

2005–2026 Brisbane: Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and

Recreation.

Oldenburg, R. (1999). The Great Good Place. New York: Paragon House.

90

Olsberg, D., and Winters, M. (2005). Ageing in place: intergenerational and intrafamilial

housing transfers and shifts in later life. Melbourne: Australian Housing and

Urban Research Institute Swinburne-Monash Research Centre.

Olshansky, S. J., Biggs, S., Achenbaum, W. A., Davison, G. C., Fried, L., Gutman, G., . . .

Butler, R. N. (2011). The Global Agenda Council on the Ageing Society: Policy

Principles. Global Policy, 2(1), 97-105.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2003). Economic

Surveys Paris: OECD.

Owen, N., Cerin, E., Leslie, E., Du Toit, L., Coffee, N., Frank, L. D., . . . Sallis, J. F. (2007).

Neighborhood Walkability and the Walking Behavior of Australian Adults.

American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 33(5), 387-395.

Pacione, M. (1990). Urban liveability: A review. Urban Geography, 11(1), 1-30.

Pacione, M. (2003). Urban environmental quality and human wellbeing—a social

geographical perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65(1-2), 19-30.

Parmenter, T. R. (1994). Quality of life as a concept and measurable entity. Social

Indicators Research, 33(1), 9-46.

Partners for Livable Communities. (2000). The Livable City: Revitalising Urban

Communities. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Partners for Livable Communities, McNulty, R. H., Penne, L., and Jacobson, D. R. (1986).

The Return of the Livable City: Learning from America's Best. Washington, DC:

Annapolis Books.

Peiro, A. (2006). Happiness, satisfaction and socio-economic conditions: Some

international evidence. Journal of Socio-Economics, 35(2), 348-365.

Perkins, R. (1995). Vancouver: Complete Communities for the Liveable Region

Intensification Report: Canadian Urban Institute.

Phillipson, C. (2004). Urbanisation and ageing: Towards a new environmental

gerontology. Ageing & Society, 24(06), 963-972.

Porter, D. R., Dunphy, R. T., and Salvesen, D. (2002). Making smart growth work.

Washington, D.C. : Urban Land Institute.

91

Powell, K. E. (2005). Land use, the built environment, and physical activity: A public

health mixture; a public health solution. American Journal of Preventive

Medicine, 28(2, Supplement 2), 216-217.

Prohaska, T., Belansky, E., Belza, B., and Buchner, D. (2006). Physical Activity, Public

Health, and Aging: Critical Issues and Research Priorities. The Journals of

Gerontology, 61B(5), S267.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone : the collapse and revival of American community.

New York: Simon & Schuster.

Quinn, J., Judd, B., Olsberg, D. a., and Demirbilek, O. (2009). Dwelling, land and

neighbourhood use by older home owners AHURI Positioning Paper No. 111.

Melbourne, Vic: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, UNSW-UWS

Research Centre.

Rabinowitz, A. (2004). Urban economics and land use in America : the transformation of

cities in the twentieth century. Armonk, N.Y: M.E. Sharpe.

Raco, M. (2007). Securing sustainable communities - Citzenship, safety and sustainability

in the new urban planning. European Urban and Regional Studies, 14(4), 305-320.

Relph, E. (1987). The Modern Urban Landscape. London: Croom & Helm.

Ritter, A., Straight, A., and Evans, E. (2002). Understanding Senior Transportation: Report

and Analysis of a Survey of Consumers Age 50+. Washington CD: AARP Public

Policy Institute.

Ritzer, G. (1993). The McDonaldization of society : an investigation into the changing

character of contemporary social life. Newbury Park, Calif: Pine Forge Press.

Rogerson, R. J., and Tremblay, R. (2008). Places Rated Almanacs and roll out

neoliberalism. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(5), 52.

Rohe, W. (2009). From Local to Global: One Hundred Years of Neighborhood Planning.

Journal of the American Planning Association, 75(2), 209-230.

Romney, D. M., Brown, R. I., and Fry, P. S. (1994). Improving the quality of life:

Prescriptions for change. Social Indicators Research, 33(1), 237-272.

Rowles, G. D. (1978). Prisoners of space?: Exploring the geographical experience of older

people Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

92

Rowles, G. D. (1980). Growing old "inside": Aging and attachment to place in an

Appalachian community. In N. Datan & N. Lohmann (Eds.), Transitions of aging.

New York: Academic Press.

Rowles, G. D. (1981). The surveillance zone as meaningful space for the aged. The

Gerontologist, 23, 304-311.

Rowles, G. D. (1983). Place and personal identity in old age: Observations from

Appalachia. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3(4), 299-313.

Rubenstein, L. Z. (2006). Falls in older people: epidemiology, risk factors and strategies

for prevention.(Author abstract). Age and Ageing, 35(5), ii37(35).

Rubinstein, R. L. (1989). The Home Environments of Older People: A Description of the

Psychosocial Processes Linking Person to Place. Journal of Gerontology, 44(2),

s45-s53.

Rubinstein, R. L., and Parmelee, P. A. (1992). Attachment to place and the representation

of the life course by the elderly. In I. Altman & S. M. Low (Eds.), Place attachment

(pp. 139-163). New York: Plenum.

Russell, P., Scott, M., and Redmond, D. (2005). Active citizenship : resident associations,

social capital and collective action In N. Moore & M. Scott (Eds.), Renewing urban

communities : environment, citizenship and sustainability in Ireland. Aldershot,

England: Ashgate.

Saelens, B. E., Sallis, J. F., and Frank, L. D. (2003). Environmental Correlates of Walking

and Cycling: Findings from the Transportation, Urban Design and Planning

Literatures. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 25(2), 80-91.

Salkin, P. (2009). Land Use: Blending Smart Growth With Social Equity and Climate

Change Mitigation In J. C. Dernbach (Ed.), Agenda for a sustainable America

Washington, D.C.: ELI Press, Environmental Law Institute.

Sallis, J. F. (2008). Angels in the details: Comment on "The relationship between

destination proximity, destination mix and physical activity behaviors".

Preventive Medicine, 46(1), 6-7.

Savage, M., Bagnall, G., and Longhurst, B. (2005). Globalisation and Belonging. London:

Sage.

93

Sawicki, D. S., and Flynn, P. (1996). Neighborhood Indicators: A Review of the Literature

and an Assessment of Conceptual and Methodological Issues. Journal of the

American Planning Association, 62(2), 165 - 183.

Schmandt, H. J., and Bloomberg, W. (1969). The quality of urban life Beverly Hills CA:

Sage.

Schwanen, T., and Ziegler, F. (2011). Wellbeing, independence and mobility: an

introduction. Ageing & Society, 31(05), 719-733.

Sen, A. (1993). Capability and Well-Being. In M. Nassbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The Quality of

Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Shaw, J. S., and Utt, R. D. (2000). A Guide to Smart Growth: Shattering Myths and

Providing Solutions. Washington, DC: Heritage and Bozeman, Montana: Property

and Environment Research Center.

Sheehan, B., Burton, E., and Mitchell, L. (2006). Outdoor wayfinding in dementia.

Dementia, 5(2), 271-281.

Shendell, D. G., Johnson, M. L., Sanders, D. L., Nowakowski, A. C., Yang, J., Jeffries, C. D., .

. . Moulding, M. (2011). Community built environment and mobility around

senior wellness centers: the concept of "safe senior zones". Journal of

Environmental Health, 73(7), 9-18.

Sidorenko, A., and Walker, A. (2004). The Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing:

from conception to implementation. Ageing & Society, 24(02), 147-165.

Siegel, P. Z., Brackbill, R. M., and Heath, G. W. (1995). The epidemiology of walking for

exercise: implications for promoting activity among sedentary groups. Am J

Public Health, 85(5), 706-710.

Silver, C. (1985). Neighborhood Plannin in Historical Perspective. Journal of American

Planning Association, 51, 161-174.

Sitte, C. (1965). City Planning according to Artistic Principles. London: Phaidon.


exclusion. Bristol, UK ; Portland, OR: Policy.

Smith, N. (1996). The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City. London:

Routledge.

94

Southworth, M. (2005). Designing the Walkable City. Journal of Urban Planning and

Development, 131(4), 246-257.

Southworth, M., and Ben-Joseph, E. (1997). Streets and the Shaping of Towns and Cities.

New York: McGraw-Hill.

Southworth, M., and Parthasarathy, B. (1996). The suburban public realm I: Its

emergence, growth and transformation in the American metropolis. Journal of

Urban Design, 1(3), 245-263.

Spender, J.-C. (1996). Ch. 1. Villain, victim or visionary?: The insights and flaws in F. W.

Taylor's ideas Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Spinney, J. (2009). Cycling the city: movement, meaning and method. Geography

Compass, 3(2), 817-835.

Stevens, Q. (2006). The shape of urban experience: a reevaluation of Lynch’s five

elements. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 33(6), 803-823.

Sugiyama, T., Thompson, C., and Alves, S. (2009). Associations Between Neighborhood

Open Space Attributes and Quality of Life for Older People in Britain.


Sugiyama, T., and Ward Thompson, C. (2007). Outdoor environments, activity and the

well-being of older people: conceptualising environmental support. Environment

and Planning A, 39(8), 1943-1960.

Talen, E. (2005). New urbanism and American planning : the conflict of cultures New York:

Routledge.

Teri, L., Gibbons, L. E., McCurry, S. M., Logsdon, R. G., Buchner, D. M., Barlow, W. E., . . .

Larson, E. B. (2003). Exercise Plus Behavioral Management in Patients With

Alzheimer Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA, 290(15), 2015-2022.

Tesfazghi, E., Martinez, J., and Verplanke, J. (2009). Variability of Quality of Life at Small

Scales: Addis Ababa, Kirkos Sub-City. Social Indicators Research.

Tuan, Y.-F. (1990). Topophilia: A study of environmental perception, attitudes and values.

New York: Columbia University Press.

Tulloch, S. (1997). The Oxford dictionary and thesaurus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

95

Türksever, A. N. E., and Atalik, G. (2001). Possibilities and Limitations for the

Measurement of the Quality of Life in Urban Areas. Social Indicators Research,

53(2), 163-187.



United Nations Development Program. (1995). Human Development Report. New York:

Oxford University Press.

van Vliet, W. (1987). Housing and neighborhoods : theoretical and empirical

contributions. New York: Greenwood Press.

van Vliet, W. (2008). Creating Livable Cities for All Ages: Intergenerational Strategies and

Initiatives1. Paper presented at the UN-Habitat’s Global Dialogue on Harmonious

Cities for All Age Groups at the World Urban Forum IV, Nanjing. Retrieved from

http://www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/6264_30721_CreatingLivableCitiesfo

rAllAges.pdf

Veenhoven, R., and Ehrhardt, J. (1995). The cross-national pattern of happiness: Test of

predictions implied in three theories of happiness. Social Indicators Research,

34(1), 33.

Wahl, H.-W. (2001). Environmental Influences on Aging and Behavior. In J. E. Birren & K.

W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (5th ed. ed., pp. xx, 677

p.). San Diego, Calif.: Academic Press.

Wahl, H.-W., Mollenkopf, H., Oswald, F., and Claus, C. (2007). Environmental aspects of

quality of life in old age: conceptual and empirical issues. In H. Mollenkopf & A.

Walker (Eds.), Quality of Life in Old Age: International and Multidisciplinary

Perspectives (pp. 101–122). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Wahl, H.-W., and Weisman, G., D. (2003). Environmental gerontology at the beginning of

the new millennium: Reflections on its historical, empirical, and theoretical

development. The Gerontologist, 43(5), 616.

Wanless, D. (2006). Securing Good Care for Older People: Taking a Long-Term View

London: Kings Fund.

96

Ward Thompson, C., Sugiyama, T., Alves, S., Southwell, K. . (2007). Inclusive Design for

Getting Outdoors (IDGO) Parks and Open Spaces: Design Findings and

Recommendations. , from

http://www.idgo.ac.uk/design_guidance/open_spaces.htm

Webber, M. M. (1963). Order in Diversity: Community without Propinquity. In J. Wingo,

Lowdon (Ed.), Cities and Space: The Future Use of Urban Land (pp. 23-56).

Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Weuve, J., Kang, J. H., Manson, J. E., Breteler, M. M. B., Ware, J. H., and Grodstein, F.

(2004). Physical Activity, Including Walking, and Cognitive Function in Older

Women. JAMA, 292(12), 1454-1461.

Wheeler, S. (1999). Planning Sustainable and Livable Cites. In R. T. LeGates & F. Stout

(Eds.), The City Reader (pp. 434-445). London: Routledge.

Wheeler, S. (2001). Livable Communities: Creating Safe and Livable Neighborhoods,

Towns, and Regions in California. UC Berkeley, Berkeley. Retrieved from

http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/8xf2d6jg

White, D. K., Jette, A. M., Felson, D. T., Lavalley, M. P., Lewis, C. E., Torner, J. C., . . .

Keysor, J. J. (2010). Are features of the neighborhood environment associated

with disability in older adults? Disability and Rehabilitation, 32(8), 639-645.

Whyte, W. H. (2001). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. New York: Project for Public

Spaces.

Wister, A. V. (2005). The Built Environment, Health, and Longevity. Journal of Housing For

the Elderly, 19(2), 49-70.

Wolfensohn, J. D. (1997). Livable Cities for the 21st Century: The Post Habitat II Agenda

for the World Bank. Retrieved from

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/ORGANIZATION/EX

TPRESIDENT2007/EXTPASTPRESIDENTS/PRESIDENTEXTERNAL/0,,contentMDK:20

040615~menuPK:232083~pagePK:159837~piPK:159808~theSitePK:227585,00.ht

ml

World Health Organisation (WHO). (2002). Active Ageing: A Policy Framework. Retrieved

from http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2002/WHO_NMH_NPH_02.8.pdf


WHO.

97

Wulff, M., and Lobo, M. (2009). The New Gentrifiers: The Role of Households and

Migration in Reshaping Melbourne's Core and Inner Suburbs. Urban Policy and

Research, 27(3), 315-331.

Yabes, R., and Pijawka, D. (2008). Public Participation in Achieving Sustainability in

Central City Neighborhoods In L. C. Heberle & S. M. Opp (Eds.), Local sustainable

urban development in a globalized world. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.

Yuen, B. (2004). Safety and dwelling in Singapore. Cities, 21(1), 19-28.

Zelinka, A., and Brennan, D. (2001). Safescape: Creating Safer More Livable Communities

through Planning and Design. Chicago: Planners Press/ American Planning

Association.

Ziegler, F., and Schwanen, T. (2011). ‘I like to go out to be energised by different people’:

an exploratory analysis of mobility and wellbeing in later life. Ageing & Society,

31(05), 758-781.

Zwingle, E. (2002). Feature: More to Explore. National Geographic Magazine On-Line.

Retrieved from www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0211/feature3/index.html

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0211/feature3/index.html

101

Chapter 3: Methodology

Liveability is best understood through place-based research that incorporates both

objective place measurement as well as measures of subjective satisfaction and

perceptions of place to provide more holistic understandings of what liveability means

(Pacione, 2003; 1990). Two approaches to data collection were used in this thesis. The

two methods are identified and differentiated below as Method 1 (used for Paper 1) and

Method 2 (used for Papers 2, 3, 4 and 5). Each method formed part of a separate larger

program of research funded by the Australian Research Council (ARC). Details of these

programs of research are detailed below. Paper 1 utilising Method 1 was simply one

paper drawn from the data collected from the larger program of research detailed below

under Method 1. The data from Method 2 utilised for Papers 2, 3, 4 and 5 were from a

discrete section of the larger project. This section was the high density section and it was

the sole domain of the author of this thesis. In attempting to explore the attributes and

qualities that contribute to liveability of high density environments for older people it

was considered of benefit to examine what constitutes liveability for any high density

resident regardless of age within the inner city neighbourhoods of Brisbane, Queensland,

Australia. The research based on Method 1 explored through in-depth investigation the

attributes and qualities that contribute to liveability for a sample of 24 inner city high

density Brisbane residents aged 25 to 79 years which was a much broader age range than

those who formed the sample for the study based on Method 2.

Method 2 data was collected using interviews, maps and time-use diaries from a sample

of high density residents aged 57 to 80 years. Employed in this study was an innovative

method for measuring the out-of-home mobility and use of space (metres) and time

(seconds) by older high density participants based on global positioning system (GPS)

devices and geographic information systems (GIS) for its analysis. GPS devices (with

operation instruction and appropriate battery charging) offer the unprecedented

opportunity to collect continuous and high resolution data collection in space

(metres/kilometres) and time (seconds, minutes, hours) for extended periods (Shoval et

al., 2011). GPS tracking is used in diverse fields including clinical services such as

cardiology, physiology, treatment of people with Alzheimer’s disease; environmental

health and as a tool to assist visually impaired or blind pedestrians (Shoval et al., 2011).

Most research using devices such as a GPS have been in transport studies tracking motor

vehicles (Shoval et al., 2011). This application is straight forward with the device being

102

fixed directly into the motor vehicle without any affect to the vehicle’s performance. Use

of a GPS is more complicated, however, when requiring an individual to carry it on his or

her person (Shoval et al., 2011). For individuals the device must be small and non-

intrusive to ensure that it does not interrupt the participant’s normal behaviour.

Participants also required a simple set of guidelines in the use of the device, its charging

and general features of operation. The device used in this study was very compact and

unobtrusive being slightly larger in size than a credit card. The device was also

accompanied by a set of instructions, pre-tested for their simplicity, clarity and ease of

use. A laminated A4 sheet of paper was also given to each participant to stick behind

their front door asking them to remember to take their GPS with them when leaving their

residence.

Geogrpahic Information System (GIS) was the approach used for analysis of the GPS data

and to link objective and subjective measures of the urban environment. GIS is a

sophisticated tool for storing, displaying and analysing geographic information and is

being increasingly used in the social sciences (Goodchild, 2000; 2004). After determining

the residential location of a participant, GIS can relate other spatial data to that location;

for example, calculating distances to other urban features including retail, health and

leisure services. GIS was used to gather objective indicators about participants’ urban

environment within the region with regard to services, facilities and their use of their

out-of home environment. GIS is a methodology which can be used to efficiently and

cost effectively link objective urban environment information with subjective urban

environment indicators by taking advantage of readily available geographic information

and linking it to residential locations (McCrea et al., 2006).

During the week of GPS tracking, participants were asked to keep a diary of

activities/destinations. Despite the disadvantages of diaries, in terms of participant

commitment and measuring indistinct activities (socialising and television viewing)

(Thornton et al., 1997), diaries have been used to great effect by other researchers (see

Goodchild and Janelle, 1984; Janelle et al., 1988). The diaries in this study offered an

efficient and affordable way to track specific details about activity (i.e., duration,

frequency, social context and location), check any missing or conflicting information from

the GPS tracking (e.g. when a participant forgot to take the GPS device with them or was

in some black spot where the GPS was unable to track) and provide a very useful

103

supplement to the interview process. Participants were asked to identify their

destinations for the past week, noting accessibility (mobility via walkways, or transport

options) and user-friendliness, security and safety of travel options and the public

environment. The in-depth interviews were based on information in the diary and the

visual information contained in the maps, and investigated participants’ experiences of

and perceptions about, their neighbourhood/community liveability. The maps provided a

useful tool to both generate discussion, and log information about destinations,

complete and incomplete journeys or activities not undertaken, noting specifically the

various reasons inhibiting social connections (e.g., lack of mobility options). The process

captured both narration and mapped information about housing, lifestyle, and actual

events for the week of activities for each individual. The data was used to produce a

time/space life path diagram for each participant using a GIS (Geographical Information

Systems) program - ARC INFO - accompanied by tabulated information about each

journey and destination. Interviews were audio-taped, transcribed, entered into N-Vivo

(QSR) and coded. The resulting categories were analysed using appropriate qualitative

analysis techniques, such as, for example, thematic analysis (Strauss and Corbin, 1998)

and used with GIS information about community liveability, thus triangulating data to

strengthen findings.

Method 1 for Paper 1

This research was funded by an Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage Project;

Project Id. LP0668911, “Managing the social, environmental and economic impacts of

high density-living within inner-urban sub-tropical environments”. Chief Investigators:

Laurie Buys, Peter Grace, Clevo Wilson, Rosemary Kennedy, Jennifer Ryan, Mike

Hefferan, Jennifer Summerville. Project duration: 2006-2010.

Participants

A total of 24 participants (14 men, 10 women) residing in inner city high density (ICHD)

Brisbane suburbs were interviewed; half of the sample owned their unit, while the

remainder were either paying off a mortgage (7 participants) or renting (5 participants).

They had lived in their present accommodation for an average of three years and five

months, with only three having children living with them. Ages ranged from 25 to 79

years, with approximately a third of the sample falling within each major age grouping -

25-44 years (7 residents), 45-64 years (9 residents) and 65-79 years (8 residents). The

104

majority were married or in a de facto relationship (14 participants), with the remainder

being either single (7 participants), widowed or divorced (3 participants). Over half had a

university degree, a combined household annual income over A$80,000 and worked in

managerial/professional fields.

Procedure

The study received ethics approval and standard good practice ethical protocols were

followed. Interviewees were part of a larger study, with a proportionate sampling

technique utilised to mail survey 2311 ICHD (defined as 30 or more dwellings per

hectare) residents of six selected precincts (eight suburbs) located within six kilometres

of the Central Business District (CBD) of Brisbane, the capital city of Queensland,

Australia. There was a 28% response rate, with 636 surveys (involving questions related

to the positive and negative social, environmental and economic impacts of living in the

city) returned. This paper focuses on the qualitative in-depth interviews conducted with

24 residents randomly selected (ensuring range of socio-demographic differences) from

those who expressed interest in the survey about participating in further research.

Potential interviewees were contacted via email and phone and invited to participate in a

face-to-face semi-structured interview (lasting approximately 60 minutes) to explore the

liveability of high-density (HD) settings. The following topic areas were broadly covered:

likes and dislikes of current dwelling and neighbourhood, social contacts within the

dwelling, views on sustainability, transport practices, design perceptions and general

opinions about high-density living. Paper 1 focuses specifically on perceptions and

experiences of what makes ICHD areas liveable and attractive.

Analysis

Interviews were audio-recorded and later transcribed. A thematic analysis was conducted

to identify categories, themes and patterns (Liamputtong, 2009). Three iterative steps

were involved in the thematic analysis. First, transcripts were read and re-read to identify

the overarching themes. Second, the data were coded manually, with common and

contrasting concepts identified, highlighted and grouped. Third, themes were identified,

reviewed, categorised and named to create a comprehensive picture of how ICHD

residents defined ‘attractiveness and liveability’ (Liamputtong, 2009). Saturation was

achieved with the themes discussed in Paper 1. The themes were also discussed and

confirmed with my Principal Supervisor and other members of the research team.

105

Method 2 for Papers 2, 3, 4, 5

This research was funded by an Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage Project,

Project Id. LP0883447, “The neglected dimension of community liveability: Impact on

social connectedness and active ageing”. Chief investigators: Laurie Buys, Evonne Miller,

Gillian Boulton-Lewis, Mary Courtney, Richi Nayak, Debra Anderson. Project duration:

2008-2011.

The data used for this study comprises a sub-set of qualitative data related to the

experiences of older Australians residing in inner-urban, high density suburbs, which

were gathered as part of a larger project exploring active ageing and liveability in rural,

regional and urban locations. The research methodology used for Papers 2, 3, 4, and 5

involves three different data collection methods: time-use diaries, Global Positioning

Systems (GPS) mapping, and in-depth qualitative interviews (see Figure 1 below for a

flow diagram overview of the methodology). Two weeks prior to the semi-structured in-

depth interviews, participants were given a GPS tracking device and paper diary and were

asked to carry the light-weight GPS everywhere they went and to complete a daily diary

on their activities for that one week period in 2010. Ethical approval for this project was

obtained from a university Human Research Ethics Committee, with all case study

participants providing written informed consent prior to their participation in the study.

Figure 1 Flow Diagram of Overview of Methodology

106

Participants

A total of 12 participants (6 men, 6 women) living in selected high density areas were

used for this research with all but one of the sample drawn from a database of a past

project (‘Living in the City’) (see Table 1 for a summary of respondents’ profile). This

previous study utilised a proportionate sampling technique for a postal survey completed

by 636 inner urban residents (28% response rate) in 2007, involving research that

focussed on the social, environmental and economic aspects of inner city life. Using this

database, participants who had indicated a willingness to participate in further research

and were now aged 55 years or older were contacted and invited to participate, ensuring

that those recruited allowed exploration of differences that might emerge as a function

of age or gender. Since the original sample from which these participants were drawn

lacked any persons of low socioeconomic status (SES), a twelfth participant was recruited

through a community group to facilitate a case study within this particular demographic.

107

Table 1 - Summary Table of Case Study (CS) Respondents and Location Profile

108

Case Study Location

The location for all case studies was Brisbane, Queensland, one of the fastest growing

cities in Australia and in the western world. Brisbane has a sub-tropical climate with

undulating topography. The study was undertaken in late March to early April at the

start of autumn, normally characterised by pleasant outdoor weather conditions, to

minimise weather related bias in the data, as Brisbane experiences a typically warm,

humid and wet summer. Results are considered indicative of the typical activity of the

participants across much of the year. The greater Brisbane area is under the jurisdiction

of the Brisbane City Council, which reports that in 2006, the inner five kilometres of

Brisbane included 231,526 people and 105,783 dwellings, and that the population in the

whole of Brisbane area is expected to increase from 991,000 (2009) to 1,270,000 people

by 2031 (Brisbane City Council and Queensland Government, 2010). Participants were

selected from six inner-urban higher density areas (defined as 30 or more dwellings per

hectare) within five kilometres of the Central Business District (CBD) (see Table 1 for

details of areas covered). Figure 2 below is a map of the inner-urban high density areas

included in this study.


109

Apparatus - Global Positioning Systems

Global Positioning Systems

Objective and accurate measurements of participants’ physical movements throughout

the seven-day tracking periods were obtained by issuing them with portable autonomous

GPS devices. Following the monitored week, the recorded spatial data were analysed

using visual images derived from Geographical Information Systems (GIS): Google Earth.

The GPS device used was a TSI GPS Trip Recorder Model 747A lightweight portable

autonomous GPS recorder. The accuracy of the GPS device is reported to be +-3 metres

(TranSystem Incorporated, 2008); this level of error can increase significantly however,

depending on the level of signal interference caused by buildings, canopy cover, indoor

environments, and so on.

Participants placed the GPS device into a handbag or pocket during waking hours and

charged the battery each night. The GPS devices were programmed to record position,

time, date, speed and altitude at a time interval of one minute. This allowed for accurate

tracking of each participant’s outdoor movements to be recorded throughout the

tracking period. The GPS would not record points when no signal was available (for

instance, if the participant travelled underground for a period of time).

GIS Data Preparation and Analysis

Data from the GPS devices were downloaded using software specific to the GPS device

(included in the purchased package). Using this software, the raw data were then

exported as spreadsheets using a comma-delineated file format with each row

representing a logged position (one each minute).

These spreadsheets were converted to Google Earth files using an online converter and

mapped in Google Earth. Manual data analysis was required to map the different tracks

of each participant’s travel based on the GPS data and information supplied in the Diaries

(refer to Daily Diaries below).

A time/space life path diagram was created for each participant (approximately 6 hours

data analysis) and was accompanied by tabulated information about each journey and

destination. These maps were used during the interviews.

110

Daily Diaries

Participants kept a daily diary for the same week that they were using the GPS tracking

device. The diary had space to record their daily travel, destinations, activities and

reflection on issues relating to their environment or any undertaken activity. The diary

also included a brief survey which captured demographic information, use of transport,

volunteering and aspects of community liveability and engagement. Despite the

disadvantages of diaries in terms of participant commitment and the possibility of

missing data from participants not specifying one or more activities in which they have

engaged, the diaries offered an efficient and affordable way to track specific details

about activity (i.e., duration, frequency, social context and location) and add to the

authenticity and detail of the GPS data. This information was used together with the

mapping, to direct the interview and stimulate discussion.

In-depth Interviews

Residents’ perceptions of place were elicited through their responses to questions

focussed on both the positive and negative experiences and features of their respective

neighbourhoods/communities. The importance of residents’ “ordinary knowledge” of

local issues and the functioning of daily life in place is crucial in effective liveability

research (Myers, 1987). The in-depth interview explored a number of open-ended

questions around level of activity and instrumental and non-instrumental social

behaviour within the immediate urban environment. Using the diary and map

information, the interviews explored the experiences of participants in relation to social

inclusion, frequency of planned and spontaneous encounters and urban community

social support and engagement. All interviews were recorded. Figure 1 above is a

diagrammatic representation of the interview component as it fits within the overall

methodology.

Procedure

Participants were given a typed set of instructions about the use and battery charging of

the GPS device (previously trialled for ease of use and comprehension), with the GPS

device and diary posted back to the research team for interpretation prior to the

interview. The recorded GPS data were merged, with interactive individual ‘activity maps’

created for each participant. These “individual time/space life path maps” were then

reviewed and compared with the time-use diaries to identify any key patterns, issues or

111

anomalies to be discussed at interview. As the computer used at interview was large and

difficult to move, the semi-structured interviews were conducted predominantly at a

central location (the university) and, on occasion, in participants’ homes. The interviews

lasted approximately 90 minutes on average, with the diary and mapping analysis

providing a useful tool to generate discussion. This process captured both narration and

mapped information about destinations, activities, lifestyles, journeys and general

experiences when moving about their community for the target week in each

participant’s life. The interviews involved a general discussion followed by a day-by-day

review of the participant’s activities. Through the interviews, diaries and mapping, the

study captured the frequency of participants’ activity and spontaneous encounters on

different days and at different times, identified the sites used for spending free time, and

allowed interviewers to explore the manner in which the participants’ respective urban

environments facilitated their physical activity (eg shopping, walking) and social

interactions.

Data Analysis

In this study, objective indicators were gathered using GPS to track the respondents’

movements and to map their movements using GIS, and also to gather objective

indicators of available services and facilities within their respective urban environments.

These quantitative measures were then analysed in preparation for the second phase,

when data from the interviews, diaries and maps were compared and analysed using

qualitative methods. The audio recordings were fully transcribed and then analysed using

a thematic approach, identifying key categories, themes and patterns (Liamputtong,

2009). An iterative process was utilised, with the transcripts being read and re-read by

the author of this thesis in order to code the data and identify emerging themes and

meaningful categories. To enable understanding and interpretation, each participant’s

diaries and time/space life path maps were also qualitatively analysed to identify key

patterns related to where and how participants moved during the monitored week.

There was saturation within the data of the major themes discussed and analysed in

Papers 2, 3, 4 and 5. The themes were confirmed with my Principal Supervisor and other

members of the research team. All participants were invited to a presentation outlining

the interpretation of results and development of the themes.

112

Conclusion

A major strength of this thesis is that it uses two separate studies and mixed methods to

address the research question of what makes high density liveable for older people. The

quantitative and qualitative findings and GIS analyses of mapped information emerging

from the data collection were studied and integrated to identify the factors associated

with liveability, active ageing, ageing in place and community engagement. These

methods provided the means to obtain a better understanding of the key concepts of

liveability, neighbourhood and community and ways in which neighbourhood attributes

and the active ageing in place of individuals are associated. The research identified the

risk and protective factors for neighbourhood interactions, attachment and engagement

and the neighbourhood aspects that promote or compromise liveability, active ageing

and ageing in place for older people living in high density. This thesis examines the

everyday lived experiences of older people living in high density through the significant

strength of the eclectic nature of its methodology. It synthesises a conceptual approach

with participants’ perspective and time-space measurement and analysis of actual out-of-

home mobility and activity. This further develops our understanding of the everyday

lived experiences of older people and the interrelationships and interdependencies of

liveability, well-being, independence and mobility.

113

Reference List

Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS]. (2007). General Social Survey (GSS): Summary

Results Australia 2006 (Cat. No. 4159.0). Canberra Australian Bureau of Statistics,

[ABS]

Barclays Wealth. (2010). Retirement shunned by 'Nevertiree' wealthy, says new global

report Retrieved 29 March 2011, from

http://www.barclayswealth.com/americas/about-us/news/retirement-shunned-

by-nevertiree-wealthy-says-new-global-report.htm

Brisbane City Council and Queensland Government. (2010, June 2010). River City

Blueprint. River City Blueprint Forum - Background Paper. Retrieved from

http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/BCC:BASE::pc=PC_6257

Goodchild, M. F. (2000). New horizons for the social sciences: Geographic information

systems. In J. E. Aubert (Ed.), Social Sciences for a Digital World: building

Infrastructure and Databases for the Future (Vol. 204, pp. 163-172). Paris:

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Goodchild, M. F. (2004). Social Sciences: Interest in GIS grows. ARCNews, from

http://www.esri.com/news/arcnews/spring04articles/social-sciences.html

Goodchild, M. F., and Janelle, D. G. (1984). The city around the clock: space - time

patterns of urban ecological structure. Environment and Planning A, 16(6), 807-

820.

