World Town Planning Day 2005 - Convention Proceedings by R&D, JPBD

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

WORLD TOWN PLANNING DAY 2005 NATIONAL CONVENTION Planning Towards Liveable Cities 17 & 18 November 2005 Renaissance Hotel Kuala Lumpur

Convention Proceedings

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Contents CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS ANNEX A PROGRAMME WELCOME NOTE KEYNOTE ADDRESS CLOSING SPEECH ANNEX B PRESENTATION OF PAPERS Paper 1

“Using Indicators for Transforming a Vision into Action and Effective Urban Programme Management” By : Dr. Vinay D. Lall

Paper 2 :

“Malaysia Urban Indicators Network Programme (MURNInet)” By : En. Kamalruddin Shamsudin

Paper 3 :

“Health Indicators – Towards Achieving Equity in Health Care Delivery in Urban Settings” By : Y. Bhg. Dato’ Dr. Shaﬁe bin Ooyub

Paper 4 :

“The Malaysian Quality of Life” By : Ms Yap Siew Hong

Paper 5 :

“Melbourne Liveable City Indicators” By : Mr. Austin Ley

Paper 6 :

“Urban Competitiveness and Liveability in the Malaysian Context : Indicators, Determinants and Policy Implications” By : Prof. Dr. Morshidi Shirat

Paper 7 :

“Kuala Lumpur Sustainable Development” By : Pn. Hjh. Zainab bt. Mohd. Ghazali

Paper 8 :

“An Evaluation of Ecological Footprint for Different Types of Urban Developments Impacts” By : Dr. Andrew Flynn

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

6 10 16 22

1 94

114

194

226

274

ANNEX C PARTICIPANTS

310

CONVENTION COMMITTEES

324

CONVENTION PHOTOS

334

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Convention Proceedings

OBJECTIVES

The National Convention was held in conjunction with the World Town Planning Day 2005 in Kuala Lumpur with the following objectives: • To create a forum for the exchange of ideas and sharing of experience among local and foreign participants relating to the efforts towards the planning of liveable cities (Bandar Sejahtera) • To provide town planners with the exposure and comprehension on the indicators for benchmarking city liveability and quality of life at both local and global levels. • To increase the professionalism and service of town planners especially as facilitators in improving the quality of life in cities. • To build friendly relations among participants from various agencies and countries involved in town planning and development.

The theme for the World Town Planning Day 2005 National Convention is ‘Planning Towards Liveable Cities’, which focuses on the indicators or markers for measuring the level of urban liveability and quality of life. As a general rule, liveable cities should possess some important basic characteristics. These include an established neighbourhood, secure pedestrian facilities, attractive and pleasing networks of open spaces and public areas, affordable cost of living, and accessibility and good intra- and intercity linkages.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

PROGRAMME

PRESENTATION OF PAPERS

The convention was held for two days from 17-18 November 2005 at the Renaissance Hotel, Kuala Lumpur. The launch was ofﬁciated by Y.B. Dato’ Hjh. Azizah bt. Datuk S.P. Hj. Mohd Dun, Deputy Minister of Housing and Local Government. (Programme details are provided in Annex A)

The papers for this convention were presented by local and foreign presenters from UN-HABITAT, Melbourne ‘Liveable City’ Cardiff University, Kuala Lumpur City Hall, Economic Planning Unit Malaysia, Ministry of Health Malaysia, National Higher Education Research Institute, and Federal Department of Town and Country Planning. The convention saw the presentation of eight (8) papers in four (4) sessions. Each of the sessions was chaired by four (4) different chairpersons. Participants were encouraged to forward any questions or suggestions during the ‘Question and Answer’ sessions. The list of the papers presented and the respective chairpersons is as follows: (Copies of the papers are included in Annex B)

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Convention Proceedings

LIST OF PAPERS

ITEM

PAPER

SESSION 1

CHAIRMAN : Y. H Dato’ Hj. Zainul bin Hj. Ayob Deputy Director General, Federal Department of Town and Country Planning, Peninsular Malaysia

PRESENTER

Paper 1

“Using Indicators for Transforming a Vision into Action and Effective Urban Programme Management”

Dr. Vinay D. Lall (Society for Development Studies (SDS) Regional Network for Knowledge Infrastructure, India)

Paper 2

“Malaysia Urban Indicators Network Programme (MURNInet)”

En. Kamalruddin Shamsudin (Director, Research and Development Division, Federal Department of Town and Country Planning, Peninsular Malaysia)

Paper 3

“Health Indicators – Towards Achieving Equity in Health Care Delivery in Urban Settings”

Y. Bhg. Dato’ Dr. Shaﬁe bin Ooyub (Deputy Director General of Health(Public Health), Ministry of Health, Malaysia)

SESSION 2

CHAIRMAN : Pn. Norliza bt. Hashim President, Malaysian Institute of Planners (MIP)

Paper 4

“The Malaysian Quality of Life”

Ms Yap Siew Hong (Director, Macroeconomics Section, Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister’s Department, Malaysia)

Paper 5

“Melbourne Liveable City Indicators”

Mr. Austin Ley (Manager Sustainable City Research, Melbourne City Council, Australia)

Paper 6

“Urban Competitiveness and Liveability in the Malaysian Context : Indicators, Determinants and Policy Implications”

Prof. Dr. Morshidi Sirat (Director, National Higher Education Research Institute, Malaysia)

SESSION 3

CHAIRMAN : Y. Bhg. Dato’ Wan Mohamad Mukhtar bin Mohd. Noor Chairman, Board of Town Planners, Malaysia

Paper 7

“Kuala Lumpur Sustainable Development”

Y. Bhg. Dato’ Haji Ruslin bin Haji Hasan (Mayor of Kuala Lumpur, Kuala Lumpur City Hall, Malaysia)

Paper 8

“An Evaluation of Ecological Footprint for Different Types of Urban Developments Impacts”

Dr. Andrew Flynn (Senior Lecturer, Cardiff University, United Kingdom)

CHAIRMAN : Y. Bhg. Dato’ Mohd Fadzil bin Hj. Mohd. Khir Director General, Federal Department of Town and Country Planning, Peninsular Malaysia

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

PAPER PRESENTATION SUMMARY The committee had appointed rapporteurs and minute-takers to summarize the papers.

PARTICIPANTS Convention participants include: • Town Planners from the public and private sector • Local Authority Officers who are involved in MURNInet • Other professionals in such areas as town planning, development and management including the fields of economic, sociology and environment. • Academics from relevant fields of study • Students from institutions of higher learning (town planning studies) • Members of the public

SECRETARIAT The Secretariat is composed of nine (9) officers who assisted in ensuring the smooth flow of the convention. Those involved are officers from the Research and Development Division who have been committed in carrying out their duties.

CONCLUSION Generally by looking at the papers presented as well as the attendance and response from participants, this seminar had succeeded in getting the participants’ interest and achieved its aim to educate and provide understanding in relation with planning towards liveable cities.

341 had been registered as participants of the convention. The participants are listed in Annex C.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

��

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

��

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Progr amme 16 Nov. 2005 (Wednesday) 2.00 p.m.–7.00 p.m.

REGISTRATION Registration of Participants at Renaissance Hotel, Kuala Lumpur.

17 Nov. 2005 (Thursday)

DAY 1 OFFICIAL LAUNCHING

7.30 a.m.–8.30 a.m.

Registration

8.30 a.m.–8.45 a.m.

Seating of Participants

8.45 a.m.–9.00 a.m.

Arrival of Invited Guests

9.00 a.m.–9.05 a.m.

Arrival of The Honourable Minister of Housing and Local Government, Malaysia Y.B Dato’ Seri Ong Ka Ting

9.05 a.m.–9.10 a.m.

Recitation of Doa

9.10 a.m.–9.15 a.m.

National Anthem

9.15 a.m.–9.25 a.m.

Welcome Note by Y. Bhg. Dato’ Mohd. Fadzil b. Hj. Mohd. Khir, Director General, Federal Department of Town and Country Planning, Peninsular Malaysia

9.25 a.m.–9.50 a.m.

Keynote Address and Opening Ceremony by Y.B Dato’ Seri Ong Ka Ting, The Honourable Minister of Housing and Local Government, Malaysia

9.50 a.m.–10.00 a.m.

Multimedia Presentation

10.00 a.m.–10.05 a.m. Appreciation Awards for Participants of MURNInet Programme 10.05 a.m.–10.45 a.m

Tour of Exhibition Tea Break

First Session: Chairman – Y. H. Dato’ Haji Zainul bin Haji Ayob, Deputy Director General, Federal Department of Town and Country Planning, Peninsular Malaysia 10.45 a.m.–11.30 a.m. Paper 1 : “Using Urban Indicators for Transforming a Vision into Action and

Effective Urban Program Management”

By Dr. Vinaykumar Deonandan Lall (Director, Society for Development Studies, India)

11.30 a.m.–12.15 p.m.

Paper 2 : “Malaysia Urban Indicators Network Programme” (MURNInet) By En. Kamalruddin Shamsudin (Director, Research and Development, Federal Department of Town and Country Planning, Peninsular Malaysia)

12.15 p.m.–1.00 p.m.

Paper 3 : “Health Indicators – Towards Achieving Equity in Health Care Delivery in

Urban Settings”

By Y. Bhg. Dato’ Dr. Shaﬁe bin Ooyub (Deputy Director General of Health (Public Health), Ministry of Health, Malaysia) 1.00 p.m.–2.00 p.m.

Lunch Break

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Second Session : Chairman – Pn. Norliza bt. Hashim, President, Malaysian Institute of Planners 2.00 p.m.–2.45 p.m.

Paper 4 : “The Malaysian Quality of Life” By Ms.Yap Siew Hong (Director, Macroeconomics Section, Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister’s Department, Malaysia)

2.45 p.m.–3.30 p.m.

Paper 5 : “Melbourne Liveable City Indicators” By Mr. Austin Ley (Manager, Sustainable City Research, Melbourne, Australia)

3.30 p.m.–4.15 p.m.

