FAMILY-CENTRED COMMUNITIES
The planning process

Appendix: Other local government models

Since there was little material on family-friendly communities, the study explored the literature available on other models which seek to promote wellbeing at a local government level. Only models seeking to influence council decision-making and delivery were examined.

This focus was based on the assumption that these models may be of use in developing a family-centred community model or initiative. The review sought to determine components of these models which could be transferred to a family-centred model.

Healthy cities

Health is an important component of family wellbeing. Health affects people’s ability to be involved in community activities and use services, and their enjoyment of the environment. Poor health can restrict people’s ability to work, to engage in and succeed at education and to enjoy leisure and recreation activities.

A century ago, local government was instrumental in improving health by preventing the spread of disease through slum clearances, community planning, water treatments, waste and rubbish disposal and the provision of certain health services (Roseland, 1998). Since then, local governments have played a large role in public health through their involvement in housing, recreational facilities, transportation, economic development and land-use planning services and public hygiene (including waste disposal, water systems and food safety). Councils’ regulatory responsibilities for public health are included in many pieces of legislation, such as the Health Act 1956, Building Act 2004, Food Act 1981, Sale of Liquor Act 1989, Resource Management Act 1991, Civil Defence Act 2002, Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (Courtney, 2004; Public Health Advisory Committee, 2006).

From the mid-1980s a broader conception of public health was adopted by local governments in Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand (WHO, 1986). Local governments began to recognise the determinants of health:

• Age, sex and hereditary factors: significant, but relatively unchangeable, contributors to our health.
• Access to health services; however, research suggested that health services, including health promotion, mental health and disability support services only go part way to influencing health. It is estimated that access to services only contributes 10 percent to improvements in health outcomes.
• Individual lifestyle factors: whether we smoke or exercise, how much alcohol we drink, our diet and whether we drink and drive.
• Social and community influences and our place in the community: whether we belong to strong social networks, and feel valued and empowered to participate in decision-making.
• Living and working conditions, including environmental factors such as air quality.
• General socio-economic, cultural and environmental conditions: our position in society, including income, education and employment and our ability to participate in decision-making. The World Health Organization has named poverty as ‘the greatest single killer’.

In response, a number of councils have adopted the concept of a healthy city. Several have embraced the WHO Healthy Cities model, including nine cities throughout New Zealand (National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability, 1998).

Healthy Cities, and later Healthy Communities, emerged from the World Health Organization, more specifically the Ottawa Charter, in 1986. The health promotion principles in the Ottawa Charter are:

• Health is a social rather than purely a health sector matter.
• Health is a responsibility of all city services.
• Health should be monitored by physical, social, aesthetic and environment indicators of wellbeing.
• Health is an outcome of collaboration between community members, planners and providers of public and private sector services.
• A city should actively foster good health and not merely be a survival unit for people living there (Cook, 2001).

The core components of Healthy Cities initiatives are:

• Create a compelling vision from shared values.
• Embrace a broad definition of health and wellbeing.
• Address quality of life for everyone.
• Engage diverse citizen participation and be citizen-driven.
• Multisectoral membership and widespread community ownership.
• Acknowledge the social determinants of health, and the interrelationship of health with other issues (housing, education, peace, equity, social justice).
• Address issues through collaborative problem-solving.
• Focus on systems change.
• Build capacity using local assets and resources.
• Measure and benchmark progress and outcomes (Cook, 2001; Wolff, 2003).

Central to the Healthy City philosophy is the importance of local government in health (Cook, 2001, p. 15).

Other public health and health promotion models exist. For example, New South Wales established a Premier’s Council for Active Living (PCAL), a comprehensive intersectoral plan that has prioritised the following issues: urban planning and its influence on health and wellbeing; community inclusion; and the liveability of cities and towns (New South Wales Government, 2007). The Heart Foundation (Victorian Division) developed a Healthy by Design guide. It includes design considerations, evidence, tools and case studies to support professionals responsible for the design, development and maintenance of the public realm (National Heart Foundation of Australia (Victorian Division), 2004).

The UK Green Paper Our Healthier Nation: A contract for health (Department of Health, 1998) introduced Health Actions Zones. Health Actions Zones was an intersectoral initiative in deprived areas to reduce health inequalities.