Hamnett, C. (2005). Social polarisation in global cities : theory and evidence In N. R. Fyfe

& J. T. Kenny (Eds.), The urban geography reader London ; New York Routledge, .

Janelle, D. G., Goodchild, M. F., and Klinkenberg, B. (1988). Space - time diaries and travel

characteristics for different levels of respondent aggregation. Environment and

Planning A, 20(7), 891-906.

Liamputtong, P. (2009). Qualitative research methods (3rd ed. ed.). Melbourne, Vic:





114





geographical perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65(1-2), 19-30.

Shoval, N., Wahl, H.-W., Auslander, G., Isaacson, M., Oswald, F., Edry, T., . . . Heinik, J.

(2011). Use of the global positioning system to measure the out-of-home

mobility of older adults with differing cognitive functioning. Ageing & Society,

31(05), 849-869.

Strauss, A. L., and Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and

procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thoursand Oaks: Sage.

Thornton, P. R., Williams, A. M., and Shaw, G. (1997). Revisiting time - space diaries: an

exploratory case study of tourist behaviour in Cornwall, England. Environment

and Planning A, 29(10), 1847-1867.

TranSystem Incorporated. (2008). 747 A+ GPS Trip Recorder, User’s Manual. Retrieved

from

http://www.transystem.com.tw/product/59/747%20A+%20User%20Manual%20

v1.1.pdf

Webber, R. (2007). The metropolitan habitus: its manifestations, locations, and

consumption profiles. Environment and Planning A, 39(1), 182-207.

116

Paper 1 - What makes inner city high density liveable? Insight from

residents in Brisbane, Australia

STATEMENT OF JOINT AUTHORSHIP AND AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS IN THE

RESEARCH MANUSCRIPT WITH THE ABOVE MENTIONED TITLE

Submitted for review to Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and

Urban Sustainability on 16 November 2011

Contributor Statement of contribution

Laurie Buys

Professor, School of Design, Queensland University of Technology

(QUT)

Significant contribution in the planning of the study (as principal

supervisor) and assisted with data interpretation, preparation and

evaluation of the manuscript.

Desley Vine

Doctoral Student, School of Design, Queensland University of

Technology (QUT)

Chief investigator, significant contribution to the planning of the

study, literature review, data collection and analysis and writing of

the manuscript.

Evonne Miller

Associate Professor, School of Design, Queensland University of

Technology (QUT)

Significant contribution in the planning of the study (as associate



Principal Supervisor Confirmation

I have sighted email or other correspondence from all Co-authors confirming their

certifying authorship.


Name Signature Date 20 Dec 2011

117

Chapter 4: Paper 1 - What makes inner city high density

liveable? Insight from residents in Brisbane, Australia

Abstract Over the past two decades, Australia’s urban form and planning has shifted from

traditional individual dwellings on spacious suburban blocks towards higher density

urban consolidation. Despite relatively strong market demand toward inner city high

density (ICHD) living, little research has explored the aspects that make this urban form

liveable. Qualitative interviews with 24 inner-city high density (ICHD) Brisbane, Australia

residents illustrates their perceptions and experiences of liveability and the ways in which

it is broadly understood within three main domains and nine key sub-concepts, including:

individual dwelling (thermal comfort, natural light and balconies, noise mitigation),

building complex (shared space, good neighbourhood protocols, environmental

sustainability) and the community (transport, amenities, sense of community). By

highlighting the aspects current ICHD residents value most about their dwellings,

buildings and communities, these findings will help inform policy-makers, planners,

developers and designers as they create urban spaces and dwellings that are more

desirable places to live.

Keywords: liveability, high density, individual dwelling, building complex, community,

sustainability, Brisbane

Acknowledgments: This research was funded by an Australian Research Council (ARC)

Linkage Project, “Managing the social, environmental and economic impacts of high

density-living within inner-urban sub-tropical environments”.

Introduction

As elsewhere in the world, state and local governments in Australia are developing and

implementing strategic plans for major cities that promote higher density, transit-

oriented and mixed use development. Such urban consolidation, through increasing the

availability and uptake of higher density living, has been adopted as a critical strategy to

manage urban growth and minimise the negative impacts of urban sprawl (Brisbane City

Council and Queensland Government 2010). Much of the focus of interest with urban

sprawl relates to the seemingly incessant demand for car travel and the damaging

environmental impacts associated with car dependency (Howley et al. 2009). Urban

118

consolidation policies and initiatives, such as new urbanism, urban village, transit

oriented developments, healthy cities, sustainability and smart growth, all advocate living

more intensely within existing urban areas in order to facilitate density, amenity,

diversity, mixed uses, safety, reduced travel demand, lively and walkable streets. While

the policy of urban consolidation has been positively received by some Australian

consumers (Neilson 2008), traditional suburban housing preferences for a large detached

house with a private backyard, continue to work against widespread public acceptance

and uptake of consolidation planning initiatives, both in the inner-city and suburban

areas (Smart State Council 2007). Shifting Australians’ perceptions so that compact urban

living is viewed in a more desirable light will require the coordinated efforts of policy-

makers, developers, designers and end-users. Thus, this research investigates the views

and experiences of inner city high density (ICHD) residents, exploring the design,

community and lifestyle factors that make ICHD liveable places. ICHD for this study is

defined as thirty dwellings per hectare within a five kilometre radius of Brisbane’s

General Post Office (GPO). This study provides important insight into what ICHD

residents value most about their dwelling, building and community, thereby assisting

industry to provide ICHD compact living that is more liveable and desirable to the wider

community.

In the second half of the 20th century, there was growing concern about urban liveability

emanating from criticisms of contemporary urban development and planning failure to

deliver positive physical environments (Friedman 2002; Filion 2003). Modern urban

environments have been seen as overly auto-dependent, aesthetically dull and

homogenous, fragmented, regulated and segregated (Clapson 2003; Rabinowitz 2004),

with numerous strategies, movements and initiatives (e.g., smart growth, complete

communities, compact city, new urbanism, urban villages, transit orientated

developments) emphasizing the negative impacts of urban sprawl and the multiple

benefits of a more sustainable compact urban environment. These strategies are for a

better quality urban environment through greater availability of housing that meets

residents’ needs in a sustainable way with increased access to services and facilities

within the local environment (Jones and MacDonald 2004).

The dominant theory in liveability research has been utilitarian theory, which values the

personal happiness and satisfaction of individuals (Veenhoven 1995; Diener and Lucas

119

2000). However, the use of personal utility theory has been heavily criticised for its

inability to effectively guide planning efforts to improve liveability at the local level or to

provide a greater sense of community and social capital (Myers 1988; Sen 1993). While

reaching particular satisfaction levels is a necessary end of a comprehensive liveability

strategy, meeting satisfaction levels provides little to guide citizens and planners on what

to do to improve places.

A liveable place is a complex concept, very personal and therefore often difficult to

articulate. ‘Liveable’ is a commonly used term that lacks a single definition due to its

relativistic use as a concept for a range of ideas about place and its appeal to the

individual or to a community. The individual relativism is implicit in this description, as

where people choose to live can be considered liveable through the individual’s

subjective filter. This subjectivity has been one of the major challenges for researchers

attempting to develop a more objective and community based definition of liveable

places (Andrews 2001).

Several researchers have attempted to measure liveability (Southworth & Parthasarathy

1996; Andrews 2001; Myers 1988; Schmandt & Bloomer 1969). A theory of liveability

requires attributes which can be defined and measured. It is important that definitional

attributes enable focus on their efficacy and ability to target improvement (Myers 1989;

Andrews 2001). A theory of the everyday or daily life has the great advantage of

focussing attention on the required elements, regular functioning and social use of place

(Diener et al. 2003; Chiesura 2004; Lefebvre 1991). Notions of everyday urbanism have

driven much of the recent interest in the New Urbanism, Urban Village and Complete

Communities movements (Grant 2006, 2006(a); Bakardjieva 2003). Within the design

fields, notions of the everyday are providing a serious rationale for improving the city for

regular daily functioning toward the goal of liveability (Newman 2008; Grant 2006;

Bakardjieva 2003). A liveability theory of daily life would suggest the need for the

availability and use of elements such as dwelling, building and community, rather than on

those things that simply make individuals happy or satisfied. This necessarily requires

understanding of the prevailing cultural influences over use of the environment, how

urban environments function, which actions are regular and what comprises shared

place-based experience (Myers, 1988). A daily life perspective is a way of looking at

liveability that may help cities and neighbourhoods function better physically, socially

120

and economically to provide for both basic needs and more fulfilling experiences

(Pacione, 1990; 2003).

Review of the modern urban movements and liveability theorists such as Lynch (1981),

Myers (1988) and Whyte (1988, 2001) suggest general agreement on the aspects that

contribute to a more liveable place. While key concepts and rationales differ, there is a

significant amount of overlap between the physical attributes which centre on the degree

to which a place supports the quality of life, health and wellbeing of occupants. These

physical attributes include greater amenity for pedestrians and active public space,

resulting in more walkable and liveable cities through densification, mixed land uses and

closer proximity to amenities (i.e., residential, commercial, retail, offices, green space and

bikeways). Liveable places, are concerned with the quality of space and the built

environment, encompassing issues such as safety, ease of use and the physical

aesthetics, specifically how dwellings, transport infrastructure and public spaces are

planned constructed and connected. Residential satisfaction studies link liveability to

specific features of the home and building, such as dwelling age, size, structure and

aesthetic feelings (Lu 1999), as well as features of the broader neighbourhood, including

access to facilities, noise, pollution, safety risks, neighbourhood reputation and social

features (Sirgy and Cornwell 2002; Howley et al. 2009). Many researchers and advocacy

groups also attest to the importance of belonging, sense of community, community

formation and cohesion, social networks and the settings requisite for socialising on a

regular basis (Jacobs, 1961; Whyte, 2001; Myers, 1987; 1988; Hampshire, 2000; Partners

for Livable Communities (PLC) et al., 1986). Overall, liveable communities should “create

a comfortable, convenient, efficient and safe public realm and to meet the needs of the

full range of users taking into account age, abilities, gender and race” (Rowley 1998, 154).

Understanding how built environments deliver on these needs in particular contexts is a

key to improving place-based liveability.

This research focuses on Brisbane in subtropical Queensland. The Queensland state and

local governments are actively pursuing urban consolidation, higher density around

transport nodes to create vibrant and active urban spaces using innovative subtropical

design (Smart State Council 2007; Gleeson and Steele 2010). The challenge is that

Brisbane historically developed in a decentralised low density urban form, with many

residents having significant reservations about the policy of densification (Smart State

121

Council 2007). This research explores the viewpoints of current ICHD residents to better

understand their experiences and identify factors that influence their perceptions of

liveability in this urban form.

Method

Participants

A total of 24 participants (14 men, 10 women) residing in inner city high density (ICHD)

Brisbane suburbs were interviewed; half owned their unit, with the remainder paying of a

mortgage (7 participants) or renting (5 participants). They had lived in their present

accommodation for an average of three years and five months, with only three having

children living with them. Ages ranged from 25 to 79 years, with approximately a third in

each major age grouping - 25-44 years (7 residents), 45-64 years (9 residents) and 65-79

years (8 residents). The majority were married or in a de facto relationship (14

participants), with the remainder single (7 participants), widowed or divorced (3

participants). Over half had a university degree, a combined household annual income

over A$80,000 and worked in managerial/professional fields.

Procedure

The study received ethics approval and standard good practice ethical protocols were

followed. Interviewees were part of a larger study, with a proportionate sampling

technique utilised to mail survey 2311 ICHD (defined as 30 or more dwellings per

hectare) residents of six selected precincts (eight suburbs) located within six kilometres

of the Central Business District (CBD) of Brisbane, the capital city of Queensland,

Australia. There was a 28% response rate, with 636 surveys (on the positive and negative

social, environmental and economic impacts of living in the city) returned. This paper

focuses on the qualitative in-depth interviews conducted with 24 residents randomly

selected (ensuring range of socio-demographic differences) from those who expressed

interest in the survey about participating in further research. Potential interviewees were

contacted via email and phone and invited to participate in a face-to-face semi-

structured interview (lasting approximately 60 minutes) to explore sustainability impacts

of high-density (HD) living. The following areas were broadly covered: likes and dislikes of

current dwelling and neighbourhood, social contacts within the dwelling, views on

sustainability, transport practices, design perceptions and general opinions about high-

122

density living. This article focuses specifically on perceptions and experiences of what

makes ICHD areas liveable and sustainable for residents.

Analysis

Interviews were audio-recorded and later transcribed, with a thematic analysis

conducted to identify categories, themes and patterns (Liamputtong and Ezzy 2005).

Three iterative steps were involved in the thematic analysis. First, transcripts were read

and re-read to identify the overarching themes. Second, coding was done manually, with

common and contrasting concepts identified, highlighted and grouped. Third, themes

were identified, reviewed, categorised and named to create a comprehensive picture of

how ICHD residents defined ‘liveability’ (Liamputtong and Ezzy 2005).

Results/Discussion

Focussing on the experience of residents from ICHD locations, this research highlights the

ways in which multiple aspects of the immediate living environment, the unit, building

complex and the community intertwine to provide residents with a liveable space.

Judgements about liveability are not related to one single identifiable and dominant

characteristic of the home or locality, but instead involve a complex array of

interconnected domains that can be grouped conceptually as characteristics of the

individual dwelling (thermal comfort, natural light and balconies, noise mitigation),

building complex (shared space, good neighbourhood protocols, environmental

sustainability) and the community (sustainable transport, amenities, sense of

community). Table 1 identifies the characteristics conceived to fall within these three

domains, which emerged from that data as being important for enhancing the liveability

of ICHD areas. Like community quality of life, where isolating just one dimension leads to

“issue-specific planning efforts that pay too little attention to the web of

interconnections among these dimensions” (National Research Council 2002, 5), it is

essential that each of these domains are conceptualised holistically as inter-related,

multi-layered attributes which interlace to determine ICHD residents’ judgements of

liveability. These findings further highlight the importance of a systems-thinking

approach to exploring and addressing issues of liveability, with various stakeholders,

including policy-makers, developers, designers and urban planners, having ultimate

responsibility for creating the foundational conditions that promote liveability. While we

strongly advocate a systems perspective, we will discuss each domain separately to

123

highlight the implications of our findings as a means to inform the efforts of stakeholders

interested in creating urban spaces and dwellings that are more liveable places.

Table 1: Key aspects of individual dwelling, building complex and community that contribute to

liveability

Individual Dwelling Building Complex Community

Thermal comfort/ventilation

Natural light and balconies

Noise mitigation

Shared space

Good neighbour protocols

Environmental sustainability

Accessible transport

Amenities/services

Sense of community

Individual Dwelling

In considering the findings related to the individual dwelling zone, it is important to note

changes that have occurred in the size of dwelling space over time within the Australian

context. Until recently, the traditional Australian home was constituted by a freestanding

house of around 250sqm on a 400sqm parcel of land spread out in the dormitory suburbs

that sprawl around Australian cities. Thus, many Australians over the age of 30 years old

grew up in homes and properties of this size. In 2008, the average floor space of new

free-standing houses was 245sqm, somewhat larger than the 201sqm average size of

new houses built in the United States (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2010). While floor

space in freestanding homes has tended to increase in Australia over time, the

development of high-density living and migration into these areas represents a marked

change for residents who grew up in 400sqm homes, since the average floor space of

high-density homes is 100sqm. Participants in this study living in high density homes that

are 100sqm on average, identified, thermal comfort and ventilation, natural light and

noise mitigation as contributing significantly to making the home a liveable place. The

seeking of these particular design features in their high-density accommodation in the

present may well reflect a desire for replicating dwelling attributes that they enjoyed in

their earlier lives.

124

Thermal comfort and ventilation

Design features that enhanced thermal comfort, which include indoor air quality,

temperature and humidity, emerged as being very important to study participants.

Features found to contribute to thermal comfort included: natural air-flow and control

over exposure to the sun’s heat and light; dwellings with balconies and other outdoor

living areas; internal and external modifications (e.g. shades and blinds); and orientation

of the dwelling to maximise breezes during summer months and to maximise access to

the sun’s warmth in winter months. The nature of climate considerations will differ

depending on local characteristics. Heating over ventilation may be the key factor in

cooler climates, however in this subtropical climate the emphasis was on keeping cool in

the humid summer months. Interestingly, participants indicated a preference for natural

air flow rather than air-conditioning.

We try and use the air conditioner as little as possible… if you open the windows

you get a good breeze, it’s generally fine. (HD2, male aged 60-64 years)

Participants valued natural climate-efficient ways to address the heat, describing how, for

sustainability reasons, they rarely used their air conditioner and relied instead on fans,

windows, and cross-ventilation.

[I] open the back door and let the breeze go through. That’s just the simplest

form of conserving energy. Most people would go and turn the air conditioner on.

Well, yeah, there are times in the year where I have to do that but, you do simple

things with what you’ve got to reduce the amount of energy you take to live there

and you find that you can live more cheaply and very, very comfortably. (HD1,

male aged 45-49 years)

This is in keeping with Australian research in Sydney on thermal comfort which has

shown high occupant comfort satisfaction scores in naturally ventilated mixed-mode

buildings with sustainability dividends of reduced energy use by a quarter (Rowe 1996)

and occupants being comfortable in temperatures that closely reflect the outdoor

climate (Artkins 2007). Thus, passive temperature control is an extremely desirable

dwelling characteristic that should be prioritised by developers and designers.

125

Natural light and balconies

The importance of exposure to abundant natural light for its aesthetic, thermal and

lighting value was emphasised by residents. Most rooms in traditional Australian homes

have windows that allow for natural lighting and ventilation (Australian Government

2010). Participants associated natural light with not only sunlight and heating, but also

with a ‘feeling’ of more open space, therefore creating a more comfortable, liveable and

aesthetically pleasing dwelling interior. Participants were generally satisfied with natural

light in their dwelling.

It’s excellent. Because we get mainly southern light...unfortunately we don’t get

direct sunlight until the afternoon, because the sun comes over this way... So it

would have been nice to get more sun maybe in the morning, but there’s not

much we can do about that. (HD20, male aged 30-34 years)

Many traditional Australian homes were characterised by broad balconies shaded by

corrugated iron roofing and timber lattice which were important features for cooling the

home by providing breezeways (Australian Government 2010). Most participants

indicated that balconies in high density dwellings were also important for enhancing

natural air-flow and improving thermal comfort, identifying balconies as being important

for improving natural light and maintaining a connection with the outdoor environment.

Natural light was seen as a desirable feature, creating a more comfortable, liveable and

aesthetically pleasing dwelling interior. Part of a dwelling’s liveability was the connection

to the outdoor environment, important for high density residents and achieved through

open windows and balcony areas. Many participants identified the balcony and

associated open space and views as their favourite design feature of the dwelling.

I think [my favourite design feature of this apartment is] the balcony and the

glass windows because it’s private… and just the open space of it”. (HD20, male

aged 30-34 years)

Previous research has shown the beneficial social and psychological effects of building

designs that feature natural light and views of natural surrounds, including reduction in

stress, better emotional health, improved communication and a sense of belonging to a

community or place (Heerwagen and Zagreus 2005; Vallance et al. 2005). The challenge

126

for designers and developers in a subtropical climate is to balance daylight penetration

and maximise the positive outcomes of daylight while minimising the negative impacts of

solar heat gain.

Noise Mitigation

Levels of annoyance are associated with various sources of noise in high density urban

areas and managing noise is crucial for enhancing satisfaction with high density living

(Bramley and Power 2009; Saville Smith 2010). Noise is generated internally within a

building (e.g. noise from surrounding neighbours’ voices, music or appliances) or

externally (e.g. traffic noise industrial activities or surrounding neighbours). Noise can

also be classified as either air-borne (through openings, closed windows, doors, walls and

floors) or structure-borne (through building materials from sound sources such as

vehicular or foot traffic, banging, or objects dropped), with design solutions not always

being the same (Australian Government 2002). For these participants, although motor

vehicle noise was the most commonly heard noise, it was voices, music or sounds from

animals that were identified as the most annoying noises. This is in keeping with research

undertaken by Williams (2000). Williams (2000) found some evidence of increases in

“bad neighbour” effects of noise complaints although causal attribution was difficult to

substantiate. Varying tolerance to these different types of noise may result from the

nature of the noise, be it constant, intermittent, anonymous or identifiable, as well as the

time of day in which it occurs.

There has been a move in recent years for unit owners to change their

floors to timber. The buildings were built with carpet flooring and owners

have been changing them to timber and it’s caused a lot of disputes in a lot

of buildings, you may have heard of other cases, and that is causing

problems. Units on both sides of us have converted their floors to timber

and as a result we’re getting noise transference through which we used

not to get. (HD16, male aged 70-74 years)

Being aware of how noise travels within a building is important for noise management,

both from a building design point of view and the residents’ perspective of wishing to

minimise noise, thereby contributing to greater satisfaction with high density living

(Vallance et al. 2005; Saville Smith 2010). While it is important to insulate and provide

127

barriers against noise, it is also important to look at measures to control noise at the

source.

Building Complex

The building in which dwellings are located was discussed in relation to liveability within

high density urban areas, with shared space, good neighbour protocols and

environmental sustainability identified as key aspects of building design.

Limited use of shared space

The social impacts of high density include the necessity to use shared space for everyday

activity due to reduced private space (Ancell and Thompson-Fawcett 2008). Shared

space includes areas in multi-unit dwellings and apartments that can be accessed by all

residents. This includes amenity areas such as swimming pools, gyms and children’s play

areas and also refers to shared access areas such as corridors, lifts, stairwells and

pathways. Accessing facilities in communal areas was considered useful in high density

environments, with over half indicating they were satisfied with the communal facilities

(pool, clotheslines, laundry) within their building. However, communal facilities within

the building were used infrequently. For example, most have a swimming pool in their

building and yet indicated that they never or infrequently used it or other shared

facilities, such as barbeque and deck areas.

I’m ashamed to say I’ve never used the pool, but I’m not really one to use the

pool. Except when I’ve stood around it for drinks and common social gatherings

(HD11, male aged 70-74 years)

Many said they liked to keep to themselves and valued privacy in shared areas, indicating

that they were happy to maintain a simple ‘hello’ relationship with their neighbours but

did not want to feel pressure or any obligation to talk to neighbours.

I like that when we go out, we don’t have to stand and have a little chat every five

minutes. You can just come and do your own thing (HD6, female aged 25-29

years)

128

Such findings are consistent with an emerging body of research, which suggests there is

little social contact within high density residential communities (Zhang and Lawson 2009).

How high rise developments are designed can influence the sense of social

connectedness between residents. There can be restricted opportunity for residents to

spontaneously participate in short term and spur-of-the-moment activities because of

limited space for eating or playing games or sport outside of the apartment but within

the building complex (Henderson-Wilson 2008). Previous research has found that large

numbers of other occupants can cause residents to withdraw and refuse to participate in

community activities (Adams 1992; Williams 2005). Critically, however, this research

suggests that it is residents themselves who choose to maintain distance between

themselves and others in order to maintain their privacy. While further research would

be needed to more fully explore their motivations in this regard, these findings suggest

that residents choose to remain ‘friendly strangers’ because of their strong desire for

privacy within their home.

Good neighbour protocols

Many Australians accustomed to living in detached houses on larger blocks of land may

find it confronting or difficult to live in shared proximity with others. High density

buildings and facilities are covered by community title laws that allow Body Corporates

and other management structures to develop guidelines for shared facilities, which

include management of noise, behaviour around common areas such as pools and use of

shared parking areas (Queensland Government 2010). Some participants indicated a

level of voluntary behaviour towards neighbours, explaining that they engaged in social

adaptation and reciprocity in high density dwellings, by monitoring their own behaviour

(e.g. noise generated) and being tolerant of particular neighbour behaviour such as

routine and expected noises. Limited tolerance was displayed for particular neighbour

behaviours that were not deemed as ‘acceptable’ however, which were described as

generating noise early in the morning or late at night, loudly exiting and entering the

building, pet noise and disregard for allotted car-parking spaces.

I think each of us have just realised this is the way that it is and we just

have to be a bit considerate. I mean, I have been lucky...I don’t have a

party animal living upstairs who likes to have music blaring and his mates

around every Saturday night to watch the footy. So the people that have

129

been upstairs, previously there was an older person and then more

recently a younger couple. I actually said to them can you hear my TV and

they said yeah, can you hear us talking? And I said, I think that’s just the

way it is and we just have to live with it. And they said ‘yeah’. (HD1, male

aged 45-49 years)

Residents placed value on ‘good neighbour protocols’ and most were aware of how their

behaviour impacted on others and engaged in voluntary mitigation activities. These

findings align with those of Williams (2000) and her description of the “bad neighbour”

and Saville-Smith who identified the built environment key determinants of

neighbourhood satisfaction. The elements identified by Saville-Smith (2010) and

Williams (2000) were the same as those identified by the current study’s participants

including low noise and other disturbance when living in close physical proximity with

other residents. These findings highlight the value of developing and disseminating a

‘code of behaviour’ for building residents that explains, especially for new high density

residents, how seemingly innocuous behaviours may negatively impact upon their

neighbours’ quality of life.

Environmental Sustainability

Environmental sustainability for high density buildings and complexes may involve a

range of initiatives such as recycling bins, installing water efficient fixtures in dwellings

and common areas, planning garden spaces with limited need for watering, and

designing dwellings and common areas that utilise daylight, natural air-flow and passive

heating and cooling (Queensland Government 2009). Participants were aware of

environmental sustainability and some believed utilising less space by living in higher

density dwellings led to more sustainable use of resources. However, many voiced

concerns over the lack of sustainability initiatives within their building and indicated that

there was significant room for improvement in the provision of recycling facilities.

I’ve got 2 wine bottles by my door for me to take them down and throw in the…

garbage. I feel guilty throwing glass in the garbage because I’ve been so used to

[recycling], you just don’t do it here. There’s no facility to do it (HD15, female 30-

34 years)

130

Providing opportunities for efficient waste, water and energy management through

environmental sustainability initiatives is important to residents. Many of these building

initiatives have been identified earlier as contributing to the liveability of the dwelling

(e.g. building design capturing daylight and providing cross ventilation to reduce reliance

on artificial lighting, heating and cooling), with past research also finding that sustainable

cities are considered to be high quality liveable places where people want to live (Bishop

and Syme 1995).

Community

Community is the third major domain that is integral to liveable or desirable places.

Participants described the community aspect of liveability as including accessible and

sustainable transport, amenities and services, and a sense of community. Many said they

decided to live in the area because of the availability of public transport and accessibility

to the community (including foot and bike paths), explaining that residential complex

selection was based on its location with respect to the city centre, facilities in the

neighbourhood and facilities within the complex/design of the residential complex.

Accessible and sustainable transport

The majority agreed that it was easy to walk to a public transport stop from their home

and felt safe walking or bicycling in their neighbourhood during the day; only half felt safe

walking or bicycling at night. Walking was a common mode choice for various types of

journeys, with participants reporting that they walked daily or weekly, commonly for the

purpose of travelling to restaurants, recreational facilities and the newsagent. Walking

was preferred for reaching certain destinations, providing ease of access to local services,

a sense of the surrounding community and, for some, a reduced environmental impact.

Walking around the streets at night I do, coming back from the cinema, it’s just

dead quiet. After ten o’clock at night, the amount of traffic on the road is

significantly less, so there’s hardly any traffic noise, surprisingly. So yeah, there’s

just this feeling of peace and quiet and safety. (HD1, male aged 45-49 years)

Yet, while most thought public transport was available and convenient, cars emerged as

the preferred travel mode for many journeys – most reported travelling by car regularly

(daily or several times weekly).

131

I suppose what’s not great is there’s not that many local shops, so if you do have

to go and do grocery shopping, you’ve got to get in the car and get somewhere.

Public transport is not that crash hot, if you don’t want to go to the city. (HD14,

male 45-49 years)

Amenities and services

Providing services within the community has been linked to residential satisfaction and

quality of life (Lloyd and Auld 2003). Participants in this study explained that having

access to amenities (local services and recreational facilities) in their local area was

considered very important in high density neighbourhoods.

It’s the area. It’s the fact that, two minutes and I’ve got twenty odd restaurants

to go to. I can see work from here. I get the bus to work. I can walk to get my

haircut, see my doctor, walk, walk, walk. (HD3, male aged 50-54 years)

For urban planners, these findings suggest that access to amenities is a key driver of

satisfaction with locality and are consistent with the concept of ‘complete communities’.

‘Complete communities’ refers to liveable places characterised by mixed land uses, as

well as walkable and pedestrian friendly environments equipped with amenities and

services that foster local self-sufficiency, meaningful place-based identity, attachment

and ownership (Perkins 1995). This research suggests that ICHD Brisbane residents

strongly value many of the characteristics of ‘complete communities’, particularly easy,

accessible connections between their homes, shopping, walkways, cycle paths and public

transport.

Sense of community

Although participants describe desirable aspects of their inner urban community, they

were not likely to have strong connections with their neighbours. Most participants had

not visited a neighbour in the past week, had not attended a local community event in

the past six months and did not think they would run into friends and acquaintances

when they went shopping in their local area. While residents may not form strong

relationships with their immediate neighbours, they do seem to enjoy the sense of

community derived from their broader neighbourhood through easy access to local

132

goods and services and a sense of familiarity with the area, as well as people working or

living in the area.

I think [high-density living] is good, because it just … brings people together, and I

think it makes communities … Because I think it’s a myth, this whole thing about,

being out and having a house, and getting to know the neighbours, and… I think

it’s more social living here, [with] shared services, like there’s one pool for

everyone, instead of everyone having to have their own pool, everyone having to

have their own lawn mower… I think it makes more sense to live in a… high-

density apartment like that. And then, basically have parks around which

everyone can use. (HD20, male 30-34 years)

Conclusion This study identifies significant synergy between the aspirations of customers’ and those

of society. The results show that urban features that reflect current societal pressure for

greater sustainability such as lower energy use and more use of public transport are the

exact same features sought by residents in determining the liveability of a particular

community. From the dwelling perspective, enhanced thermal comfort and improved

air-flow and natural lighting would significantly reduce the need to artificially heat, cool

and light these homes. Within the building complex, shared space, good neighbour

protocols and environmental sustainability were the key issues that affect ICHD liveability

for residents. In the community realm, improved public transport and walkability

infrastructure in inner urban areas would provide community dividends of increased

sustainability from making public transport and walkability more appealing. These

findings highlight a number of opportunities for regulators, developers and designers to

incorporate design features that not only enhance the liveability of high density

residences, but also their long term sustainability.

Sustainability and community dividends arising from better design of high density

dwellings, buildings and urban areas identified by this study suggest the need for

regulators to re-examine building codes and guidelines. Future building codes or

guidelines could incorporate “best practice” in sustainability in order to make dwellings,

buildings and urban areas more liveable from a user and community perspective.

Implementation of many of the findings of this study could assist in reducing energy use

and CO2 emissions, while at the same time enhancing the liveability of inner urban high

133

density dwellings. The relevance of these findings is not restricted to the study site since

they are likely to extend to other major subtropical cities throughout the world.

While this study reports on the experiences of a small number of high density residents

living in one city in Australia thereby precluding generalisability of its findings, it captures

the local knowledge and place-based cultures of everyday use for this group of ICHD

residents providing insight into their lived experience. Such results tend to be more

relevant and are more likely to be actioned than abstract generalities about liveability

requirements (Myers 1987; Stevens 2006; National Research Council (NRC) 2002). Their

experiences are also likely to have relevance to other high density contexts elsewhere

without having to discount for local differences. However, further research is needed

that explores, in more depth, how people, both residents and non-residents, view,

experience and judge ICHD areas. In particular, future research should explicitly explore

the extent to which characteristics of the dwelling (small size) and/or the amenities,

services and recreational facilities within the neighbourhood either facilitate or hinder

ICHD localities being accessible and socially inclusive places for all members of the

community. Our results suggest that encouraging more inner-city retail, particularly

services which are utilised frequently in people’s daily lives such as grocers and

pharmacies, would potentially help ensure residents fully engage in their local

community and also attract a more diverse local population.

As stated above, a liveable place is a complex concept, very personal and often therefore

difficult to articulate. It is a multi-faceted concept capturing many attributes which

interplay and operate dynamically within and between the immediate living

environment, the building and the community. These attributes provide the essential

services and life enriching amenities and experiences within close proximity for its

residents and visitors. Understanding the factors that influence residents’ perceptions of

liveability of ICHD locations can assist with the planning, management and design of high

density residential complexes and locations to create liveable, supportive and sustainable

cities.