Paper 6 : “Urban Competitiveness and Liveable Cities in Malaysia: Indicators, Determinants and Policy Implications” By Prof. Dr. Morshidi Sirat (Director, National Higher Education Research Institute, Malaysia)

4.15 p.m.–5.00 p.m.

Tea Break Gala Dinner with The Honourable Minister of Housing and Local Government of Malaysia

8.00 p.m. 18 Nov. 2005 (Friday)

DAY 2

Third Session : Chairman – Y. Bhg. Dato’ Wan Mohamad Mukhtar bin Mohd. Noor (Chairman, Board of Town Planners, Malaysia) 8.30 a.m.–9.15 a.m.

9.15 a.m.–10.00 a.m.

Paper 7 : “Kuala Lumpur Sustainable Development” By Y. Bhg. Dato’ Haji Ruslin bin Hassan (Mayor of Kuala Lumpur) Paper 8 : “An Evaluation of Ecological Footprint for Different Types of Urban Development Impacts” By Dr. Andrew Flynn (Senior Lecturer, Cardiff University, United Kingdom)

10.00 a.m.–10.30 a.m. Tea Break Fourth Session :

Chairman – Y. Bhg. Dato’ Mohd. Fadzil bin Hj. Mohd. Khir, Director General, Federal Department of Town and Country Planning, Peninsular Malaysia

10.30 a.m.–12.15 p.m. Plenary Session 12.20 p.m.–12.30 p.m. Closing Ceremony By Y. Bhg. Dato’ Seri Lokman Hakim b. Md. Jassan, Secretary General, Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Malaysia 12.30 p.m. 3.15 p.m.–5.00 p.m.

Lunch Break Technical Tour of Shah Alam City (optional)

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

��

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Y. Bhg. Datoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Mohd Fadzil b. Haji Mohd Khir Director-General Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Welcome Note Saudara/saudari Pengerusi Majlis, Y. Berhormat Dato’ Hajah Azizah binti Datuk S.P. Hj. Mohd Dun Timbalan Menteri Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan yang mewakili Menteri Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan Y. Berbahagia Dato’ Seri Lokman Hakim b. Md. Jasan Ketua Setiausaha Kementerian Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan Y. Hormat Dato’ Haji Zainul bin Haji Ayob Timbalan Ketua Pengarah I, Jabatan Perancangan Bandar dan Desa, Semenanjung Malaysia Y. Berusaha Pn. Lok Yin Ming Timbalan Ketua Pengarah II, Jabatan Perancangan Bandar dan Desa, Semenanjung Malaysia Merangkap Pengerusi Jawatankuasa Kerja Sambutan Hari Perancangan Bandar Sedunia 2005 Ketua-Ketua Jabatan dan Agensi, pembentang kertas kerja dan peserta konvensyen,

Pn. Norliza Hashim, Presiden Pertubuhan Perancang Malaysia, Dato’-Dato’, Datin-Datin, Tuan-Tuan dan Puan-Puan sekalian, Assalamualaikum dan salam sejahtera. Selamat Datang ke Majlis Sambutan Hari Perancang Bandar Sedunia 2005. Welcome to World Town Planning Day 2005. Terlebih dahulu saya ingin merakamkan jutaan terima kasih di atas kehadiran para hadirin, khususnya di atas kesudian Y. Berhormat Dato’ Hjh. Azizah binti Datuk S.P. Hj. Mohd Dun, Timbalan Menteri Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan Malaysia meluangkan masa untuk hadir ke majlis pada hari ini dan seterusnya merasmikan pelancaran sambutan Hari Perancang Bandar Sedunia 2005. Kehadiran Y.B. Dato’ sangat bermakna kepada semua pegawai perancang bandar khususnya warga Jabatan Perancangan Bandar dan Desa kerana ianya mencerminkan keprihatinan dan penghargaan Y.B Dato’ terhadap profesion perancangan bandar dan juga peranan yang dimainkan oleh pegawai perancang bandar dalam mempertingkatkan kualiti petempatan dan kualiti hidup penduduk di negara ini. Memandangkan pada hari ini turut hadir bersama kita beberapa orang tetamu dari luar negara, izinkan saya untuk meneruskan ucapan dengan menggunakan dwibahasa. I would also like to extend our warmest welcome to our foreign counterparts especially Mr. Austin Ley (Manager Sustainable City Research , Melbourne, Australia) and Dr. Andrew Flynn (Senior Lecturer, Cardiff University, United Kingdom). Thank you for taking time off to come all the way to Malaysia, to share with us some of your experiences in planning for liveable city.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Sidang hadirin sekalian, Why do we celebrate World Town Planning Day? We have many reasons for doing so. The ﬁrst reason is to create awareness to all of the members of our community about planning’s positive impacts on community liveability. The celebration is also to honour all of the people involved in the planning initiatives and process, including planners—both in public and private sectors, other profesionals, administrators, and the public of whom are integral in helping create a sense of place in our neighbourhood where we are proud to live and work. HPBS secara ringkasnya merupakan hari yang istimewa dan penting bagi para perancang bandar sama ada di sektor awam mahupun di sektor swasta kerana peranan mereka dalam perancangan bandar di negara ini dihargai. Pengiktirafan diberi kepada mereka yang telah menunjukkan kecemerlangan dalam memberikan perkhidmatan perancangan bandar dan desa dalam usaha untuk mempertingkatkan kualiti kehidupan. Sebagai imbasan, sambutan HPBS adalah ilham dan usaha Profesor Carlos Maria Della Paolera, seorang cendekiawan perancangan bandar terkenal dunia dari Universiti Buenos Aires, Argentina. Pada 1949, beliau mencadangkan penubuhan satu organisasi perancangan bandar antarabangsa dan menetapkan 8 November setiap tahun sebagai Hari Perancangan Bandar Sedunia. Idea dan tujuan itu disambut baik negara Amerika Selatan dan pada 1950, satu program diadakan bagi meraikan sambutan HPBS buat pertama kalinya. Sejak itu, sambutan diadakan setiap tahun di Amerika Tengah dan Amerika Selatan, seterusnya di negara Eropah, Amerika Utara, Jepun dan negara lain. Di peringkat ASEAN pula, HPBS juga disambut di negara Brunei Darussalam dan negara kita Malaysia. Di Malaysia, sambutan itu diadakan sejak tahun 1988. Sambutan HPBS merupakan di antara aktiviti utama JPBD Semenanjung Malaysia yang disambut setiap tahun dengan tema yang diselaraskan dengan keperluan dan perkembangan semasa. Pemilihan tema bagi sambutan tahun ini iaitu “Planning Towards Liveable Cities” (Perancangan Ke Arah Bandar Sejahtera) adalah selaras dengan usaha semasa Kerajaan untuk memastikan kesejahteraan, kesihatan dan keselamatan persekitaran kehidupan masyarakat di negara ini. Sesuai dengan semakin hampirnya kita dengan matlamat wawasan pembangunan negara iaitu Wawasan 2020 untuk menjadi sebuah negara yang maju, tema yang dipilih pada tahun ini diharap dapat meningkatkan kefahaman mengenai kepentingan terhadap sumbangan pengukuran kemampanan bandar yang akan menentukan kesejahteraan bandar, yang dilaksanakan oleh Kementerian Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan melalui JPBD Semenanjung Malaysia. Ladies and gentlemen, Let me share my view of what liveability means. Liveability means a condition where families and individuals of all walks of life from various backgrounds and groups can afford to live and have the opportunity to work in jobs which support them adequately. It should have ﬂexible transportation choices that work for everyone; it means a safe and walkable city, which encourages human interactions among the widest and most diverse populace; and a city that is healthy, beautiful, Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Welcome Note and stimulating, where the public realm nurtures the human spirit, be it individual, family and community at large. Dalam erti kata lain, sebuah bandar yang sejahtera adalah bandar yang selesa untuk didiami, bekerja dan beriadah yang mempunyai segala kemudahan sosial dan rohaniah yang diperlukan seperti kediaman, komersial, kemudahan riadah, perkhidmatan kesihatan dan perkhidmatan keselamatan yang ada menunjukkan kualiti kehidupan yang tinggi. Kadar perbandaran yang pesat di Malaysia telah banyak memberi kesan kepada ekonomi bandar, infrastruktur dan utiliti, kemudahan awam dan alam sekitar yang seterusnya mempengaruhi kualiti hidup penduduk. Untuk mewujudkan sebuah bandar yang sejahtera, pembangunan bandar perlu mengimbangkan pertumbuhan ekonomi dengan aspek-aspek kehidupan yang lain termasuk perumahan, pendidikan, pengangkutan, kesihatan, keselamatan awam dan alam sekitar. Dalam hubungan ini, integrasi di antara aspek ekonomi, sosial dan alam sekitar adalah penting untuk memastikan pembangunan yang berkualiti, di samping penggunaan sumber yang optimum melalui sistem pengurusan bandar yang cekap.