Active Living by Design was adopted by a number of councils in the United States. This initiative focused on six design focus areas: cities, towns and neighbourhoods; walking and cycling routes; public transport; streets; open space; and retail areas. For each focus area, there were design objectives, some important design considerations and links to key references and additional resources for detailed design guidelines and specifications (The Centre for Sustainable Transportation, 2004).

The American Planning Association’s Healthy Community Design initiative listed six qualities that describe healthy community design. It suggested that healthy communities:

• have a unique sense of community and place
• preserve and enhance valuable natural and cultural resources
• equitably distribute the costs and benefits of development
• expand the range of transportation, employment and housing choices in a fiscally responsible manner
• value long-range, region-wide sustainability rather than short-term, incremental or geographically isolated actions
• promote public health and healthy communities.

The National Association of County and City Health Officials in America has developed a Protocol for Assessing Community Excellence in Environmental Health.[23]

In New Zealand, some councils also adopted variations on the healthy cities model; for example, Christchurch City Council and Canterbury Regional Council sponsor an initiative known as Healthy Christchurch, and Dunedin City Council is a key partner in Healthy Communities Otago. These initiatives emphasise a multi-agency approach. Some councils have taken a lead on specific health issues affecting their populations. They have also stressed the need for collaboration across agencies. Porirua City and Manukau City Councils have shown leadership in the collaborative effort to reduce and prevent diabetes in their communities (Public Health Advisory Committee, 2006).

Some councils have implemented health impact assessments. For example, Selwyn District Council, Waimakairi District Council, Christchurch City Council and Environment Canterbury implemented a health impact assessment of the Urban Development Strategy (Stevenson, 2007). Auckland City Council commissioned a health impact assessment of its Avondale Liveable Communities Plan, and Nelson City Council commissioned Nelson Marlborough DHB Public Health Service to undertake a Social Impact Assessment of its Draft Gambling Policy (New Zealand Health Impact Assessment Support Unit, 2008).

Christchurch City Council is reportedly developing a Health Promotion through Environment Design tool based on the Crime Prevention through Environmental Design model (personal correspondence, Christchurch City Council, 14 January 2007).

There is also a considerable body of local government research on the impact of local government roles and functions on health. These are too numerous to summarise here. However, a number of articles highlighted the health consequences of aspects of urban design:

• the disappearance of open space as cities expand outward and consume once-rural or natural areas
• increased traffic congestion, poor air quality, contaminated water and land and scarcity of affordable housing
• zoning laws that segregate land uses into isolated categories, separating housing from schools, businesses and recreational areas
• dominance of the automobile as the primary means of transportation and extensive road construction to accommodate the automobile – development that either ignores or eliminates the social integrity of neighbourhoods, and provides less safety for pedestrians and cyclists
• design hindering healthy behaviours, such as physical activity
• sense of isolation and loneliness associated with some urban environments.

Council research has also described some of the effects of physical environments on the health and quality of the lives of specific population groups, such as children, people with disabilities, residents on low incomes and older adults (Community Mapping Project, 2004; Richardson & Macdonald, 2002; Stevenson, 2007).

Many commentators highlighted significant health inequalities between groups: in particular, between people with lower incomes and less education, and the broader population. A plethora of recent evidence suggested that disparities in health between different ethnic and cultural groups persist and are increasingly linked to physical and social environments (Burton, Richards, Briggs, & Allan, 2000; Kawachi & Kennedy, 1997; Kawachi & Subramanian, 2007; Pickett & Pearl, 2001; Wilkinson, 1996).

Considerable effort has gone into researching health inequalities, understanding their causes and trialling interventions to reduce them. Characteristics such as socio-economic status, ethnicity, employment status and housing tenure, for example, have all shown relationships to health outcomes (Berkman & Kawachi, 2000; Howden-Chapman & Tobias, 2000). Both in New Zealand and overseas, reducing inequalities has become an important goal for government health policy (Burton et al, 2000; Ministry of Health, 2007).

Courtney (2004) suggested that, traditionally, only brave councils have dared to talk about, yet alone address, local poverty issues. However, some councils, such as Manukau City and Christchurch City, have undertaken local poverty research and developed policy and advocacy responses (Courtney, 2004). Many more acknowledge the disparities between health outcomes for different socio-economic and cultural groups in their communities (for example, see Porirua City’s Wellbeing Report 2007; Waitakere City Council’s Community Outcomes Progress Report 2008 and the Department of Internal Affairs analysis of community outcomes). The Healthy Christchurch initiative named tackling health inequalities as its number one priority.