134

References Adams, R. E. (1992). Is happiness a home in the suburbs?: The influence of urban versus

suburban neighborhoods on psychological health. Journal of Community

Psychology, 20(4), 353-372. doi: 10.1002/1520-6629(199210)20:4<353::aid-

jcop2290200409>3.0.co;2-z

Ancell, S., and Thompson-Fawcett, M. (2008). The Social Sustainability of Medium Density

Housing: A Conceptual Model and Christchurch Case Study. Housing Studies,

23(3), 423-442. doi: 10.1080/02673030802029990


Design, 28, 201-217.

Artkins, C. (2007). All in the Mind. Essential Matters Retrieved 3 March 2010, from

http://www.essentialmatters.com.au/resources/PropAust_Issue10_p68_69.pdf

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2010). Year Book Australia, 2009–10, Electronic Resource,

Catalogue Number:1301.0, Retrieved from

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/cat/1301.0

Australian Government. (2002). State of the Environment Report 2001 Retrieved 16

October 2009, from

http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2001/publications/themereports/settleme

nts/settlements04-2.html

Australian Government. (2010). Australian Architecture - Australian Government Cultural

Portal Retrieved 10 May 2010, from

http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/architecture/,

Bakardjieva, M. (2003). Virtual Togetherness: an Everyday-life Perspective. Media Culture

Society, 25(3), 291-313. doi: 10.1177/0163443703025003001

Bishop, B. J., and Syme, G. J. (1995). The social costs and benefits of urban consolidation:

A time budget/contingent valuation approach. Journal of Economic Psychology,

16(2), 223-245.

Bramley, G., and Power, S. (2009). Urban form and social sustainability: the role of

density and housing type. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design,

36(1), 30-48.

135

Brisbane City Council, and Queensland Government. (2010). River City Blueprint River City

Blueprint Forum - Background Paper. Brisbane, Queensland: Brisbane City Council

Queensland Government.


Planning, 68(1), 129-138.

Clapson, M. (2003). Suburban century: social change and urban growth in England and

the United States. . Oxford; New York: Berg.

Diener, E., and Lucas, R. E. (2000). Explaining Differences in Societal Levels of Happiness:

Relative Standards, Need Fulfillment, Culture, and Evaluation Theory. Journal of

Happiness Studies, 1(1), 41-78.



54(1), 403-425. doi: doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145056


Urban Dispersion. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 12(1), 48.

Friedman, A. (2002). Planning the new suburbia: flexibility by design. . Vancouver: UBC

Press.

Gleeson, B., and Steele, W. (2010). A climate for growth: Planning South-East

Queensland. Brisbane: UQ Press.

Grant, J. (2006). Planning the good community : new urbanism in theory and practice.

London ; New York: Routledge.

Grant, J. (2006a). The Ironies of New Urbanism. Canadian Journal of Urban Research,

15(2), 158-174.



Heerwagen, J., and Zagreus, L. (2005). The Human Factors of Sustainable Building Design:

Post Occupancy Evaluation of the Philip Merrill Environmental Center: US

Department of Energy Building Technology Program.

136

Henderson-Wilson, C. (2008, 18-20 June 2008). Inner city high-rise living: a catalyst for

social exclusion and social connectedness? Paper presented at the 3rd

Australasian Housing Researchers’ Conference 2008, Melbourne.

Howley, P., Scott, M., and Redmond, D. (2009). Sustainability versus liveability: an

investigation of neighbourhood satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Planning

and Management, 52(6), 847 - 864.


Jones, C., and MacDonald, C. (2004). Sustainable Urban Form and Real Estate Markets.

Paper presented at the annual European Real Estate Conference, Milan.


Publishers.

Liamputtong, P., and Ezzy, D. (2005). Qualitative research methods. . South Melbourne:


Lloyd, K., and Auld, C. (2003). Leisure, public space and quality of life in the urban

environment. Urban Policy and Research, 21(4), 339 - 356.

Lu, M. (1999). Determinants of Residential Satisfaction: Ordered Logit vs. Regression

Models. Growth & Change, 30(2), 264.

Lynch, K. (1981). Good City Form Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Matysek, K. (2011). A policy/program dilemma? Supportive environments for health and

wellbeing. Paper presented at the 4th Healthy Cities: Making Cities Liveable

Conference, Noosa Qld.





Myers, D. (1989). The Ecology of 'Quality of Life' and Urban Growth. In D. J. Brower & D.

R. Godschalk (Eds.), Understanding Growth Management: Critical Issues and

Research Agenda. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.

137




Academy Press.

Neilson, L. (2008). The ‘Building Better Cities’ Program 1991-1996: a nation-building

initiative of the Commonwealth Government. In J. Butcher (Ed.), Australia under

construction nation-building – past, present and future (pp. 83-118). Canberra:

ANU E Press.

Newman, D. M. (2008). Sociology : exploring the architecture of everyday life Thousand

Oaks, Calif: Pine Forge Press



geographical perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65(1-2), 19-30. doi:

10.1016/s0169-2046(02)00234-7

Partners for Livable Communities, McNulty, R. H., Penne, L., and Jacobson, D. R. (1986).

The Return of the Livable City: Learning from America's Best. Washington, DC:

Annapolis Books.

Perkins, R. (1995). Vancouver: Complete Communities for the Liveable Region

Intensification Report: Canadian Urban Institute.

Queensland Government. (2009). Climate Q: Toward a greener Queensland, 2009

Retrieved 16 September 2009, from

http://www.climatechange.qld.gov.au/pdf/climateqreport/climateqreport.pdf

Queensland Government. (2010). Body Corporate and Community Management Act

1997. Brisbane: Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel,.

Rabinowitz, A. (2004). Urban economics and land use in America : the transformation of

cities in the twentieth century. Armonk, N.Y: M.E. Sharpe.

Rowe, D. (1996). Mixed Mode Climate Control AIRAH Journal : Australian refrigeration,

air conditioning & heating, 50(12).

138

Rowley, A. (1998). Private-property decision makers and the quality of urban design.

Journal of Urban Design, 3(2), 151.

Saville-Smith, K. (2010, 4-7 July 2010). The Value of Neighbourhood Intensification: The

Interface Between Dwelling, Neighbourhood Design and Affordability. Paper

presented at the ENHR 22nd International Housing Research Conference: Urban

Dynamics & Housing Change - Crossing into the 2nd Decade of the 3rd

Millennium, Istanbul.

Schmandt, H. J., and Bloomberg, W. (1969). The quality of urban life Beverly Hills CA:

Sage.

Sen, A. (1993). Capability and Well-Being. In M. Nassbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The Quality of

Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Sirgy, M. J., and Cornwell, T. (2002). How neighborhood features affect quality of life.

Social Indicators Research, 59(1), 79.

Smart State Council. (2007). Smart Cities: rethinking the city centre. Brisbane: Queensland

Government.

Smith, I., Dodson, J., Gleeson, B., and Burton, P. (2010). Growing adaptively?: Responding

to climate change through regional spatial planning in England and Australia.

Brisbane: Griffith University.

Southworth, M., and Parthasarathy, B. (1996). The suburban public realm I: Its

emergence, growth and transformation in the American metropolis. Journal of

Urban Design, 1(3), 245-263.

Vallance, S., Perkins, H. C., and Moore, K. (2005). The results of making a city more

compact: neighbours? interpretation of urban infill. Environment and Planning B:

Planning and Design, 32(5), 715-733.

Veenhoven, R., and Ehrhardt, J. (1995). The cross-national pattern of happiness: Test of

predictions implied in three theories of happiness. Social Indicators Research,

34(1), 33.

Whyte, W. H. (1988). City: Rediscovering the Center. New York, London: Doubleday.

139

Whyte, W. H. (2001). The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. New York: Project for Public

Spaces.

Williams, J. (2005). Designing Neighbourhoods for Social Interaction: The Case of

Cohousing. Journal of Urban Design, 10(2), 195-227. doi:

10.1080/13574800500086998

Williams, K. (2000). Does intensifying cities make them more sustainable. In K. Williams,

L. Burton & M. Jenks (Eds.), Achieving Sustainable Urban Forms (pp. 30-45).

London: Spon.

Zhang, W., and Lawson, G. (2009). Meeting and greeting: Activities in public outdoor

spaces outside high-density urban residential communities. Urban Design

International, 14(4), 207-214. doi: 10.1057/udi.2009.19

142

Paper 2 - The lived world of older urban Australians: Relating

everyday living to GPS tracking data.



The definitive, peer-reviewed and edited version of this paper is published in OZCHI ‘10

Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest

Group of Australia on Computer-Human Interaction published online 16 November 2010


Desley Vine


Technology (QUT)

Chief investigator, significant contribution to the planning of the study,

literature review, data collection and analysis and writing of the

manuscript.

Laurie Buys


(QUT)









143

Chapter 5: Paper 2 - The lived world of older urban Australians:

Relating everyday living to GPS tracking data.

Abstract Neighbourhood like the concept of liveability is usually measured by either subjective

indicators using surveys of residents’ perceptions or by objective means using secondary

data or relative weights for objective indicators of the urban environment. Rarely, have

objective and subjective indicators been related to one another in order to understand

what constitutes a liveable urban neighbourhood both spatially and behaviourally. This

paper explores the use of qualitative (diaries, in-depth interviews) and quantitative

(Global Positioning Systems, Geographical Information Systems mapping) liveability

research data to examine the perceptions and behaviour of 12 older residents living in six

high density urban areas of Brisbane. Older urban Australians are one of the two

principal groups highly attracted to high density urban living. The strength of the

relationship between the qualitative and quantitative measures was examined. Results

of the research indicate a weak relationship between subjective and objective indicators.

Linking the two methods (quantitative and qualitative) is important in obtaining a greater

understanding of human behaviour and the lived world of older urban Australians and in

providing a wider picture of the urban neighbourhood.

Author Keywords

Neighbourhood, liveability, high density, urban, quantitative, qualitative, older people,

GIS, GPS, Brisbane

ACM Classification Keywords

H5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI): Miscellaneous.

144

Introduction

This paper explores the concept of high density urban neighbourhood and

neighbourhood liveability for older people by linking qualitative evaluations of the lived

urban experience of older urban people and quantitative indicators of their use of and

interface with their urban neighbourhood. There have been two principal groups

attracted to high density urban Australian neighbourhoods including young, single and

childless couples and older ‘empty nest’ people (Brisbane City Council and Queensland

Government, 2010). It is the latter group who is the focus of this paper.

Like liveability, neighbourhood lacks a single accepted definition. In attempting to

conceptualise neighbourhood and neighbourhood liveability, researchers use either

quantitative or qualitative indicators. The term neighbourhood is used generally to

describe vicinities, however, in common useage neighbourhoods are typically associated

with home location, place-based communities and geographic domains (Anderson et al.,

1999). The one definitional attribute agreed by most researchers, is that neighbourhoods

require residents (Brower, 1996). Without residential use a neighbourhood does not

exist, and is otherwise known as a zone, area or district (O’Sullivan, 1993). Apart from

this requirement of place-based residence, there is no stated particular housing density,

type, size, form or cost. However, with regard to the liveability of neighbourhoods, those

particular characteristics become more important (Jacobs, 1993).

The concepts of neighbourhood and community are often synonymous with each other

(Hillery, 1968). Their point of difference is the ability for communities to exist outside of

place (community without propinquity, Webber, 1963), whereas neighbourhoods are

grounded in place and geographical setting. Previous research into neighbourhoods,

neighbourhood liveability and communities can be grouped into three categories (Hillery,

1968).

First is the objective measurement of neighbourhood as a geographical and placed-based

identity with measures derived from primary field surveys or from analysis of secondary,

normally census-based, data sets. Locality, physical characteristic, density, residences

and resident populations, retail and recreational area, utilities and circulation space are

all considered part of this physically-oriented notion (Jacobs, 1993). Physical approaches

to neighbourhoods and neighbourhood liveability are often discussed relative to their

walkable nearness or proximity to some form of centre, whether public facility,

institutional, educational or retail. Proximity to the centre is measured either in walking

145

distance or walking time (Stein, 1951). This physical notion of neighbourhood is

acknowledged by most researchers (Brower, 1996; Keller, 1968). Deciphering the

neighbourhood and neighbourhood liveability by means of ‘objective’ characteristics is

one of two means of determining the concepts; the other is the more ‘subjective’

behavioural approach (Keller, 1968) which is outlined below as the second category.

The second category defines neighbourhoods and neighbourhood liveability by the

subjective behavioural aspects of their use and activity. This incorporates private and

public activity and the exchange of goods and services and information that structure

neighbourhoods (Hillery, 1968). This category is informed by and overlaps with the first

category of physical concept of neighbourhood liveability. This view contends that

neighbourhood and neighbourhood liveability is not inherent in the environment but is a

behaviour related function of the interaction of neighbourhood characteristics and

person characteristics (Anderson et al., 1999). Everyday household activities influence

the perceived dimension of the neighbourhood, for example, how far people are willing

to walk to public transport, banks, health facilities, shops and recreation. This suggests

that neighbourhoods are identifiable through the linkage of their residential function and

their non-residential uses that draw and encourage activity. Neighbourhood behavioural

and use patterns may extend into other neighbourhoods. Behavioural use of the

neighbourhood has been identified as being entrenched within hierarchies of ever-larger

places; i.e., the housing unit situated on a parcel of land, which is situated within the

home area, which is situated in the neighbourhoood, which is situated in the city, etc.,

(Brower, 1996).

Due to the difficulty of defining neighbourhoods spatially or behaviourally, the third

category is one of a sociological approach. It includes community concepts of political

and social organization, interpersonal and group cohesion and relationships, notions of

inclusion or exclusion with social, ethnic, cultural and territorial identity (Hester, 1975;

Gans, 1962). Communication and transport technological advances, housing turnover

and the mobility and changing nature of work has resulted in decreased social capital and

group participation. This has challenged place-based neighbourhoods through the

growth of non-place-based communities of interest (Webber, 1963). It is suggested that

because place-based communities appear to be on the decline, the social neighbourhood

has been reduced to shared political interests against threats to property value and

potential change (Putnam, 2000).

146

As discussed above, most social indicator research has employed either objective or

subjective measures and rarely have the two been linked despite that one indicator can

contribute to the interpretation of the other (McCrea et al., 2006; Pacione, 2003). Also,

there is no conclusive evidence of the superiority of one type of indicator over the other

(Pacione, 2003). Both areas of research have contributed valuable insights into the

concept of liveability, neighbourhood and communities. Thus, a more complete

understanding of neighbourhood use and activity would be facilitated by corresponding

data of peoples’ perceptions of their use and activity within their neighbourhood. It is an

axiom, therefore, that in order to determine a clearer understanding of urban

neighbourhood, it would be beneficial to employ both qualitative and quantitative

evaluations, thereby considering both the physical urban neighbourhood and the social

urban neighbourhood.

Most advanced capitalist societies are keen to develop a more sustainable and liveable

urban development pattern and their unit of focus is the urban neighbourhood. Changes

or policies aimed at changing the objective, physical urban neighbourhood environment

assume an improvement in the subjective experience of urban liveabililty for residents

within that neighbourhood when there is little evidence of empirical strength to these

associations (McCrea et al., 2006). It is important to investigate these associations to

provide greater clarity on the relationship between the two measures. The distinction

between subjective and objective measures is the difference between the perceptions of

behaviour and the actual behaviour of older people within their urban neighbourhoods.

Thus, the purpose of this paper is to use quantitative and qualitative measures to explore

the concept of high density urban neighbourhood and neighbourhood liveability for older

people.

Method The data presented is a sub-set of a larger project exploring active ageing and liveability

in rural, regional and urban Queensland locations; this paper focuses specifically on the

experiences of older Queenslander’s residing in inner-urban, high-density Brisbane

suburbs.

147

Case Study Location

The case study location is Brisbane, Queensland, the fastest growing city in Australia and

the second fastest growing city in the western world with a population of almost one

million people. Seven inner-urban higher-density suburbs (defined as 30 or more

dwellings per hectare) fall within this area (Hamilton, Highgate Hill, West End, Newstead,

Teneriffe, Kangaroo Point and Kelvin Grove) and participants were selected to ensure

that the data represents all seven suburbs.

Participants

A total of 12 participants (6 men, 6 women) living in the selected high-density suburbs in

Brisbane were interviewed. Their ages ranged from 55 to 80 years, with a mean age of

69.5 years and all but one lived in their current residence for over five years. Seven

participants were married; two widowed and living alone and three single and living

alone. Seven participants had annual incomes greater than A$70,000 (three were in full

time employment); one had an income between A$40,000 and A$50,000; one had

income of less than A$20,000 and two chose not indicate their income level. Participants

were currently residing in different inner-urban suburbs with different typography and

varying levels of infrastructure and services in each location.

Apparatus - Global Positioning Systems

Objective and accurate measurements of the participant’s physical movements

throughout the seven day trial periods were obtained by issuing participants with

portable autonomous Global Positioning Systems (GPS) devices. Following the trials, the

recorded spatial data was analyzed and visualised using a Geographical Information

Systems (GIS): Google Earth.

Daily Diaries

Participants kept a daily diary of activities/destinations for the week prior to the

interview. The diary recorded demographics, daily travel and activities for each

participant.

In-depth Interviews

The in-depth interview explored a number of open-ended questions around level of

activity and instrumental and non-instrumental social behaviour within the immediate

148

urban environment. Using the diary and map information, the interviews explored the

experiences of participants in relation to social inclusion, frequency of planned and

spontaneous encounters and urban community social support and engagement. All

interviews were recorded and lasted on average approximately 90 minutes.

Data Analysis

The data from the interviews, diaries and maps was compared and analysed using

qualitative methods. The audio recordings were fully transcribed and then analysed using

a thematic approach, identifying key categories, themes and patterns (Liamputtong,

2009). An iterative process was utilised, with the transcripts being read and reread in

order to code the data and identify emerging themes and meaningful categories. To

enable understanding and interpretation, participant’s diaries and time/space life path

maps were also qualitatively analysed to identify key patterns in where and how

participants moved in the monitored week.

In this study, objective indicators were gathered using Global Positioning Systems (GPS)

to track the respondents’ movements and then to map their movements using

Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and also to gather objective indicators about

their urban environment with regard to services and facilities. This data was then

analysed for the second phase of subjective measurement through semi-structured in-

depth interviews.

Figure 1 Examples of two weekly activity maps

149

Results/Discussion The data reveal a weak link between the subjective perceived use of the local

neighbourhood and the objective indicators of actual use. Older residents reported using

their local neighbourhoods regularly, however the subjective assessment was

incongruent with the GPS and GIS analysis indicating that they have very little local

neighbourhood activity. Similarly, there is disparity between the subjective and objective

indicators on their neighbourhood meeting all their needs. The third dissimilarity

between the objective and subjective related to the geographic concept of local

neighbourhood which goes some way to explaining the first two contradictions.

All participants reported that they used their local neighbourhoods regularly for goods

and services and recreation. However, the GPS and GIS mapping as shown in Figure 1,

demonstrates they spend very little time in their local neighbourhood outside their

residence. Map A, in Figure 1, depicts the week’s activity of a resident whose

neighbourhood has limited available amenities and services which could explain the

extensive use of her private vehicle. Map B is the week’s activity of a participant, who

lives in an urban neighbourhood well serviced with amenities within walkable distances,

with similar vehicle use despite the availability of local amenities. When asked to identify

walkability issues of their local neighbourhood, residents mentioned the weather, lack of

shade and street seating, uneven pedestrian surfaces and topography, lack of hand rails

on steps and lack of good quality public toilets.

All residents said that they loved their neighbourhoods and believed that their location

met their needs. A widely acknowledged definitional attribute of liveable

neighbourhoods is walkable proximity, measured in either distance or time spent

walking, to satisfy everyday needs. The analysis indicated that the residents used their

cars extensively to take them to other neighbourhoods to undertake everyday activities.

The virtues of neighbourhood walking are particularly pertinent to older people. Walking

is regarded as being accessible and convenient to everyone and an act of identity

creation through the everyday use of space (Mayol in de Certeau et al., 1998). Regular

pedestrian use of neighbourhood space allows appropriation of community space into

the realm of domestic life (Mayol in de Certeau et al., 1998). All residents identified the

importance of having facilities and activities within their urban neighbourhood, and yet

they relied on vehicle transport for the majority of trips outside of their homes.

150

The final major disparity between the subjective and objective measures was the concept

of their local neighbourhood. The concept of neighbourhood is one of walkability in

addressing everyday needs. These residents undertook most of their everyday activity

outside of their walkable neighbourhood. When asked to identify their neighbourhood

on the Google Earth map during the interview, the residents indicated a much wider

geographic region than their immediate walkable neighbourhood. One resident

identified, the greater Brisbane area as his neighbourhood. The neighbourhood

identified was in keeping with their everyday activity base which was with the use of a

vehicle. They indicated a geographic radius comprising of their favorite locations that are

generally within a 5-15 minute drive. This is in keeping with Brower (1996) who indicated

that behavioural and use patterns often extend into other neighbourhoods. Access to

familiar everyday type activities (for example, retail shopping, hairdressers, medical

services and the like) appears unproblematic while there is easy availability and use of

the vehicle but this is unsustainable as the residents age and they or their partner can no

longer drive.

The experience or perception of the neighbourhood is represented as a joint function of

the objective physical conditions (for example, state of the footpaths, etc.) and the

subjective interpretation of these conditions to the individual. If the perceived

neighbourhood environment is outside the individual’s comfort range then there is

difficulty in the use of the neighbourhood for any activity whether for recreation or

necessity.

Many factors, including personal and social characteristics such as age and health status

interfere with an individual’s subjective interpretation of their objective physical world

and these may act as noise in distorting objective conditions (Pacione, 2003). A universal

objective, for example, reducing car dependence, can be transformed by individual

perceptions of, for example, how they view the extent of their personal use of the

vehicle. Individual experience is also a factor which will affect the perception of a specific

domain (Pacione, 2003). Experience of cyclists’ rage along a shared pedestrian track, for

example, is likely to have a lasting effect on the individual’s perception of safety and

enjoyment of his or her neighbourbood walkways. Another factor which may be of

importance in the subjective-objective interpretation or understanding of neighbourhood

liveability is the aspiration level or expectations of the individual. This helps explain the

relatively high satisfaction with neighbourhood liveability expressed by individuals whose

151

neighbourhoods do not appear to support their everyday needs. The notion of

accommodation is another variable that may influence the relationship between

objective and subjective conditions. This suggests that in a fixed situation an individual’s

satisfaction with a condition may increase over time by accommodation to that situation

(Pacione, 2003).

Finally, it is important to acknowledge the research limitations. Although the sample is

generally representative of high density older residents of inner urban areas and is

unusual by incorporating both objective and subjective indicators, our findings are based

on a relatively small and potentially unique population.

In summary, neighbourhood liveability is supported by local walkable access for everyday

needs. Data show that older urban residents are typically active participants in a variety

of activities but they have very low levels of locally-based activity within walking distance

of their residences. Those interviewed said that they loved their neighbourhood and

several claimed to love the fact that it was so ‘central to everything’. Close location of

services and activities was regarded as important and this was given as a reason for

choosing the neighbourhood/residence or as a reason for not wanting to move from their

existing neighbourhoods. However, the GPS and GIS data indicated that they had

minimal local neighbourhood contact and that they used their private vehicles

extensively. This demonstrates the relativism that is implicit in the subjective nature of

neighbourhood liveability. Where people choose to live and the areas that they

behaviourally use can be considered ‘liveable’ according to the individual’s own

subjective filter.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by an Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage Project, “The

neglected dimension of community liveability: Impact on social connectedness and active

ageing”.

152

References Anderson, Ralph E., Irl E. Carter, and Gary Lowe. Human Behavior in the Social

Environment: A Social Systems Approach 5th ed. Hawthorne, New York: Aldine de

Gruyter, 1999.

Brisbane City Council, and Queensland Government. "River City Blueprint." In River City

Blueprint Forum - Background Paper. Brisbane, Queensland: Brisbane City

Council, Queensland Government, 2010.

Brower, Sidney. Good Neighborhoods: A Study of in-Town and Suburban Residential

Environments. Westport, Conn: Praeger Publishers, 1996.

de Certeau, Michel, Luce Giard, and Pierre Mayol. The Practice of Everyday Life, Volume

2: Living and Cooking. Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1998.

Gans, Herbert. The Urban Villagers: Group and Class in the Life of Italian-Americans. New

York: Free Press, 1962.

Hester, Randolph. Planning Neighborhood Space with People. New York: Van Nostrand

Reinhold, 1984.

Hillery, George A. Communal Organizations: A Study of Local Societies. Chicago,IL:

University of Chicago Press, 1968.

Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Modern Library

Edition, Random House, 1993.

Keller, Suzanne. The Urban Neighborhood: A Sociological Perspective. New York:

Princeton University Press / Random House, 1968.

Liamputtong, Pranee. Qualitative Research Methods. 3rd ed. ed. Melbourne, Vic: Oxford

University Press, 2009.

McCrea, Rod, Tung-Kai Shyy, and Robert Stimson. "What Is the Strength of the Link

between Objective and Subjective Indicators of Urban Quality of Life?" Applied

Research in Quality of Life 1, no. 1 (2006): 79-96.

O'Sullivan, Arthur. Urban Economics. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2003.

Pacione, Michael. "Urban Environmental Quality and Human Wellbeing--a Social

Geographical Perspective." Landscape and Urban Planning 65, no. 1-2 (2003): 19-

30.

Putnam, R. D. Bowling Alone : The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New

York: Simon & Schuster, 2000.

Stein, Clarence. Toward New Towns for America. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press,

1951.

153

Webber, Melvin M. "Order in Diversity: Community without Propinquity." In Cities and

Space: The Future Use of Urban Land, edited by Jr Wingo, Lowdon, 23-56.

Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1963

156

Paper 3 - Conceptions of ‘community’ among older adults living in

high density urban areas – An Australian case study



Submitted for review to Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences on 14 April 2012


Desley Vine


Technology (QUT).



manuscript.

Laurie Buys


(QUT).




Rosemary Aird

Senior Research Fellow, School of Design, Queensland University of

Technology (QUT).

Significant contribution in the preparation and evaluation of the

manuscript and assisted with data interpretation.





Name Signature Date 6 February 2012

157

Chapter 6: Paper 3 - Conceptions of ‘community’ among older

adults living in high density urban areas – An Australian case

study

Abstract Objectives. We investigated meanings and use of place to explore community and its

connection to location in the context of high density urban neighbourhoods for older

urban Australians.

Method. This paper explores the everyday interaction and social networks and where

they manifest spatially for a group of older urban Australians through analysis of data

derived from travel diaries, individual time/space activity maps (created via GPS tracking

over a seven-day period and GIS technology), and in-depth interviews.

Results. Four distinct layers of community were identified ranging from the building

where older people reside, the area immediately surrounding the building, the walkable

neighbourhood and the broader district.

Discussion. The four layers are explored by taking into account the participants’

perceptions and practical uses of their environment, their interactions and relationships

and participation in events and everyday activities. The study points to a sectioning of

communities that manifest in the everyday perceptions and experiences of older urban

residents and has implications for community building, policy development and

environmental gerontology.

Key words: homogeneous community, geographic community, neighbourhood, high

density.

Introduction Understanding what constitutes community has become confused (Corcoran,

2002; Obst, Smith, & Zinkiewicz, 2002) as it represents both a social space and a

collective consciousness of social cohesion (Gilleard, Hyde, & Higgs, 2007). Previous

research into communities can be grouped into two categories (Obst, et al., 2002). The

first is the territorial or geographical application of the word where community studies

concentrate on objectively defined areas of residence (neighbourhoods). The second

158

usage pertains to relational aspects within communities of interest, concerned with

matters such as the degree of emotional feelings of similarity or homogeneity, social

connectedness and trust existing within people’s everyday social networks (Gilleard, et

al., 2007; Putnam, 2000).

Homogeneous Communities

Mutual interest, social connectedness, homogeneity or similarity among

members within communities of interest provides the cohesive force for cooperative

behaviour (Obst, et al., 2002). Homogeneous communities, in terms of lifestyle

similarities and shared interests, often create strong social networks and a shared sense

of community. However, homogeneous groups or communities can also be dysfunctional

by exacerbating any existing social cleavages (Norris, 2004).

There has been renewed interest in inner-city high density (ICHD) areas that has

introduced new and particularised populations into various neighbourhoods, resulting in

gentrification, at least as gentrification excludes the less wealthy (Butler, 2007).

Gentrifiers constitute a residential class seeking communities of like-minded people who

share an identity shaped by residential preferences, stage in lifecycle, and social network

(Atkinson & Bridge, 2005; Butler, 2007; Savage, 2005). A ‘vanguard of the bourgeoise’ is

how Logan and Molotch (Zukin, 1987) described the behaviour of such cultural and social

homogeneous community groups.

Geographic Analysis of Community

Planners interpret community as place and rely on ‘neighbourhood’ as the unit of

investigation into urban communities (Hunter, 1974; Kusenbach, 2008; Ziller, 2004). This

entrenched conceptual framework of community as place underpins planning

approaches like new urbanism (Ziller, 2004). The fundamental premise of the place-

based focus is that some neighbourhood designs encourage community connections,

while others do not (Leyden, 2003).

Strict adherence to a geographic analysis approach ignores other layers of

everyday social organisation and urban community differentiation. Because of this,

there has been a shift in the geographic analysis of place from it being treated as a static,

bounded container for social relations to instead being conceived as the coincidence of a

159

range of interconnected social processes operating at different scales (for example, the

residential building, the defended neighbourhood and the walkable neighbourhood) over

different time-periods (Jess & Massey, 1995). Hunter (1974) and more recently

Kusenbach (2008) identified “hierarchies of community” ranging in scale from small social

blocks to larger neighbourhoods to even larger city regions. This paper builds on the

work of Hunter (1974) and the subsequent work of Kusenbach (2008) and other scholarly

commentators to explore community and its connection to location in the context of high

density urban neighbourhoods for older urban Australians.

This paper investigates the concept of community for 12 case studies of older

residents living in six ICHD areas in Brisbane, Australia. There has been little exploration

of how older people living in high density are, and have been, engaged in communities.

In identifying community this study does not rely on a single definition. It incorporates

the ambiguity of community boundaries as part of the analysis. It investigates the

everyday social networks of older urban Australians through the place where social

interactions occur. This recognises the importance of the spatial aspect in understanding

communities overlaid with residents’ subjective perceptions and actual everyday

activities. Such an approach is more complex but is more representative of the reality of

urban residents’ lives. Therefore, place is not pre-conceived territorially but identified

through the analysis of the research. The purpose of this paper is to use closely aligned

quantitative and qualitative measures to explore community and its connection to

location and locale in ICHD for older people.

Methods The data used for this study comprises a sub-set of data related to the

experiences of older Australians residing in inner-urban, high density suburbs, which

were gathered as part of a larger project exploring active ageing and livebility in rural,

regional and urban locations. The research methodology used for the current study

involves several different data collection methods: time-use diaries, survey responses,

GPS tracking and GIS mapping, and in-depth qualitative interviews. Ethical approval for

this project was obtained from a university Human Research Ethics Committee, and all

case study participants provided written informed consent prior to their participation in

the current study.

160

Participants

A total of 12 participants (6 men, 6 women) living in selected ICHD areas were

used for this research, with all but one of the sample drawn from a database of a past

project (‘Living in the City’) (see Table 1 on p107 for a profile of participants’

neighbourhoods). This previous study utilised a proportionate sampling technique for a

postal survey completed by 636 inner urban residents (28% response rate) in 2007,

involving research that focused on the social, environmental and economic aspects of

inner-city life. Using this database, participants who had indicated a willingness to

participate in further research and were now aged 55 years or older were contacted and

invited to participate, ensuring that those recruited allowed exploration of differences

that might emerge as a function of age or gender. Since the original sample from which

these participants were drawn lacked any persons of low socioeconomic status, the

twelfth participant was recruited through a community group to facilitate inclusion of a

case study within this particular demographic.

Case Study Location

The location for all 12 case studies was Brisbane, Queensland, one of the fastest

growing cities in Australia and in the western world. Brisbane has a sub-tropical climate

with undulating topography. The study was undertaken in late March to early April at the

start of autumn (normally characterised by pleasant outdoor weather conditions) in

order to minimise possible weather-related bias in the results, given that summer is

usually warm, humid and wet in Brisbane. The findings are thus considered to provide an

indication of the typical activity level of participants. The greater Brisbane area is under

the jurisdiction of the Brisbane City Council, which reports that this city’s population is

expected to increase from 991,000 (2009) to 1,270,000 people by 2031, and that in 2006,

around 231,526 people and 105,783 dwellings were located in the inner five kilometers

of Brisbane (Brisbane City Council & Queensland Government, 2010). Participants in this

study were selected from six inner-city higher density areas (defined as 30 or more

dwellings per hectare) within five kilometers of the Central Business District. Figure 1

shows the location of the high density areas included in this study.

161

Figure 1 Map of the urban high density areas included in this study

Apparatus


Objective measures of each participant’s travel over a seven-day period were

obtained via a person-based GPS device (lightweight portable TSI GPS Trip Recorder

Model 747A), which was used to track all of their out-of-home movement. The accuracy

of the GPS device is reported to be +-3 meters (TranSystem Incorporated, 2008). This

level of error can increase significantly however, depending on the level of signal

interference caused by buildings, canopy cover, indoor environments, and so on.