Tanggungjawab dalam memastikan kesejahteraan persekitaran kehidupan perlu dimainkan oleh kedua-dua pihak, awam dan swasta. Di sektor awam, peranan ini dapat dimainkan melalui penyediaan rancangan-rancangan pemajuan seperti Rancangan Struktur dan Rancangan Tempatan di mana dasar-dasar serta strategi-strategi pembangunan telah digariskan dengan mengambil kira aspek keperluan penduduk setempat di samping menekankan kepada faktor-faktor seperti penggalakan ekonomi dan pemeliharaan alam sekitar serta sosiobudaya masyarakat setempat. Penyediaan garis-garis panduan perancangan serta pelaksanaan peruntukan Akta Perancangan Bandar dan Desa 1976, Akta 172 akan dapat memastikan pembangunan dilaksanakan dengan terancang di samping dapat memperlengkapkan kemudahan-kemudahan mengikut keperluan penduduk setempat. Keadaan sedia ada juga dapat diperbaiki dan dipertingkatkan bagi mewujudkan keselesaan, keselamatan dan kesejahteraan semua. Bagi sektor swasta pula, para perancang dalam menyediakan pelbagai pelan pembangunan dan susun atur perlu memberi pertimbangan yang sama terhadap kehendak pemaju dan keperluan rakyat agar kemudahan yang disediakan adalah mencukupi dan selaras dengan keperluan sebenar. Di samping itu pihak swasta juga perlu mempunyai corporate social responsibility ethics dalam merancang sesuatu pembangunan bagi memastikan ia turut memberikan manfaat kepada masyarakat setempat. Kesejahteraan sukar dicapai sekiranya perancangan pembangunan tidak disertakan dengan pelaksanaan yang berkesan. Pelaksana pembangunan haruslah memahami dan mengambil kira kehendak dan keperluan masyarakat setempat (planning with community at heart). Ini penting untuk memastikan masyarakat mendapat faedah sepenuhnya dari perancangan dan pembangunan yang dijalankan. Atas dasar itu, pihak-pihak yang bertanggungjawab seperti pihak berkuasa tempatan harus akur akan segala perancangan yang telah digariskan dalam rancangan-rancangan pemajuan yang telah disediakan.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Kerjasama serta sokongan yang padu dari orang awam perlu dalam memastikan kejayaan inisiatifinisiatif ke arah mewujudkan persekitaran yang sejahtera. Tindakan-tindakan yang dianggap kurang penting seperti penjagaan kebersihan kawasan setempat serta mengurangkan kacau ganggu di kawasan kejiranan dapat menyumbang ke arah peningkatan kualiti kehidupan di sesebuah kawasan. Selain daripada itu, penglibatan masyarakat setempat dalam aktiviti-aktiviti perancangan dan pelaksanaan pembangunan akan dapat memperjelaskan lagi keperluan sebenar di kawasan terbabit. Sidang hadirin sekalian, Sebagai menghayati hari yang sungguh bermakna ini, para perancang bandar hendaklah mengambil kesempatan untuk memperbaharui semangat dan iltizam untuk terus meningkat dan memartabatkan profesion perancangan di negara ini. Para perancang bandar tidak seharusnya lupa dengan tanggungjawab sosial mereka untuk menghasilkan kualiti persekitaran kehidupan yang lebih baik kepada rakyat Malaysia serta peranan mereka dalam memastikan kesejahteraan kehidupan masyarakat semua. Para perancang bandar juga harus lebih bersifat proaktif dalam mempromosikan polisi dan produk perancangan yang dapat mewujudkan persekitaran yang selamat dan sejahtera di mana masyarakat dapat tinggal, bekerja dan beriadah tanpa berasa takut. Akhir kata, sekali lagi saya ingin merakamkan ucapan terima kasih kepada Y.B. Dato’ yang dapat bersama-sama kita pada hari ini untuk menyempurnakan majlis pelancaran sambutan HPBS 2005. Sekalung penghargaan kepada semua pihak yang terlibat di atas usaha-usaha yang telah dicurahkan dalam menjayakan majlis yang sungguh bermakna ini. Kerjasama serta semangat yang telah ditunjukkan diharap akan dapat diteruskan di masa-masa hadapan. Kepada pegawai-pegawai lain, saya berharap semoga anda teruskan kecemerlangan dalam melaksanakan amanah dan tugas serta terus memperkasakan daya saing masing-masing demi mencapai kecemerlangan. Before I conclude, I would like to thank the Honourable Deputy Minister for taking time off from her busy schedule to be with us this morning to officially launch the World Town Planning Day 2005 Convention. To all participants, thank you for attending this great convention and congratulation for taking the first step towards making our cities liveable. On behalf of the department, I would like to say a big thank you to the distinguished speakers without whom we would not be able to hold a conference of this nature. My heartfelt appreciation also goes out to the organising committee for their hardwork and dedication in putting together this conference. Sekian, saya sudahi dengan wabillahi taufiq walhidayah wassalamualaikum warahmatullahiwabarakatuh.

Y. Bhg. Dato’ Mohd Fadzil b. Haji Mohd Khir

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

��

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Y.B. Dato’ Seri Ong Ka Ting Deputy Minister Ministry of Housing and Local Government Malaysia

read by

Y.B. Dato’ Hajah Azizah bt. Dato’ S. P. Hj. Mohd. Dun Deputy Minister Ministry of Housing and Local Government Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Keynote Address Y. Bhg. Dato’ Seri Lokman Hakim bin Mohd. Jasan Ketua Setiausaha Kementerian Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan Y. Bhg. Dato’ Mohd. Fadzil bin Haji Mohd Khir Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Perancangan Bandar dan Desa Semenanjung Malaysia Y. Berusaha Puan Lok Yin Ming Timbalan Ketua Pengarah II Merangkap Pengerusi Jawatankuasa sambutan Hari Perancangan Bandar Sedunia 2005 Ketua-Ketua Jabatan, Dato’-Dato’, Tuan-Tuan dan Puan-Puan yang saya hormati sekalian, Terlebih dahulu saya ingin mengucapkan terima kasih kepada pihak penganjur yang telah sudi menjemput saya untuk merasmikan Hari Perancangan Bandar Sedunia 2005 dengan tema “Perancangan Ke Arah Bandar Sejahtera”. Hadirin dihormati sekelian,

Malaysia seperti kebanyakan negara membangun yang lain mengalami proses urbanisasi yang pesat. Pada tahun 1995, populasi di bandar telah meningkat dari 9.47 juta kepada 13.7 juta pada tahun 2000; manakala kadar urbanisasi nasional meningkat dari 55.1% kepada 61.8%. Adalah dijangkakan kadar urbanisasi ini akan terus meningkat kepada 75% menjelang tahun 2020. Pertumbuhan penduduk yang pesat di bandar memerlukan perancangan awal yang sistematik dan kawalan pembangunan yang berkesan. Isu kualiti kehidupan di bandar menjadi begitu penting terutamanya dalam mewujudkan kehidupan bandar yang betul-betul selamat dan selesa untuk didiami, bekerja, beriadah dan belajar. Di samping itu, ciri-ciri bandar ‘liveable’ perlu dipertekankan melalui keujudan bandar yang dapat memberi gaya kehidupan yang sihat, peluang pekerjaan dan perniagaan, peluang pendidikan dan rakyat juga dapat menikmati kemudahan asas dan kemudahan awam serta menjalankan amalan mengikut agama dan kepercayaan kaum masing-masing. Hidup Keharmonian Berbilang Bangsa—Elemen Penting “Bandar Sejahtera” Pada tahun 2004, Bandar Melbourne telah memenangi anugerah ‘The Most Liveable City’ di antara 130 bandaraya di seluruh dunia. Elemen yang menjadi sesebuah bandar itu ‘liveable’ bukan hanya dengan adanya jalan raya yang tersusun, bangunan yang indah, landskap yang menarik, kedai atau pelbagai jenis restoran, tetapi adalah komuniti yang terdiri daripada pelbagai kaum dan budaya yang tinggal bersama di bandar tersebut dan berkerja serta hidup secara harmoni. Bagi saya, keamanan negara dan kesejahteraan bandar memerlukan masyarakat yang penyayang dan masyarakat sivik yang hidup bertoleransi di antara satu sama lain. Negara Malaysia merupakan di antara negara yang agak unik dengan rakyatnya yang terdiri daripada kalangan penduduk berbilang bangsa, agama, tradisi dan adat istiadat. Masyarakat majmuk telah wujud di negara ini sebelum kemerdekaan lagi dan campuran pelbagai kaum hidup berharmoni telah dibuktikan di beberapa bandar dan pekan lama khususnya Bandar Georgetown, Bandar Lama Melaka, dan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur. Kita dapat melihat Jalan Kapitan Kling di Bandar Georgertown terdiri daripada rumah kaum Melayu, Cina dan India serta masjid dan tokong. Bandar