A number of commentators provided examples of collaborations between urban planning and public health professionals (Coburn, 2004; Frumkin, 2002; Kochtitzky et al, 2006). Frumkin suggested that many of the solutions to health costs associated with urban planning can be found in an urban planning approach known as ‘smart growth’.

The literature also stressed the need for greater community participation. Corburn (2004) noted that research and decision-making in both planning and public health are often criticised for relying solely on professional knowledge at the expense of democratic participation. He suggested that increasing evidence in the natural sciences, public health and urban planning reveals that expert assessments can miss important contextual information, and needs to be tempered by the experiences and knowledge offered by lay publics (Corburn, 2004).

Others argued that there is a crucial role for local government in facilitating the development of social capital which is required for a healthy population (Richardson & Macdonald, 2002; Szreter & Woolcock, 2004).

Child-friendly cities

The Child Friendly Cities initiative (CFC) is a framework to help cities become more child-friendly in all aspects of their environment, governance and services. It is led by the United Nations Children’s Fund in response to commitments made in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. UNICEF set up the CFC Secretariat at its Research Centre in Florence in 2000 to encourage local authorities to develop Child Friendly frameworks (Riggio, 2002; The Centre for Sustainable Transportation, 2004; UNICEF, 2006).

A Child Friendly City aims to guarantee the right of every young citizen to:

• influence decisions about their city
• express their opinion on the city they want
• participate in family, community and social life
• receive basic services such as health care, education and shelter
• drink safe water and have access to proper sanitation
• be protected from exploitation, violence and abuse
• walk safely in the streets on their own
• meet friends and play
• have green space for plants and animals
• live in an unpolluted environment
• participate in cultural and social events
• be an equal citizen of their city with access to every service, regardless of ethnic origin, religion, income, gender or disability (UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, 2004, p. 3).

The CFC Secretariat has produced a guide for action which provides a detailed description of each element, including a checklist of questions. The Secretariat has also documented Child Friendly City initiatives from around the world. The case studies aim to highlight successful methods and strategies. The only New Zealand city currently on the website is Christchurch City.

The literature recommended a number of key steps in child-friendly initiatives:

• a city-level plan for children which sets out the goals and targets for the city
• child impact assessment and evaluation
• a children’s budget
• a situational analysis of the city’s children
• an independent advocate
• building capacity and capabilities within councils
• involving children in decision-making processes (Riggio, 2002).

There are alternatives to the CFC model which also promote a focus on the needs of children in city planning. For example, a Canadian organisation, the Society for Children and Youth (SCY), has developed a project entitled Child and Youth Friendly Communities. The SCY child- and youth-friendly community self-assessment kit enables groups to pinpoint domains where their communities work for and against children and youth. The project has focused on housing and the child’s right to play.[24] Examples include Child and Youth Friendly Calgary[25] and Child and Youth Friendly Ottawa.[26]

The Association of Metropolitan Areas (which represents 36 metropolitan district councils, 31 London boroughs and the City of London in the UK), together with the Children’s Rights Office, produced a Checklist for Children to assist these local government bodies. The Checklist for Children was developed as a template to help local authorities address this issue and to help them draw up plans and strategies in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Corrigan, 2006; UNICEF, 2006; UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, 2004).

In the United States a number of organisations with an interest in child-friendly planning have adopted Colorado architect Harry Teague’s Bill of Rights for Kids which states that a city should be:

• safe
• in appropriate scale – no walls over four feet
• accessible – youth should be able to get from one place to another
• integrated – with regard to nature, the community, work, and different ages and sexes
• a manifestation of tradition – youth should be able to identify cultural anchors, whether they are building types and styles, monuments, landmarks, or natural areas (The Centre for Sustainable Transportation, 2004, p. 5).

There are many other initiatives in other countries too numerous to summarise here, including the Dutch Institute for Design’s design guidelines for children; the Swedish Child’s Perspective on Planning; the Netherlands’ Ministry of Transport plan to improve the safety of neighbourhoods for child pedestrians and cyclists; the Canadian Institute of Planners’ A Kid’s Guide to Building Great Communities; and the Canadian Community-Based Education Resource (CUBE) child-oriented communities initiative.