Participants placed the GPS device into a handbag or pocket during waking hours and

charged the battery each night. The GPS devices were programmed to record position,

time, date, speed and altitude at a time interval of one minute. This allowed for accurate

tracking of each participant’s outdoor movements, although the GPS would not record

points when no signal was available (for instance, if the participant travelled

underground for a period of time).


Data from the GPS devices were downloaded using software specific to the GPS

device (included in the purchased package). Using this software, the raw data were then


162

representing a logged position (one each minute). These spreadsheets were converted to

Google Earth files using an online converter and mapped in Google Earth. The different

tracks of each participant’s travel on the yielded maps were color-coded by mode of

travel used, according to information entered in participants’ travel diaries (see Daily

Diaries below). The creation of each participant’s time/space activity maps (involving day-

by-day and total weekly travels) took approximately 6 hours per diagram and was

accompanied by tabulated information relevant to each journey and destination.

Daily Diaries

Participants kept a daily diary for the same week that they were using the GPS

tracking device. The diary had space to record their daily travel, destinations, activities

and reflections upon issues pertaining to their environment or any undertaken activity.

The diary also included a brief survey which captured demographic information, use of

transport, volunteering and aspects of community livebility and engagement. The diaries

offered an efficient and affordable way to assess specific details about activity (i.e.,

duration, frequency, social context, travel mode, and location), thereby supplementing

information derived from the GPS devices.

In-depth Interviews

Each interview took place around two weeks after the GPS device and diary were

returned to the research team, and lasted approximately 90 minutes on average. The

interviews were sequenced so that initial discussion centred on participants’ general

pattern of movement over the tracking period, followed by a day-by-day review of each

participant’s trips and activities. This enabled exploration of the nature and level of

activity of each participant within their respective immediate ICHD environments. The

diary and map information acted as basis for generating further discussion to examine

participants’ experience of out-of-home mobility and the factors that facilitate and

hinder community activity. Interviews also provided an opportunity for the accuracy of

the GPS data and created maps to be verified by participants. All interviews were

recorded and subsequently transcribed verbatim.

Data Analysis

The qualitative data derived from interview were analysed as individual case

studies to determine community activity for each participant, as well as their experiences

163

within their neighbourhood environments. The concept of a ‘hierarchies of placed-based

community’, proposed by Hunter (1974) and used subsequently by Kusenbach (2008),

was used as a basis for exploring the relationship between community and urban place

for each case study. The interview transcripts were read and re-read, and manually

coded with ‘chunks’ of data being assigned to categories that corresponded to the main

components conceived by Hunter (1974), Kusenbach (2008) and others to act as

determinants of placed-based community. This method of aggregating the data enabled

detection of similarities and differences between the experiences of the case study

participants with regard to their place-based communities and community activity.

These findings are summarised and presented below.

Results/Discussion This study found that urban residents have territory in common, including their

building, the space immediately surrounding their building, their walkable

neighbourhood and the broader district. While places in and of themselves are not

communities, they are a useful lens through which to review the different levels of urban

community for older urban Australian people.

All four zones distinguish themselves through the residents’ everyday practices

and perceptions. When asked about their community, most residents started discussing

their immediate environment (the community of the building in which they live). This is

in keeping with Sastry et al’s research (Kusenbach, 2008) which found that 36 per cent of

respondents identified the block, the smallest possible unit, as their definition of

community. Most interesting is that when asked to identify their community

geographically on a map, the majority of the residents referred to a much larger area, the

district beyond their respective walkable neighbourhoods. The residents thus clearly and

easily identified the community of the building zone and the district community zone.

Only one resident identified her walkable neighbourhood geographically as her

community and she was able to speak at length about the people who live there (see

Figure 2 below for the map of this resident’s walkable neighbourhood). Data gathered at

interview, revealed the importance of the community zone immediately surrounding the

building. The importance of these four community zones in obtaining a clearer

understanding of urban communities and how these zones are differentiated is discussed

below.

164

Figure 2 Example of a resident’s weekly walking activity map with 5 and 10 minute walking zones indicated

Building

Similar to findings in previous studies (Ziller, 2004) very few of those interviewed

were well acquainted with other residents in their building and their interaction was

mostly brief, trivial and regularly involved practical, small exchanges, e.g. You just see

people in lifts…and…around [the building] (CS1). These greetings invariably were the

result of chance encounters through using shared building design features like elevators,

carpark, swimming pool, barbeque facilities and the like – [I] just stand and talk if they

[other residents] are at the letter-box (CS8). Such features provide opportunities for

chance meetings fostering casual relationships and social networks among building

residents (Gutman, 1966; Suttles, 1972). One resident noted that this friendliness did not

extend beyond the greeting to activities such as being welcomed into another resident’s

apartment or invited out for a meal or beverage.

Most of the people who live in blocks like this…seem to me to be pretty much

friendly, extremely friendly when they see you but they do not go out of their way

to make friends with you (CS1).

Most residents reported social functions organised by the body corporate or

management of the respective apartment building and identified such activity as

important to fostering a sense of community.

165

I think we do [have a sense of community]. There’s sausage sizzles…which I think

are a very good way of breaking the ice…It is a great way of meeting other people

(CS11).

This has been found to be a typical and important component of this community zone

(Kusenbach, 2008)).

While residential building communities could be regarded as territory-based with

the expected absence of emotional feelings of similarity between members normally

associated with interest-based communities (Obst, et al., 2002), the majority of

participants recognised and discussed the high level of similarity (homogeneity) between

residents in their respective buildings. Residents identified that the majority of other

residents were retired or semi-retired, and felt a sense of connection and support of

tangible needs.

We have got a lot of home occupiers of advancing age. So it's a good ageing

community to live in (CS12).

Such feelings as those cited above are positive outcomes of homogeneous

communities, however, only one resident spoke of a strong sense of responsibility and

tangible support provided to other building residents within his building.

Very helpful, very kind. We look after each other. The other two towers, it

doesn't happen. If somebody gets ill [in our building], there's somebody to cook

them a meal, take them to the doctor if they have to (CS12).

This resident was confident that such support assisted in lengthening the period of

ageing in place possible for those affected residents. This very successful building

community was well promoted and supported by an equally highly functional body

corporate.

166

We [the Body Corporate] haven’t had a problem since we have been there…Our

annual general meetings take 20 minutes. The other towers take, you know, four

hours. That’s how good our tower is (CS12).

Urban localities have the opportunity of being “sites for new kinds of solidarities among

people who choose to live in particular places” (Savage, 2005).

Although body corporates were acknowledged for organising activities with the

potential to promote a sense of community, many residents reflected on the community

dysfunction that resulted from the operations of these bodies.

… we realised it was getting a bit cliquey...There were people on the body

corporate getting into the ears of the committee members… If you are in the

group, you could just about do anything…But if you weren't in the group and

wanted to do something, it was very hard… there was victimisation there

against one lot of unit members. It was really bad (CS1).

There is little in the literature dealing with a residential building body corporate

either functional or dysfunctional and its effect on a building’s community. As mentioned

above, most interviewees acknowledged the homogeneity of their respective building’s

owner occupiers. Where homogeneity, in terms of lifestyle similarities and shared

interests, resulted in a highly functional and functioning building community, strong

social networks and a shared sense of community were created and reported. However,

there is often a dark underbelly of such homogeneous groups or communities,

categorised as the negative symptoms of a group-think mentality and gentrification.

Varying degrees of the symptoms of group-think and gentrification were identified in the

dysfunctional body corporate communities and in one case causing a resident to move

residences.

I thought I got sick of apartment living but I think it's more - apartment living is

more about the community again. Is there a community within the department

block or is there a power-play on the body corporate within the block? (CS2).

167

Some residents described their respective body corporates in such a way that they

resembled Logan and Molotch’s (Zukin, 1987) ‘vanguard of the bourgeoise’ carrying out

their aims regardless of any opposition (Zukin, 1987).

Area immediately surrounding the building

Community activity regarding the area immediately surrounding the resident’s

building was identified conceptually in the semi-structured qualitative interviews as an

area which extends beyond the building but in the resident’s opinion has a major impact

on his or her immediate residential livebility. From the results, a major feature of the

first two community zones appears to be a greater sense of ownership or community

engagement resulting in the resident being less likely to mind one’s own business and to

actively engage in vocal opposition or complaint of issues deemed to negatively affect

livebility or property values.

The participants had significant vested interest in the area that immediately

surrounds their residence and demonstrated considerable detailed knowledge of the

people and activities of this zone.

Because there's a new building going up there. This house that's here has been

moved to there. This house has been demolished and all this site has been

cleared. There's three new houses going on here. We talk about infill. So the

changes in Harriet Street, which is the side street is huge… That's all gone. It

was all rust. That one has been re-roofed and raised and been completely

renovated. That block there, is now a great big hole. They are going to put three

townhouses in there. This house here, they just moved in the last week to the

back and they are going to build a new one in front. (CS2)

Knowing other people and having an interest or issue in common does not

necessarily require face to face individual contact or constitute a community of territory

or interest, for example, email petitions, protest marches and the like (Ziller, 2004). The

distinction is the face to face contact and conversation with neighbours (Putnam, 2000).

It is suggested that because place-based communities appear to be on the decline, the

social neighbourhood has been reduced to shared political interests against threats to

property value and potential change (Putnam, 2000). Putnam’s observations would

168

appear to represent the community activity undertaken by the interviewed residents

regarding the area that immediately abuts or surrounds their respective residential

apartment building. Plans for further increases in density were of particular concern

which resulted in community organising activity to vocalise objections to such proposals.

Unfortunately, what’s going to happen, they are widening Kingsford Smith Drive

to six lanes, so they are going to take – that’s a community hall… They are going

to put another [building]…right in front of our place. So we used to meet in that

little park [to protest the development]. That little park is going to be a smaller

park. They are talking about putting buildings in that, believe it or not... We

have no right of appeal of any planning in that area [immediately abutting the

resident’s building], which frightens me terribly. They are putting 15,000 people

in that area, 15,000. They say they have got a park. Yes, they have got a park;

you can swing a cat in it. The rest is high-rise. (CS12)

This epitomises Suttle’s (1972) concept of the defended neighbourhood with residents

demonstrating psychological, financial and social investment in this community zone.

Despite their social significance in shaping communities, such areas have largely been

ignored as units of analysis (Kusenbach, 2008).

Walkable neighbourhood

An attractive, safe and useable pedestrian realm provides benefits for the social

health and community development of the neighbourhood (du Toit, Cerin, Leslie, &

Owen, 2007; Salmon, Owen, Crawford, Bauman, & Sallis, 2003; Sugiyama, Ward

Thompson, & Alves, 2009). What is particularly interesting, given the amount of research

attention this zone has received, is that it is the zone least enjoyed or pursued by older

ICHD Australians. In terms of community socio-spatial issues, the walkable

neighbourhood ideally performs two basic functions: a movement corridor to take

people to destinations where planned exchanges will take place and a 'stage' or 'outdoor

living room' to facilitate exchanges both planned and spontaneous (Engwicht, 1999). The

older ICHD participants in this study are not walking in their local neighbourhoods, are

using their motor vehicles extensively and are therefore not achieving the health benefits

of regular everyday walking activity, nor experiencing unplanned, accidental encounters

with others who live in their walkable neighbourhood. They are tending to confine their

169

contact to the tried and trusted at the cost of establishing connection with their

neighbourhood community.

The availability of everyday amenities is necessary to encourage residents to walk

in their neighbourhood (de Certeau, Giard, & Mayol, 1998). Access to amenities that

facilitate participation in everyday type activities (e.g. retail shopping, hairdressers,

medical services, etc) appears to be principally undertaken with the use of a private

motor vehicle.

The shopping could be improved… to get to a supermarket…you have to go

somewhere else with the car. So that's the only thing that I think would be

missing, to make it more of a community...We don't get much interaction

[spontaneous engagement] that way. I think it's because Kangaroo Point really is

a dormitory area. (CS10)

Another major finding was the experience of the neighbourhood walking paths

for these residents. Neighbourhood walking for these residents included unpleasant

experiences which they expect to exacerbate with increasing higher density. Figure 3 is

an overhead view of a particularly busy pedestrian section identified by participants.

While movement through public spaces facilitates both planned and spontaneous

exchanges, excessive volumes of movement from any form of traffic also destroys the

potential for some exchanges to take place (Engwicht, 1999).

There aren't enough parks. Even the German lady that I talk to, she's got a dog.

She said, "I have to now take my dog for a walk at 2 o'clock in the afternoon

because if I go early/late, there's just no room. It's just so full". (CS2)

170

Figure 3 Overhead view of a particularly busy pedestrian section identified by participants.

Broader district

Perhaps the most nebulous in terms of geographical definition is the broader

district zone. Extensive motor vehicle use for everyday activities extends the concept or

perception of community beyond the neighbourhood. When asked to identify their

community geographically, the residents indicated a much wider geographic region than

their immediate walkable neighbourhood. The community they identified was in keeping

with their everyday activity base which included the extensive use of a private motor

vehicle (see Figure 4 for a typical retail and trade services activity map). Figure 4 depicts

the activity map for Case Study 12 resident and demonstrates extensive use of motor

vehicle to access every-day retail and trade services. This is in keeping with previous

research which identified that community orientation and appropriation is a result of the

regular everyday use of that community space (Mayol in de Certeau et al., 1998).

171

Figure 4 – Weekly retail and trade services activity map for CS12 resident

Part of this broader district community is the volunteering work undertaken by

older urban Australians. Older people make a major contribution to the broader

community through voluntary work which invariably takes place outside their local

neighbourhood. Residents who do not feel connected to people in their neighbourhood

have found friendships through their volunteer activity.

I don’t have friends in the area. I mostly when I’m not down at the [volunteer]

society or doing a bit of research or something, I don’t sort of mix. I have got a

few friends in different places [through his previous work and current volunteer

activity]. (CS8)

A wider spatial orientation has been correlated to a stronger sense of community which

may be related to feelings of inclusiveness obtained through activities like volunteering

(Obst, et al., 2002).

Limitations of research

One limitation of this research is that it is based on a small sample of older

Australians living in one capital city. Nevertheless, the sample size contributed to the

feasibility of the innovative approach taken in this study, involving the gathering of

information from multiple sources and the undertaking of analyses linking and relating

172

both subjective (perceptions of behaviour obtained through the interviews) and objective

(actual behaviour gathered from the GPS and GIS and expanded through the individual

diaries) indicators. The results provide insight into the lived experience of older adults

living in high density settings and their experiences are likely to have relevance to other

high density contexts elsewhere. Clearly further qualitative, quantitative research is

needed to explore in more depth, the urban experience and opinions of older people

living in urban environments. In particular, more research is needed to understand

community experience and development in terms of its implications for older people.

Conclusion This study explores hierarchies of community from the residential building to the

broader community in the context of ICHD neighbourhoods for older people. Results

show some interesting tensions around social interactions that are spontaneous or

imposed by virtue of living in close proximity and those that are planned or chosen and

usually take place outside of the residential building. This study points to a sectioning of

communities that manifest in the everyday perceptions and experiences of older ICHD

residents. There is a risk of not adopting a zonal approach to understanding community

as there is a chance of missing the diversity of impacts on community through such things

as gentrification at different spatial scales. This has implications for theory building as

well as practical application in areas such as urban planning and design, community

building and policy development. As this research is based on the feelings, interactions

and everyday practices of a sample of older ICHD people, it provides a useful example of

a methodological approach for furthering investigation into important issues like

gentrification, segregation and social divides, individual and community sustainability and

resilience, safety and ageing in place. The theoretical analysis of place as intersections of

processes at different spatial scales may need to be modified and /or tested through

more detailed empirical analyses focusing on different types of

neighbourhoods/communities and other population groups. The challenge posed is for

more commentators to explore community and its connection to location in the context

of high density urban environments for older people.

173

References

Atkinson, R., & Bridge, G. (2005). Gentrification in a global context the new urban

colonialism (pp. x, 300 p ).

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2008). Population Projections, Australia, 2006 to 2101.

Cat. No. 3222.0. Canberra: ABS.

Barclays Wealth. (2010). Volume 12: The age illusion: how the wealthy are redefining

their retirement. Barclays Wealth Insights, from

http://www.barclayswealth.com/insights/assets/pdf/BW12_UK__ForWeb.pdf

Brisbane City Council, & Queensland Government. (2010, June 2010). River City Blueprint.

River City Blueprint Forum - Background Paper, from


Butler, T. (2007). For gentrification? Environment and Planning A, 39(1), 162-181.

Corcoran, M. P. (2002). Place attachment and community sentiment in marginalised

neighbourhoods: A European case study. Canadian Journal of Urban Research,

11(1), 47-67.

de Certeau, M., Giard, L., & Mayol, P. (1998). The Practice of Everyday Life, Volume 2:


du Toit, L., Cerin, E., Leslie, E., & Owen, N. (2007). Does Walking in the Neighbourhood

Enhance Local Sociability? Urban Studies, 44(9), 1677-1695.

Engwicht, D. (1999). Street reclaiming : creating livable streets and vibrant communities.

Annandale, NSW: Pluto Press.

Gilleard, C., Hyde, M., & Higgs, P. (2007). The Impact of Age, Place, Aging in Place, and

Attachment to Place on the Well-Being of the Over 50s in England. Research on

Aging, 29(6), 590-605.

Gutman, R. (1966). Site Planning and Social Behavior*. Journal of Social Issues, 22(4), 103-

115. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1966.tb00553.x

Hunter, A. (1974). Symbolic Communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.



174

Jess, P., & Massey, D. B. (1995). A Place in the world? : places, cultures and globalization.

Oxford, New York: Open University, Oxford University Press.

Kusenbach, M. (2008). A Hierarchy of Urban Communities: Observations on the Nested

Character of Place. City & Community, 7(3), 225-249. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-

6040.2008.00259.x

Leyden, K. M. (2003). Social Capital and the Built Environment: The Importance of

Walkable Neighborhoods. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1546-1551.

doi: 10.2105/ajph.93.9.1546

Norris, P. (2004). The bridging and bonding role of online communities. In P. N. Howard &

S. Jones (Eds.), Society online : the Internet in context (pp. 31-42). Thousand Oaks,

Calif. ; London: Sage.

Obst, P., Smith, S. G., & Zinkiewicz, L. (2002). An exploration of sense of community, Part

3: Dimensions and predictors of psychological sense of community in

geographical communities. Journal of Community Psychology, 30(1), 119-133.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone : the collapse and revival of American community.

New York: Simon & Schuster.

Salmon, J., Owen, N., Crawford, D., Bauman, A., & Sallis, J. F. (2003). Physical activity and

sedentary behavior: A population-based study of barriers, enjoyment, and

preference. Health Psychology, 22(2), 178-188.

Savage, M., Bagnall, G., Longhurst, B. (2005). Globalisation and Belonging. London: Sage.

Sugiyama, T., Ward Thompson, C., & Alves, S. (2009). Associations Between

Neighborhood Open Space Attributes and Quality of Life for Older People in

Britain. Environment and Behavior, 41(1), 3-21.

Suttles, G. D. (1972). The social construction of communities. Chicago, London: University

of Chicago Press.

TranSystem Incorporated. (2008). 747 A+ GPS Trip Recorder, User’s Manual, from


v1.1.pdf

http://www.transystem.com.tw/product/59/747%20A+%20User%20Manual%20v1.1.pdf


175

Ziller, A. (2004). The Community is Not a Place and Why it Matters—Case Study: Green

Square. Urban Policy and Research, 22(4), 465-479. doi:

10.1080/0811114042000296353

Zukin, S. (1987). Gentrification: Culture and Capital in the Urban Core. Annual Review of

Sociology, 13(1), 129-147. doi: doi:10.1146/annurev.so.13.080187.001021

178

Paper 4 - High density urban neighbourhood amenities: The

experiences of older urban Australians



Submitted for review to Landscape and Urban Planning on 16 October 2011; Revised

paper submitted to Landscape and Urban Planning on 17 March 2012


Desley Vine


Technology (QUT)



manuscript.

Laurie Buys


(QUT)




Rosemary Aird


Technology (QUT)

Significant contribution in the preparation and evaluation of the

manuscript and assisted with data interpretation.






179

Chapter 7: Paper 4 - High density urban neighbourhood

amenities: The experiences of older urban Australians

Introduction In recent years there has been increasing recognition of the need to improve the quality

of cities and urban neighbourhoods in reference to supporting an ever-increasing ageing

society (see Australian Local Government Association (ALGA), 2006; Burton and Mitchell,

2006; Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA), 2006; Inclusive Design for Getting

Outdoors (IDGO), 2007a,b; World Health Organisation (WHO), 2007). There has been

growing attention given to the urban neighbourhood environment of older people not

only in gerontology but also across a wide range of disciplines including geography, urban

design, transport studies and public health (Day, 2010; Ziegler and Schwanen, 2011). This

cross-disciplinary interest is fuelled by the inter-related factors of increasing urbanisation

and population ageing (Beard and Petitot, 2010; Lui et al., 2009; Smith, 2009) and the

significant challenges these trends pose for landscape planning and design.

With the losses in functioning associated with the ageing process, the quality and type of

environment becomes a significant factor in determining well-being and independence of

older people (Smith, 2009; WHO, 2007). The design of the neighbourhood and provision

of neighbourhood amenities can enhance or inhibit participation and are especially

important for older people to be able to continue to age in place (Judd et al., 2010).

While there is limited research evidence related to access to urban neighbourhood

amenity among older people (Quinn et al., 2009), projects undertaken in the United

Kingdom and in Australia identify age-friendly built environment design approaches

(Burton and Mitchell, 2006; IDGO, 2007a,b; Judd et al., 2010). Many western

governments are developing strategies for age-friendly cities (see ALGA, 2006; DoHA,

2006; IDGO, 2007a,b; WHO, 2007) and are pursuing urban planning policy aimed at

reducing the physical separation of daily activities with a more effective integration of

land use and transport (Neal., 2003). Policies aimed at changing the physical urban

neighbourhood environment in ways that increase ready access to amenities assumes an

improvement in the experience of liveability for residents within that neighbourhood

(McCrea et al., 2006). While there is no universally accepted definition of liveability, it

can be broadly defined as “the well being of a community and represents the

characteristics that make a place where people want to live now and in the future”

(Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission, 2008). The purpose of this paper is to

180

explore the effect of the neighbourhood environment and its influence on liveability for

older urban residents.

An ecological perspective of ageing

An ecological perspective of ageing “assumes an interplay between an individual’s

functional capacity, adaptation, and their physical and social environment” (Beard and

Petitot, 2010, 430). There are a number of models which could be seen to embody such

a theoretical foundation. For example, urban consolidation models, such as urban village

and smart growth, with planning designs that co-locate residential and other uses around

transport nodes, promote easy local access to diverse amenities and public transport

which may encourage older people to maintain social networks and remain engaged with

their local community. Similarly, policy initiatives that seek to enforce the permanent

removal of impediments to walking, including street crossings that do not allow older

people or people with disability enough time to cross, deteriorating footpaths or other

physical barriers are instrumental in older people’s ability to age in place (Frumkin et al.,

2004). These issues relate to liveable neighbourhoods, universal design and also feature

strongly in the healthy cities and age-friendly cities agenda (IDGO 2007a,b; National

Heart Foundation (NHF), 2009; WHO, 2007) for improving the design of cities and

neighbourhoods to be more conducive to ageing in place (Beard and Petitot, 2010).

It is broadly recognised that ageing in place (growing older in one place without the need

to move as a result of health impacts) is in the interests of both older people and the

government (Judd et al., 2010). The independence, health and wellbeing of older people

are advanced by ageing in place and there is a reduced economic burden on government

through reduced demand for institutionalised aged care. While a quality environment is

a right requiring no empirical justification, social policy and social change needs to be

driven by a better understanding of what constitutes a ‘quality’ environment in which

older people are committed to ageing in place (Lawton in Smith, 2009; Rosso et al.,

2011). The need to better understand older people’s experiences is in part driven and

supported by research that suggests that environment matters (Rosso et al., 2011; Smith,

2009).

Environmental gerontology, an ecological perspective of ageing, has been increasing in

importance over the past few decades (Day, 2010; Peace et al., 2007, 2011; Smith, 2009).

181

While acknowledged for expanding the body of knowledge pertaining to older people’s

environments and extending the methods used in this topic area (Smith, 2009; Wahl and

Weisman, 2003), it has also been criticised for having no standard methodology or

theoretical approach (Kendig, 2003), relying too heavily on quantitative methods (Wahl

and Weisman, 2003) and for predominantly focusing on micro-environments (Kendig,

2003). Kendig (2003, 612) has emphasised the need to extend research beyond the

micro-environment to urban neighbourhoods, cities and regions especially in light of

“important macro-dimensions to change, such as aging of the baby boom cohort”. The

term “urban” is used in this study in a specialised sense to refer to inner-city, high density

environments/neighbourhoods (a minimum of 30 dwellings per hectare).

The study of the neighbourhood setting

While the term “neighbourhood” is used in everyday conversation it lacks any single or

widely agreed definition. Neighbourhoods are comprised by residence and home-related

facilities that are in close proximity and which serve residential needs (Kearns and

Parkinson, 2001). Characteristics of proximity of access to everyday needs, influenced by

both distance and transport infrastructure, could be considered a widely acknowledged

definitional attribute of neighbourhood (Galster, 2001) especially as it relates to

neighbourhood liveability (Jacobs, 1961). Physical approaches to neighbourhoods and

neighbourhood liveability are often discussed relative to their walkable proximity to

some form of centre (institutional, educational, retail or other public facility) (Galster,

2001). Walkable proximity is difficult to define geographically due to variables such as

the age and ability of residents, the state of the streetscape, and the topography of a

given urban area. Notwithstanding these qualifications, for the purposes of this research,

walkable proximity is considered to be an area within 10 minutes walking distance of

home.

Rather than conceiving neighbourhood and neighbourhood liveability on the basis of

particular inherent physical qualities in the environment, a second conceptual approach

views them as a behaviour-related function of the interaction of neighbourhood and

person-based characteristics (Anderson et al., 1999). Everyday household activities

influence the perceived dimension of the neighbourhood: for example, how far people

are willing to walk to public transport, banks, health facilities, shops and recreational

facilities. This suggests that neighbourhoods are identifiable through the link between

182

their residential function and their non-residential uses and how this linkage draws and

encourages activity. Neighbourhood behavioural and use patterns may extend into other

neighbourhoods as people function in different social networks, at different scales,

across different times and spaces, and thus as a result may look for different things than

those that exist within their home area (defined as an area of 5-10 minutes walk) (Kearns

and Parkinson, 2001). For some, time-geography of their neighbourhood is delimited

across a wider region (Kearns and Parkinson, 2001).

Out-of-home mobility

Key correlates of the decision to walk include local availability and design of amenities

including an accessible, time efficient, safe and comfortable transport network of public

transport nodes, transport corridors and available and interconnected walking

infrastructure (Berke et al., 2007; Judd et al., 2010; Leslie et al., 2007). Close proximity

and accessible amenities such as restaurants, cafes, shops, employment, health care

facilities, parks and recreational facilities have been linked to residential satisfaction and

quality of life (Glaeser et al., 2001; Lloyd and Auld, 2003) and to decisions of whether to

walk or take the car (Southworth, 2005). Easy access to everyday activities significantly

adds value to liveability for both the individual and the broader community (Glaeser et

al., 2001).

The preferred mode of transport for older people is the car (Alsnih and Hensher, 2003).

Motor vehicles are widely used among all those of driving age and above but they are

especially important to older people for mobility and their overall well-being. Driving

cessation has been linked to reduced out-of-home mobility and life satisfaction (Harrison

and Ragland, 2003), reduced quality of life (Gabriel and Bowling, 2004) and has been a

strong predictor of worsening depressive symptoms (Fonda et al., 2001). Use of a car is

crucial for those with waning sensory ability and physical strength to meet the everyday

demands of life and for maintaining participation in social and cultural activities

(Mollenkoph et al., 2002). The inability to drive or use public transport leaves older

people with little option than to travel as a passenger in a car if and when the

opportunity arises (Judd et al., 2010).

183

Recent research

There has been criticism of the extensive use of quantitative methods in environmental

gerontology studies because these methods fail to capture the experience of the

environment for older people (Ewing and Handy, 2009). More recently, however, there

have been a number of studies using either qualitative methods (Day, 2010) or a mixed

methods approach (Lord and Luxembourg, 2007; Shoval et al., 2011) to explore older

people’s experiences within their neighbourhood environment. Lord and Luxembourg

(2007) and Shoval and colleagues (2011) both employed in-depth interviews and

geographic technology to study the mobility of their participants with the former using

geographic information systems (GIS) and the latter, global positioning system (GPS)

devices.

There were three main issues from the findings of this group of studies regarding older

people and their out-of-home mobility. Firstly, transport planning has traditionally and

incorrectly viewed older people as a homogeneous group. Secondly, there are varied

reasons why older people heavily rely on cars for their out-of-home mobility and not just

because of problems with availability of amenities and public transport. Thirdly,

problems with neighbourhood walkability continues to discourage walking and reinforce

reliance on the car. These sorts of studies help to explain why the idea of urban

consolidation models, such as smart growth, which serve to shorten trip distances,

increase travel options and thus reduce older people’s need for owning a car (Behan et

al., 2008; Judd et al., 2010) remain the subject of debate (see Alsnih and Hensher, 2003;

Therese et al., 2010). Established norms around car use act as a significant barrier to

reducing people’s reliance on them (Lee and Moudon, 2004; Therese et al., 2010).

Context of the current study

There is international interest in the demographic profile of older people in preparing to

meet the needs of an older urban society (Smith, 2009). This impending global

phenomenon holds relevance for landscape planning and design in creating age-friendly

urban form that facilitates ageing in place. Many advanced societies are developing

strategies for age-friendly urban environments (ALGA, 2006; DoHA, 2006; IDGO, 2007a,b;

WHO, 2007) and their entrenched default conceptual framework is the urban

neighbourhood. Proximity characteristics of access to everyday activity is an integral

attribute of liveability and the complex commodity called neighbourhood. The extent

184

that higher density living actually encourages walkable neighbourhood activity and

reduces car use among older people within Australia is unclear. It is important therefore

to investigate the relationship between high density living and amenity access when

making determinations of neighbourhood liveability. Given the possibility that

differences exist between the perceptions and actual behaviour of older people within

their urban neighbourhoods, both subjective and objective measures are needed to

explore the neighbourhood environment as older people experience this phenomenon

through space and time. Thus, this paper reports on findings based on the use of twelve

case studies employing both quantitative and qualitative measures for the purpose of

exploring the effect of the neighbourhood environment and its influence on liveability for

older urban residents.

Methods The data used for this study comprises a sub-set of data related to the experiences of

older Australians residing in inner-urban, high density suburbs, which were gathered as

part of a larger project exploring ageing and liveability in rural, regional and urban

locations. The research methodology used for the current study involves three different

data collection methods: time-use diaries, Global Positioning Systems (GPS) mapping, and

in-depth qualitative interviews. Two weeks prior to the semi-structured in-depth

interviews, participants were given a GPS tracking device and paper diary and were asked

to carry the GPS everywhere they went and to complete a daily diary on their activities

for that one week period in 2010. Ethical approval for this project was obtained from a

university Human Research Ethics Committee, with all case study participants providing

written informed consent prior to their participation in the current study.

Participants


used for this research with all but one of the sample drawn from a database of a past

project (‘Living in the City’) (see Table 1 on p107 for a summary of respondents’ profile).

This previous study utilised a proportionate sampling technique for a postal survey

completed by 636 inner-urban residents (28% response rate) in 2007, involving research

that focussed on the social, environmental and economic aspects of inner-city life. Using

this database, participants who had indicated a willingness to participate in further

research and were now aged 55 years or older were contacted and invited to participate,

185

ensuring that those recruited allowed exploration of differences that might emerge as a

function of age or gender. Since the original sample from which these participants were

drawn lacked any persons of low socioeconomic status (SES), a twelfth participant was

recruited through a community group to facilitate a case study within this particular

demographic.

Case Study Location

The location for all case studies was Brisbane, Queensland, one of the fastest growing


undulating topography. The study was undertaken in late March to early April at the

start of autumn, normally characterised by pleasant outdoor weather conditions. The

population of the greater Brisbane area under the jurisdiction of the Brisbane City

Council is expected to increase from 991,000 (2009) to 1,270,000 people by 2031

(Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2007). In 2006, the inner five kilometres of

Brisbane included 231,526 people and 105,783 dwellings (ABS, 2007). Participants were

selected from six inner-urban higher density areas (defined as 30 or more dwellings per

hectare) within five kilometres of the Central Business District (CBD) (see Table 1 p107 for

details of areas covered). Figure 1 is a map of the inner-urban high density areas

included in this study.