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

ini juga merupakan tempat mereka bekerja (work), tinggal (live), beriadah, belajar dan sembahyang. Kita semua merasa bertuah dan berbangga kerana rakyat negara ini dapat hidup aman dan menyumbang kepada kestabilan negara yang secara langsung membantu pembangunan negara. Hadirin dihormati sekelian, Safe City Sesuatu bandar tidak akan menjadi â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;liveableâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; sekiranya ia tidak selamat didiami. Aspek keselamatan menjadi begitu penting kerana ia merupakan pra-syarat kepada pembangunan bandar yang stabil dan sejahtera. Kerajaan telah mengenal pasti langkah-langkah pencegahan jenayah melalui tindakan-tindakan jangka pendek dan jangka panjang. Salah satu usahanya adalah mengenakan syarat kepada pemaju untuk menyediakan reka bentuk susun atur perumahan dan perniagaan yang berlandaskan kepada ciri-ciri bandar selamat. Rumah yang dibina tidak boleh membelakangkan sungai, manakala kawasan lapang awam perlulah diletakkan di tempat yang mudah dilihat dan mudah dikunjungi. Setiap pembangunan perlu disediakan rizab balai polis mengikut garis panduan dan piawaian perancangan. Bilangan balai polis dan pondok polis hendaklah disediakan mengikut cadangan jumlah penduduk dan saiz sesebuah bandar (township). Selain daripada usaha kerajaan, penglibatan penduduk tempatan dalam pencegahan jenayah juga adalah penting. Kerajaan sememangnya menggalakkan penubuhan Rukun Tetangga dan memupuk hubungan bekerjasama dengan pihak polis untuk sama-sama membanteras jenayah. Hadirin dihormati sekelian, Kawasan Lapang Usaha ke arah pembentukan bandar sejahtera perlulah memastikan penyediaan semua kemudahan awam yang mencukupi untuk komuniti tempatan. Ini termasuklah kawasan lapang awam dan juga kemudahan-kemudahan rekreasi seperti gelanggang permainan dan padang bola. Kemudahankemudahan seperti ini perlu diadakan bagi mendorong rakyat mengamalkan gaya hidup sihat dan menghindarkan mereka khususnya golongan remaja daripada terlibat dalam gejala-gejala sosial. Kerajaan pusat telah menetapkan dasar supaya setiap pembangunan yang dikemukakan oleh pemaju dikehendaki memperuntukkan sebanyak 10% kawasan lapang awam. Bagi perancangan sesuatu bandar (township) di kawasan pihak kerajaan tempatan, Majlis Perancang Fizikal Negara telah menetapkan untuk menerima pakai ukuran 2 hektar tanah lapang awam bagi setiap 1000 penduduk bandar sebagai sasaran untuk menuju negara maju. Ukuran ini merangkumi taman awam peringkat wilayah sehingga ke taman kejiranan. Ia akan menjadi panduan bagi pembangunan masa depan bagi negeri dan pihak berkuasa tempatan. Kegunaan tanah lapang awam yang telah dirancang tidak boleh ditukar jenis guna tanahnya kerana ia merupakan guna tanah utama yang akan menjadi identiti dan imej sesuatu komuniti, terutamanya taman awam (public park), plaza dan dataran (square) di kawasan bandar yang merupakan titik fokus komuniti untuk berkumpul dan berinteraksi. Tanah lapang perlu dimajukan, sentiasa disenggara dan dipelihara. Kerajaan Persekutuan sememangnya mengambil berat mengenai isu pertukaran guna tanah lapang awam kepada kegunaan lain. Untuk memastikan tanah lapang dapat Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Keynote Address dikekalkan, kerajaan pusat telah mengeluarkan arahan pada tahun 2003 supaya semua tanah lapang awam diwartakan di bawah State Secretary Incorporated (SSI). Sehingga September 2005, hanya sebanyak 19.35% atau 3,445.66 hektar tanah lapang telah diwartakan. Pewartaan tanah lapang adalah penting untuk memastikan tanah lapang tidak ditukar kepada jenis kegunaan tanah yang lain. Hadirin dihormati sekelian, Membasmi Kemiskinan Kerajaan menyedari bahawa pembangunan bandar dan pertumbuhan penduduk akan memberi impak kepada kualiti kehidupan di bandar terutamanya dengan isu kemiskinan bandar. Agenda pembasmian kemiskinan sememangnya menjadi objektif kerajaan sejak 1970 dengan memperkenalkan dan melaksanakan Dasar Ekonomi Baru (DEB) yang kemudiannya digantikan dengan Dasar Pembangunan Negara. Dalam tempoh 15 tahun, kita telah berjaya mengurangkan lebih daripada separuh kadar kemiskinan. Usaha ini diteruskan dan sehingga tahun 2002, kadar kemiskinan di peringkat negara telah berkurangan 5.1%, manakala kadar kemiskinan tegar adalah 1%. Bagi kadar kemiskinan bandar pula, ia berkurangan kepada 2% pada tahun 2002 berbanding dengan 3.6% dalam tahun 1995. Kerajaan telah mensasarkan untuk membasmi kemiskinan secara menyeluruh dalam tempoh lima tahun dan berharap kawasan bandar tidak akan mempunyai penduduk miskin menjelang tahun 2009.

Pelaksanaan Malaysia Urban Indicator Network (MURNInet) Kesejahteraan rakyat dan kemampanan bandar (urban sustainability) memerlukan indikator yang komprehensif dan sistem untuk sentiasa memantau dan menilai status kemampanannya. Dengan itu, masalah dan jurang pencapaian kualiti bandar sejahtera dapat dikenal pasti dan diatasi mengikut keutamaan. Kementerian saya melalui Jabatan Perancangan Bandar dan Desa telah membangunkan Malaysia Urban Indicator Network (MURNInet) untuk menghasilkan petunjuk-petunjuk mengenai status kemampanan bandar dari segi keselesaan, kesejahteraan, keselamatan dan seterusnya kemampanan bandar atau petempatan. MURNInet merupakan satu inovasi dalam usaha mengukur serta menilai tahap kesejahteraan dan prestasi kemampanan bandar. Sebanyak 14 buah bandar telah dinilai dari segi kualiti pencapaian kemampanan dan Laporan Bandar yang merupakan â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;outputâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; kepada kajian ini telah menggariskan strategi dan program yang perlu diambil tindakan oleh kerajaan tempatan masing-masing. Komitmen daripada â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;stakeholdersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; khususnya pihak berkuasa tempatan adalah penting untuk menjayakan program MURNInet. Kementerian saya akan menggalakkan program ini supaya ia diteruskan dan ia akan menjadi sebahagian daripada program dalam Rancangan Malaysia Kesembilan (RMK9). Merancang Bersama Rakyat Dalam era globalisasi dan perkembangan ICT, maklumat boleh diperolehi dengan mudah. Masyarakat semakin pandai dan tahu akan hak mereka masing-masing dan sentiasa mendesak untuk memastikan kehendak atau keinginan mereka dipenuhi, terutamanya dalam menentukan masa depan kawasan mereka serta membina persekitaran kediaman yang berkualiti tinggi. Perancangan sesuatu kawasan atau petempatan akan hanya betul-betul bermakna sekiranya ia menepati aspirasi komuniti di kawasan yang dirancang. Sehubungan itu, penglibatan orang awam dalam perancangan menjadi sesuatu agenda yang tidak boleh diabaikan.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Kita semua samada sebagai decision makers, pentadbir awam, golongan profesional mahupun perancang bandar haruslah berpegang kepada prinsip ‘merancang bersama rakyat, merancang untuk rakyat’. Melalui Akta Perancangan Bandar dan Desa 1976 (Akta 172), orang awam diberi hak untuk melibatkan diri dalam proses penyediaan rancangan struktur, rancangan tempatan dan rancangan kawasan khas supaya mereka berpeluang untuk menentukan masa depan di kawasan kediaman mereka. Orang awam berhak membuat bantahan terhadap perancangan yang dibuat. Aktiviti penglibatan awam tidak juga harus terhad kepada semasa perancangan sesuatu pembangunan sahaja, tetapi juga semasa pelaksanaan sesuatu program di peringkat tempatan dan tindakan susulan atau pemantauan yang perlu dijalankan. Dalam hal ini juga, saya amat menekankan kepada pengukuhan sistem penyampaian (delivery system) perkhidmatan awam dan ia akan terus menjadi agenda utama ke arah mewujudkan ‘good governance’ di negara ini. Perancangan yang dibuat ke atas harus disampaikan kepada orang awam dalam bentuk yang mudah difahami dan mudah diakses. Peluang yang lebih luas, contohnya saluran-saluran rasmi atau tidak rasmi yang lebih jelas perlu diadakan bagi membolehkan penyertaan mereka. Selanjutnya perancangan hendaklah mengambil kira pandangan-pandangan yang dikemukakan dan memberi pertimbangan dan penilaian yang wajar terhadap pandanganpandangan tersebut. Keberkesanan sesuatu perancangan itu seharusnya diukur dari sejauh mana ia dapat memenuhi keperluan dan kehendak serta wawasan penduduk sasaran. Dalam banyak hal, kita tidak boleh menunggu kepada aduan awam sahaja, tetapi perlu bertindak secara responsif dan sensitif terhadap persekitaran di peringkat tempatan. Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, The national convention will be held for two days and the invited distinguished practitioners and experts from local and foreign countries will be presenting papers covering a wide range of interesting topics relating to ‘Liveable Cities’. This is the place for the practiced town planners, government ofﬁcials, researchers, and city managers to meet and exchange ideas, good practices, and innovative technologies pertaining to town planning. I am sure it will generate active discussion and enrich your knowledge to advance our planning activities. Whatever lessons learnt, issues raised and experiences exchanged, must be transcribed into action plans. All our actions should be consensus oriented, equitable and inclusive, effective and efﬁcient, responsive and accountable. Lastly, I wish all delegates a fruitful convention and to our foreign speakers, I wish you a memorable stay in Malaysia. With that, I now declare open the World Town Planning Day of 2005.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

��

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Y. Bhg. Dato’ Seri Lokman Hakim b. Md. Jasan Secretary-General Ministry of Housing and Local Government Malaysia

read by

Y. Bhg. Dato’ MOHD. SHARIF BIN YUSOF Deputy Secretary-General (Operation) Ministry of Housing and Local Government Malaysia

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Closing Speech Y. Bhg. Dato’ Mohd. Fadzil bin Hj. Mohd. Khir Ketua Pengarah, JPBD Semenanjung Malaysia Y. Berusaha Puan Lok Yin Ming Merangkap Pengerusi Jawatankuasa Induk Sambutan Hari Perancangan Bandar Sedunia 2005 Ketua-Ketua Jabatan, Pembentang-Pembentang Kertas Kerja, Dato’-Dato’, Datin-Datin, Tuan-Tuan dan Puan-Puan hadirin yang dihormati sekalian. Asaslamualaikum wrb dan selamat tengahari; Terlebih dahulu saya ingin mengucapkan terima kasih kepada pihak penganjur yang sudi menjemput saya untuk menutup Majlis Sambutan Hari Perancangan Bandar Sedunia 2005 dengan tema “Perancangan Ke Arah Bandar Sejahtera”.