There is a significant body of literature on local government’s role in promoting children’s wellbeing. Commentators stressed the need for central and local government to focus on children, arguing that assessing the impact of policies on children is necessary because children are the most vulnerable group in any society. Corrigan (2006) argued that children are often the group that suffers most from poor policy choices – their health suffers more from environmental pollution, they are more dependent on public transport and are more often the victims of crime. She noted that they are dependent on adults and governments to represent their views and protect their interests. Stevenson (2007) argued that if the environment that children live in is one that helps them to thrive, to live active happy lives in neighbourhoods where they have a sense of belonging and connection and an awareness of their importance to the wider community, then it is very likely that the whole population will also thrive.

Stevenson (2007) undertook a review of the literature regarding how urban design affects the health of children and young people. She noted a number of recurrent themes. Firstly, there is increasing concern at the epidemic levels of chronic diseases in adulthood that are strongly linked to being overweight or obese. She made reference to increasing evidence not only that childhood levels of obesity are high and rising, but that the overweight child becomes an overweight adult. Stevenson claimed that the built environment is a significant and modifiable factor in levels of obesity, and that the built environment can adversely affect the health of children from pre-natal life through to adulthood. The immediate health effects (such as impaired lung function) and the daily habits of life developed in childhood (such as car-dependency) can have adverse health effects throughout adult life.

From her assessment of the literature, Stevenson (2007) recommended that:

• children should be used as the starting point for development
• neighbourhoods should be assessed on how well they encourage active transport using objective and qualitative measures
• addressing the perceptions of local residents is critical
• parks should be designed and adequately maintained with the play needs of children of all ages in mind.

Other research highlighted the link between neighbourhood factors and child safety, school-readiness and achievement, behavioural and emotional outcomes, early childbearing and physical health. Research suggested that neighbourhood advantages and disadvantages are associated with children’s social, emotional and physical wellbeing. Children living in the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods have poorer social outcomes than children living in more affluent neighbourhoods, even taking into account family income, their parents’ employment status, their mothers’ education and several other factors (Edwards, 2007). Commentators also highlighted the importance of social capital to child wellbeing (Curtis, 2007, Knaul & Patrinos, 1998, Narayan, 1999, Putnam, 2000, Teachmann et al, 1997).

Other commentators argued that children and young people with disabilities are a vulnerable group often overlooked in urban and city development. For example, provisions for children in wheelchairs are rarely evident in the design and construction of parks and playgrounds. They argued that a child-friendly city would ideally provide for all children and young people with disabilities to participate in the broad spectrum of community activities (Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian, 2006).

A number of papers argued that creating child-friendly cities requires active, genuine and meaningful engagement with children and young people and their lives so their views and experiences can effectively contribute to the creation of child-friendly cities (Bridgman, 2004; Chawla, 2002; Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian, 2006; Hart, 1992; Stevenson, 2007; The Children’s Ombudsman, 2006; Wise, 2001). For example, Chawla highlighted the benefits of involving children in planning and managing human settlements both for the children (as they learn the formal skills of democracy) and for the wider community (as young people contribute their knowledge, energies and perceptions about local environments).

Some suggested that success has been mixed, and can often be undertaken as or perceived as a token gesture, rather than a real stakeholder-engagement exercise requiring careful consideration at the outset of any urban development or renewal (Chawla, 2002; Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian, 2006). A survey of recent literature on child and youth participation mentioned a number of innovative projects overseas (Bridgman, 2004).

A number of other key themes emerged from the literature on child-friendly communities and other research on child wellbeing and local government. These included the importance of:

• creating and extending community linkages and partnerships
• catering for diversity (the needs, abilities and interests of children and young people vary widely with age, gender, culture and life opportunity. The developmental stages that children and young people go through have different, and sometimes conflicting, implications for what constitutes a stimulating and safe built and social environment. There are also significant gender differences in the use of space.)
• improving information and data to better inform policy-makers and the public, including the use of child-generated indicators
• ensuring essential services and facilities are available and accessible, including schools, childcare, health services and recreational facilities
• providing child- and family-friendly facilities and services
• partnerships with key groups, including government agencies, local councils, developers, families, planners and children and young people.

Age-friendly cities

Mirroring trends in other developed countries, the New Zealand population is ageing. This is due to a combination of decreasing fertility and increasing longevity. One in four New Zealanders will be aged 65 years or over in 2051, compared with one in eight in 1999 (Statistics New Zealand, 2000). Population ageing will noticeably change New Zealand families in terms of their demographic profile and functioning. Caring for elderly family members will become more important, as will grandparents’ roles in caring for children (Families Commission, 2005).