186


Apparatus


Objective measures of each participant’s travel over a seven-day period were obtained

via a person-based GPS device (lightweight portable TSI GPS Trip Recorder Model 747A),

which was used to track all of their out-of-home movement. The accuracy of the GPS

device is reported to be +-3 metres (TranSystem Incorporated, 2008); this level of error

can increase significantly however, depending on the level of signal interference caused

by buildings, canopy cover, indoor environments, and so on. Participants placed the GPS

device into a handbag or pocket during waking hours and charged the battery each night.

The GPS devices were programmed to record position, time, date, speed and altitude at a

time interval of one minute. This allowed for accurate tracking of each participant’s

outdoor movements, although the GPS would not record points when no signal was

available (for instance, if the participant travelled underground for a period of time).

187





representing a logged position (one each minute). These spreadsheets were converted

to Google Earth files using an online converter and mapped in Google Earth. The different

tracks of each participant’s travel on the yielded maps were colour-coded by mode of

travel used, according to information entered in participants’ travel diaries (refer to Daily

Diaries below). The creation of each participant’s time/space activity maps (involving

day-by-day and total weekly travels) took approximately 6 hours per diagram and was

accompanied by tabulated information relevant to each journey and destination. These

maps were used during the interviews.

Daily Diaries



reflections upon issues pertaining to their environment or any undertaken activity. The

diary also included a brief survey which captured demographic information, use of

transport, volunteering and aspects of community liveability and engagement. The

diaries offered an efficient and affordable way to assess specific details about activity

(i.e., duration, frequency, social context, travel mode, and location), thereby

supplementing information derived from the GPS devices.

In-depth Interviews

Residents’ perceptions of place were elicited through their responses to open-ended

questions focussed on both the positive and negative experiences and features of their

respective neighbourhoods. The importance of the ‘ordinary knowledge’ of residents for

providing insight into local issues and the functioning of daily life in place is crucial in

effective liveability research (Myers, 1987). The interviews were sequenced so that initial

discussion centred on participants’ general pattern of movement over the tracking

period, followed by a day-by-day review of each participant’s trips and activities. This

enabled exploration of the nature and level of activity of each participant within their

respective immediate urban environments. The diary and map information acted as basis

for generating further discussion to examine participants’ experience of the built

188

environment and the factors that facilitate and hinder their activity. In this way, their

potential and realised out-of-home activity could be examined. All interviews were

recorded and subsequently transcribed verbatim.

Procedure

Participants were telephoned prior to them being sent a paper travel diary, a GPS device

and recharger, and a typed set of instructions about the use and battery charging of the

GPS device (previously trialled for ease of use and comprehension). The GPS device and

diary were posted back to the research team for interpretation prior to the interview.

The recorded GPS data were merged, with interactive individual ‘activity maps’ created

for each participant. These ‘individual time/space life path maps’ were then reviewed and

compared with the time-use diaries to identify any key patterns, issues or anomalies to

be discussed at interview. As the computer used at interview was large and difficult to

move, the semi-structured interviews were conducted predominantly at a central

location (the university) and, on occasion, in participants’ homes. The interviews lasted

approximately 90 minutes on average. The process captured both narration and mapped

information about destinations, activities, lifestyles, journeys and general experiences

when moving about their community for the target week in each case study participant’s

life. Through the interviews, diaries and mapping, the study captured the frequency of

participants’ activity on different days and at different times, identified the sites used for

spending free time and allowed interviewers to explore the manner in which the

participants’ respective urban environments facilitated their physical activity (eg

shopping, walking) and social interactions.

Data Analysis

In this study, objective indicators were gathered using GPS to track the respondents’

movements and to map their movements using GIS, and also to gather objective

indicators of available services and facilities within their respective urban environments.

These quantitative measures were then analysed for the second phase of subjective

measurement via interviews. The data from the interviews, diaries and maps were

subsequently compared and analysed as individual case studies. The audio recordings

were fully transcribed and then analysed using a thematic approach, identifying key

categories, themes and patterns (Liamputtong, 2009). An iterative process was utilised,

with the transcripts being read and re-read in order to code the data and identify

189

emerging themes and meaningful categories. To enable understanding and

interpretation, each participant’s diaries and time/space life path maps were also

qualitatively analysed to identify key patterns in where and how participants moved

during the monitored week.

Results Data gathered from the survey items revealed that all participants loved their

neighbourhoods and did not report any negative issue relating to their neighbourhood.

The main two findings are that older people are not using local amenities in their high

density neighbourhoods and that only a small percentage of each day is being used for

outside activity (see Figure 2 below for a graphical representation of time spent in and

outside the home for each participant, based on their mapped activities over the tracked

seven-day period). As can be seen from this diagram, the majority of cases spent most of

their time within the confines of their home. One notable exception to this overall

pattern of behaviour was CS5 (male) who cycled extensively throughout his immediate

and surrounding neighbourhood (see also Table 2 for detail of kilometres travelled by

mode of transport)

Figure 2 Graphical representation of time spent at home/away from home during tracking

period

190

The two main themes that emerge from the data explaining why older people are not

using local neighbourhood amenities relate to the availability and accessibility of

amenities within these local high density neighbourhoods. Figure 3 below shows the

weekly activity maps of two residents. One resident, CS1 was from Newstead which has

limited available amenities and the other resident, CS7 was from Hamilton with excellent

availability of local amenities but with a number of barriers to easy walking access to

these amenities. These barriers are discussed below.

Figure 3 Weekly travel maps for two residents – one from a neighbourhood with few available amenities (CS1) and the other from an amenity rich neighbourhood with access issues (CS7).

Residents were found to be driving outside their local neighbourhoods for everyday

goods and services, rather than accessing everyday amenities within their own high

density neighbourhoods. Figures 4 and 5 below show the weekly services accessed by

two residents, CS3 and CS10, with the five and ten minute walk zones highlighted on each

map. Figure 4, CS3’s map, depicts the retail and service network accessed by this

resident. This resident lives in a newly established urban village with new and varied

amenities. This resident, however, has issues associated with affordability and landscape

topography which form barriers to accessing available amenities. The retail and service

network activity map depicted in Figure 5 is from a resident who lives in an amenity poor

neighbourhood referred to by two residents as a “dormitory suburb”. There was a great

191

deal of similarity in the appearance of the activity maps regardless of the availability of

amenities in residents’ local walkable neighbourhoods. This would indicate that there

are factors other than availability of amenities which affect older residents’ decisions to

walk within their local neighbourhood. Residents discussed significant issues pertaining

to walkable access to local amenities. These are captured below under Barriers to

Accessing Local Amenities.

Figure 4 Services accessed by CS3 resident who lives within a high amenity neighbourhood

192

Figure 5 Services accessed by CS10 resident who lives within a neighbourhood with few

amenities

Local Availability of Amenities

There appears to be great diversity between the high density urban areas under study

in terms of locally available amenities. Participants experienced two different realities:

residents from two areas in particular (Kangaroo Point and Newstead) have minimal

amenity choice and have to travel by motor vehicle in order to access most services -

since they are poorly served by public transport - while others choose to drive or be

driven to access their services of choice.

I used to live at Kangaroo Point which doesn't have a sense of community. It

doesn't have a heart or soul. It's what I call a dormitory suburb. People go

there to sleep. There are no amenities there. So by comparison, if you look at

West End, there's a centre…there's a hub. (CS2)

Basic developed world infrastructure (eg, internet, telecommunications, consistent

electricity supply) can be of poor quality or lacking altogether in some high density

areas.

193

There's no cabling…We get intermittent power - I think all the infrastructure is

really old…I feel that we were misrepresented…It never occurred to us to ask

about the (television and internet infrastructure) that it wasn't cabled. (CS4)

All of those interviewed reported loving their urban environment and a number of them

reported that they loved it because it met their needs. The mapping (the objective,

quantitative measure) showed that they used very few or no local services and utilised

their motor vehicle extensively (see Figures 3, 4 and 5). While they identified the

importance of having facilities and activities within their urban neighbourhoods, they

were still dependent on private motor vehicle transport for the majority of trips outside

their homes.

Amenity accessibility

Each of the individual maps revealed that private motor vehicles were used for the

majority of activities. While this was seemingly due in part to the freedom motor vehicles

provide, participants identified their reliance on their motor vehicles as a consequence of

poor provision of and/or problems with access to amenities that service everyday needs

and activities. Their low use of public transport appears to be attributable to some

limitation or dissatisfaction with available public transport services, rather than a lack of

their availability.

I have heard this place referred to as Kangaroo Island [rather than the suburb

name of Kangaroo Point] because of how bad public transport is. (CS11)

Car trips for some residents were necessitated by their wish to access specialist items or

preferred health service providers outside their neighbourhood precinct.

I have always been travelling there because she's a good optometrist and that's

why I go out there…I had been chasing a book that day and I couldn't get it

anywhere, and then back to [dress shop], oh, yes, I bought something at the

dress shop. (CS4)

194

Barriers to Accessing Local Amenities

Affordability, aspects of the built environment (including pedestrian pathways,

streetscape and buildings) and public transport were highlighted by interviewees as being

key areas that either facilitate or hinder their participation within their respective

neighbourhood communities.

Affordability

Where services and facilities did exist in the local urban environment, there was often a

premium that older people were reluctant to pay. Those interviewed often chose to

bypass local chain grocery stores and travel across suburbs to shop at a cheaper grocery

outlet.

It depends who has got the best specials. (CS2)

Another interviewee was mindful of the need to support local services even though this

might involve greater cost to her than non-local services.

I have always been a firm believer you have to support your local shopkeepers.

If you don't, you lose them. So I always feel very strongly about that. Even if

sometimes it might be a little bit more costly, but when you measure that

against convenience, it's ahead. (CS11)

Built Environment

Three key design characteristics of the built environment restricted participants’

participation in the community: pedestrian pathways, streetscape and buildings.

Pedestrian Pathways

The quality of pedestrian footpaths varied between urban neighbourhoods. Some were

well maintained with even surfaces and hand rails being provided adjacent to any steps

along the path, while others had uneven surfaces with no handrail support for stairs.

Uneven footpath surfaces and steep terrain pose problems for older people when

walking around their neighbourhoods.

I would do a lot more walking if I could walk uphill and down hills (CS3)

195

Footpaths in high density areas are often overcrowded and narrow and difficult for

older people to negotiate. Some participants noted increasing numbers of runners and

bicycle traffic along shared pedestrian/cycling paths becoming a real and significant

threat to older people.

Yes, cyclists. They are the biggest one. It's becoming very frightening. A lot of

them are very abusive…Most of them don't have a bell, so you get frightened for

your life, even though you are keeping to the left and everything. What I am

really concerned about, is that I feel there's animosity that's developing between

walkers and cyclists. (CS11)

In some urban neighbourhoods, footpaths are dangerously close to busy roads where

people have fallen and been killed. Also, on these busy roads, some pedestrian crossings

appear not to provide enough time for older people to safely cross the road before the

lights change. Figure 6 below is an overhead view of such an intersection. The land

surrounding this intersection has been earmarked for significant high rise re-

development.

That is the problem, crossing Kingsford Smith Drive…There's lights on the corner

with pedestrian crossing. I try to get across as fast as I can and I can't get across

in one change of the lights. People on the walking sticks haven't got a hope… we

have taken it up with the council. They have increased the time to 2 seconds, but

that's still not enough...Yes, these lights – we have had one (person), at our

tower, hit by a truck. (CS12)

196

Figure 6 An overhead view of a dangerous intersection identified by residents

Streetscape

Lack of shade and street seating for those living in Brisbane’s subtropical climate were

evident in some urban neighbourhoods, as was clean and safe public toilets.

It has got no shade. It's got no seating for older people, strollers I call them.

People who want to stroll rather than - so it's for, you know, the 15 to 50 age

group but they forget about the (ages) beyond that. (CS12)

Buildings

Lack of hand rails on steps to be negotiated when entering and leaving buildings was

identified as a problem, as was uncomfortable and inadequate seating in public shopping

areas and buildings. Difficulty accessing buildings and uncomfortable seating also

restricts favoured activity.

From the footpath, there's four/five steps up and then you go into a lift or if you

are coming through the car park, they is still a step up. One step up and then

there's two doors to sort of go through. If you were by yourself in a wheelchair,

you probably wouldn't be able to do it because the doors are very heavy and it's

on a spring and it's got a lock and it's quite narrow. (CS1)

197

Public Transport

Some urban neighbourhoods are poorly serviced by public transport. Some urban older

people: perceive public transport services to be irregular or unreliable; experience

difficulty in physical access onto buses, trains or ferries; experience excessive distance or

steep topography when travelling to transit nodes or excessive waiting including transfer

times between changes of transport; and find timetable and route information confusing.

Use of public transport was also found to be limited to certain destinations and locations,

such as inner-city travel. The findings from interviews illustrated that choice of travel

mode was largely affected by perceptions of convenience related to physical access,

seamless journeys (perception of inconvenient bus routes or connections) and journey

destination or purpose. Table 2 below details the total distance travelled (in kms) by

each participant, according to the modes of transport used during the monitored week,

as well as comments regarding factors that serve to either enable or constrain

participants’ use of public transport (gathered at interview or from travel diary entries).

198

Table 2 Transport mode used in total kilometers over 7 day tracking period

Case

Study

No.

Transport mode

in total kms over

7 days of tracking

Identified public transport barriers and facilitators

CS1 Car - 93.7kms Bus - 21.63kms

Walk - 7.04kms

…the public transport is so good. Next to our driveway is a bus stop and it comes every ten minutes during the day

CS2 Car - 51.33kms

Walk - 12.75kms

I could catch the bus. But I have got to walk down there to

catch the bus

CS3 Car - 150.2kms

Walk - .86kms

Public transport doesn't always go where you want to go.

CS4 Car - 115.72kms

Walk – 7.4kms Ferry – 1.77kms

that [taking away the Ferry service] would be

devastating...See, we have got no bus service.

CS5 Car – 53.25kms

Bike – 197.65kms Walk – 18.53kms

…this go card stuff means I will avoid public transport

unless I can walk in and put my money down and get on the bus because I only occasionally use it.

CS6 Car – 65.39kms I can get on a bus but I can't get off the bus. It depends how

- if it's a good driver and he goes right to the kerb, I can get

off easily, but usually they don't… Most places I would have to go to the city and go and get another bus out


Taxi – 6.98kms

Bus – 5.72kms Foot – 26.98kms

Ferry – 8.46kms

…it was suitable to me because it was close to public

transport, close to the airport,

CS8 Car – 36.34kms They don't all go the right way that you want to go, the busses, but there's nothing that we can do about that.

CS9 Car – 159.02kms I don't want to get too far away from the loo [toilet]…Of

course you will worry about it; you don't want to wet

yourself. So, yeah, basically things like busses don't appeal.


Taxi – 6.43kms

Walk – 2.33kms

the only bus that comes down, comes off the Story Bridge

and stops on the other side of the Bradfield Highway and

then carries on down there. There's nothing that actually

comes round in the Kangaroo Point area itself.


Taxi – 7.75kms

Walk - 8.62kms Ferry – 1.43kms

It's hazardous just in the crossing [to the ferry]

CS12 Car - 46.67kms

Walk – 1.74kms

The City Cat is good in that… it's available and cheap for

seniors but when you come to the city, where do you finish

up? There's three stops. There's the Riverside, QUT ----and this side, North Quay. Riverside is a million miles

from the shops. QUT is half a million miles from the

shops. And north bank, North Quay, you have got a cliff to climb.

199

Discussion and Conclusions

The findings from this study suggest that there is a gap between the rhetoric of

neighbourhood amenity that surrounds the high density living policy agenda and the

reality of life within these settings for older Australian people, particularly in relation to

the availability of and accessibility to neighbourhood amenities within walking distance.

However, availability and access issues to neighbourhood amenities do not appear to

lead to older adults being dissatisfied with life within high density contexts. From the

subjective data gathered in this study, it is apparent that overall, participants believe that

their neighbourhoods meet their needs and that they “love” their respective

communities. Nevertheless, these positive perceptions arise within the context of them

having access to and extended use of private motor vehicles, as evidenced by the

objective map data documenting their driving behaviour.

The methods used by this study in gathering both subjective and objective data that

capture participants’ subjective perceptions of their neighbourhoods and their patterns

of movement is a key strength of this study, with the information each provides having

the potential to inform policy strategies associated with high density environments.

Previous research has provided rich quantitative data on older people’s trip-making

(Mollenkopf et al., 2011) or on the physical features of urban environments for older

people (Ewing and Handy, 2009) but there has been a lack of research on the

perceptions, preferences and experiences of older people when venturing out-of-home

(Banister and Bowling, 2004; Coughlin, 2001; Ziegler and Schwanen, 2011). Rarely are

objective and subjective indicators analysed in conjunction with one another (McCrea et

al., 2006), thereby precluding simultaneous consideration of the subjective dimensions of

life within neighbourhoods and the actual movement and participation of residents that

occurs within them. The breadth of information gathered from the objective and

subjective measures used in this study strengthens the case for using both and thus

acknowledging the importance of the subjective when investigating the objective

environment (Pacione, 2003).

This research demonstrates that the mixed-use neighbourhood outcomes and better

quality public transport systems that best support an ageing population are not uniform

across Brisbane’s high density neighbourhoods. The research highlights that some urban

neighbourhoods in Brisbane have minimal facilities or services, while others have the

200

necessary facilities but lack ease of access. Problems with availability of or access to

amenities may explain the lack of local walking undertaken by the majority of

participants. However, a recent review of empirical literature published between 1990

and 2010 examining objective measures of the built environment and older people’s

mobility, concluded that the direct impact on older people’s mobility by urban design,

land use and transportation systems remains unclear due to inconsistent findings across

studies (Rosso et al., 2011). The authors found more promising evidence in street and

traffic conditions, intersections and proximity to select locations as the most likely factors

to impact mobility (Rosso et al., 2011). While the current study is based on a small

number of participants living in one Australian capital city, precluding any generalising of

its findings, all of these factors surfaced as having an influence for the participants

thereby supporting the quantitative studies reviewed by Rosso and colleagues (2011).

Key issues raised by residents included: poor quality or inadequate provision of walking

paths, transport nodes, public open space, street seating, local cafes and public toilets;

steps to public buildings and lack of handrails beside steps; competing with cyclists and

runners along walking paths; lack of pedestrian crossings or inadequate time to cross at

traffic lights; ambiguous crossing cues; and close proximity to busy roads. These built

environment characteristics have previously been acknowledged as concerns for older

people’s out-of-home mobility (Booth et al., 2000; Burton and Mitchell, 2006; IDGO,

2007a,b; Judd et al., 2010). What emerges from this study, as it did for Judd and

colleagues (2010), is an uneven standard of design, provision of amenities and

maintenance of the public realm.

All residents in this study identified the importance of having facilities and activities

within their urban neighbourhood (consistent with high density policy agendas),

however, the GPS and GIS mapping showed these residents to have very low levels of

locally-based everyday activity within walking distance of their residences and that they

relied on vehicle transport for the majority of trips made outside of their homes. Almost

all residents undertook their everyday activities outside of their walkable neighbourhood,

despite no obvious barrier of physical incapacity preventing them from walking in their

local areas. When asked to identify their neighbourhood on the Google Earth map during

their interviews, residents indicated a much wider geographic region than their

immediate walkable neighbourhood (five to fifteen minutes walking distance from their

residence). The neighbourhood identified was in keeping with their everyday activity

201

base - which relied on the use of a motor vehicle. This suggests an extended

neighbourhood based physically and subjectively on spaces of behavioural use.

While problems with accessibility and availability of amenities are plausible explanations

for a lack of local neighbourhood activity and a preference for the private motor vehicle,

there are established norms surrounding driving. Cars are of instrumental and intrinsic

value for older people as a consequence of the pleasure derived from driving itself and

the sense of freedom and ease of movement cars provide (Lord and Luxembourg, 2007;

Lord et al., 2011). Lord and Luxembourg (2007) found the same reasons for reliance on

cars among older people in low and high density areas in Canada and France. This poses

the question as to whether substantial improvements to the accessibility and availability

of local neighbourhood amenities would result in a substantial reduction in the use and

reliance of cars by older people without implementing significant community

engagement strategies aimed at changing norms around car use and encouraging the

value of neighbourhood walking for older people.

A number of barriers to public transport use were identified for older people living in

Brisbane which included: a lack of services in some urban neighbourhoods; terrain or

distance to transport nodes; inconvenient bus routes or connections; queues, crowding

and lack of seating on buses and at bus stops; problem with negotiating steps onto public

transport and difficulties with walking supports on buses. These findings are consistent

with previous research on the nature of barriers to the use of public transport by older

people. Broome and colleagues (2009) in their review of the literature on bus use by

older people found that bus design, service provision and performance, information,

attitudes of staff and the community all affect older people’s use of buses. Only two

participants in this study travelled by bus over the monitored seven day period and this

represented only a small proportion of their travel time (see Table 2). The issues raised

with the use of busses in this current study are consistent with those identified in studies

reviewed by Broome et al. (2009). An issue that was particularly important to one

participant in the current study was level access from the front door of the bus onto the

road-side kerb. Currently, the Brisbane City Council (BCC) has 1006 low-floor busses in

the Council’s fleet which equates to approximately 85 per cent of the fleet (BCC, accessed

22 February, 2012). Continuing improvement in public transport services, access and

202

infrastructure is needed for older people to find public transport more attractive and

reduce their use of their car.

Currently, access to amenities that facilitate participation in everyday type activities (e.g.,

retail shopping, hairdressers, medical services and the like) appears to be made easy

through the availability and use of the private motor vehicle. With the increased losses in

functioning that occur due to the ageing process, older people’s spatial movement

shrinks to the vicinity of their immediate environment (Weiss et al., 2010). When the

older person or his or her partner can no longer drive, there will be significant problems

with access to everyday goods and services unless they live in an accessible, amenity-rich

local environment. With availability or access issues to amenities including public

transport, the loss of a driving licence would limit older people’s ability to participate in

activities outside their local home environment and jeopardise their ability to age in

place. It becomes imperative that environmental factors that negatively impact on older

people’s everyday living are understood and addressed so as to maximise their

opportunities to age in place. This area of research and policy is still in its early stages

however, is gaining increased recognition by Australian and international governments,

health and built environment professionals, and will inevitably continue to grow in

importance as the population ages (Judd et al., 2010).

The findings of this study highlight the relevance and importance of objectives outlined

by the National Heart Foundation (NHF) of Australia if older Australians are to change

their behaviour by driving less and walking more. The NHF (2009) has called for the build

and retrofit of existing neighbourhoods to increase pedestrian access to shops and public

transport and to consider the mobility and access needs of older Australians when

planning pedestrian infrastructure, road crossings, public open space, public transport

access and recreational infrastructure. This needs to extend beyond the planning stage

however, to the maintenance of this infrastructure. Their lack of upkeep has repeatedly

been shown to negatively affect older people’s mobility (Judd et al., 2010).

In conclusion, this study used an innovative, mixed-methods approach in investigating

the socio-spatial environment and everyday lived experiences of twelve older people

living in high density neighbourhoods in Brisbane, Australia. Although the sample size

was small, it contributed to the feasibility of the innovative approach taken in this study.

203

The use of case studies has enabled the gathering of comprehensive information derived

from multiple sources and the undertaking of analyses linking and relating both

subjective (perceptions of behaviour obtained through the interviews) and objective

(activity gathered from the GPS and GIS and expanded through the individual diaries)

indicators. The results therefore provide insight into the lived experience of a group of

older adults living in high density settings and their experiences are likely to have

relevance to other high density contexts elsewhere.

This research contributes to a growing body of knowledge that explores interactions

between residential density and liveability especially as it applies to older people. As

they continue to age and become less able to drive a motor vehicle, older people will

require more appropriate service provision within their local urban neighbourhood in

order to remain living in their own homes and familiar neighbourhoods for as long as

possible. These findings have implications for landscape planning, design and

management of services, facilities and infrastructure that serve older people. By

highlighting issues that impact on the liveability and sustainability of older people as high

density residents, this research furthers our understanding of the specific landscape

planning and design factors which make the urban neighbourhood more liveable and

sustainable and can thus inform actionable and implementable policies, programs and

designs.

204

References Alsnih, R., Hensher, D. A., 2003, The mobility and accessibility expectations of seniors in

an aging population, Transportation Research Part A 37:903-916.

Anderson, R. E., Carter, I. E., Lowe, G., 1999, Human behavior in the social environment: a

social systems approach, Aldine de Gruyter, Hawthorne, New York.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007, General Social Survey (GSS): Summary Results

Australia 2006 (Cat. No. 4159.0), Australian Bureau of Statistics, [ABS] Canberra

Australian Local Government Association (ALGA), 2006, Age-Friendly built Environments:

Opportunities for Local Government, Australian Local Government Association,

Canberra.

Banister, D., Bowling, A., 2004, Quality of life for the elderly: the transport dimension,

Transport Policy 11(2):105-115.

Barclays Wealth, 2010, Retirement shunned by 'Nevertiree' wealthy, says new global

report Retrieved 29 March 2011, 2011, from

http://www.barclayswealth.com/americas/about-us/news/retirement-shunned-

by-nevertiree-wealthy-says-new-global-report.htm

Beard, J. R., Petitot, C., 2010, Ageing and Urbanization: Can Cities be Designed to Foster

Active Ageing?, Public Health Reviews 32(2):1-1-18.

Behan, K., Maoh, H., Kanaroglou, P., 2008, Smart growth strategies, transportation and

urban sprawl: simulated futures for Hamilton, Ontario, The Canadian Geographer

52(3):291-308.

Berke, E. M., Koepsell, T. D., Moudon, A. V., Hoskins, R. E., Larson, E. B., 2007, Association

of the Built Environment With Physical Activity and Obesity in Older Persons,

American Journal of Public Health 97(3):486-492.

Booth, M. L., Owen, N., Bauman, A., Clavisi, O., Leslie, E., 2000, Social-cognitive and

perceived environment influences associated with physical activity in older

Australians, Preventive medicine 31(1):15-22.

205

Brisbane City Council, 2012, Brisbane City Council Dedicated to a better Brisbane Bus

accessibility, Retrieved 21 February 2012, from

http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/traffic-transport/public-transport/buses/bus-

accessibility/index.htm

Broome, K., McKenna, K., Fleming, J., Worrall, L., 2009, Bus use and older people: a

literature review applying the Person-Environment-Occupation model in macro

practice, Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy 16(1):3-12.

Burton, E., Mitchell, L., 2006, Inclusive Urban Design: Streets for Life, Architectural Press,

Oxford.

Coughlin, J., 2001, Transportation and Older Persons: Perceptions and Preferences, AARP,

Washington, DC.

Day, R., 2010, Environmental justice and older age: consideration of a qualitative

neighbourhood-based study, Environment and Planning A 42(11):2658-2673.

Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA), 2006, A Community for All Ages: Building the

Future: The Report on the Findings and Recommentations of the National

Speakers Series Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Ewing, R., Handy, S., 2009, Measuring the Unmeasurable: Urban Design Qualities Related

to Walkability, Journal of Urban Design 14(1):65-84.

Fonda, S. J., Wallace, R. B., Herzog, A. R., 2001, Changes in driving patterns and worsening

depressive symptoms among older adults, Journal of Gerontology: SOCIAL

SCIENCES 56B(6):S343-S351.

Frumkin, H., Frank, L. D., Jackson, R., 2004, Urban sprawl and public health : designing,

planning, and building for healthy communities, Island Press, Washington, DC.

Gabriel, Z., Bowling, A., 2004, Quality of life from the perspectives of older people,

Ageing & Society 24(5):675-691.

Galster, G., 2001, On the Nature of Neighbourhood, Urban Studies 38(12):2111-2124.

Glaeser, E. L., Kolko, J., Saiz, A., 2001, Consumer city, Journal of Economic Geography

1(1):27-50.

206

Hamnett, C., 2005, Social polarisation in global cities : theory and evidence in: The urban

geography reader (N. R. Fyfe, J. T. Kenny, eds.), Routledge, London ; New York

Harrison, A., Ragland, D. R., 2003, Consequences of driving reduction or cessation for

older adults, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation

Research Board 1843:96-104.

Inclusive Design for Getting Outdoors (IDGO), 2007a, Older People and the Outdoors,


Inclusive Design for Getting Outdoors (IDGO), 2007b, What are the Critical Issues, from

http://www.idgo.ac.uk/older_people_outdoors/critical_issues.htm

Jacobs, J., 1961, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jonathan Cape, London.

Judd, B., Olsberg, D., Quinn, J., Groenhart, L. a., Demirbilek, O., 2010, Dwelling, land and

neighbourhood use by older home owners, in: AHURI Final Report No. 144,

Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, UNSW-UWS Research Centre,

Melbourne, Vic.

Kearns, A., Parkinson, M., 2001, The Significance of Neighbourhood, Urban Studies

38(12):2103-2110.

Kendig, H., 2003, Directions in Environmental Gerontology: A Multidisciplinary Field, The

Gerontologist 43(5):611-614.

Lee, C., Moudon, A. V., 2004, Physical activity and environment research in the health

field: implications for urban and transportation planning practice and research,

Journal of Planning Literature 19(2):147-181.

Leslie, E., McCrea, R., Cerin, E., Stimson, R., 2007, Regional Variations in Walking for

Different Purposes: The South East Queensland Quality of Life Study,

Environment and Behavior 39(4):557-577.

Liamputtong, P., 2009, Qualitative research methods, Oxford University Press,

Melbourne, Vic.

Lloyd, K., Auld, C., 2003, Leisure, public space and quality of life in the urban

environment, Urban Policy and Research 21(4):339-356.

207

Lord, S., Després, C., Ramadier, T., 2011, When mobility makes sense: A qualitative and

longitudinal study of the daily mobility of the elderly, Journal of Environmental

Psychology 31(1):52-61.

Lord, S., Luxembourg, N., 2007, The mobility of elderly residents living in surburban

territories, Journal of Housing for the Elderly 20(4):103-121.

Lui, C.-W., Everingham, J.-A., Warburton, J., Cuthill, M., Bartlett, H., 2009, What makes a

community age-friendly: A review of international literature, Australasian Journal

on Ageing 28(3):116-121.

McCrea, R., Shyy, T.-K., Stimson, R., 2006, What is the Strength of the Link Between

Objective and Subjective Indicators of Urban Quality of Life?, Applied Research in

Quality of Life 1(1):79-96.

Mollenkopf, H., Hieber, A., Wahl, H.-W., 2011, Continuity and change in older adults'

perceptions of out-of-home mobility over ten years: a qualitative–quantitative

approach, Ageing & Society 31(05):782-802.

Mollenkopf, H., Marcellini, F., Ruoppila, I., Szeman, Z., Tacken, M., Kaspar, M., 2002, The

role of driving in maintaining mobility in later life: a European view,

Gerontechnology 2(1):231-250.

Myers, D., 1987, Community-Relevant Measurement of Quality of Life: A Focus on Local

Trends, Urban Affairs Quarterly 23(1):108-125.

National Heart Foundation of Australia, 2009, Blueprint for an Active Australia, NHF,

Melbourne.

Neal, P., 2003, Urban Villages and the Making of Communities, Spon Press w/ the Prince's

Foundation, London.

Pacione, M., 2003, Introduction on urban environmental quality and human wellbeing,

Landscape and Urban Planning 65(1-2):1-3.

Peace, S., Holland, C., Kellaher, L., 2011, ‘Option recognition’ in later life: variations in

ageing in place, Ageing & Society 31(5):734-757.

208

Peace, S., Wahl, H.-W., Mollenkopf, H., Oswald, F., 2007, Environment and ageing, in:

European perspectives on gerontology (J. Bond, ed.), Sage Publications Ltd,

London.

Quinn, J., Judd, B., Olsberg, D. a., Demirbilek, O., 2009, Dwelling, land and neighbourhood

use by older home owners, in: AHURI Positioning Paper No. 111, Australian

Housing and Urban Research Institute, UNSW-UWS Research Centre, Melbourne,

Vic.

Rosso, A. L., Auchincloss, A. H., Michael, Y. L., 2011, The urban built environment and

mobility in older adults: a comprehensive review, Journal of Aging Research 10

pages, doi:10.4061/2011/816106.

Shoval, N., Wahl, H.-W., Auslander, G., Isaacson, M., Oswald, F., Edry, T., Landau, R.,

Heinik, J., 2011, Use of the global positioning system to measure the out-of-home

mobility of older adults with differing cognitive functioning, Ageing & Society

31(5):849-869.

Smith, A. E., 2009, Ageing in urban neighbourhoods : place attachment and social

exclusion, Policy, Bristol, UK ; Portland, OR.

Southworth, M., 2005, Designing the Walkable City, Journal of Urban Planning and

Development 131(4):246-257.

Therese, S. A., Buys, L., Bell, L., Miller, E., 2010, The role of land use and psycho-social

factors in high density residents' work travel mode choices: implications for

sustainable transport policy, World Review of Intermodal Transportation

Research 3(1-2):46-72.