Dalam tempoh dua hari konvensyen ini, pelbagai kertas kerja yang berkaitan dengan “Perancangan Ke Arah Bandar Sejahtera” telah dibentangkan dan dibincangkan dalam Konvensyen ini. Antara topik-topik yang telah dibentangkan adalah mengenai “Using Indicators for Transforming a Vision into Action and Effective Urban Program”, “MURNInet”, “Health Indicators – Towards Achieving Equity in Health Care delivery in Urban Settings”, “Melbourne Liveable City Indicators” dan sebagainya. Pada hari ini, topik-topik menarik mengenai “Ecological Footprint” dan “Kuala Lumpur Sustainable Development” turut dibentangkan. Saya ingin mengambil kesempatan ini untuk mengucapkan berbanyak-banyak terima kasih kepada para pembentang dari dalam dan luar negara yang telah dapat meluangkan masa untuk bersama-sama kita di konvensyen ini. Saya percaya, dengan penyertaan pelbagai pihak yang terdiri dari Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan (PBT), Agensi-agensi pelaksana, pihak pemaju, para penyelidik, para akademik, pelajar IPT, Badan Bukan Kerajaan (NGOs) dan sebagainya telah menjadikan forum ini lebih berkesan terutamanya dalam sesi bertukar pendapat dan perkongsian pengalaman berkaitan dalam usaha ke arah perancangan ‘Bandar Sejahtera’. Selain itu, penyertaan ini memberi banyak pendedahan dan pemahaman kepada semua ahli perancang bandar dan pentadbir bandar mengenai indikator-indikator pengukuran kesejahteraan bandar dan kualiti hidup di peringkat ‘local’ dan ‘global’. Penglibatan semua pihak dalam konvensyen ini, bagi saya akan dapat meningkatkan tahap profesionalisme serta hubungan silaturrahim peserta dari pelbagai agensi dan negara yang terlibat dalam perancangan dan pembangunan bandar ke arah peningkatan kualiti hidup di bandar di negara ini.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Hadirin dihormati sekalian, Penglibatan pelbagai pihak sama ada dari sektor kerajaan mahu pun swasta dalam konvensyen ini, akan membantu usaha-usaha ke arah merealisasikan perancangan perbandaran yang sejahtera selaras dengan pembangunan urbanisasi yang pesat dengan pelbagai cabaran yang perlu ditempuhi seperti pertumbuhan penduduk yang pesat dengan keperluan penyediaan prasarana perumahan, perniagaan, kemudahan awam dan sebagainya di kawasan perbandaran. Ini adalah selaras dengan peningkatan kualiti kehidupan komuniti dengan pembangunan sosioekonomi yang memerlukan persekitaran tempat tinggal yang selesa, bersih dan selamat. Oleh yang demikian, keperluan-keperluan komuniti moden melalui perancangan dan pembangunan reruang yang lebih kondusif perlu disediakan oleh semua pihak di peringkat kerajaan, khususnya Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan (PBT) dan juga pihak swasta. Kita juga perlu sentiasa bersedia menghadapi cabaran-cabaran perbandaran dalam era globalisasi ini. Elemen yang menjadikan sesebuah bandar itu ‘liveable’ bukan hanya dengan menyediakan jalan raya, bangunan yang menarik, kawasan rekreasi atau dengan kemudahan prasarana seperti pusat membeli-belah, tetapi keharmonian di kalangan komuniti yang terdiri daripada pelbagai kaum juga merupakan elemen penting ke arah pembentukan ‘bandar sejahtera’. Oleh itu, semua pihak khususnya Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan (PBT) yang menjadi agensi pelaksana harus memastikan elemen penting ini diintegrasikan dalam perancangan reruang di kawasan perbandaran masing-masing. Dalam memastikan usaha-usaha ke arah pembentukan bandar sejahtera berjaya, agensi-agensi kerajaan serta swasta yang berkaitan perlulah bekerjasama dengan PBT dalam merealisasikan hasrat yang murni ini. PBT bertanggungawab menterjemahkan semua dasar-dasar kerajaan yang berkaitan dalam bentuk ﬁzikal. Oleh itu, mereka harus berkeupayaan untuk melaksanakan indikator-indikator pembangunan mampan di kawasan PBT masing-masing. Aspek keselamatan dan kesihatan penduduk di kawasan perbandaran kini menjadi isu utama yang perlu diberi perhatian. Suatu kawasan perbandaran tidak menjadi ‘liveable’ sekiranya langkah-langkah pencegahan jenayah serta pencegahan pencemaran alam sekitar tidak dilaksanakan. Tindakan-tindakan jangka pendek dan jangka panjang perlulah dirangka bagi memperbaiki persekitaran perbandaran menjadi ‘liveable’ kepada penduduk setempat. Perancangan kawasan perbandaran juga perlulah mengambil kira ciri-ciri bandar selamat serta memenuhi indikator-indikator MURNInet yang telah digariskan. Dengan langkah-langkah sedemikian saya yakin kawasan perbandaran di negara kita akan menjadi lebih ‘liveable’ dan seterusnya ke arah pembentukan ‘healthy community’.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Closing Speech Kemiskinan bandar akan memberi impak kepada kualiti kehidupan di bandar. Sebelum ini, tumpuan lebih diberikan kepada pembasmian kemiskinan, penyusunan semula masyarakat dan memenuhi keperluan asas untuk hidup, tapi kini penekanan adalah lebih kepada pembasmian kemiskinan mutlak dan pembangunan masyarakat perdagangan dan perindustrian. Teras pembasmian kemiskinan di bawah Rancangan Malaysia Kelapan (RMK8) adalah mengurangkan kadar kemiskinan kepada 0.5% menjelang tahun 2005. Hadirin yang dihormati sekalian, Saya berasa gembira melihat lebih daripada 300 peserta dari pelbagai disiplin telah mengikuti konvensyen ini dari awal hingga ke akhir. Saya berharap dengan adanya tahap pemahaman yang lebih baik terhadap bandar sejahtera, semua pegawai akan dapat menjalankan tanggungjawab mereka dengan lebih bijaksana, profesional dan sistematik. Justeru akan dapat menghasilkan kesedaran dan kefahaman dalam perancangan kawasan perbandaran yang sejahtera dan meningkatkan peranan dan imej agensi kerajaan khususnya PBT yang menjadi jentera kerajaan yang melaksanakan dasar-dasar serta keputusan kerajaan.

Sebagai penutup, sukacita saya mengambil kesempatan ini untuk merakamkan setinggitinggi penghargaan dan terima kasih kepada pihak yang terlibat dalam menjayakan Konvensyen sempena sambutan Hari Perancangan Bandar Sedunia ini. Dengan ini saya menutup Konvensyen Hari Perancangan Bandar Sedunia bagi tahun 2005 dengan rasminya dan semoga berjumpa lagi di lain-lain program seperti ini di masa akan datang.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, The national convention has been held for two days. I would like to take this opportunity to express my thanks and gratitude for your presentation and participation in this convention which had covered a wide range of interesting topics related to ‘Liveable Cities’. I am conﬁdent that, the all of you had an active discussion, and exchanged knowledge and experiences through out the paper presentations. I am glad to assure you that all matters arising after serious discussion will be given due attention in near future through action plans. Lastly, I hope that all the delegates especially our friends from other countries have had a pleasant and wonderful stay in Malaysia. With that, I now close the World Town Planning Day National Convention for the year 2005. Wassalamualaikum wbkt. Thank you.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

��

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 1 - By: Dr. Vinay D. Lall “Using Indicators for Transforming a Vision into Action and Effective Urban Programme Management”

Paper 2 - By: En. Kamalruddin Shamsudin

Paper 3 - By: Y. Bhg. Dato’ Dr. Shaﬁe bin Ooyub “Health Indicators Towards Achieving Equity in Health Care Delivery in Urban Settings”

Paper 4 - By: Ms Yap Siew Hong “The Malaysian Quality of Life”

Paper 5 - By: Mr. Austin Ley “Melbourne Liveable City Indicators”

114

Paper 6 - By: Prof. Dr. Morshidi Shirat “Urban Competitiveness and Liveability in the Malaysian Context : Indicators, Determinants and Policy Implications”

194

Paper 7 - By: Y. Bhg. Dato’ Haji Ruslin bin Haji Hasan “Kuala Lumpur Sustainable Development”

226

Paper 8 - By: Dr. Andrew Flynn “An Evaluation of Ecological Footprint for Different Types of Urban Development Impacts”

274

“Malaysia Urban Indicators Network (MURNInet)”

��

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

��

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

USING INDICATORS FOR TRANSFORMING A VISION INTO ACTION AND EFFECTIVE URBAN PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT An Approach & Global Experiences For Outcome-oriented Governance

DR. VINAY D. LALL SOCIETY FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES (SDS) REGIONAL NETWORK FOR KNOWLEDGE INFRASTRUCTURE Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 1 Malaysia World Town Planning Day Convention 2005 Using Indicators for Transforming A Vision into Action & Effective Urban Program Management An Approach & Global Experiences for Outcome-oriented Governance Dr. Vinay D. Lall Society for Development Studies (SDS) Kuala Lumpur, 17-18 November 2005

Regional Network for Knowledge Infrastructure Global Leader in Knowledge Infrastructure-driven Governance --- Policy Research, Capacity Building, Institutional Development, Technical Assistance, Experience Sharing, Networking

Third Millennium Challenges for Urban Planners & Managers

In 2015, the City Planner, Manager, & Administrator

��have to Ensure Provision of Required Services to Make Location Attractive Global Investment Destination, Improve Productivity, Incomes, QOL ��have to contribute to city/country attaining global commitments – MDGs, slum-less cities,… �� Challenge will be to mobilize market cost funds & Vision has to be marketfriendly & attractive �� Therefore, have to be designed on basis of Assessed Service Requirements & have components to attract & facilitate: Resource Flows, Out sourcing Partners for Service Delivery, Cost- & Time-effective Production, Delivery & O & M Operations ��This requires effective Coordination & Convergence of input flows for the Operations, Strong Monitoring of Implementation, Regular Assessment of Impact & Audit Performance �� Consciously provide for Time Efficiency & Cost Efficiency; Contribute to City Productivity & Incomes & QOL

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Third Millennium Challenges for Urban Planners & Managers � Need to be Specific in selecting Programme Components � Need to Prioritise Concerns to be Addressed to Attain * Maximum Impact * Widest Coverage * Sustainability through Developing Linkages among Projects for Fund Leveraging, * Dilemma of inter-sector & inter-ministerial coordination �Increasing Percentage of Finance to be Market-sourced –Less of Dreams & More of Utility Components Implications:* Higher Cost * Timely Funds Servicing * Project to be Viable, in Economic & Financial Terms  Political Interventions have become stronger Implications:*Learn Techniques & Practices to Contain Interventions * Sensitize & Mobilise People’s support * Have Strong Data Base *Develop Analytical & Negotiating capacity 33

Are Urban Planners Equipped for these Challenges � Have We been able to Integrate Multi-Sector City Operations � Have we ensured Time Efficiency & Cost Efficiency in Plan Implementation (or this is NOR) � Do We Attain Anticipated Reach out, Deliver Quality Services, Improve QOL, City Productivity & Incomes (NOR) � Do We consciously Think of Sustainable Impact, attaining Outcomes and not just Outputs (NOR)

• What have been Major Operational Roadblocks Development Vision to capture these Challenges Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 1