The World Health Organization (WHO) has recently developed a guide for developing age-friendly cities. The guide suggested that in an age-friendly city, policies, services, settings and structures support and enable people to age actively by:

• recognising the wide range of capacities and resources among older people
• anticipating and responding flexibly to ageing-related needs and preferences
• respecting their decisions and lifestyle choices
• protecting those who are most vulnerable
• promoting their inclusion in and contribution to all areas of community life.

WHO developed a Checklist of Essential Features of age-friendly cities.[27] The checklist is a tool for a city’s self-assessment and a map for charting progress. As with other checklists, the Age-friendly Cities’ includes a number of topic areas with series of descriptors under each. Topic areas are:

• outdoor spaces and buildings
• transportation
• housing
• social participation
• respect and social inclusion
• civic participation and employment
• communication and information
• community and health services.

Other models also encourage local governments to consider the wellbeing of older residents. For example:

• Communities for a Lifetime – 73 towns, cities and counties in the State of Florida are participating in this initiative to strengthen relationships between local ageing organisations and community partners to make civic improvements in the areas of housing, transportation, health care and efficient use of natural resources. The initiative involves an assessment of services and other opportunities that encourage the quality of life and independence for older adults.
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Aging Initiative – a division of the EPA that focuses on protecting environmental health for older adults. One project is the development of the National Agenda for the Environment and the Aging, which prioritises environmental stressors that affect older Americans. This group promotes Smart Growth as a way to protect the environment and to prepare communities for an increasingly older population.
• Aging in Place Initiative in America – an 18-month commitment with eight selected communities providing technical assistance to enable older adults to age in place. Includes a Toolkit for Local Governments, which describes three components – healthcare, environment, planning and zoning – which are essential to an ageing-in-place strategy.
• The AdvantAGE Initiative – based on a survey taken by older adults in 10 US communities to assess their needs and concerns about growing older and ageing in place. The data gathered from the survey are used to advise communities on how to be ‘elder-friendly’ by meeting criteria in four areas: basic housing and security needs; maintenance of physical and mental health; independence for the frail, disabled and homebound; and opportunities for social and civic engagement.

In New Zealand the Positive Ageing Strategy was developed in 2001 as a response to issues related to the projected growth of older people. Its purpose is to improve opportunities for older people to participate in the community in ways that they choose. The strategy has 10 goal areas:

• income – secure and adequate income for older people
• health – equitable, timely, affordable and accessible health services for older people
• housing – affordable and appropriate housing options for older people
• transport – affordable and accessible transport options for older people
• ageing in place – older people feeling safe and secure while ageing in place
• cultural diversity – a range of culturally appropriate services to allow choices for older people
• rural – older people living in rural communities are not disadvantaged when accessing services
• attitude – people of all ages have positive attitudes to ageing and older people
• employment – elimination of ageism and the promotion of flexible work options
• opportunities – increasing opportunities for personal growth and community participation (Office of Senior Citizens, 2007).

The strategy is intended to guide the development of policies and services across central, regional and local government. The Positive Ageing Strategy Action Plan, that is produced two-yearly as the mechanism for achieving the positive ageing goals, includes actions by 31 local authorities (Office of Senior Citizens, 2007).

A number of councils have also produced positive ageing strategies. Hastings District Council[28] stated that the determinants of positive ageing include stable and secure income, the ability to ‘age in place’, being able to participate, being productive and having lifestyle choices available.

There is also a considerable body of research on the impact of local government roles and functions on quality of life for older people. These are too numerous to summarise here. However, the key criteria that emerged were that an age-friendly community:

• facilitates strong connections among the different aspects of city living
• co-ordinates actions across different areas of city policy and services so that they are mutually reinforcing
• promotes a life-course approach which includes all ages in the process of promoting active ageing
• encourages solidarity between generations and within communities, including fostering social relationships in local services and in the activities that bring together people of all ages
• provides opportunities for older people to participate in the community in ways that they choose
• fosters opportunities for neighbours to get to know each other
• ensures that infrastructure is planned with older people’s needs in mind
• reaches out to older people at risk of being socially isolated
• minimises economic, linguistic or cultural barriers hindering some older people.