TranSystem Incorporated, 2008, 747 A+ GPS Trip Recorder, User’s Manual, from


v1.1.pdf

Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission, 2008, A State of Liveability: An Inquiry

into Enhancing Victoria’s Liveability, Victorian Competition and Efficiency,

Commission’s Final Report, Retrieved 1 November 2009, from

http://www.vcec.vic.gov.au/CA256EAF001C7B21/WebObj/Govtresponse-

liveability/$File/Govt%20response%20-%20liveability.pdf

209

Wahl, H.-W., Weisman, G., D., 2003, Environmental gerontology at the beginning of the

new millennium: reflections on its historical, empirical, and theoretical

development, Gerontologist 43(5):616-627.

Webber, R., 2007, The metropolitan habitus: its manifestations, locations, and

consumption profiles, Environment and Planning A 39(1):182-207.

Weiss, R., Maantay, J. A., Fahs, M., 2010, Promoting active urban aging: a measurement

approach to neighborhood walkability for older adults, Cities and the

Environment 3(1):1-17.

World Health Organisation (WHO), 2007, Global Age Friendly Cities: A Guide, WHO,

Geneva.

Ziegler, F., Schwanen, T., 2011, ‘I like to go out to be energised by different people’: an

exploratory analysis of mobility and wellbeing in later life, Ageing & Society

31(05):758-781.

212

Paper 5 – Experiences of neighbourhood walkability among older

Australians living in high density inner city areas



Submitted for revised review to Planning, Theory and Practice on 20 January 2012;

accepted for publication 19 April 2012


Desley Vine


Technology (QUT)



manuscript.

Laurie Buys


(QUT)




Rosemary Aird


Technology (QUT)

Significant contribution in the preparation, evaluation, editing and

revision of the manuscript and assisted with data interpretation.





Name Signature Date 2 February 2012

213

Chapter 8: Paper 5 – Experiences of neighbourhood walkability

among older Australians living in high density inner city

areas

Abstract Walking as an out-of-home mobility activity is recognised for its contribution to healthy and

active ageing. The environment can have a powerful effect on the amount of walking activity

undertaken by older people, thereby influencing their capacity to maintain their wellbeing and

independence. This paper reports the findings from research examining the experiences of

neighbourhood walking for 12 older people from six different inner-city high density suburbs,

through analysis of data derived from travel diaries, individual time/space activity maps

(created via GPS tracking over a seven-day period and GIS technology), and in-depth

interviews. Reliance on motor vehicles, the competing interests of pedestrians and cyclists on

shared pathways and problems associated with transit systems, public transport, and

pedestrian infrastructure emerged as key barriers to older people venturing out of home on

foot. GPS and GIS technology provide new opportunities for furthering understanding of the

out-of-home mobility of older populations.

Key Words: walkability, out-of-home mobility, high density, neighbourhood, older people,

active ageing, global positioning systems.

Introduction The need to improve the quality of cities and neighbourhoods is recognised worldwide as a

way of supporting the out-of-home mobility of an ever-increasing ageing population. This

issue is prominent within the discourse surrounding healthy and active ageing and the

building of “age-friendly cities” (World Health Organization, 2002, 2007; Zeigler & Schwanen,

2011). While the concepts healthy ageing and active ageing differ from each other in subtle

ways, both are conceived to encompass vitality, activity and minimization of the negative

consequences of biological ageing (Schwanen & Ziegler, 2011). With the losses in functioning

that occur in later life as a consequence of the ageing process, the type and quality of the

surrounding environment becomes a significant determinant of older people’s wellbeing and

independence (Phillipson, 2004). Older people who are unable to move around freely because

of a physical disability or environmental limitations have been shown to have a lower quality

of life than those without these constraints (Mollenkopf et al., 2002; White et al., 2010). The

capacity of neighbourhood environments to hinder older people’s out-of-home mobility - and

214

marginalize them as a consequence - is a social justice issue (Day, 2010). It is crucial therefore,

that factors within the neighbourhood environment which affect out-of-home mobility are

fully understood so that they can be properly addressed. This paper adds to the empirical

literature related to the neighbourhood environment and its influence on older urban

residents’ walking behaviour as one component of out-of-home mobility.

The study of older people and their socio-spatial environment

Environmental gerontology is concerned with describing, explaining and modifying or

optimizing ‘the relation between elderly persons and socio-spatial surroundings’ (Wahl &

Weisman, 2003, p. 616). As a subfield of gerontology, its focus of enquiry encompasses

differing levels of social organisation and forms of environment, both at a micro- (i.e.

individuals in private and institutional settings) and macro-scale (i.e. groups and

populations within neighbourhoods, rural regions, and cities) (Wahl & Weisman, 2003).

While environmental gerontology is widely acknowledged for making a major

contribution to our present understanding of the person-environment relationship, it has

also attracted substantial criticism. It has been described as relying too heavily on

quantitative methods (Wahl & Weisman, 2003), focusing predominantly on micro-

environments (Kendig, 2003), and failing to adopt new approaches that advance

understanding of the person-environment relationship beyond that which grew in the

1970s and 1980s (Smith, 2009).

In the early 2000s, Kendig (2003, p. 612) emphasised the need for research to extend beyond

micro-environments to neighbourhoods, cities and regions, – those ‘spatial units that are

changing in their populations and built forms’. In the last few years, much more research

attention has been directed at the neighbourhood environments of older people, not only

within gerontology but other disciplines as well (including geography, urban design and public

health) (Day, 2010). This cross-disciplinary interest is fuelled by awareness of the

interrelatedness of increasing urbanisation and population ageing (Lui et al., 2009; Smith,

2009; Beard & Petitot, 2010) and the significant challenges these trends pose for planning,

policy and practice. This development has served to both expand the body of knowledge

pertaining to older people’s environments and their influence on out-of home mobility and

extend the methods used to study this topic area.

215

Out-of-home mobility

Research undertaken over the past decade indicates that whether or not an older

person’s potential for movement is realised, depends upon a wide range of aspects

including urban design characteristics (Koepsell et al., 2002; Blackman et al., 2003; Li et

al., 2005; Burton & Mitchell, 2006; Alves et al., 2008; White et al., 2010; King et al., 2011;

Shendell et al., 2011), house attributes and upkeep (Foster et al., 2011), open (Sugiyama

et al., 2009; Aspinall et al., 2010) and green (Maas et al., 2006) spaces, driving status

(Mollenkopf et al., 2002) and quality of, and access to, public transport (Banister &

Bowling, 2004; Broome et al., 2009). With respect to the latter, a review of the

evidence related to bus use among older people by Broome and colleagues (2009)

suggests that bus design, service provision and performance, information, attitudes of

staff and the community all affect the use of buses by this segment of the population.

Methodological advances that have been made in recent years include the development

of operational definitions that can be used to quantitatively measure the subjective

qualities of urban street design characteristics (see Ewing & Handy, 2009), as well as tools

that enable the auditing of environmental features as people walk through their

neighbourhoods (see Chaudhury et al., 2011). Validation studies of walkability scoring

instruments have also been undertaken (see for example Duncan et al., 2011). While

these developments have been particularly useful for investigating the walkability of

urban environments in terms of their physical features, Ewing and Handy (2009, p. 66)

highlight the inability of quantitative measures to capture the experience of walking –

that is, ‘people’s overall perceptions of the street environment, perceptions that may

have complex or subtle relationships to physical features’. In the last few years however,

a number of studies have used either qualitative methods (Michael et al., 2006; Day,

2008, 2010) or a mixed-methods approach (Lord & Luxembourg, 2007; Lord et al., 2011;

Shoval et al., 2011) to explore older people’s experiences of mobility within their

neighbourhood environments. This particular body of research has yielded rich data,

thereby providing insight into the dynamic interplay of individuals’ preferences and

personal characteristics, features of the built and natural environment, as well as cultural

norms around car use, in determining the out-of-home mobility of older people.

Day (2010) for example, interviewed retirees (n= 45; aged 62 to 90 years) from three

different areas in western Scotland (an inner-city neighbourhood, a suburban estate, and

a small coastal town), using open-ended questions to investigate features of the urban

216

environment that older people felt were important to their wellbeing. Neighbourhood

walkability, along with cleanliness and lack of pollution, peace and quiet, as well as

having an environment that is emotionally uplifting (as a consequence of elements of

both the built and natural environment) and which promotes informal social interaction,

were the key dimensions that emerged as being important across all three study

locations (Day, 2010). Focus groups with seniors aged 55 years and over from 10 different

neighbourhoods in Portland, Oregon, revealed that access to shops and services were

crucial for older people to walk, meet others and move within their neighbourhoods

without relying on cars, that poor quality pedestrian infrastructure and traffic limited

their walking, that the overall attractiveness of the neighbourhood encouraged walking

for both exercise and pleasure, and that adequate transportation was essential to the

maintenance of older people’s independence and their ongoing engagement with the

wider community (Michael et al., 2006). Lord and Luxembourg (2007) on the other hand,

used in-depth interviews and geographic information systems (GIS) software to study the

mobility practices of older adults living in two different countries (Post-War suburbs in

Canada and France) by geocoding their residences and typical out-of-home consumption

patterns. Participants from both Canada and France were found to be highly reliant on

motor vehicles for transportation, but for different reasons. The former seemed to

regard their motor cars as part of their identity and used their cars extensively (despite

the availability of public transport and nearby amenities), while the latter appeared to

value their vehicles for instrumental reasons (as a way to access services that would

otherwise be unavailable to them as they were living in a low-density area with limited

public transport and commercial facilities). For both groups, it was also evident that loss

of the ability to drive a car would mean a loss of opportunity for participation outside of

home. Similarly, a combination of in-depth interviews and geographic technology (in this

case geographic positioning system [GPS]) was used by Shoval and colleagues (2011) to

investigate the mobility patterns of older persons with and without cognitive

impairment. Participants with mild dementia were found to travel smaller distances than

those with mild cognitive impairment, and both of these groups were found to have a

smaller spatial out-of-home range of activity than healthy controls. The non-impaired

controls also demonstrated greater fluctuation in the timing of their out-of-home activity

than either the mild dementia or the mildly cognitively impaired groups.

217

Changes in older people’s experience of mobility over time have also been investigated

by analysing data derived from a survey conducted in 1999 and from in-depth, semi-

structured interviews in 2006. Lord and colleagues (2011) found that although study

participants (n=22) living in suburbs within Quebec City were highly reliant on cars for

transportation, they adopted various adaptive strategies as they aged so as to allow them

to age in place. Fears about their “action space” shrinking as they aged emerged as their

main overall concern, rather than worries about loss of either their vehicles, homes or

neighbourhoods (Lord et al., 2011, p.59).

The findings from this group of studies highlight three key issues related to older people

and their out-of home mobility. Firstly, the qualitative approaches used in these studies

help to highlight the diverse circumstances and needs of older people. The flawed

assumption that older people are a homogenous group has been identified as having

traditionally underpinned transport planning for older people (Alsnih & Hensher, 2003).

Secondly, there are multiple reasons for older people’s heavy reliance on cars for their

out-of-home mobility, not simply the unavailability of public transport and/or lack of

close proximity to amenities. Thirdly, the lack of walkability of their neighbourhoods

continues to discourage walking for either transport or leisure purposes and thereby

reinforces their reliance on the motor car. These sorts of studies help to explain why the

idea that modifications to the built environment such as higher density living, greater

street connectivity and greater mix of land-use will serve to shorten trip distances,

increase travel options (including walking and public transport) and thus reduce older

people’s need for owning a vehicle (Behan et al., 2008; Judd et al., 2010), remains the

subject of debate (see Alsnih & Hensher, 2003; Therese et al., 2010). Established norms

surrounding vehicle use act as a major obstacle to decreasing people’s reliance on motor

vehicles and increasing their levels of walking (Lee & Moudon, 2004; Therese et al.,

2010). Numerous studies have shown that the car is the preferred mode of transport for

older people (aged 65 years and over) (see Alsnih & Hensher, 2003, p. 906). This is

especially the case in countries like Australia and North America, which have been

described as places where ‘the “logic” of a mass car-owning population has been allowed

its full expression’ (Headicar, 2003, p. 207).

While motor vehicles are widely used among all those of driving age upwards, the car is

especially important to older people in terms of both their mobility and their overall

218

wellbeing. Driving cessation is connected to reduced quality of life (Gabriel & Bowling,

2004), reduced out-of-home activity and life satisfaction (Harrison & Ragland, 2003) and

is also a strong predictor of worsening depressive symptoms (Fonda et al., 2001). Car use

is crucial for those with waning physical strength and sensory abilities to meet the

demands of everyday life and for maintaining their participation in social and cultural

activities (Mollenkopf et al., 2002, p. 231). The reasons why many older people give up

driving appear to be the same reasons why they avoid using busses (Broome et al., 2009).

The inability to drive or use public transport leaves older people with little option other

than to travel by car as passengers if and when the opportunity becomes available (Judd

et al., 2010). While it has been argued that strategies for preventing driving cessation

among older people need to be implemented as a means of helping them to maintain

their affective wellbeing (Fonda et al., 2001), this proposal runs counter to efforts aimed

at solving whole-of-society problems like environmental sustainability and physical

inactivity. Reduced car use through the provision of walkable environments is now being

prioritised within both urban planning and public health agendas to ensure

environmental sustainability (Kenworthy, 2006) and the prevention of physical inactivity-

related diseases across all age groups (Woodcock et al., 2009) respectively. The inherent

conflict between the proposition that driving cessation should be prevented as long as

possible among older people as a means to prolong the many benefits that cars provide

this group, and agendas that seek to discourage car use for the purpose of increasing

physical activity and environmental sustainability, requires the attention of policymakers.

It would seem important that they give due consideration to the diverse needs of older

populations, with a key aim being the maximization of older people’s opportunities for

active transport while remaining mindful that the motor vehicle is especially important to

this segment of the population. Given that the spatial movement of older people is

known to shrink to the vicinity of their homes and immediate environments as they age

(Weiss et al., 2010), it is imperative that factors that deter them from walking in their

local areas in particular, are understood and addressed so as to maximize their

opportunities for walking.

Neighbourhood walkability

Living in a location where the surrounding environment is walkable is especially

important for older people. This type of environment provides the necessary pathways

by which they can access public transport (see Besser & Dannenberg, 2005), nearby

219

goods and services (Glaeser et al., 2001), a setting that is conducive to walking for leisure

purposes (thereby providing them with the potential for numerous health benefits from

engagement in physical exercise) (Berke et al., 2007) as well as ongoing opportunities for

social interaction and engagement in the wider community. Southworth (2005, p. 248)

describes walkability as:

…the extent to which the built environment supports and encourages walking by

providing for pedestrian comfort and safety, connecting people with varied

destinations within a reasonable amount of time and effort, and offering visual

interest in journeys throughout the network.

The importance of social interaction and connections made as older people move through

their communities is highlighted by research undertaken by Gray (2009), who found that

among a large sample of older adults aged 60 years or more living in Great Britain,

neighbourhood contacts and frequency of meeting people each had a stronger effect on self-

perceived social support than personal characteristics such as partner status, having had

children or being active. The link between social support and psychological wellbeing has long

been established (see Turner, 1981). Research into characteristics of the built environment

that promote walking among older people demonstrates that a wide range of factors have to

be addressed if the ambulatory members of this group are to increase their walking activity.

The built environment and its contribution to walkability for older people

The study of the built environment and its influence on the physical activity of seniors is

in its infancy. Researchers in this area have tended to use disparate theoretical models

and concepts, with inconsistent findings emerging across studies as a result (Cunningham

& Michael, 2008). Three components of the built environment that have been identified

as essential for the promotion of physical activity among the general population from a

public health perspective include the presence of: street networks, transit systems and

systems for non-motorised users; land use patterns including density and mixed uses;

and urban design characteristics (including aesthetics and safety) (Frank et al., 2003). This

model has recently been applied to older populations in reviewing the empirical

literature based on objective measures of the built environment and older people’s

walking behaviour. In considering the inconsistencies in both the methodological

approaches between studies published between 1990 and 2010 and their respective

220

findings, the authors concluded that the aspects of the built environment that are most

likely to have a direct effect on older people’s mobility are high density of intersections,

street and traffic conditions, and proximity to select destinations and green space (Rosso et

al., 2011, p. 7). The dynamic relationship between the many aspects encompassed by the

components of Frank’s and colleagues’ (2003) model and older people’s walking

behaviour is suggested by research findings based on the use of walkability indexes

(involving the calculation of scores based on land use and slope, vehicular traffic, public

transit data, and park, street, foot and bike trail information). Higher walkability scores

are associated with increased walking for exercise among older men and women (Berke

et al., 2007) and with greater levels of walking for transport (doing errands) and

engagement in moderate and vigorous exercise (King et al., 2011).

With respect to density, close proximity to a wide variety of goods and services, a setting that

allows speed of movement (Glaeser et al., 2001), and the presence of public leisure spaces

(Lloyd & Auld, 2003) are all conceived to be critical for maintaining quality of life and thus

satisfaction with higher density living. These same features are linked to walking decisions -

especially proximity of neighbourhood facilities, which has been found to be a more salient

factor in decisions to walk than physical difficulty, safety, fear of crime or weather

(Southworth, 2005). Walking decisions can also be affected by factors such as personal

enjoyment. Population-based research indicates that enjoyment of unstructured physical

activity is a very strong predictor of walking 2.5 hours or more per week (Salmon et al., 2003),

The presence of walkable green spaces (parks and tree-lined streets) within walking distance

of home has also been found to positively influence the longevity of seniors living in high

density areas (Takano et al., 2002). One emerging problem with cyclist/pedestrian pathways

in high density settings is however, that older people are particularly vulnerable to sustaining

injuries from collisions with cyclists (Chong et al., 2010).

Neighbourhood design features have been shown to exert substantial influence on the

outdoor physical activity of older persons (Booth et al., 2000; Lui et al., 2009). Judd and

his colleagues (2010) found that inadequate provision or poor quality of paths of travel,

transport nodes, public open space, access to public buildings, street furniture, local cafes

and public toilets, as well as fear of crime and anti-social behaviour all have an effect on

older people’s walking decisions. The quality of pedestrian paths are particularly

important to older people as walking difficulty and fear of falling are known to inhibit

221

outside activity among older people (Weuve et al., 2004; Jacobs et al., 2008). Attention to

streets and streetscape amenities can thus facilitate older people’s mobility and

participation in community life (Booth et al., 2000). Day’s (2010, p. 2662) qualitative

study identified high kerbs, large bins, heavy traffic, shop displays and adverse natural

terrain (especially slopes) as compromising walkability for older people, while public

seating, cafes, toilets, routes away from traffic, and an aesthetically pleasing

environment served to promote and support walking.

Context of the current study

In Australia, the creation of walkable neighbourhoods is a central feature of initiatives

taken by government and non-government agencies in response to the challenges posed

by either the ageing of the population (Australian Local Government Association, 2006;

Department of Health and Ageing, 2006) or the rising levels of physical inactivity-related

disease within the whole population (Giles-Corti, 2006; National Heart Foundation of

Australia, 2009). The creation of ‘higher density communities with mixed use zoning (i.e.,

a combination of commercial and residential development); interconnected streets; and

access to public transport’, representing a return to traditional planning principles, and

known as New Urbanism (Giles-Corti, 2006, para 8) is currently being promoted by the

Australian Federal Government as being key to improving public health. The extent that

higher density living actually encourages walking and reduces car use among older

people within Australia is unclear. The current study focuses exclusively on older people

living in high density areas for this reason, in order to explore neighbourhood walkability

as they experience this phenomenon through time and space. This research adds to the

small but growing number of studies pertaining to the walkability of older urban

residents’ environments, which do not rely on objective measures of walkability.

Methods The data used for this study comprises a sub-set of data related to the experiences of

older Australians residing in inner-urban, high density suburbs, which were gathered as

part of a larger project exploring active ageing and liveability in rural, regional and urban

locations. The research methodology used for the current study involves several different

data collection methods: time-use diaries, survey responses, GPS tracking and GIS

mapping, and in-depth qualitative interviews. Ethical approval for this project was

obtained from a university Human Research Ethics Committee, and all case study

222

participants provided written informed consent prior to their participation in the current

study.

Participants


used for this research, with all but one of the sample drawn from a database of a past

project (‘Living in the City’) (see Table 1 on p107 for a profile of participants’

neighbourhoods). This previous study utilised a proportionate sampling technique for a

postal survey completed by 636 inner urban residents (28% response rate) in 2007,

involving research that focussed on the social, environmental and economic aspects of

inner-city life. Using this database, participants who had indicated a willingness to

participate in further research and were now aged 55 years or older were contacted and

invited to participate, ensuring that those recruited allowed exploration of differences

that might emerge as a function of age or gender. Since the original sample from which

these participants were drawn lacked any persons of low socioeconomic status, the

twelfth participant was recruited through a community group to facilitate inclusion of a

case study within this particular demographic.

Case Study Location

The location for all 12 case studies was Brisbane, Queensland, one of the fastest growing


undulating topography. The study was undertaken in late March to early April at the start

of autumn (normally characterised by pleasant outdoor weather conditions) in order to

minimise possible weather-related bias in the results, given that summer is usually warm,

humid and wet in Brisbane. The findings are thus considered to provide an indication of

the typical activity level of participants. The greater Brisbane area is under the

jurisdiction of the Brisbane City Council, which reports that this city’s population is

expected to increase from 991,000 (2009) to 1,270,000 people by 2031, and that in 2006,

around 231,526 people and 105,783 dwellings were located in the inner five kilometres

of Brisbane (Brisbane City Council & Queensland Government, 2010). Participants in this

study were selected from six inner-city higher density areas (defined as 30 or more

dwellings per hectare) within five kilometres of the Central Business District. Figure 1

shows the location of the high density areas included in this study.

223

Figure 1. Map of the inner city high density areas included in this study

Procedure

Participants were telephoned prior to them being sent a paper travel diary, a GPS device and

recharger, and a typed set of instructions about the use and re-charging of the GPS devices

(previously trialled for ease of use and comprehension). Completed diaries and GPS devices

and rechargers were posted back to the research team prior to interview. The recorded GPS

data and diary information were analysed and merged using GIS technology for the purpose of

creating individual ‘time/space activity maps’ for use during in-depth interviews with each of

the participants. These maps were then reviewed and compared with information in the

travel diaries to identify any key patterns, issues, missing diary data or anomalies so that these

could be discussed and resolved (where necessary) at interview.

Apparatus


Objective measures of each participant’s travel over a seven-day period were obtained

via a person-based GPS device (lightweight portable TSI GPS Trip Recorder Model 747A),

which was used to track all of their out-of-home movement. The accuracy of the GPS

device is reported to be +-3 metres (TranSystem Incorporated, 2008); this level of error

can increase significantly however, depending on the level of signal interference caused

by buildings, canopy cover, indoor environments, and so on. Participants placed the GPS

224

device into a handbag or pocket during waking hours and charged the battery each night.

The GPS devices were programmed to record position, time, date, speed and altitude at a

time interval of one minute. This allowed for accurate tracking of each participant’s

outdoor movements, although the GPS would not record points when no signal was

available (for instance, if the participant travelled underground for a period of time).





representing a logged position (one each minute). These spreadsheets were converted to

Google Earth files using an online converter and mapped in Google Earth. The different

tracks of each participant’s travel on the yielded maps were colour-coded by mode of

travel used, according to information entered in participants’ travel diaries (see Daily

Diaries below). The creation of each participant’s time/space activity maps (involving day-

by-day and total weekly travels) took approximately 6 hours per diagram and was

accompanied by tabulated information relevant to each journey and destination. For the

purposes of this research, ‘neighbourhood’ was defined as the area within 10 minutes

walking distance of home.

Daily Diaries



reflections upon issues pertaining to their environment or any undertaken activity. The

diary also included a brief survey which captured demographic information, use of

transport, volunteering and aspects of community liveability and engagement. The

diaries offered an efficient and affordable way to assess specific details about activity

(i.e., duration, frequency, social context, travel mode, and location), thereby

supplementing information derived from the GPS devices.

In-depth Interviews

As the computer used at interview was large and difficult to move, the semi-structured

interviews were conducted predominantly at a central location (the university) and, on

occasion, in participants’ homes. Each interview took place around two weeks after the

225

GPS device and diary were returned to the research team, and lasted approximately 90

minutes on average. Residents’ perceptions of place were elicited through their

responses to open-ended questions focussed on both the positive and negative

experiences and features of their respective neighbourhoods. The importance of the

‘ordinary knowledge’ of residents for providing insight into local issues and the

functioning of daily life in place is crucial in effective liveability research (Myers, 1987).

The interviews were sequenced so that initial discussion centred on participants’ general

pattern of movement over the tracking period, followed by a day-by-day review of each

participant’s trips and activities. This enabled exploration of the nature and level of

activity of each participant within their respective immediate urban environments. The

diary and map information acted as basis for generating further discussion to examine

participants’ experience of out-of-home mobility and the factors that facilitate and

hinder their walking behaviour (both for transport and leisure purposes). In this way,

their potential and realised out-of-home mobility could be examined. Interviews also

provided an opportunity for the accuracy of the GPS data and created maps to be verified

by participants. All interviews were recorded and subsequently transcribed verbatim.

Data Analysis

With the initial stage of analysis of GPS and travel diary data having been undertaken

prior to interview (as described above), additional analysis of the GPS data was

undertaken in order to assess the proportion of total time spent travelling out-of-home

on foot, relative to other forms of transport. The qualitative data derived from interview

were analysed as individual case studies to determine patterns of travel and activity for

each participant, as well as their experiences within their neighbourhood environments.

The theoretical model of the built environment’s influence on physical activity proposed

by Frank et al. and used subsequently by Rosso et al. (2011) with respect to older

people’s mobility, was used as a basis for exploring the relationship between the built

environment and neighbourhood walkability for each case study. The interview

transcripts were read and re-read, and manually coded with ‘chunks’ of data being

assigned to categories that correspond to the main components of the built environment

that Frank et al. (2003) conceive to act as determinants of physical activity. This method

of aggregating the data enabled detection of similarities and differences between the

experiences of older people when walking in their respective neighbourhood

environments. Findings related to participants’ use of different modes of transport is

226

reported initially in the results section below so as to provide context to the findings from

the qualitative analysis of interview data - which are summarized under the subheadings:

Street networks, transit systems, and non-motorised user systems, Density and mixed

land use, and Urban design characteristics.

Results The majority of older people in this study were found to do little walking as a means of

transport or for either exercise or leisure. Three (CS6, CS8, CS9) did not use any means of

transport other than their motor vehicle, and another four (CS3, CS4, CS10, CS12) spent

most of their travelling time in cars. Use of public transport was low for all of the cases

examined. Only three (CS2, CS7, CS11) spent more time walking than they did using non-

active modes, one (CS1) spent more of his time travelling by public transport or on foot

than by car, and another (CS5) spent the majority of his travel time riding his bicycle. See

Figure 2 below for the proportion of total time each participant spent using different

modes of transport over a seven-day period. Participants’ verbatim comments that

pertain to the various transportation systems in their respective neighbourhoods are

provided below in Table 2.

Figure 2. Proportion of total time travelled by different mode of transport

227

Table 2 Essential neighbourhood characteristics: the built environment and walking

Transport system Identified problem Verbatim comments

Bus services Bus routes do not correspond with intended destinations

They don't all go the right way that you want to go, the busses, but there's nothing that we can do about that (CS8 - female) Most places I would have to go to the city and go and get another bus out (CS6 - female)

Physical accessibility I can get on a bus but I can't get off the bus. It depends how - if it's a good driver and he goes right to the kerb, I can get off easily, but usually they don't (CS6 - female)

Inconsistency in provision of services (under- and over-servicing)

I have heard this place referred to as Kangaroo Island [rather than the suburb name of Kangaroo Point] because of how bad public transport is (CS10 - male) Well, coming in this morning… there were five busses there besides ours …Now, this is absolutely ridiculous (CS8 - female)

Ferry services Proposed cancelling of service by local council (only available public transport in the immediate location)

We have got a thousand signatures because I fought it on the basis that it would prevent older people from going out at night…so we have safety issues and everything else (CS11 – female)

Non-motorised user systems

Conflicting needs of pedestrians and cyclists

Yes, cyclists. They are the biggest one. It's becoming very frightening. A lot of them are very abusive…Most of them don't have bell, so you get frightened for your life, even though you are keeping to the left and everything. What I am really concerned about, is that I feel there's animosity that's developing between walkers and cyclists (CS11 - female)

Timing of traffic light changes

That is the problem, crossing Kingsford Smith Drive…There's lights on the corner with the pedestrian crossing. I try to get across as fast as I can and I can't get across in one change of the lights. People on walking sticks haven't got a hope...we have taken it up with the council. They have increased the time to 2 seconds, but that's still not enough time...Yes, these lights – we have had one [person], at our tower, hit by a truck. (CS12 - male)

Confusion caused by zebra crossings

The inconvenient road crossing, that's outside the bank It's one of these road crossings where, you know, it's not a zebra crossing, not lights; it's where pedestrians give way to traffic but the traffic don't know this. So they stop or they don't stop. So you are never sure if you should cross or not…If they had one or the other, it would be easier. If they put a zebra crossing for people having the rights to cross. Nobody knows what it is (CS12 - male)

Topography of pathways I would do a lot more walking if I could walk uphill and down hills (CS3 - female) The big walkability problem is that…hill. (CS12 - male)

228

Street networks, transit systems, and non-motorised user systems

All participants were found to live within a 5- to10-minute walking distance of a public

transport node. There was however, considerable inconsistency in the amount of available

public transport across the study locations. Some urban neighbourhoods appear to be poorly

serviced, while others appear to be over-serviced. Reaching a preferred destination by public

transport emerged as a particular issue for older people, exemplified by the experience of one

woman who reported that she would need to change busses three times to get to her therapy

pool – despite it being situated in an adjacent suburb. This led to her to cease making trips to

the pool. The relative location of her home to the pool is shown below in Figure 3. The

provision of direct routes to some destinations, but not to others, may help to explain the

finding that any use of public transport among participants was city-centric.

Figure 3. Map of relative location of participant’s home to her therapy pool

Information supplied at interview indicated that choice of travel mode was largely affected by

perceptions of convenience related to time efficiency, seamless journeys and journey

229

destination or purpose. For the most part, it was the car that fulfilled all of these objectives

simultaneously. Having access to a car appeared to remove the need to consider public

transportation as an alternative means of reaching destinations. As CS9 (male) explained:

‘[Using the car] - it's just pleasant; no problem at all. I think there must be busses you [can

catch] but I don't know where they go to.’ See Figure 4 for the weekly activity map belonging

to this participant.

Figure 4. Weekly activity map of CS9 (all travel by car)

The majority of participants appeared to have a strong attachment to their motor vehicles,

and indicated that their vehicles gave them a feeling of freedom and safety. For one male

(CS9, aged 78 years) however, it was the sheer pleasure of driving (especially a large vehicle)

that led to him to using his vehicle for all of his out-of home travel:

[I drive] because I want to. You know, I like my car and I enjoy driving. It's so easy

anyway...so, yes, it's easy and fun and I have got a nice - a ridiculously big car…I like a

big car with lots of spare umph and capacity.

Whether by car or other means, transportation was highlighted by participants as being

essential for maintaining their independence within their respective neighbourhoods, visiting

family and friends, and remaining active within the wider community. The key barriers to

using public transport identified by participants included: public transport services being

perceived as irregular or unreliable; experience of difficulty in physical access onto buses or

ferries; experience of excessive distance or steep topography when travelling to transit nodes;

excessive waiting including transfer times between changes of transport; finding timetable

230

and route information confusing; and health issues such as urinary incontinence because of

the associated fear of not having access to toilets while in transit. In one particular

neighbourhood, residents had banded together to protest the local council’s proposed

cancellation of ferry services in their area. This was of major concern to older residents, given

that this was the only available form of public transport in their immediate vicinity.

Problems with the non-motorised user systems in some locations were identified by

participants as deterring them from walking in their local areas. Hilly topography and conflict

between pedestrians and cyclists on shared pathways were highlighted as being factors that

undermine the walkability of these systems. Places where vehicular transit systems and non-

motorised user pathways merged were found to be particularly troublesome. Insufficient time

being set for older people to cross the road at intersections where traffic lights are situated

was a major concern for one participant (CS12 - male), who reported that there had already

been a fatality at one such intersection in his area (see Figure 5). He also noted that the major

arterial where this intersection is located is earmarked for further widening (another two

lanes), which will exacerbate the problem of crossing the road before the change of lights.

Confusion about right of way protocol among motorists and pedestrians when they meet at

zebra crossings was also cited as an issue in this same neighbourhood. CS1 (male) described

some footpaths in his neighbourhood as being “too narrow” and close to busy roads –

especially when shared by both cyclists and pedestrians (see Figure 6).