Major Blocks to Efficient Governance Weak Coordination System

Right Hand does not know what the Left Does �Duplication of Efforts, often within organisation, Ministry,ULB, Dev Authority; No Information Sharing; No Linkage among Inter-dependent Activities, Enduses & Stakeholders

Superficial Convergence System

� Improper Sequencing of Input Flows; Poor Backward & Forward Linkage among inter-dependent activities & end-uses; Most Convergence Programmes are Paper documents, little effective implementation

Misconstrued Leveraging Approach

�Vertical Flows from higher levels of Govt &External Agencies only considered as Leveraging; Horizontal flows among partners/potential partners who have an inter-dependency relationship not considered; Information gaps become a constraint to develop these inter-dependency flows 34

Indicator as a Tool for Planning, Policy & Decision Making NA Inputs Sustainability

Situational Analysis

Rank Performance

Identify Challenges

Assess Impact a. Direct/Indirect b. Short term & long term c. Output & Outcome

Utility of an “I”

Assess Road Blocks & Constraints, Facilitate revision in AP if required

Monitoring the Implementation of Action Plan

Design project / plan Diagnose problems Identify solutions

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Urban Indicators Programme 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

World Bank-UNCHS initiative, with Progress in stages HPI – 1990-1992 Comparative UI Habitat II -- 1994-96 Comparative UI Istanbul + 5 – 1999-01 Institutionalizing the Process Post I+5 --- 2003- World Urban Forum Local Indicators, Programme-specific indicators –Localizing Indicators

The Challenges: How Do we Establish UOs– Where to start from Where Do we Locate them What will the UO do Who will be the Initiating Stakeholders & Why Who will Manage it How will it raise Resources 35

SDS Experiences SDS was a Member of Core Team from start –HPI > Habitat II>I+5 > post I+5 Two UN Awards for Excellence, Regional Coordinator for Asia-pacific and Arab regions, Global TOT, Technical Assistance across Asia, Arab, Africa, … ASIA-PACIFIC: Bangladesh Bhutan Cambodia China Fiji Islands India Indonesia Iran Korea Laos Maldives Mongolia Myanmar Nepal Pakistan Papua New Guiena Philippines Sri Lanka Thailand Vietnam ARAB REGION:Bahrain Egypt Iraq Jordan Kuwait Lebanon Morocco Palestine Qatar Saudi Arabia Syria Sudan Tunisia Yemen UAE AFRICA: Kenya Senegal South Africa Zimbabve Uganda

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 1 The SDS Approach --New Initiatives 1. The sub-city level 2. Developing Integrated Data Base & Data Validation 3. Indicator Products for Analytical Purposes & Application 4. Specialized Indicator & Indicator Product Packages for Municipal Management, Property Taxation, Access to Habitat services, Poverty Reduction, Empowerment, Welfare Inequities, Good Governance, Building Partnerships, Performance Measurement, Outcome Budgeting

5. Operational LUO, using LUO local indicators to design, implement & manage project through local participatory & ownership process

6. Extensive Capacity Building Modules, covering all possible issues

required for an integrated action plan to build partnerships, backward & forward linkages & multiplier impact

Good Practices Indicator Products for using Indicators • Coordination, Convergence & Leveraging (CCL) Model for Program Management & Good Governance • Developing Cities as Investment Destination • Sector-specific Indicators based Operational Models (linking Demand and Supply Partners & Backward and Forward Linkages)

• Performance-oriented Model for Efficiency in Utilization of Budgetary Allocations

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Good Practices CCL Model Operational Principles  Interdependency among Project Stakeholders  Study the DD-SS Matrices for the project (Bangalore Model)  Identify prospective linkages that will have multiplier impact  Element of Economics – critical – generally overlooked by Technical Personnel  Partnerships, the starting point for Coordination & Convergence (UNHABITAT-TCBB) 

Introduce TAP principles

 Best ways to link some / all the stakeholders through demonstrating Interdependency -- builds strong foundation for Partnerships  A win-win situation for all: - Dependency on each other for growth / success / profits 37

Good Practices BLUO Sector Models (2000-01) Consultative Process in Sector Selection ** Housing ** Water Supply ** Sanitation ** SWM ** Transport ** Environment �� Key purpose of Sector Planning Model is to initiate Process of Thinking afresh & a set of Good Indicators sets the tone, especially if a Facilitator available �� Model facilitates analysis of Demand & Supply Factors www.bangaloreluo.org �� CCL Model of Good Governance

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 1 BLUO - Series of Firsts Full-fledged LUO ( May 2002) 1. Operational LUO in the world 2. Went beyond UNCHS Indicators, covering all key service providers/ stakeholders 3.Publication on comprehensive set of indicators & Web: (www.bangaloreluo.org) 3. Planning & Policy Models to converge city activities & leverage city resources 4. Have brought together all city service providers 5. Installed system of coordinated flow of resources & sequencing of city activities 6.Operational LUO Steering Committee with all Stakeholder groups & Technical Core group to operate & manage activities 7.Has political commitment, with Head of Government its Champion 8. Definite Plan of Action for extension of indicator development and application to sub-city level 9. Recognized by UNHABITAT as Good Model for Local City Monitoring, WUF, May, 2002 10. Mobilized global collaboration & TA 11. Recognised by UNHABITAT as Good Practice for Local level Monitoring, May 2002

Good Practices Towards Sub-city Indicators SDS-World Bank Policy Research (2002-05)

��To Develop & Test Information-driven Strategies to Address City Management/Governance Challenges �� SDS & Development Research Group, The World Bank �� City Partners in the Government, in the first Stage Municipalities, Dev.Auth., Service Providers, Ministries of Urban Dev, Housing,,, �� Covers 4 Indian Cities: Bangalore, Pune, Bhopal, Jaipur District �� Sub-city : Ward-wise & Income quintile �� Extended to Two Secondary Towns in Kenya �� Select few Priority City Issues Property Tax, Service Provision Pricing (Water), Waste Management, Urban Transport, Environment, Informal Sector,… �� Bring together other local Stakeholders subsequently �� Experiences of State/City Governments on Bangalore & Jaipur Policy Research Outputs �� Capacity Building Agenda to Develop Skills

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Good Practices Alwar LUO Indicators-based

Participatory Demonstration Project (2002-05)

To demonstrate Utility of Indicators-based Approach  Consultative Process at All Stages  Ensure Local Stakeholders Partnership  Should become Locally Owned & Managed  Solid Waste Management

Lessons Learned: Strategy for Sustainable LUO:Road Map Step I: Identify City Problems & Persons (preferably at sub-city level) Step 2:Organize Informal Consultations to Rank not more than 3 key problems Step 3 Determine Objectives & Strategies to Address them Step 4:Decide on Instruments to Intervene Step 5:Work out Role of Stakeholders/Partners to Implement the Instruments & Strategies Step 6: Build Linkages & Effective Operational Partnerships to have maximum impact at minimum cost Step 7: Determine the Outputs & Outcomes Step 8: Now Conceive Indicators for all Stages of operations & management Step 9:Indicator Set to be Specific to Concerns & include for Tracking flow of inputs & their Outputs (Traditional Approach of Monitoring), Identifying Road Blocks, Operational Constraints (to facilitate additional interventions), Assessing Outputs & Outcomes (Impact), & Performance Auditing of the core team All the stages may not be initiated at these same time; these should evolve over time. The process of indicator development has to be gradual

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 1

� �� •Prepared by :

� ��

Eng. Passant Hamza

Eng. Amir Ibrahiem

Eng. Baher Bahgat

Eng. Mohamed Abd El-Hamid

Eng. Hussein Abd Alrahman

Eng. Mohamed Hamed Eng. Medhat Farouk

Eng. Wael El-Esnawy

� �� : Definition: • illegal lands which is not supplied by utilities and services • Land problem (registration, land use, ownership) � �� Types of Informal areas: • Non-planned areas � � �� •� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � •� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � •� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � •� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � •� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � •� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � •� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � •� � � � � � � � � � � Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

� � � � �� • Poverty • Migration • High housing cost • Low income • Relation between high population and land availability • Building legislation is not firmly (completely) applied • Punishment is not enough � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� • Lack of coordination, cooperation and transparency among related agencies • Lack of fund, supplier

� � �� •Household access to services and utilities (sanitation, water, electricity) can’t be supplied by infrastructure because of road length under green cover •Crime rate •Women’s participation •Literacy rate�� Citizens under poverty line �� Unemployment rate by genderChild Labor rate •Housing quality •Funding sources � •Pollution rate -Solid and organic wastes rate •Civilized Organizations, NGO participation rate � � � �� •Funding •Weak Participation of citizens

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 1 � �� Outputs •

Utilities and basic services supply

•

Provide job opportunities through small projects

•

Increase the of percentage green areas

•

Increase security services

•

Increase public awareness

•

Improve urban environment

�� •Improve living conditions •Increase percent of women participation • Decrease Child Labour •Decrease Informal Areas •Increase Local Production

Other Case Studies • Sudan Urban Poverty & Shelter Upgradation Project Project – How NOT to Do • Uganda Real Estate & Infrastructure Development Price Indices • Brazil Unweded Mother Settlement Programme • Mashaad Township Development Programme •

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Urban Indicators

Objectives

•Promoting good governance and management of SA Cities •Analyzing strategic challenges facing SA cities •Collecting, collating, analyzing , assessing, disseminating and applying experience •Promoting shared learning partnerships between different spheres of government to support the governance of SA cities •Promoting CDS to evaluate city performance

City Development Strategy Comparative competitive advantage  Workforce Productive skills City  Transport system  Efficient city services

Basic services for all

Inclusive City

 Leadership & partnerships

 Effective

administration

 Social cohesion  Safety and security

CDS  Financial

 Intergovernmental alignment

 Sustainable livelihoods

resources

WellWellgoverned City

Sustainable City

 Environment  Human resources  HIV/Aids

 Transparency Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 1 Indicators-based Strategic Planning & Program Management-Yemen August 2005 Problems --Muskeel