The literature stressed the need for up-to-date and relevant information about older people.

Safe communities

Living without physical and emotional harm, or the fear of harm, is fundamental to reaching one’s potential, participating in society and enjoying life. This includes freedom from intentional injury by others, in the form of violence and abuse, as well as freedom from avoidable injury. Perceptions about safety are important to the overall health of communities. If people feel unsafe, they are less likely to participate in community life.

Safe Communities is a WHO model that recognises safety as a ‘universal concern’. The Safe Communities model aims to create an infrastructure in local communities to increase action on injury prevention and safety promotion through the building of local partnerships. Over 100 communities throughout the world are designated as Safe Communities of the WHO Safe Community Network. Five of these are in New Zealand (Waitakere, Waimakariri, New Plymouth, Whangarei and Wellington), and a number of other territorial authorities are supporting injury prevention coalitions to achieve accreditation.

In order to be designated as a Safe Community, communities are required to provide the following:

• an infrastructure based on partnership and collaborations, governed by a cross-sectoral group that is responsible for safety promotion in their community
• long-term, sustainable programmes covering both genders and all ages, environments and situations
• programmes that target high-risk groups and environments, and programmes that promote safety for vulnerable groups
• programmes that document the frequency and causes of injuries
• evaluation measures to assess programmes, processes and effects of changes
• ongoing participation in national and international Safe Communities Networks (Safe Communities Foundation New Zealand, 2007, p. 1).

The Ministry of Justice, supported by Local Government New Zealand, has led a project to adapt international Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles to suit the New Zealand environment. CPTED is a crime prevention tool that uses urban design and effective use of the built environment to help prevent crime by reducing opportunities for crime to occur. The guidelines are based on international best practice CPTED principles, and have been adapted for New Zealand public spaces (Local Government New Zealand, 2007a).

There are four key overlapping CPTED principles:

• surveillance – people are present and can see what is going on
• access management – methods are used to attract people and vehicles to some places and restrict them from others
• territorial reinforcement – clear boundaries encourage community ‘ownership’ of the space
• good-quality environments – good-quality, well maintained places attract people and support surveillance (Ministry of Justice, 2005).

The National Guidelines define seven qualities that characterise well designed, safer places:

• access: safe movement and connections
• surveillance and sightlines: see and be seen
• layout: clear and logical orientation
• activity mixture: eyes on the street
• sense of ownership: showing a space is cared for
• good-quality environments: well designed, managed and maintained environments
• physical protection: using active security measures.

The CPTED guidelines also suggested that integrated planning makes a significant contribution to tackling crime:

• Good design alone cannot be expected to solve crime. However, considered positive planning, particularly when co-ordinated with other measures, can make a significant contribution to safety. Taking an integrated approach to each development, where professional disciplines and key stakeholders work together, is important (Ministry of Justice, 2005, p. 9).

CPTED guidelines have also been developed in other countries. The Western Australian Planning Commission has recently developed CPTED guidelines (Foster et al, 2006). The key principles in their guidelines are surveillance, access control, territorial reinforcement, target hardening and management and maintenance (Western Australian Planning Commission, 2006).

There was a considerable amount of local government literature discussing community influences on crime. Research suggested that several interrelated socio-economic factors – in particular, lack of educational achievement, unemployment, poor health, low socio-economic status and a negative peer environment – are all risk factors for criminality. The risk factors for offending include family problems; having few social ties; performing and attending poorly at school; abusing drugs and alcohol; lacking vocational skills and a job; and living in a poor neighbourhood with high rates of crime and frequently changing living conditions.

Shirley et al’s (1998) study for the Auckland City Council concluded that the conditions that have generated increasing crime rates in New Zealand include:

• increased social inequality
• a sharp division between household incomes
• labour segmentation leading to high unemployment in working-class neighbourhoods and among Māori and Pacific Island populations
• an increasing number of individuals and households who do not participate in the formal economy
• an increase in relative poverty
• educational disparities.

Researchers have emphasised the importance of various forms of social connectedness in limiting neighbourhood crime. For example, Kawachi et al (1999) found the incidence of crime may, to some degree, reflect the level of social capital in the local community. Both violent and property crime have been associated with relative deprivation and low social capital. Similarly, Sampson & Groves, 1989 found a strong negative association between collective efficacy and violence, after controlling for social composition (Sampson & Groves, 1989).