Figure 5. Aerial view of a dangerous intersection (swift light changes)

231

Figure 6: An aerial view of footpath very close to a major arterial road

Density and mixed land use

During interviews, participants identified local shops and services as places where they could

walk to get their daily requirements and to meet others and stay active without a car,

highlighting the importance of both mixed land use patterns and proximity to neighbourhood

walkability. Inspection of the individual time/space maps revealed however, that the majority

of participants used very few or no local services and travelled by car well outside a two-

kilometre radius from their homes for both goods (mostly from large shopping centres) and

services. Figure 7 below shows the weekly activity map of CS4 (female), who accessed goods

and services both within and well outside of her local neighbourhood. Separate symbols are

used on the map to distinguish retail and trade services from community/health/leisure

services accessed by her during the week.

232

Figure 7. Map of services accessed by CS4 over seven days

One notable exception to the overall pattern of behaviour with respect to travelling outside of

local neighbourhoods for accessing most goods and services was CS2 (female), who walked

extensively throughout her immediate and surrounding neighbourhood (within 10 minutes

walking distance from home and beyond) for a variety of purposes, including travelling to and

from work, and for leisure, exercise, shopping and accessing services. A map showing her

walking activity over the monitored week is shown in Figure 8. CS2 reported during her

interview, that a lack of local amenities was one of the key reasons for her having moved from

another inner-city area to her present location (‘I used to live at Kangaroo Point…It doesn't

have a heart or soul. It's what I call a dormitory suburb. People go there to sleep. There are no

amenities there’). She also spoke of her belief in the need for people to reduce their reliance

on cars, and that the walkability of her neighbourhood provides her with the lifestyle she

seeks, especially the many opportunities it gives her to interact and keep in touch with others

living in her area.

233

Figure 8. Map of CS2’s walking behaviour within her neighbourhood

Considerable variation was found to exist with respect to locally available amenities across the

study locations. Participants experienced different realities in terms of what high-density

living provides in this regard. Residents from two areas in particular (Kangaroo Point and

Newstead) were found to have minimal amenity choice and were therefore forced to travel

out of their neighbourhoods in order to access most services. This lack of proximity to

amenities appeared to be offset by having homes with river views for those living at Kangaroo

Point however.

Urban design characteristics

Imminent change in the character of their urban neighbourhoods (because of development

aimed at increasing the residential population in their vicinity) emerged as a major concern for

some participants. They voiced this concern within the context of this development already

being underway or their neighbourhoods having been earmarked for future development.

They perceived that changes to the built environment will inevitably compromise the

liveability of their neighbourhoods. Matters that prompted their fears included: loss of what

they consider to be important neighbourhood community infrastructure; the proposed

widening of roads and resultant increase in vehicular traffic; and the exacerbation of existing

difficulties in physically negotiating pedestrian crossings by the presence of even more

expansive and congested roads. They also spoke about increasing density of urban areas

having reduced the amount of local green space and increased the pedestrian and bicycling

234

traffic along shared pedestrian/bicycle paths. As a consequence, residents were finding that

they needed to stagger walking times away from peak times because of the volume of users

on pedestrian paths and within available green-space. This often led them to walk during the

hottest part of the day or after dark – a time about which some held concerns with respect to

their safety.

The lack of necessary green space to meet the needs of a substantially increased local

population was a predominant concern of CS12 (male), who was living in a location where a

new high-rise development was currently underway:

Unfortunately, what’s going to happen, they are widening Kingsford Smith Drive to six

lanes, so they are going to take – that’s a community hall… They are going to put

another [building]…right in front of our place. So we used to meet in that little park

[to protest the development]. That little park is going to be a smaller park...We have

no right of appeal of any planning in that area [immediately abutting the resident’s

building], which frightens me terribly. They are putting 15,000 people in that area,

15,000. They say they have got a park. Yes, they have got a park; you can’t swing a

cat in it. The rest is high-rise (CS12).

Insufficient green space was highlighted as being a current problem in another location by CS2

(female):

There aren't enough parks. Even the German lady that I talk to, she's got a dog. She

said, ‘I have to now take my dog for a walk at 2 o'clock in the afternoon because if I go

early/late, there's just no room. It's just so full’…That personally worries me...You

have got to have green space. Now, they are talking about bringing back community

gardens, which I think are great, but you have got to have green space to even put a

community garden.

While quantitative data gathered from the brief surveys included in travel diaries indicated

that all of the 12 participants “loved” living in their current neighbourhoods, the qualitative

data gathered at interview revealed personal safety was a key factor in constraining their

decisions to walk. Their fears were based on physical characteristics of the built environment

that they believed placed them at risk of injury, such as poorly maintained pedestrian

235

infrastructure and streetscapes. While some of the threats to personal safety mentioned by

participants have already been described (see beginning of Results section), additional issues

were identified that related to upkeep (poorly maintained pavements) and insufficient street

lighting where new non-motorised user pathways were being built:

Street lighting, pavement maintenance; these are the odd things that come

up…Pavement maintenance, in terms of people being likely to have falls and that sort

of thing...I mean, they are not being repaired and they get things wrong with them.

They are building these new footpaths, shared footpaths for cyclists and things, but

not putting the lights up quick enough (CS10 - male).

The quality of pedestrian footpaths varied between urban neighbourhoods. Some were well

maintained with even surfaces and hand rails being provided adjacent to any steps along the

path, while others had uneven surfaces with no handrail support for stairs. Lack of shade and

street seating for those living in Brisbane’s subtropical climate were raised as being issues in

some of the study locations, as was the availability of clean and safe public toilets. One

participant’s comment suggested that he perceived lack of shading and public seating as a

failure to consider the particular needs of older people:

It has got no shade. It's got no seating for older people…so it's for, you know, the 15

to 50 age group, but they forget about the [ages] beyond that (CS12 - male).

Overall, the results indicate that the built environments within each of the six high density

areas in which the study participants resided, presented them with numerous obstacles that

served to either discourage them from walking or to feel unsafe or stressed when they did

walk within their neighbourhoods.

Discussion The purpose of this paper was to investigate older people’s experience of neighbourhood

walkability within high density settings as means to further understanding of the

relationship between this form of neighbourhood and walking behaviour. While the

current study is based on the experiences of a small number of older people, thereby

precluding the generalisability of its findings, all of the factors identified by Rosso et al.,

(2011) as being most likely to impact upon older people’s walking behaviour (namely,

high density intersections, street and traffic conditions, proximity to select destinations,

236

and green space) emerged as having an influence on the walking decisions of the older

people who took part in this research. The current study therefore provides qualitative-

based support for evidence from quantitative studies. Most notable is that this study

found that the impact of problems with traffic and pedestrian infrastructure upon

participants’ travel mode choices was framed in terms of the risks these posed to their

physical safety. Dangerous pedestrian crossings, shared cyclist/pedestrian pathways that

are either overcrowded or too close to busy roads, poorly maintained footpaths, and a

lack of available shading and public seating were all identified as factors that undermine

their sense of safety when venturing out of home on foot. These aspects of the built

environment have been identified previously as issues that affect older people’s out-of-

home mobility (Booth et al., 2000; Weuve et al., 2004; Michael et al., 2006; Jacobs et al.,

2008; Judd et al., 2010). The availability of adequate green space was also highlighted by

several participants as being important to the walkability of their neighbourhoods,

corroborating evidence of the value of green space to older Australians gathered from

previous research based on a large national sample drawn from all Australian states and

territories (Judd et al., 2010).

The current study also found that most of the older people living in high-density locations

within inner-city Brisbane had very low levels of out-of-home activity within walking distance

of their residences, despite the fact that none of them had any disability that prevented them

from walking in their local areas. The out-of-home activities in which they did engage were

predominantly found to take place outside of their local neighbourhoods, thereby requiring

extensive use of their private motor vehicle for transportation. While quality of public

transport and non-motorised user systems, land use patterns, and urban design

characteristics (especially access to public toilets) are all implicated as plausible reasons for

this pattern of behaviour, so too are established norms surrounding driving, and the intrinsic

and instrumental value of cars to older people as a consequence of the pleasure derived from

the act of driving itself, as well as the freedom and convenience of movement they provide.

These same reasons for reliance on cars among older people have been identified in low and

high density areas in France and Canada (Lord & Luxembourg, 2007). This raises the question

of whether or not a substantial reduction in older people’s reliance on motor vehicles for out-

of-home mobility would naturally follow substantial improvements to the walkability of

neighbourhoods, unless accompanied by campaigns aimed at changing norms around car use.

237

This study’s findings are also consistent with previous research with respect to the nature of

barriers to older people using public transport. The current research revealed that only two of

the five older people who reported using public transport during the monitored seven-day

period travelled by bus, and public transport accounted for only a small proportion of the

overall travel time of each of all five participants. Reasons given for non-use of busses in the

current study are consistent with those found by studies reviewed by Broome et al. (2009).

Continuing improvement in public transport services, access and infrastructure is needed if

older people are to find public transport more attractive and voluntarily abandon use of their

motor vehicle.

The finding that older urban residents had very low levels of locally-based activity and

that they are using their motor vehicles to access everyday goods and services (e.g., retail

shopping, hairdressers, medical services and so on) outside of their local neighbourhood

environment also raises questions about whether or not high density development

provides easy and nearby access to everyday goods and services for older people, and

thus the opportunity to increase their walking activity and reduce their car use. Given

that declines in health and functioning form part of the ageing process, the provision of

nearby shops that stock goods which meet everyday needs as well as medical services

would appear to be essential for high density settings.

Analysis of the experiences of walking for older people living in high density locations in

this study suggest that for most, walking was associated with several stressful or

unpleasant conditions or events. The negative connotations of walking were attributable

to characteristics of the built environment as well as social interactions that took place on

shared pedestrian/cyclist pathways. Given that enjoyment of unstructured physical

activity has been found to be a strong predictor of regular walking (Salmon et al., 2003),

the capacity of these negative experiences to undermine older people’s enjoyment of

walking and thus deter them from walking into the future is a matter for concern.

Attention to the built environment and to community attitudes and behaviour towards

the sharing of pedestrian/cyclist pathways will be needed if older people are to feel safe

when walking in their neighbourhoods. Population density in inner-city suburbs in

Australia and elsewhere is bound to increase, as is active transport (both cycling and

walking) if public health and environmental sustainability objectives are achieved. It is

possible that growing numbers of both pedestrians and cyclists in shared spaces will

238

create new and unforeseen problems. The competing interests of shared spaces between

these two groups, as indicated by the experiences of participants in this study, and

evidence based on hospitalisation data that older people are at increased risk of injury

from collisions with bicycles (Chong et al., 2010) - suggest that this issue warrants

research attention within the sub-field of environmental gerontology in the future. Fears

about using shared pedestrian/cyclist pathways could potentially become an important

determinant of the difference between potential and realised out-of-home mobility for

older people living in settings where these pathways form part of their local

neighbourhoods.

Overall, the findings from this study highlight the salience of objectives outlined by the

National Heart Foundation of Australia if older Australians are to change their behaviour

by walking more and driving less. Specifically, these entail the need to ‘build and retrofit

existing neighbourhoods to increase pedestrian and cyclist access to shops, workplaces,

public transport’ and also to ‘consider the mobility, access and recreational needs of

older adults when planning road crossings, pedestrian infrastructure, public transport

access, public open space and recreational infrastructure’ (NHF, 2009, pp. 12, 27). This

consideration needs to extend beyond the planning phase however, to ensuring that

pavements, intersections, and pedestrian crossings are properly maintained. Their lack of

upkeep has been shown repeatedly to undermine older people’s potential for mobility

(Weuve et al., 2004; Southworth, 2005; Michael et al., 2006; Judd et al., 2010).

Finally, this study used an innovative, mixed-methods approach in investigating the

experiences of older people living in high density suburbs when walking in their

neighbourhoods. The use of GPS tracking and GIS mapping, in conjunction with daily diaries

and in-depth interviews provided a means of gathering objective data on older adults’ walking

behaviour relative to their use of other means of transport. The creation and use of

individualised space/time maps at interview created opportunities for both verifying the data

derived from GPS devices and travel diaries, and exploring the walking experiences of older

people. The visual display of the space/time maps served to prompt interviewees’ recall of

these experiences as well as aspects of the built environment that caused them difficulty as

they moved around their neighbourhoods. For the benefit of other researchers who plan to

use travel diaries to explore the person-environment relationship, it is worth noting that

although participants were asked to write down the nature of built environment features that

affected the walkability of their neighbourhood, they tended not to do so and instead only

239

gave details of the nature of their destinations, activities and the mode of transport used for

each trip. It may be that the need to carry a GPS device, recharge it overnight, and make daily

entries into a travel diary limits the amount of writing participants are prepared (or

remember) to do. The in-depth interviews were therefore found to be essential for gaining

detailed information on aspects of the built environment that help to shape older people’s

walking decisions. GPS and GIS technologies would appear to hold great potential for both

expanding the methodological approaches used for studying the person-environment

relationship and furthering our understanding of out-of-home mobility among older people.

240

References Alsnih, R. & Hensher, D.A. (2003) The mobility and accessibility expectations of seniors in

an aging population. Transportation Research Part A, 37, pp. 903-916.

Alves, S., Aspinall, P.A., Thompson, C.W., Sugiyama, T., Brice, R. & Vickers, A. (2008)

Preferences of older people for environment attributes of local parks: the use of choice-

based conjoint analysis. Facilities, 26, pp. 433-453.

Aspinall, P.A., Ward Thompson, C., Alves, S., Sugiyama, T., Brice, R. & Vickers, A. (2010)

Preference and relative importance for environmental attributes of neighbourhood open

space in older people. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37, pp. 1022-

1039.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2008) Population Projections, Australia, 2006 to 2101. Cat.

No. 3222.0 (Canberra, ABS).

Australian Local Government Association (2006) Age-friendly Built Environment:

Opportunities for Local Government (Canberra, ALGA).

Banister, D. & Bowling, A. (2004) Quality of life for the elderly: the transport dimension.

Transport Policy, 11, pp. 105-115.

Barclays Wealth, 2010, Volume 12: The Age Illusion: How the Wealthy are Redefining

their Retirement. Available at:

http://www.barclayswealth.com/insights/assets/pdf/BW12_UK__ForWeb.pdf (accessed

31 December 2011).

Beard, J.R. & Petitot, C. (2010) Ageing and urbanization: can cities be designed to foster

active ageing? Public Health Reviews, 32, pp. 427-450.

Behan, K., Maoh, H. & Kanaroglou, P. (2008) Smart growth strategies, transportation and

urban sprawl: simulated futures for Hamilton, Ontario. Canadian Geographer, 52, pp.

291-308.

Berke, E.M., Koepsell, T.D., Moudon, A.V., Hoskins, R.E. & Larson, E.B. (2007) Association

of the built environment with physical activity and obesity in older persons. American

Journal of Public Health, 97, pp. 486-492.


241

Besser, L.M. & Dannenberg, A.L. (2005) Walking to public transit: steps to help meet

physical activity recommendations. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 29, pp. 273-

280.

Blackman, T., Mitchell, L., Burton, E., Jenks, M., Parsons, M., Raman, S. & Williams, K.

(2003) The accessibility of public spaces for people with dementia: a new priority for the

'open city'. Disability & Society, 18, pp. 357-371.

Booth, M.L., Owen, N., Bauman, A., Clavisi, O. & Leslie, E. (2000) Social-cognitive and

perceived environment influences associated with physical activity in older Australians.

Preventive Medicine, 31, pp. 15-22.

Brisbane City Council & Queensland Government (2010) River City Blueprint - Background

Paper. (Brisbane, BBC & Queensland Government).

Broome, K., McKenna, K., Fleming, J. & Worrall, L. (2009) Bus use and older people: a

literature review applying the Person-Environment-Occupation model in macro practice.

Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 16, pp. 3-12.

Burton, E. & Mitchell, L. (2006) Inclusive Urban Design: Streets for Life (Oxford,

Architectural Press).

Chaudhury, H., Sarte, A.F.I., Michael, Y.L., Mahmood, A., Keast, E.M., Dogaru, C. & Wister,

A. (2011) Use of a systematic observational measure to assess and compare walkability

for older adults in Vancouver, British Columbia and Portland, Oregon neighbourhoods.

Journal of Urban Design, 16, pp. 433-454.

Chong, S., Poulo, R., Olivier, J., Watson, W.L. & Grzeibieta, R. (2010) Relative injury

severity among vulnerable non-motorised road users: comparative analysis of injury

arising from bicycle-motor vehicle and bicycle-pedestrian collisions. Accident Analysis &

Prevention, 42, pp. 290-296.

Cunningham, G. & Michael, Y.L. (2008) Concepts guiding the study of the impact of the

impact of the environment on physical activity for older adults: a review of the literature.

American Journal of Health Promotion, 18, pp. 435-443.

Day, R. (2008) Local environments and older people's health: dimensions from a

comparative qualitative study in Scotland. Health & Place, 14, pp. 299-312.

242

Day, R. (2010) Environmental justice and older age: consideration of a qualitative

neighbourhood-based study. Environment and Planning A, 42, pp. 2658-2673.

Department of Health and Ageing (2006) A Community for All Ages: Building the Future.

Report on the Findings and Recommendations of the National Speakers Series (Canberra,

Commonwealth of Australia).

Duncan, D.T., Aldstadt, J., Whalen, J., Melly, S.J. & Gortmaker, S.L. (2011) Validation of

Walk Score for estimating neighborhood walkability: an analysis of four US metropolitan

areas. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 8, pp. 4160-

4179.

Ewing, R. & Handy, S. (2009) Measuring the unmeasurable: urban design qualities related

to walkability. Journal of Urban Design, 14, pp. 65-84.

Fonda, S.J., Wallace, R.B. & Herzog, A.R. (2001) Changes in driving patterns and

worsening depressive symptoms among older adults. Journal of Gerontology: Series B,

56B, pp. S343-S351.

Foster, S., Giles-Corti, B. & Knuiman, M. (2011) Creating safe walkable streetscapes: does

house design and upkeep discourage incivilities in suburban neighbourhoods? Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 31, pp. 79-88.

Frank, L.D., Engelke, P.O. & Schmid, T.L. (2003) Health and Community Design: The

Impact of the Built Environment on Physical Activity (Washington, DC; London Island

Press).

Gabriel, Z. & Bowling, A. (2004) Quality of life from the perspectives of older people.

Ageing & Society, 24, pp. 675-691.

Giles-Corti, B. (2006) The Impact of Urban Form on Public Health. Paper prepared for the

2006 Australian State of the Environment Committee (Canberra, Department of the

Environment and Heritage).

Glaeser, E.L., Kolko, J. & Saiz, A. (2001) Consumer city. Journal of Economic Geography, 1,

pp. 27-50.

Gray, A. (2009) The social capital of older people. Ageing & Society, 29, pp. 5-31.

243

Harrison, A. & Ragland, D.R. (2003) Consequences of driving reduction or cessation for

older adults. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research

Board, 1843, pp. 96-104.

Headicar, P. (2003) Land use planning and the management of transport demand, in: J.

Hine and J. Preston (Eds) Integrated Futures and Transport Choices, pp. 205-224 (Ashgate,

Aldershot).

Jacobs, J.M., Cohen, A., Hammerman-Rozenberg, R., Azoulay, D., Maaravi, Y. & Stessman,

J. (2008) Going outdoors daily predicts long-term functional and health benefits among

ambulatory older people. Journal of Aging and Health, 24, pp. 258-272.

Judd, B., Olsberg, D., Quinn, J., Groenhart, L. & Demirbilek, O. (2010) Dwelling, Land and

Neighbourhood Use by Older Home Owners. AHURI Final Report No. 144 (Melbourne,

Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute).

Kendig, H. (2003) Directions in Environmental Gerontology: a multidisciplinary field.

Gerontologist, 43, pp. 611-614.

Kenworthy, J.R. (2006) The eco-city: then key transport and planning dimensions for

sustainable city development. Environment and Urbanization, 18, pp. 67-85.

King, A.C., Sallis, J.F., Frank, L.D., Saelens, B.E., Cain, K., Conway, T.L., Chapman, J.E., Ahn,

D.K. & Kerr, J. (2011) Aging in neighborhoods differing in walkability and income:

associations with physical activity and obesity in older adults. Social Science & Medicine,

73, pp. 1525-1533.

Koepsell, T., McCloskey, L., Wolf, M., Moudon, A.V., Buchner, D., Kraus, J. & Patterson, M.

(2002) Crosswalk markings and the risk of pedestrian-motor vehicle collisions in older

pedestrians. JAMA, 288, pp. 2136-2143.

Lee, C. & Moudon, A.V. (2004) Physical activity and environment research in the health

field: implications for urban and transportation planning practice and research. Journal of

Planning Literature, 19, pp. 147-181.

Li, F., Fisher, K.J., Brownson, R.C. & Bosworth, M. (2005) Multilevel modelling of built

environment characteristics related to neighbourhood walking activity in older adults.

Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 59, pp. 558-564.

244

Lloyd, K. & Auld, C. (2003) Leisure, public space and quality of life in the urban

environment. Urban Policy and Research, 21, pp. 339 - 356.

Lord, S., Després, C. & Ramadier, T. (2011) When mobility makes sense: a qualitative and

longitudinal study of the daily mobility of the elderly. Journal of Environmental

Psychology, 31, pp. 52-61.

Lord, S. & Luxembourg, N. (2007) The mobility of elderly residents living in surburban

territories. Journal of Housing for the Elderly, 20, pp. 103-121.

Lui, C.-W., Everingham, J.-A., Warburton, J., Cuthill, M. & Bartlett, H. (2009) What makes

a community age-friendly: a review of international literature. Australasian Journal on

Ageing, 28, pp. 116-121.

Maas, J., Verheij, R.A., Groenewegen, P.P., de Vries, S. & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2006) Green

space, urbanity and health: how strong is the relationship? Journal of Epidemiology and

Community Health, 60, pp. 587 - 592.

Michael, Y.L., Green, M.K. & Farquhar, S.A. (2006) Neighborhood design and active aging.

Health & Place, 12, pp. 734-740.

Mollenkopf, H., Marcellini, F., Ruoppila, I., Szeman, Z., Tacken, M. & Kaspar, M. (2002)

The role of driving in maintaining mobility in later life: a European view.

Gerontechnology, 2, pp. 231-250.

Myers, D. (1987) Community-relevant measurement of quality of life: a focus on local

trends. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 23, pp. 108-125.

National Heart Foundation of Australia (2009) Blueprint for an Active Australia

(Melbourne, NHF).

Phillipson, C. (2004) Urbanisation and ageing: towards a new environmental gerontology.


Rosso, A.L., Auchincloss, A.H. & Michael, Y.L. (2011) The urban built environment and

mobility in older adults: a comprehensive review. Journal of Aging Research, 10 pages,

doi:10.4061/2011/816106.

245

Salmon, J., Owen, N., Crawford, D., Bauman, A. & Sallis, J.F. (2003) Physical activity and

sedentary behavior: a population-based study of barriers, enjoyment, and preference.

Health Psychology, 22, pp. 178-188.

Schwanen, T. & Ziegler, F. (2011) Wellbeing, independence and mobility: an introduction.


Shendell, D.G., Johnson, M.L., Sanders, D.L., Nowakowski, A.C., Yang, J., Jeffries, C.D.,

Weisman, J.E. & Moulding, M. (2011) Community built environment and mobility around

senior wellness centers: the concept of "safe senior zones". Journal of Environmental

Health, 73, pp. 9-18.

Shoval, N., Wahl, H.-W., Auslander, G., Isaacson, M., Oswald, F., Edry, T., Landau, R. &

Heinik, J. (2011) Use of the global positioning system to measure the out-of-home

mobility of older adults with differing cognitive functioning. Ageing & Society, 31, pp.

849-869.

Smith, A.E. (2009) Ageing in Urban Neighbourhoods: Place Attachment and Social

Exclusion (Bristol, UK, Policy Press).

Southworth, M. (2005) Designing the walkable city. Journal of Urban Planning and

Development, 131, pp. 246-257.

Sugiyama, T., Thompson, C. & Alves, S. (2009) Associations between neighborhood open

space attributes and quality of life for older people in Britain. Environment and Behavior,

41, pp. 3-21.

Takano, T., Nakamura, K. & Watanabe, M. (2002) Urban residential environments and

senior citizens’ longevity in megacity areas: the importance of walkable green spaces.

Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 56, pp. 913-918.

Therese, S.A., Buys, L., Bell, L. & Miller, E. (2010) The role of land use and psycho-social

factors in high density residents' work travel mode choices: implications for sustainable

transport policy. World Review of Intermodal Transportation Research, 3, pp. 46-72.

TranSystem Incorporated, 2008, 747 A+ GPS Trip Recorder, User’s Manual. Available at:


(accessed 3 March 2010).


246

Turner, R.J. (1981) Social support as a contingency in psychological well-being. Journal of

Health and Social Behavior, 22, pp. 357-367.

Wahl, H.-W. & Weisman, G., D. (2003) Environmental gerontology at the beginning of the

new millennium: reflections on its historical, empirical, and theoretical development.

Gerontologist, 43, pp. 616-627.

Weiss, R., Maantay, J.A. & Fahs, M. (2010) Promoting active urban aging: a measurement

approach to neighborhood walkability for older adults. Cities and the Environment, 3, pp.

1-17.

Weuve, J., Kang, J.H., Manson, J.E., Breteler, M.M.B., Ware, J.H. & Grodstein, F. (2004)

Physical activity, including walking, and cognitive function in older women. JAMA, 292,

pp. 1454-1461.

White, D.K., Jette, A.M., Felson, D.T., Lavalley, M.P., Lewis, C.E., Torner, J.C., Nevitt, M.C.

& Keysor, J.J. (2010) Are features of the neighborhood environment associated with

disability in older adults? Disability and Rehabilitation, 32, pp. 639-645.

Woodcock, J., Edwards, P., Armstrong, B.G., Ashiru, O., Banister, D., Beevers, S., Chalabi,

Z., Chowdhury, Z., Cohen, A., Franco, O.H., Haines, A., Hickman, R., Lindsay, G., Mittal, I.,

Mohan, D., Tiwari, G., Woodward, A. & Roberts, I. (2009) Public health benefits of

strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: urban land transport. Lancet, 374, pp.

1930-1943.

World Health Organization (2002) Active Ageing: A Policy Framework (Geneva, WHO).

World Health Organization (2007) Global Age-friendly Cities: A Guide (Geneva, WHO).

Zeigler, F. & Schwanen, T. (2011) ‘I like to go out to be energised by different people’: an

exploratory analysis of mobility and wellbeing in later life. Ageing & Society, 31, pp. 758-

781.

249

Chapter 9: Discussion Society has reached a period in history where the population’s demographic profile is

forcing nations to focus on the need to support older people. The ageing of the baby

boom generation is anticipated to have a profound effect on the developed world for

decades to come. Over half the world’s older population currently lives in urban areas

(51%) and the figure is projected to increase to 62% by 2050 (United Nations (UN), 2003).

This research addresses concerns about the age-friendliness of urban areas to meet the

needs of a growing ageing population by investigating older people’s perceptions of the

liveability of their current high density neighbourhoods to ensure that their voices are

heard by planners and policymakers when formulating strategies aimed at them as the

target population.

This research has explored the experiences of older people living in high density

communities/neighbourhoods, to determine what makes them liveable and age-friendly

from the perspective of older people themselves. The five papers presented in this thesis

add to the body of knowledge related to community/neighbourhood liveability and the

factors which make them so. The following discussion brings together the results from

these articles as a means of summarising the key findings from the program of research

undertaken as part of this dissertation. The findings are synthesized according to several

main themes - the high density agenda, understanding liveability concepts, the

importance of proximity, and opportunities for ageing in place and remaining active. The

phenomena encompassed by these themes are inter-related and are integral

components in understanding liveability as it relates to successful ageing in place. The

contribution of this research to knowledge and practice in the field is discussed as are the

strengths and limitations of the research. Finally, this chapter provides

recommendations for future directions in practice which extends from the program of

research.

Significance of Findings

The High Density Agenda

The high density agenda adopted by governments of major developed cities around the

world is designed to meet the main liveability and sustainability goal of decreasing car

dependence, traffic congestion, local air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as well

as abating urban sprawl and minimising the loss of greenfield areas and habitats to

250

developers. While there is value in high density development, it is not a universal

remedy to the challenges of inner city living (Gordon and Richardson, 1997). For

example, Christoff and Low (2000) argue that it has not been scientifically established

that residential densities reduce the consumption of energy or greenhouse emissions.

Relatively high densities can be attained through various means to either the benefit or

detriment of urban liveability. Liveable high density communities or neighbourhoods are

more than the provision of parking, units and open space. It is the level of support for

everyday life provided by higher density, which makes urban living desirable.

There have been various development strategies popular with western governments that

advocate living more intensely within existing urban areas. These strategies include: New

Urbanism and Urban Village Movements, Smart Growth and Compact City Movements,

Complete Communities and Transit Oriented Development. They have all been

developed as key responses to unsatisfactory urban policy and its negative externalities:

congestion, pollution, sprawl, freeway blight, impoverished public housing and placeless

design and the like (Filion, 2003; Kushner, 2007; Dernbach, 2009). These movements

focus on issues of place-based liveability and on ensuring that new development provides

environmental, economic and social returns. Indeed, notions of liveability have become

important to cities, government agencies and citizens around the world because of the

positive synergies associated with high quality residential places that operate holistically

on social, economic and environmental dimensions to provide secure and fulfilling life

experiences (Douglass, 2002).

Understanding Liveability Concepts

A range of perspectives on liveability are discussed in this thesis as there is little

agreement on a universal definition. Liveability is an ensemble concept that is defined

differently by virtue of place and social group, and is typically comprised of attributes

that are important to local populations and elected leaders (Myers 1988; Andrews 2001).

Because liveability should be contextualised to place and population, a hierarchy of

needs approach can inform local liveability strategies; from essential physiological,

security and health needs as a foundation to more life-enriching attributes once these

basic needs have been met. However, addressing the everyday is the necessary starting

point, as an everyday life approach to liveability can aid in focusing attention on those

things that can improve regular neighbourhood function (Mayol in de Certeau et al.,

1998), use attractiveness (Mayol in de Certeau et al., 1998; Maffesoli, 1993), community

251

formation (Diener et al 2003; Maffesoli, 1993) and economic health (Jacobs, 1961;

Pacione, 2003).

Due to its complexity, liveability is best understood through place-based research that

incorporates both objective place measurement as well as measures of subjective

satisfaction and perceptions of place to provide more holistic understandings of what

liveability means. Two approaches to data collection were used in this thesis. In Chapter

3, the two methods are identified and differentiated as Method 1 (used in Paper 1) and

Method 2 (used in Papers 2, 3, 4 and 5). The participants from both studies were from

inner city high density Brisbane neighbourhoods. Participants in the study based on

Method 1 were from a broader age range (25 to 79 years) than those who formed the

sample for the research based on Method 2 (57 to 80 years). In general, participants

(Method 1 and Method 2) were very positive about their neighbourhoods as indicated by

their responses to survey items. Problems experienced within their environments

emerged from qualitative data derived at interview from questions asked by researchers

(Methods 1 and 2) and from discussion prompted by review of each participant’s

time/space activity maps (Method 2). In most cases, the inner city high density areas

examined in both studies had something special about them that attracted residents to

these locations. Most of the neighbourhoods have access to parks, natural areas,

waterfronts and/or recreational areas. What becomes clear from the findings is that no

generalisable formula could be devised for the purpose of ensuring liveability that could

be usefully applied to all communities. While there were dimensions of liveability that

were commonly highlighted by participants, there were also aspects that were particular

to location. The challenges faced by participants that threatened the quality of everyday

life for high density urban residents were of concern for both the present and the future.

Papers 1, 2, 3

The first steps taken in exploring whether or not high density settings are liveable for

older Australians, involved examination of key concepts - liveability (Paper 1),

neighbourhood (Paper 2) and community (Paper 3) - and determinations about

definitional aspects that might enhance our understanding of liveability. Collectively,

there is an attempt to identify what is comparable and different between the physical

and social factors of high density communities generally and then more specifically as

they relate to older people and their everyday life needs.

252

Attributes and qualities that contribute to the liveability of high density environments are

explored in Paper 1. While it is intrinsically tempting to focus on the immediacy of the

present day liveability rather than the sustainability of some distant future, I argue that

efforts to attain liveability and sustainability need not be at cross-purposes with one

another. Rather, they can work in tandem to ensure the needs of the present are viewed

more expansively and proactively in effecting preferred future outcomes. Considerable

synergy between the aspirations of residents and those of society were identified. The

data showed that urban features that reflect current societal pressure for greater

sustainability such as lower energy use and more use of public transport are the same

features sought by residents in describing the liveability of a particular community.