1. Slum & Squatter Settlements 2. Access to Infrastructure Specify which (Taiz) 3. Water Scarcity (Shabaa) 4. Access to Low Income Housing 5. Major Road Intersection in Sanaa city 6. Resource (Funding) Constraint for Physical Plan Implementation Operational Strategy Components 1. Lack of Public Awareness on Project Implementation 2. Lack of Coordination, cooperation & transparency among related agencies Solution 3. Land Problem (Registration, Land Use, Ownership) 4. Lack of maintenance (road work) 5. Specialists in urban planning sector (presently largely architects) 6. Modern Management (Aden) Lack of inventory of cultural & historical cities 7. Legal Issues 8. Tribal conflicts 9. Adequate Funds to cover existing investment projects

Illustrative Example- Slum Upgrading, a MDG Objective �Develop an Effective Delivery System for SU inputs to reach out to all eligible people & on a sustainable basis

Type of Analysis � Bring out Dimension & Components of Slum Settlements �Provide insight into Causative Factors & Processes & whether an across-the-board solution or situation-specific solutions required. � Examine which Slums can be upgraded & which cannot & why �Linkages among causative factors & their Agencies �Suggest Actions to promote partnerships & improve C & C in SU inputs (bringing together projects, programmes, partners who could contribute to attain objectives -- the OUTCOMES

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Illustrative Example- Slum Upgrading 1.Dimensions: � What types of Slums –Legal, Notified, those having slum characteristics –old degrading legal settlements 2.Composition: � Types of Slums 3.Slum Characteristics, linked to Deprivations � Sanitation & Water � Housing Quality � Social Infrastructure: health, education, open areas � Connectivity Rates � Child Labour � Income (Poverty status)

4. Slum Causative Factors

5. Building Partnerships

� Poverty � Migration � High Housing Cost � Convenient to Work Place � Among Input suppliers � Within Govt system & programs � Among Other Stakeholders

Illustrative Example- Slum Upgrading 6. Monitoring � Bench Mark Indicators � Input Flows, as per Project Cycle � Direction of Input Flows � Roadblocks � Utilization of Input Flows � Outputs � Outcomes 7. Evaluation � Bench mark Indicators � Outcomes � Impact Within Project Cycle � Impact in Post-Project Period In terms of Selected Indicators

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 1 Outcome Budgeting System Global Goals

Sector Ministry Policy & Goals

Objectives Outputs & Costs Outcomes & Costs

Outcome Budgeting Process

Ministry/Sector Multi-tier Strategies Programmes Sub-Programmes Activities

Strategic Resource Flows -Finance -Personnel -Management -Technology -Others Roadblocks

Input

M&E System & Strategic Interventions to Attain Outcomes

Output Outcome (Intermediate) Outcomes (Final) Sustainable Impact

Outcome-enhancing Indicators � Efficiency � Productivity � Quality � Self-financing � Local Ownership

Issues for World Town Planning Day Convention Replacing Outputs by Outcomes of Planning Products Building Bridges among sectors, ministries & stakeholders Demand-driven planning process Malaysia-specific indicator products Shifting from comparative ranking indicators to application for planning, management & decision making • SDS is looking for Partnerships with Planners to develop & test the CCL Model & other Urban Indicator products with respect to 2-3 specific issues • • • • •

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Contact • Vinay D. Lall, Society for Development Studies (SDS) Regional Network for Knowledge Infrastructure • India Habitat Centre, Core 6A, Lodhi Road, New Delhi110 003, India • Tel: (91-11) 2469 9368 • Fax: (91-11) 2469 9369 • Email: sds@nda.vsnl.net.in, sds2@vsnl.net • Web sites: www.sdsindia.org www.sdsindia-urbanindicators.org

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

��

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Malaysian Urban Indicators Network (MURNInet)

En. Kamalruddin b. Shamsudin Director Research and Development Division Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia

Curriculum Vitae : Mr. Kamalruddin Shamsudin, better known as Kldin, has served in the Malaysian town planning service for more than 28 years. He graduated with an Advanced Diploma in Town and Regional Planning from ITM, Shah Alam in 1978, Post Graduate Diploma (Urban Renewal) from the Institute of Housing Studies, Netherlands in 1990 and Master of Philosophy (by research) from the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, United Kingdom in 1994.

Participation Techniques, Computer Application, History of Town Planning Service in Malaya, Transportation and Land Use in Regional Planning. He has put together a compilaton of his writings entitled In the Service of Town and Country Planning - Recollections and Remembrance (1978 -2003). He is also the Chief Editor of the Malaysian TownPlan Journal.

He has written more than 60 papers and articles for planning journals, conferences, and workshops, as well as speeches and book chapters covering the following specialisation and areas of interest in town planning: Decision Science application, GIS application, Spatial Multi-criteria Techniques, Public

Currently he is involved in research on the practical application of the Safe City concept in collaboration with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. He is also overseeing the collection of information and the setting up of a national database for the Malaysian Urban Indicators Network Programme (MURNInet).

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 2 SPEAKER: KAMALRUDDIN SHAMSUDIN PAPER 2:

MALAYSIAN URBAN INDICATORS NETWORK PROGRAMME (MURNInet)

Abstract: The Malaysian Urban Indicators Network (MURNInet) is Malaysia’s response to measuring sustainable development at the city and town level. Since its initial conceptualization in 1997, it has undergone gradual improvement, beginning with lessons learnt from its pilot projects undertaken during the period 2002–2003 for six cities and towns of various levels, and in 2004 for eight capital cities. This paper discusses such development and the implementation framework adopted. MURNInet has also been subjected to various stakeholder involvement which has inﬂuenced its indicator benchmarking and sustainability classiﬁcation. Comparison with other indicator programmes in the country and those of Millennium Development Goals (MDG) of UN-HABITAT are provided to suggest the area of focus of MURNInet and its continuing development.

Melbourne –W Liveable City Indicators ORLD TOWN PLANNING DAY 2005 Planning Planning Towards Towards Liveable Liveable Cities Cities “Indicators for liveable Cities” National Conference & World Town Planning Day Celebration Malaysia PAPER 2 :

Prepared Prepared By By ::

EN. KAMALRUDDIN BIN SHAMSUDIN

Director Research and Development Division Federal Town And Country Planning Department Peninsular Malaysia 17 NOVEMBER 2005

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Melbourne – Liveable City Indicators THE PURPOSE OF BRIEF “Indicators for liveable Cities” National Conference & World Town Planning Day Celebration Malaysia

To give explanation and information about Malaysian Urban Indicators Network Programme (MURNInet). 51

Melbourne – Liveable MURNInet City Indicators “Indicators for liveable Cities” National Conference Urban IndicatorsMalaysia Network) & World(Malaysian Town Planning Day Celebration

An approach to measure and evaluate the sustainability of urban development.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 2 Melbourne – Liveable CHRONOLOGY City Indicators “Indicators for liveable Cities” National Conference & World Town Planning Day Celebration Malaysia

Mac 1997

Terms of Reference (TOR) for Urban and Housing Indicator.

Feb. 1999

Urban Indicators study.

April 2001

Urban Indicator Report

Melbourne – Liveable City MURNInet Indicators PROGRAMME CITIES UNDER “Indicators for liveable Cities” National Conference PROJECTSDay IN YEAR 2002 – Malaysia 6 Cities & World PILOT Town Planning Celebration

Pasir Mas

Georgetown

Kuantan

Batu Pahat

Johor Bahru

Kuching

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Melbourne – Liveable CHRONOLOGY City Indicators “Indicators for liveable Cities” National Conference & World Town Planning Celebration Malaysia Jun 2002 PilotDay project for 6 cities/towns

Georgetown

Kuching

ii.

Johor Bahru

vi.

Pasir Mas

iii.

Kuantan

vii.

Batu Pahat 53

Melbourne – Liveable City MURNInet Indicators PROGRAMME CITIES UNDER “Indicators for liveable Cities” National Conference YEAR 2004 – 8 Cities Malaysia & World Town Planning Day Celebration

Kangar Alor Setar Kota Bharu Ipoh Shah Alam

Kuala Terengganu

Seremban

Malacca

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 2 Melbourne – Liveable CHRONOLOGY City Indicators “Indicators for liveable Cities” National Conference & World Day Celebration Malaysia Julai Town 2004Planning Eight Capital Towns/Cities i.

Kangar

Seremban

ii.

Alor Setar

vi.

Shah Alam

iii.

Ipoh

vii.

Kuala Terengganu

iv.

Malacca

viii.

Kota Bharu

Melbourne – Liveable City MURNInet Indicators PROGRAMME CITIES UNDER “Indicators for liveable Cities” National Conference YEARPlanning 2005 – 13 Capital Towns/Cities & World Town Day Celebration Malaysia

Kangar Alor Setar Kota Bharu Georgetown Kuala Terengganu Ipoh Shah Alam Malacca

Kota Kinabalu

Kuantan Seremban Johor Bahru

Kuching

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Melbourne – Liveable City Indicators SIGNIFICANCE “Indicators for liveable Cities” National Conference GOVERNMENT AND & FOR WorldFEDERAL Town Planning Day Celebration Malaysia STATE 1. Evaluate;

2. To improve the service for public; 3. The indicators can be made as basic evaluation to upgrade an urban’s status; and 4. Urban Indicators can be made as measurement for government to encourage the local and foreigner’s investors.