Crime is associated with disorganised communities, since disorder undermines the informal processes whereby communities realise common values and maintain social control. This disorder then spirals into more serious criminal activity.

Just as community regeneration affects community safety, the residents’ perceptions of safety affect their ability to build a strong community. The evaluation of Healthy Boston noted that fear of crime had a disruptive effect on community development processes. It observed that communities with high crime rates must develop strategies which prioritise community safety: “A primary focus for community efforts should be reducing crime, reducing the community’s fear of crime and addressing indications in the community that crime is an acceptable part of the fabric of the community” (Miller, 1997, p. 163). Miller concluded that communities which residents perceive to be unsafe tend to function less successfully: ultimately the fear of crime makes community development very difficult.

Observations from the literature included:

• Many interrelated socio-economic factors – in particular, lack of educational achievement, unemployment, poor health, low socio-economic status, attitudes and a negative peer environment – are risk factors for criminality.
• Risk factors for offending include living in a poor neighbourhood with high rates of crime and frequently changing living conditions.
• Fear of crime is a significant issue in communities and it affects personal wellbeing by raising anxieties, restricting social and physical access and threatening the cohesiveness of communities.
• Multi-dimensional approaches are required to address safety and security outcomes, with inter-agency co-operation and planning, as well as intervention at organisational, institutional and community levels.
• Interventions should be gender-appropriate, culturally appropriate and address the relevant domains of influence, such as family, schools and peers.

Liveable communities, smart growth and sustainable cities

There are other models implemented at a local government and community level. This report does not attempt to describe these models. However, this section does report some of the common themes within these models.

Liveable community

Community liveability refers to the environmental and social quality of an area as perceived by residents, employees, customers and visitors. This includes safety and health (traffic safety, personal security and public health), local environmental conditions (cleanliness, noise, dust, air quality and water quality), the quality of social interactions (neighbourliness, fairness, respect, community identity and pride), opportunities for recreation and entertainment, aesthetics and the existence of unique cultural and environmental resources (historic structures, mature trees and traditional architectural styles).

The term ‘liveable communities’ has been adopted by local governments overseas. The Local Government Commission in the US developed a set of principles for liveable communities.[29]
In Australia, new suburban developments are increasingly planned according to new urbanism design principles. Western Australia has introduced the Liveable Neighbourhoods Design Code (Foster et al, 2006).

The term has also been used by Auckland City. Auckland has a Growth Management Strategy that outlines where, when and how Auckland will grow, and the strategies that will ensure this happens in a managed and effective way. Liveable community plans deliver many of the objectives of the Growth Management Strategy at a localised level. Areas such as Avondale, Glen Innes, Panmure and Newmarket already have liveable community plans in place. The process to develop a plan is underway in Ellerslie.

New urbanism

New urbanism was developed in the 1980s in response to suburban sprawl, which has been blamed for car dependence, pollution and traffic congestion, loss of green belt land, isolation of women and children, social and economic segregation and the erosion of sense of place and community (Talen, 1999).

New urban design theoretically promotes interaction between residents and a sense of community through access to services and facilities, walkable streets and site design. A new urban subdivision combines elements of traditional housing design in dense mixed-use subdivisions which are pedestrian- and car-friendly, and are ideally linked to public transport. New urbanism aims to make streets safe and inviting for pedestrians through housing design that promotes natural surveillance (Congress for New Urbanism, 2007).

Core elements of a new urban community are:

• diverse (mixed residential, business and retail developments and, ideally, mixed demographics facilitated, for example, by putting a modest apartment over a garage or above a ground-floor shop)
• walkable (shops ideally within a five-minute walk from home, walking paths and streets laid out in a grid pattern, with no cul-de-sacs)
• not automobile-centric (for example, with garages hidden in a back alley and parallel parking rather than parking lots)
• not gated
• marked by a clear centre and edges (Sander, 2002).

SMART growth

Smart growth is strongly associated with new urbanism. It is characterised by higher density; more contiguous development; preserved green spaces; mixed land uses and walkable neighbourhoods; limited road construction balanced by transport alternatives; architectural heterogeneity; economic, racial and ethnic heterogeneity; a balance of development and capital investment between central city and periphery; and effective, co-ordinated regional planning.