The key concepts of “neighbourhood) (Paper 2) and “community” (Paper 3) are analysed

in time and space to identify the essential aspects that enhance our understanding of

these terms as well as that of liveability. ‘Neighbourhood’ and ‘community’ are usually

measured by either subjective indicators using surveys of residents’ perceptions or by

objective means using secondary data or relative weights for objective indicators of the

urban environment. Rarely, have objective and subjective indicators been related to one

another to come to a clearer understanding of what constitutes a liveable urban

neighbourhood or community both spatially and behaviourally. The experience and

perception is represented as a joint function of the objective physical conditions (for

example, state of the footpaths, etc.) and the subjective interpretation of these

conditions to the individual.

Analysis of the data exposed a weak link between the subjective perceived use of the

local neighbourhood by older urban residents and the objective indicators of their actual

use. Older residents reported using their local neighbourhoods regularly, however the

subjective assessment was not concordant with information derived from the GPS

tracking and GIS analysis indicating that they have very little local neighbourhood activity.

Similarly, there is disparity between the subjective and objective indicators on their

neighbourhood meeting all their needs. The final dissimilarity between the objective and

subjective related to the geographic concept of local neighbourhood which goes some

way to explaining the first two contradictions. The concept of local neighbourhood and

community is discussed below.

253

Many factors, including personal and social characteristics such as age and health status

interfere with an individual’s subjective interpretation of their objective physical world

and these may act as noise in distorting objective conditions (Pacione, 2003). A universal

objective, for instance reducing car dependence, can be transformed by individual

perceptions of, for example, how they view the extent of their personal use of the motor

vehicle. Individual experience is also a factor that will affect the perception of a specific

domain (Pacione, 2003). Experience of cyclists’ rage along a shared pedestrian track

(discussed in Papers 4 and 5), for example, is likely to have a lasting effect on the

individual’s perception of safety and enjoyment of his or her neighbourbood walkways.

Another factor which may be of importance in the subjective-objective relationship of

neighbourhood liveability is the aspiration level or expectations of the individual. This

helps explain the relatively high satisfaction with neighbourhood liveability expressed by

individuals whose neighbourhoods do not appear to be meeting their everyday needs.

The notion of accommodation is another variable that may influence the relationship

between objective and subjective conditions. This suggests that in a fixed situation an

individual’s satisfaction with a condition may increase over time by accommodation to

that situation (Pacione, 2003). A final factor is the problem of scale discordance between

the objective territorial measures of the researcher and the subjective territorial base of

the individual which appears to be the case with this study.

The concept of community for older urban Australian people was also explored (Paper 3).

There has been little exploration of how this considerable group living in high density are,

and have been, engaged in communities and the extent that this aspect of liveability

contributes to to decisions about remaining in place. In identifying neighbourhood and

community, this study did not rely on a single definition. It incorporates the ambiguity of

community and neighbourhood boundaries as part of the analysis. Such an approach is

more complex but is more representative of the reality of urban residents’ lives.

Therefore, place is not pre-conceived territorially but identified through the analysis of

the research.

There is a sectioning of communities that manifests in the everyday perceptions and

experiences of older urban residents. The data show urban residents have territory in

common, including their building, the space immediately surrounding their building, their

walkable neighbourhood and the broader district. All four zones distinguish themselves

254

through the residents’ everyday practices and perceptions. When asked about their

community, most residents immediately started discussing their immediate environment

– the community of the building in which they were living. What is interesting is that

when asked to identify their community geographically on a map, the majority of the

residents referred to a much larger area, the district beyond their respective walkable

neighbourhoods. The residents thus clearly and easily identified the community of the

building zone and the district community zone as being part of their neighbourhood.

Only one resident identified her walkable neighbourhood geographically as her

community and she was able to speak at length about the people who lived within this

community. There is considerable literature on the walkable neighbourhood and it is

interesting that only one resident identified it as her community. Data revealed during

the qualitative, semi-structured interviews highlighted the importance of the community

zone immediately surrounding the building. While places in and of themselves are not

communities, they are a useful lens through which to review different levels of urban

community participation engaged in among older urban Australian people.

In conclusion to this section, the first three papers are an attempt to understand the key

concepts – liveability or a liveable place, neighbourhood and community and determine

whether there are definitional aspects that enhance our understanding of these terms. A

liveable place, a neighbourhood, a community are all complex concepts, very personal

and often therefore difficult to articulate. It is argued that liveability, neighbourhood and

community should be contextualised to everyday activity, use or needs. It is through the

focus of the everyday that these terms are most clearly understood in relation to their

function, their use, their formation and either their state of health or their effect on

residents’ well-being. Liveability is a multi-faceted concept capturing many attributes

which interact and operate dynamically within and between the immediate living

environment, the building and the community. These attributes provide the essential

services, as well as life enriching amenities and experiences within close proximity for its

residents and visitors.

As concepts, “community” and “neighbourhood” are also multi-faceted and often used

interchangeably. Mayol (in de Certeau et al., 1998) argued that regular use of

neighbourhood space allows appropriation of that space into the realm of domestic life.

The community and neighbourhood identified by the participants was much larger

255

geographically than the usual measures of postcodes, school districts or census allocation

but was in keeping with their regular everyday practice - travelling by motor vehicle -

and therefore extended more broadly than these usual measures. This demonstrates

that participants’ subjective perceptions of these entities are variable. In attempting to

understand community, the data show that a zonal approach best reflects the

community activity actually undertaken by older urban people. It is argued that to not

adopt a zonal approach to understanding urban community risks missing the diversity of

impacts on such wide-ranging things as gentrification, support, enjoyment, feelings of self

worth, etc. at different spatial scales. Due to their complexity, these key concepts are

best understood through place and population based research that incorporates

bothobjective place measurement as well as subjective satisfaction and perception

measurement to provide more holistic understanding. This has implications for theory

building as well as practical application in areas such as urban planning and design,

community building and policy development.

The Importance of Proximity for Liveability and Opportunity to Actively Age in

Place

Papers 4 and 5

Some older people wish to live in high density urban areas because they perceive urban

areas as enhancing their opportunity to actively age in place in low maintenance

apartment living in an authentic urban environment (Olsberg and Winters, 2005). Such

an environment promises proximity to a plethora of amenities for local self-sufficiency

and a more vital and stimulating living environment. An essential ingredient of this urban

dream is the easy access to everyday activities which significantly adds value to liveability

for the individual and the broader community. Proximity characteristics of access to

everyday activity is an integral attribute of the complex commodity called

neighbourhood. Neighbourhoods are comprised by residence and home-related facilities

that are in close proximity and which serve residential needs (Brower, 1996; Forrest and

Kearns, 2001). Characteristics of proximity to access everyday needs, influenced by both

distance and transport infrastructure, is a widely acknowledged definitional attribute of

neighbourhood liveability (Paper 4). Physical approaches to neighbourhoods and

neighbourhood liveability are often discussed relative to their walkable proximity,

measured by either walking distance or walking time, to some form of centre

(institutional, educational, retail or other public facility) (Paper 4). The findings from this

study suggest however, that there is a gap between the rhetoric that surrounds the high

256

density living policy agenda and the reality of life within these settings for older

Australian people, particularly in relation to the proximity to available and accessible

neighbourhood amenities and walking and public transport infrastructure within local

urban neighbourhoods that directly affects opportunity to actively age in place.

While all residents identified the importance of having facilities and activities within their

urban neighbourhood (consistent with high density policy agendas), the GPS tracking and

GIS mapping revealed these participants have very low levels of locally-based everyday

activity within walking distance and that they relied on vehicle transport for the majority

of trips made outside of their homes. Almost all residents undertook their everyday

activities outside of their walkable neighbourhood, and when asked to identify their

neighbourhood and community on the Google Earth map during their interviews,

residents indicated a much wider geographic region than their immediate walkable

neighbourhood (defined as being five to fifteen minutes walking distance from their

residence). The neighbourhood identified was in keeping with their everyday activity

base which relied on the use of a motor vehicle. This suggests an extended

neighbourhood based physically and subjectively on spaces reflective of use.

An important aspect of active ageing is participation in activities outside the home

(Smith, 2009; World Health Organisation, 2007). The opportunity for physical activity in

older populations holds the promise of promoting health and reducing the risk of

disablement, since decreases or non-participation in physical activity including walking

are known to negatively affect functional independence (Paper 5).

A liveable neighbourhood is one that provides its residents and users with essential

services and life enriching amenities within the immediate place. Amenity-rich local

environments are necessary for liveability and for older people to successfully age in

place and will become more critical as the population continues to age. A finding of this

research is that Australian urban areas are not homogenous and differ considerably in

the availability and accessibility of neighbourhood amenities. The mixed-use

neighbourhood outcomes and high quality public transport systems that are strategies

for liveability and best supports an ageing population are not uniform across Brisbane’s

urban neighbourhoods. The data show that some urban neighbourhoods in Brisbane

257

have minimal facilities or services, while others have the necessary facilities but lack ease

of access.

Most concerning is the absence in many high density neighbourhoods of local services

that are necessary for fully functioning neighbourhoods - especially for older people.

One participant described one suburb as a dormitory suburb, rather than a

neighbourhood or community. The housing function was accommodated in this

particular location, but residents had to leave the area to find everyday life supports,

such as pharmacies, bakeries, grocers, supermarkets, hardware stores and public

services. There are a number of positive externalities of having such services locally

available, including reduced car use, increased exercise levels, sense of place and

community and neighbourhood development which could be thought of as economic

development strategies in themselves. In creating complete and liveable

neighbourhoods - especially for older people to enable them to actively age in place - a

list such as this can be a useful tool in neighbourhood planning.

Amenity supply and place qualities are unique to each neighbourhood and difficult to

compare. Newer, redeveloped neighbourhoods are generally disadvantaged in

comparison to a long established residential urban neighbourhood in terms of available

amenities (Paper 4). Some of the urban areas covered in this study, for example,

Kangaroo Point and Newstead, began as warehouse and light industrial districts. These

areas have undergone massive residential development. Development of necessary

infrastructure (such as amenities and public transport) that keeps pace with the needs of

residents in such high growth areas represents a major challenge, given that

neighbourhoods usually develop incrementally as social, physical and economic

structures (Banks and Shenton, 2001). There is power in the passage of time in helping to

create amenities and develop strong social and place images.

Proximity problems with access to neighbourhood amenities do not appear to lead to

older adults being dissatisfied with life within high density contexts (Paper 4). It is

apparent that overall, participants believe that their neighbourhoods meet their needs

and that they “love” their respective neighbourhoods/communities (Papers 2, 3, 4 and 5).

Nevertheless, these positive perceptions arise within the context of them having access

to and extended use of private motor vehicles, as evidenced by the objective map data

258

documenting their driving behaviour. Problems with availability of or access to amenities

may explain the lack of local walking undertaken by the majority of participants.

Access to amenities that facilitate participation in everyday type activities (eg retail

shopping, hairdressers, medical services and the like) appears to be made easy through

the availability and use of the private motor vehicle. Older people often lose their ability

to drive completely and become entirely reliant upon public transportation (Frumkin et

al., 2004). The loss of a driving licence will limit older people’s opportunity to participate

in activities outside their home given the availability and access issues with amenities and

public transport in their local neighbourhood, thereby jeopardising their ability to age in

place and remain active. Older people will therefore require more appropriate service

provision within their local urban neighbourhood in order to remain living in their own

homes and familiar neighbourhoods for as long as possible.

A widely acknowledged definitional attribute of liveable neighbourhoods is walkable

proximity, measured in either distance or time spent walking, to satisfy everyday needs.

Increasing walkability of neighbourhoods is an aim of Australian local and state

government policy and is in accordance with public health initiatives recognising the

important health benefits of regular walking activity, especially for older people (Paper

5). The key research question set for this study was whether or not high density

neighbourhoods support liveability for older residents. Liveability, sustainability and

public health initiatives are supported by local walkability. As stated above, the data

have shown that the older people in our study are not active outside their homes and

that those activities they do undertake are predominantly outside of their local

neighbourhoods, thereby requiring extensive use of their private motor vehicle for

transportation.

Many factors conspire against walking in contemporary urban Australia and a car-

dependent landscape is but one of these factors. A number ofey issues associated with

walkability were identified in Paper 5. One of the major findings was not only the

condition but also the experience of the neighbourhood walking paths for these

residents. Experience related to enjoyment is an important predictor of the level of

physical activity (Paper 5). If walking along pedestrian infrastructure is an enjoyable

activity, it is likely to promote more walking activity. However, the experience of the

259

walk for these residents included unpleasant experiences which they expect to

exacerbate as density is increased in their urban neighbourhoods. The increasing volume

of people traffic using pedestrian paths (especially bicyclists and runners) cause problems

for many local urban walkers also sharing this infrastructure. The problem appears to be

that bicyclists and runners travel at high speeds along these paths and do not slow down

as they approach the high density neighbourhoods. Bicyclists also appear not to indicate

their presence with the use of a bell for the benefit of others using these paths and

behave aggressively and inconsiderately toward others whom they perceive to be in their

way and forcing them to slow down. This behaviour was identified by participants as

being both threatening and disconcerting to older residents who have well developed

and rational fears of falling.

The experience of the walk for these residents was also negatively affected by issues

related to traffic, streetscape and public transport. Weather conditions and hilly

topography were also mentioned and need consideration to further enhance our

understanding of how built environments influence travel (Cervero and Duncan, 2003).

The proximity of walking paths to major roads was identified as a significant issue as

older people report being shaken by the noise and the movement of traffic. Previously,

researchers found that attentional resources are drained by the demands placed by

nearby traffic noise (Kaplan and Kaplan, 2003). Similarly, as mentioned above, the

residents identified inadequate numbers of pedestrian crossing opportunities, ambiguous

crossing cues or insufficient time to cross at traffic lights on very busy roads (Papers 3, 4

and 5). One resident reported that this has resulted in pedestrian fatalities. Participants’

claims about the dangers posed to them by inadequate pedestrian crossings are

supported by previous research identifying older people as having a relatively high risk

for fatalities and injuries from motor vehicle accidents at crossings (Koepsell et al., 2002).

The streetscape was also identified as being fraught with problems in relation to lack of

shade, missing handrails beside steps, inadequate or damaged public seating and toilets

and little or no access to drinking water along footpaths. Several of these issues like

shade and drinking fountains are particularly pertinent given the sub-tropical weather in

the study area. These factors negatively impact on older people’s desire to walk around

their local neighbourhood and increase reliance on motor vehicles.

260

Local availability of public transport options can help shape patterns of physical activity

by either encouraging or discouraging walking and cycling choices (Berke et al., 2007;

Leslie et al., 2007). Proximity of the neighbourhood to desirable destinations including

easy access to convenient, affordable and speedier public transport is a good predictor of

increased use of sustainable modes of transport including walking. It follows therefore,

that places with poor transit connections or no mass transit have lower rates of use.

However, this study and other research indicate that access to sustainable modes of

transport does not necessarily guarantee use. While greatly affected by location and

proximity to destinations for everyday needs transportation mode choices have been

linked to other factors, besides accessibility, including perceptions of convenience,

practicality, safety, comfort, individuality and cost (Chatman, 2008; Vredin et al., 2006).

A number of barriers to public transport use were identified for older people living in

Brisbane and include: a lack of services in some urban neighbourhoods; terrain or

distance to transport nodes; inconvenient bus routes or connections; queues, crowding

and lack of seating on buses and at bus stops; problem with negotiating steps onto public

transport and difficulties with walking supports on buses (Papers 4 and 5). Continuing

improvement in public transport services, access and infrastructure are all necessary for

encouraging older people to voluntarily abandon their motor vehicle and find public

transport an attractive alternative option.

In conclusion to this section, participation, interaction and physical activity hold the

promise of promoting health, independence and reducing the risk of disablement for

older people. Social participation, interaction and physical activity are better

accommodated where streets, building transition spaces and footpaths are well

programmed, furnished and maintained in terms of seating, hand-rails, shade, toilets,

available drinking water and the like. Where these are plentiful they offer spaces for

people to walk, sit, people watch and relax in the public realm around their home. The

benefit of these amenities in high density neighbourhoods cannot be overstated as they

perform a necessary function for participation and interaction in public.

The key research question posed by these two papers was whether high density

neighbourhoods support liveability for older residents. Liveability is supported by local

walkable access to amenities. This research has shown that many of the everyday

activities for older urban residents are predominantly outside of their local

261

neighbourhoods, thereby necessitating their use of private motor vehicle for

transportation. Secondly, it has identified issues with neighbourhood walkability and

availability of and access to local amenities - which thereby inhibits local participation.

Thirdly, it has highlighted the importance of these issues being addressed for older

Australian people in order that they age in place and remain active.

Strengths and Limitations of the Research

This research is both pertinent and timely. The study is grounded in local reality and

highlights pertinent built environment challenges for potential policy and planning

action. It is particularly timely given the expected profound effect that the ageing of the

baby boom generation will have on both the developed and developing worlds in the

decades to come.

A strength of this thesis is that it draws on two separate studies to address the research

question of what makes high density liveable for older people. Both studies’ participants

(in Method 1 (Paper 1) and Method 2 (Papers 2, 3, 4 and 5) were from inner city high

density areas of Brisbane, Australia. The Method 1 study drew on a wider age

demographic than the Method 2 study. The Method 1 study provided a review of

liveability for high density residents more generally than just how it applies to or affects

its older adult residents. Acknowledging perceptions and satisfaction levels is a first step

in dealing with shortcomings that might threaten local liveability. The most typical

method of gauging perceptions and satisfaction has been with surveys and the use of

ordinal ranking tools involving direct questioning about personal experience. The

problem is that residents typically speak positively about their home and residents and

therefore require greater levels of investigation to explore issues and understand the

complexity of experiences. Method 1 was a qualitative study and it involved in-depth

open-ended interviews that allowed perceptions and satisfaction levels to be

acknowledged and explored to identify issues and shortcomings that might threaten local

liveability. This information was then able to inform the remaining papers and research.

The major strength of the current research is the innovative methodology outlined as

Method 2 (used for papers 2, 3, 4, and 5). The combination of quantitative and

qualitative analysis captured both participants’ subjective perceptions of their

neighbourhoods and their patterns of movement. This enhanced the understanding of

262

how neighbourhoods and communities function and contributed to various liveability

dimensions for active ageing in place for older people living in high density environments.

Previous research has tended to measure urban liveability via objective indicators that

capture different aspects of the urban environment or subjective indicators using surveys

of residents’ evaluations, satisfaction and perceptions with urban living (Keller, 1968;

Hillery, 1968). Rarely are objective and subjective indicators analysed in conjunction with

one another (McCrea et al., 2006), thereby precluding consideration of the subjective

dimensions of life within neighbourhoods and the actual movement and participation of

residents that occurs within them simultaneously. The breadth of information gathered

from the objective and subjective measures used in this study strengthens the case for

using both and thus acknowledging the importance of the subjective when investigating

the objective environment (Pacione, 2003). The information each method provides has

the potential to inform policy strategies associated with high density environments.

A key limitation of both studies (Method 1 and Method 2 research) was that they were

based on small, non-random samples of Australians living in inner urban areas of one

capital city - Brisbane, Australia. Nevertheless, both studies’ results provide insight into

the lived experience of residents in high density settings and their experiences are likely

to have relevance to other high density contexts elsewhere. The Method 2 study

provided insight into the lived experience of older people living in high density. The

sample size used in Method 2 contributed to the feasibility of the innovative approach

taken in this study. Method 2 was an innovative and unusual approach involving the

gathering of information from multiple sources and the undertaking of analyses linking

and relating both subjective (perceptions of behaviour obtained through the interviews)

and objective (actual behaviour gathered from the GPS and GIS and expanded through

the individual diaries) indicators. As Method 2 research is based on the feelings,

interactions and everyday practices of a sample of a dominant urban population group, it

provides a useful example of a methodological approach for furthering investigation into

important issues like liveability, walkability, neighbourhood, community, participation,

interaction, gentrification, active ageing and ageing in place.

Studies of individual interaction with the environment are more challenging but

potentially more valuable than the study of the role of the built environment or the

individual alone in the promotion of liveability, participation, interaction, physical activity

263

and active ageing and ageing in place. By highlighting issues that impact on the liveability

and sustainability of high density residents generally and then more specifically for older

people, this research furthers understanding of the specific design factors that make the

urban neighbourhood more liveable and sustainable for older people. It also has the

potential to inform actionable and implementable policies, programs and urban

development design to help promote liveability, social engagement and active ageing and

ageing in place in high density neighbourhoods to preserve the independence and

function of this population.

Future Directions

While the data analysis of this research provides insight into the lived experience of high

density residents, further research is warranted. Further qualitative and quantitative

research is needed to explore in more depth, the urban experience and opinions of older

people living in urban environments. In particular, more empirical and theoretical

research is needed to understand and guide the particular environmental qualities that

enable ageing in place in our cities. Future research should explicitly explore the extent

to which characteristics of the built environment either facilitate or hinder high density

localities being accessible and socially inclusive places for all members of the community.

The timeliness and immediacy of the findings of this research in light of inner city

renewal, the increasing number of older people living in high density with the ageing of

the population and urban densification development means that remedies and

applications that support liveability and active ageing and ageing in place for older people

hold great potential for further exploration and action.

Sustainability and community dividends arising from better design of high density

dwellings, buildings and urban areas identified in Paper 1 suggest the need for regulators

to re-examine building codes and guidelines. Future building codes or guidelines could

incorporate “best practice” in sustainability in order to make dwellings, buildings and

urban areas more liveable from a user and community perspective.

If we were to simply ensure that our neighbourhoods properly functioned to meet daily

needs for older people then we would have accomplished a great deal. This is still the

necessary starting point. Many of the issues raised by the participants of the Method 2

264

study are linked to issues of walkability and available and accessible amenities, which can

be improved upon in both the short- to medium-term (e.g. furnishing neighbourhoods

with wider walk paths, more shade, seating and public toilets, and hand-rails on steps).

Some urban areas had little pedestrian activity by older people because there were

limited retail and service offerings. Others had issue with having to cross major arterial

roads with fast moving traffic, little pedestrian amenity and a poor selection of

commercial offerings. The footpaths or pedestrian walkways were uncomfortable

because the older people had to compete with volumes of runners and cyclists using the

same pedestrian infrastructure. While streetscape design is important in fostering more

walkable places it is proximity to everyday needs that is essential to active ageing and

ageing in place in high density.

For older people to actively age and age in place, they need to do more than sleep, eat,

bath and watch television. This is the interior life of their unit. They need to live

elsewhere in their neighbourhood. They need to have leisure space choices, be able to

get a haircut, do their banking, buy groceries, or flowers for a loved one. Presently older

urban Australians appear to hop in their cars and drive to another neighbourhood to

undertake these activities and meet these needs. Neighbourhood liveability for older

people is about active ageing in place. It is about bringing their interior life and their

exterior life into the same setting as much as possible. The results suggest that

encouraging more inner city retail, particularly services which are utilised frequently in

people’s daily lives such as supermarkets and pharmacies, would potentially help ensure

residents fully engage in their local community and also attract a more diverse local

population.

The connectivity of streets, footpaths and their destinations are well understood as an

important dimension of liveability. To encourage uptake of sustainable transport, the

built environment must provide easy, accessible connections between buildings,

walkways, cycle paths and public transport stations. Street widths, their number of lanes,

the frequency and volume of traffic and the traffic controls determine whether

transportation modes conflict and all can significantly affect personal safety. Wider

streets given that they take longer to cross than narrow streets tend to be less safe

especially for older people. Similarly, the width of footpaths, the level of buffering, the

presence of trees, lighting, seating and design of and distance between pedestrian

265

crossings significantly affects the pedestrian experience for older people and impacts on

their choice of transportation.

The Method 2 data show that high density neighbourhoods require greater levels of

street fixtures and furniture for everyday life to make places more useable and

comfortable for regular use. Literally this requires:

a wide variety of places for people to sit, enjoy being out in public, and watching

people. Useable seating rather than having to sit on the grass is especially

important for older people as rest stops or destinations given their declining

levels of flexibility

hand rails on stairs and steep paths for safety and confidence;

drinking fountains and trees to provide shade and comfort given Brisbane’s sub-

tropical climate; A tree canopy provides comfort and weather protection from

intense heat, humidity and sun exposure which is especially important in a sub-

tropical climate.

plentiful and clean public toilets given how debilitating the lack of such facilities

can be to the enjoyment of the public realm for sections of older people;

safer buffers between pedestrian paths and high traffic roadways. In some areas

footpath and streetscape treatments would provide opportunity for improving

safety by buffering pedestrians from traffic with trees and parking lanes.

safer and clearly posted pedestrian crossings on busy thoroughfares to avoid or

reduce the risk of pedestrian and motorist confusion that currently exists at some

intersections;

clearer delineation between areas for cyclists and runners and those who tend to

move more slowly on pedestrian walkways like older people and children. These

findings also indicate the importance of public information campaigns to

promote the formulation of attitudes and behavioural intentions that work to

discourage speed and discourteous behaviour by bicyclists and runners to

pedestrians along shared pedestrian/bicyclists pathways.

266

These things are necessary in activating public space for older people to make the public

realm more welcoming, comfortable, and active. This should not just be a goal for parks

and programmed leisure spaces, but also for the large land area of streets in every

neighbourhood. Precedence of pedestrian thoroughfares over vehicular areas provide

the foundation for walkability. Rather than conceptualising the street as a place

dedicated primarily for vehicular movement and parking, it could also double as a social

space as well (e.g., sidewalk cafes). Humanising and calming the major arterial roads that

impair the daily life experience of many older urban people would go a long way in

making urban neightbourhoods more liveable. Each neighbourhood had within it at least

one example of a dangerous and unappealing thoroughfare that could be made friendlier

and more accommodating. Furnishing neighbourhoods need not be expensive; a simple

line of trees can be effective and useful. The importance of making the public realm

useful and habitable for older people cannot be over-emphasised. In the case of the

recommendations mentioned here, more is better.

Participation, interaction and physical activity hold the promise of promoting health and

reducing the risk of disablement for older people. Social participation, interaction and

physical activity are better accommodated where streets, building transition spaces and

footpaths are well programmed, furnished and maintained in terms of seating, hand-

rails, shade, toilets, available drinking water and the like. Where these are plentiful they

offer spaces for people to walk, sit, people watch and relax in the public realm around

their home. The benefit of these amenities in high density neighbourhoods cannot be

overstated as they perform a necessary function for participation and interaction in

public. They act as supplements to the life in home and function as personal escapes of

respite from the hectic pace of urban life. The success or otherwise of the public realm is

largely determined by the degree of programming for human use. The degree of

programming for everyday use and comfort is a useful indicator for their potential

success. Successful public spaces become well-used venues for extending daily life

beyond the home.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the most liveable neighbourhoods are programmed and furnished to meet

the everyday needs of residents in concentrated spaces. The liveability dimensions used

throughout this research provide a set of ideas about the functioning of everyday life

267

especially for older people enabling active ageing in place: making density work,

encouraging walkable proximities and providing choice in retail, transportation and

leisure spaces. The key ideas are density, proximity and opportunity. Each reinforces the

other and allows older people to access those things necessary for living and ageing in

place. Density alone is insufficient without the supports and compensatory leisure

spaces that allow close living. The idea of high density is the liveability and sustainability

goal of increasing pedestrian activity and reducing the need and use of the motor vehicle.

For this goal to be achieved, there needs to be mixed-land uses in close proximity to each

other so residents have greater opportunity to become pedestrians. This unburdens

society on a number of fronts ,including reducing pollution and urban sprawl more

broadly and more specifically in terms of older people, by providing an environment

which is conducive to ageing in place and remaining active thus reducing or delaying their

need for institutionalised aged care. Opportunity in terms of available amenities, safe

and well appointed pedestrian infrastructure and access allows a richer experience,

greater degrees of satisfaction, caters to a more diverse population and provides the best

opportunity for active ageing and ageing in place.

Neighbourhood liveability is not a fixed end game with winners and losers, but rather a

constantly moving target demanding focussed attention. The findings from this thesis

confirm the importance of the research to focus, not merely on the dwelling and

associated land where most previous research on ageing in place has concentrated, but

on the design of the surrounding urban environment and on the accessibility to amenities

including public transport. It is possible that these could be as important as the design of

the dwelling in enabling older people to remain living independently in their own home.

Planning and development of a wide range of facilities can have significant impact on the

quality of life of older people and can influence the way they enjoy and participate in

their local community. The climate of inclusiveness is one of the most important aspects

of liveable, age-friendly urban environments. A liveable, age-friendly environment is not

just a space with a range of services but also a place that facilitates and honours the

participation and contributions of older people. Consistent with this, most of the

literature examined acknowledged the need to construct an environment where all social

and physical facilities and services are integrated and mutually enhancing to support

people to age well. As the world continues to urbanise, stakeholders from various levels

of government, the private sector and the community will need to work together to

268

respond to the genuine needs of older people for supportive social and physical

environments. Presently, many barriers exist in the current planning and development

processes towards the provision of age-friendly infrastructure. Issues of ageing in

Australia and other areas of the developed world will become more critical in the coming

decades. Given the increasing percentage of older people in the community and

therefore their increasing political influence, it will be a prudent and successful

government who responds to the needs of an older society.

269

Reference List


Design, 28, 201-217.

Banks, S., and Shenton, F. (2001). Regenerating Neighbourhoods: A Critical Look at the

Role of Community Capacity Building. Local Economy: The Journal of the Local

Economy Policy Unit, 16(4), 286-298.

Berke, E. M., Koepsell, T. D., Moudon, A. V., Hoskins, R. E., and Larson, E. B. (2007).

Association of the Built Environment With Physical Activity and Obesity in Older

Persons. American Journal of Public Health, 97(3), 486-492.

Brower, S. (1996). Good Neighborhoods: A Study of In-Town and Suburban Residential

Environments. Westport, Conn.: Praeger Publishers.

Cervero, R., and Duncan, M. (2003). Walking, Bicycling, and Urban Landscapes: Evidence

From the San Francisco Bay Area. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1478-

1483.

Chatman, D. G. (2008). Deconstructing development density: quality, quantity and price

effects on household non-work travel. Transportation Research A, 42, 1008-1030.


Planning, 68(1), 129-138.

Christoff, P., and Low, N. (2000). Recent Australian urban policy and the environment:

green or mean? In N. Low, B. Gleeson, I. Elander & R. Lidskog (Eds.), Consuming

Cities (pp. 241-264). London: Routledge.

de Certeau, M., Giard, L., and Mayol, P. (1998). The Practice of Everyday Life, Volume 2:


Dernbach, J. C. (2009). Sustainable Development and the United States In J. C. Dernbach

(Ed.), Agenda for a sustainable America. Washington, D.C: ELI Press,




54, 403-425.

270

Filion, P. (2003). Towards Smart Growth? The Difficult Impleemntation of Alternatives to


48-70.



48-70.

Forrest, R., and Kearns, A. (2001). Social Cohesion, Social Capital and the Neighbourhood.

Urban Studies, 38(12), 2125-2143.

Frumkin, H., Frank, L. D., and Jackson, R. (2004). Urban sprawl and public health :

designing, planning, and building for healthy communities. Washington, DC:

Island Press.

Gordon, P., and Richardson, H. W. (1997). Are Compact Cities a Desirable Planning Goal?

Journal of American Planning Association, 63(1), 95-106.




Kaplan, S., and Kaplan, R. (2003). Health, Supportive Environments, and the Reasonable

Person Model. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1484-1489.

Keller, S. (1968). The Urban Neighborhood: A Sociological Perspective. New York:

Princeton University Press / Random House.

Koepsell, T., McCloskey, L., Wolf, M., Moudon, A. V., Buchner, D., Kraus, J., and Patterson,

M. (2002). Crosswalk Markings and the Risk of Pedestrian-Motor Vehicle

Collisions in Older Pedestrians. JAMA, 288(17), 2136-2143.

Kushner, J. A. (2007). Healthy cities : the intersection of urban planning, law and health

Durham, N.C: Carolina Academic Press.


Publishers.

271

Leslie, E., McCrea, R., Cerin, E., and Stimson, R. (2007). Regional Variations in Walking for

Different Purposes: The South East Queensland Quality of Life Study.


Maffesoli, M. (1993). Everyday Life. In W. Outhwaite, T. Bottomore & e. al (Eds.), The

Blackwell Dictionary of Twentieth Century Social Thought. Oxford, UK: Blackwell

Publishers.

Maldonado, T., and Cullars, J. (1991). The Idea of Comfort. Design Issues, 8(1), 35-43.






Pacione, M. (2003). Introduction on urban environmental quality and human wellbeing.

Landscape and Urban Planning, 65(1-2), 1-3.


exclusion. Bristol, UK; Portland, OR: Policy.



Vredin, J. M., Heldt, T., and Johansson, P. (2006). The effects of attitudes and personality

traits on mode choice. Transportation Research A, 40, 507-525.


World Health Organisation.

community liveability: Impact on ageing in higher density ... · Impact on social connectedness and...

Documents

Transcript of community liveability: Impact on ageing in higher density ... · Impact on social connectedness and...