Sustainable cities

Urban sustainability is defined as a process of managing urban change to improve our quality of life by delivering better social, environmental and economic outcomes for all people, in the present and in the future (Hargreaves & Davies, 2003).

Loomis (2005) undertook a comprehensive review of the literature on sustainable cities, focusing on government’s evolving role in building strong communities. On the basis of his review, Loomis suggested that ‘a sustainable community’ is one that:

• recognises that human activity is constrained by the carrying capacity of the natural environment
• maintains a balance of all its capitals and resources for the wellbeing of present and future generations
• has the capacity to work together to address problems and pursue opportunities
• employs a balanced, integrated approach to planning, decision-making and measuring results that encompasses all dimensions and sectors of the local society and environment and their interrelationships
• provides a quality of services sufficient to support a good quality of life for all inhabitants
• ensures inclusiveness and equity, seeking a better quality of life for all citizens
• considers wider links and influences on the community, and does not compromise the sustainability of other communities
• owns and drives its own development (Loomis, 2005, p. 19).

Work on sustainable development and environmental justice often includes community empowerment and participation.

Literature on liveable communities, sustainable communities and new urbanism has common elements, such as:[30]

• encouraging the scale and form of places to be responsive to people’s needs and aspirations
• valuing and protecting diversity and local distinctiveness
• strengthening local community and cultural identity
• accommodating and supporting the activities that people might want to engage in and their changing social and cultural needs and expectations
• providing opportunities for culture, leisure and recreation that are readily available to all
• creating a physical environment that is relatively free from nuisance, overcrowding, noise, danger and pollution, and allows people to live and work in reasonable comfort
• ensuring availability of public and private places that cater for all sections of the population and that provide for a diverse range of activities and experiences
• creating or improving places, spaces and buildings that ‘work well, wear well and look well’.

A considerable body of literature developed the idea of the urban form generating a sense of community. However, as discussed previously, there is some debate about whether a sense of community can be created by physical design factors.

Talen (1999) argued that the claims are weakened by the fact that a sense of community and a shared emotional connection have been found to exist and even thrive under a variety of conditions, some of which appear to be adverse to new urbanist design ideology (for example, within dispersed, auto-oriented suburban environments).

On the basis of existing research, it is not implausible that sense of community is unaffected by physical surroundings, or that non-territorial and non-architectural solutions offer better hope for building a sense of community. Environmental effects depend on particular social situations and the relationship between environment and behaviour is complex. It is possibility that liveable communities do not create a sense of community, but rather attract individuals with a certain predisposition for social interaction and the need for local community attachment. See Talen (1999, p. 1375) for further discussion on this issue.

Footnotes

[23]

http://pace.naccho.org/DownloadPage.asp [Return to reference]

[24]

See http://www.scyofbc.org/qs/page/765/0/43 for further information about the Society for Children and Youth. [Return to reference]

[25]

See http://www.cyfc.ca/ for details about Child and Youth Friendly Calgary. [Return to reference]

[26]

See http://www.cayfo.ca/ for details about Child and Youth Friendly Ottawa. [Return to reference]

[27]

Other technical documentation is available to help implement changes that may be required, such as the United Nations Human Settlements Programme, 1993. Improving the quality of life of the elderly and disabled people in human settlements http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/getElectronicVersion.asp?nr=1634&alt=1
I’DGO Consortium, 2007. Inclusive design for getting outdoors. Design guidance. Edinburgh, http://www.idgo.ac.uk/ [Return to reference]

[28]

http://www.hastingsdc.govt.nz/community/ageing/pas.pdf [Return to reference]

[29]

Realising that economic vitality and liveability are inextricably linked, the LGC followed up in 1997 by developing the Ahwahnee Principles for Economic Development (see http://www.lgc.org/ahwahnee/econ_principles.html). Recognising that cities and counties face major challenges in providing clean, affordable water to their communities, the LGC developed a new set of principles in 2005 to assist them. The Ahwahnee Water Principles for Resource Efficient Land Use (see http://www.lgc.org/ahwahnee/h2o_principles.html) address the disconnection between land-use decisions and water resources, and will help cities and counties reduce costs while improving the reliability and quality of water resources. [Return to reference]

[30]

Derived from the consultation paper prepared by the UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions entitled ‘Sustainable Local Communities for the 21st Century: Why and How to Prepare an Effective Local Agenda 21 Strategy’, 1998. [Return to reference]