Melbourne – Liveable City Indicators SIGNIFICANCE “Indicators for liveable Cities” National Conference & World Town Planning Day Celebration Malaysia FOR LOCAL AUTHORITY 1. To recognize the problem level, urban quality level and to suggest a final suggestion; 2. To improve the service level to the public; and 3. To give feed-back to 5 National Integrity Plan (PIN) target.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 2 Melbourne – Liveable SIGNIFICANCE City Indicators “Indicators for liveable Cities” National Conference & World Town Planning Day Celebration Malaysia FOR THE LOCAL PEOPLE 1. To relise that the government is sensitive towards public’s problem from MURNInet which measure the service level, facilities level in urban or local authority; and

2. The government can look at and improve the service and prepare the budget to solve the public’s problem.

DETERMINATION Melbourne – Liveable City IndicatorsCRITERIA MALAYSIAN URBAN INDICATOR “Indicators for liveable Cities” National Conference & 1. World Town Celebration Can be used Planning for all urbanDay hierarcy and size. Malaysia 2. Can be measure by using the data in local or district level. 3. The data can be easily collected with the minimal cost. 4. The indicator have a clear defination and reffered to the particular objective. 5. Easily measure and can show the magnitud problem. 6. Each indicator measures different issue. 7. The indicator can be change if the situation is change. Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Melbourne – Liveable City Indicators MURNInet FRAMEWORK “Indicators for liveable Cities” National Conference & World Town Planning Day Celebration Malaysia 1. Steering Commitee UN HABITAT EPU /MHLG/ Focal Point for Country

State Economic Planning Unit

EPU FDTCP / MHLG

2. Coordinator Committee 3. Technical Committee

State Government (SPC)

TCPD State Offices R&D FDTCP Consultants involvement

Local Authority (Full Council)

TCPD Project Office

Chief Minister Office Sarawak

TRPD Sabah

Data Providing Agencies

Melbourne – STAGE Liveable City OF Indicators IMPLEMENTATION “Indicators for liveable Cities” National Conference & World Town Planning Day Celebration Malaysia 1. STEERING COMMITTEE :

To steer MURNInet implementation, monitoring, supervise and implementation direction. Chairman : EPU Head Director Chairman Deputy : JPBD Head Director

2. COORDINATOR COMMITTEE : Coordinate and ensure City Report will be prepare by Local Authority annually. Chairman : JPBD Deputy Head Director 3. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE : Verification of data resources. Chairman : JPBD Director Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 2 Melbourne – Liveable City Indicators SALIENT MURNInet FEATURES “Indicators for liveable Cities” National Conference  Town The Benchmarking on : Malaysia & World Planning Day base Celebration (a) (b) (c) (d)

International standard. National standard. Technical Department Guideline. Guideline. Pilot study and continuing program.

 Using 3 sustainable classification : (a) Sustainable ( score : > 80% ) (b) Moderate ( score : 50% 50%-80% ) (c) Unsustainable ( score : < 50% )

Melbourne –DEFINITION Liveable City Indicators OF STUDY AREA “Indicators for liveable Cities” National Conference & MURNInet World Town Planning boundary of Day Celebration Malaysia Local Authority (LA) area includes :  Service Areas of LA.  Areas subjected to tax assessment.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

INDICATORS Melbourne – Liveable City Indicators (HABITAT AGENDA INDICATOR) - MDG CLUSTER A CLUSTER B “Indicators for liveable Cities” National Conference & World Town Planning Day Celebration Malaysia Shelter

Durable structure

Overcrowding

Economic Development

Unemployment

Shelter

Right to Adequate Housing

Housing Price and to Income

Access to safe water

Secure tenure

Access to improves sanitation

Authorized Housing

Evictions

Connection to Services

Land Price to Income

Social Development and Eradication of Poverty

Housing Finance

Under-five mortality

Social Development and Eradication of Poverty

HIV Prevalence

Literacy

School Enrolment

Environmental Management

Env. Management

Economic Dev.

Planned Settlement

Informal Employment

Price of Water

City Product

Water Consumption

Solid Waste Disposal

Governance

Local Government Revenue

Regular Solid Waste Collection

Decentralization

Wastewater Treated

Citizens Participations

House in Hazardous Locations

Voters Participation

Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Instruments

Homicides

Travel Time

urban Violence

Transport Modes

Poor Household

Local Environment Plans

Civic Associations

Transparency and Accountability

Gender Conclusion

Urban Population Growth

Women Councilors

Melbourne – Liveable MDG City Indicators + MURNInet CLUSTER A CLUSTER B “Indicators for liveable Cities” National Conference & World Town Planning Day Celebration Malaysia Shelter

Durable structure Overcrowding Access to safe water Access to improves sanitation Connection to Services

Social Development and Eradication of Poverty

Under-five mortality HIV Prevalence Literacy School Enrolment Environmental Management

Urban Population Growth

Economic Development

Unemployment

Shelter

Right to Adequate Housing

Housing Price and to Income Secure tenure Authorized Housing Evictions Land Price to Income Housing Finance

Env. Management

Informal Employment

Price of Water

City Product

Water Consumption Solid Waste Disposal

Decentralization

Wastewater Treated

Citizens Participations

House in Hazardous Locations

Voters Participation

Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Instruments

Homicides

Travel Time

urban Violence

Transport Modes

Poor Household

Local Environment Plans

Gender Conclusion

Governance Local Government Revenue

Regular Solid Waste Collection

Social Development and Eradication of Poverty

Women Councilors

Economic Dev.

Planned Settlement

Civic Associations Transparency and Accountability

Exactly Almost similar with MURNInet

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 2 Melbourne – Liveable City Indicators SCOPE “Indicators for liveable Cities” National Conference & World Town Planning Day Celebration Malaysia

i. ii.

Demography Housing

iii. iv. v. vi. vii. viii. ix. x. xi.

Economy Utility and Infrastructure Public Facility Environment Sosiology and Social Impact

LandLand-use Tourism and Heritage Transportation and Accessibility Management and Finance

OF Melbourne – APPLICATION Liveable City Indicators MURNInet INDICATORS “Indicators for BY liveable Cities” YEAR 2005National Conference & World Town Planning Day Celebration Malaysia

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

OF Melbourne –APPLICATION Liveable City Indicators MURNInet INDICATORS “Indicators for BY liveable Cities” YEAR 2005National Conference & World Town Planning Day Celebration Malaysia

OF Melbourne – APPLICATION Liveable City Indicators MURNInet INDICATORS “Indicators for BY liveable Cities” YEAR 2005National Conference & World Town Planning Day Celebration Malaysia

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 2 OF Melbourne –APPLICATION Liveable City Indicators MURNInet INDICATORS “Indicators for BY liveable Cities” YEAR 2005National Conference & World Town Planning Day Celebration Malaysia

OF Melbourne –APPLICATION Liveable City Indicators MURNInet INDICATORS “Indicators for BY liveable Cities” YEAR 2005National Conference & World Town Planning Day Celebration Malaysia

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

OF Melbourne –APPLICATION Liveable City Indicators MURNInet INDICATORS “Indicators for BY liveable Cities” YEAR 2005National Conference & World Town Planning Day Celebration Malaysia

MelbourneSECTORAL – Liveable City Indicators RESULTS : MURNInet 2002 “Indicators for liveable Cities” National Conference GEORGE JOHOR BATU PASIR Cities KUANTAN KUCHING TOWN BHARU PAHAT MAS & Sectors World Town Planning Day Celebration Malaysia Demography

Housing

Economy

Utility & Infrastructure

Public Facility

Environment

Sosiology & Social Impact

LandLand-use

Tourism & Heritage

Transportation & Accessibility

Management & Finance

Sustainable ( > 80 % )

Moderate ( 50 % - 80 % )

Unsustainable ( < 50 % )

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 2 Melbourne – Liveable City Indicators SECTORAL RESULTS : MURNInet 2004 “Indicators for liveable Cities” National Conference ALOR SHAH KUALA KOTA Cities MELAKA T’GANU BHARU KANGAR SETAR & Sectors World Town Planning DayIPOH Celebration ALAM S’BAN Malaysia

Demography

Housing

Economy

Utility & Infrastructure

Public Facility

Environment

Sosiology & Social Impact

LandLand-use

Tourism & Heritage

Transportation & Accessibility

Management & Finance

Sustainable ( > 80 % )

Moderate ( 50 % - 80 % )

Unsustainable ( < 50 % )

Melbourne – Liveable City Indicators RESULT OF PILOT PROJECTS IN YEAR 2002 “Indicators for liveable Cities” National Conference & World Town Planning Day Score Celebration Malaysia Cities The Level Of (% )

Sustainability

Kuantan

71.07%

Medium

Kuching

70.37%

Medium

Georgetown

69.70%

Medium

Johor Bharu

69.18%

Medium

Batu Pahat

66.67%

Medium

Pasir Mas

64.15%

Medium

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Melbourne – Liveable City 2004 Indicators RESULT OF 8 CITIES “Indicators for liveable Cities” National Conference Cities Planning Score ) The LevelMalaysia of Sustainability & World Town Day(%Celebration Malacca

72.38%

Medium

Seremban

68.69%

Medium

Shah Alam

67.68%

Medium

Alor Setar

66.67%

Medium

Kangar

66.67%

Medium

Ipoh

64.70%

Medium

Kota Bharu

61.90%

Medium

Kuala T’ganu

60.61%

Medium

Melbourne – Liveable MURNInet City Indicators RANKING 2004 AND 2005 “Indicators for liveable Cities” National Conference SUSTAINABILITY STATUS OF URBAN AREA (2005) & World Town Planning KangarDay Celebration Malaysia Kota Kinabalu Kuching Selatan

68.32 74.77

Kuching Utara 79.41

69.37

61.62

100 90 80 67.54 70 60 66.67 50 40 30 20 10

Alor Setar

66.67

73.56

Ipoh

64.70

71.93 72.07

67.68

Kuala Terengganu

61.90

68.69

77.19

Kota Bharu

Georgetown

70.18

72.81

Kuantan

81.08

Moderate ( 50 % - 80 % )

Unsustainable ( < 50 % )

Shah Alam 2004

75.44

72.38

77.19

Sustainable ( > 80 % )

Seremban

2005

Melaka Johor Bahru

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 2 Melbourne – Liveable City Indicators RESULT 2005 OF 14 CITIES “Indicators for liveable Cities” National Conference & World Town Day (% Celebration Cities PlanningScore of Sustainability ) The Level Malaysia 1. Malacca

81.08

Sustainable

2. North Kuching

79.41

Medium

3. Kuantan

77.19

Medium

3. Kota Bharu

77.19

Medium

5. Seremban

75.44

Medium

6. South Kuching

74.77

Medium

7. Georgetown

73.56

Medium

Melbourne – Liveable City2005 Indicators RESULT OF 14 CITIES “Indicators for liveable Cities” National Conference Cities PlanningScore ) The Level Malaysia of Sustainability & World Town Day (% Celebration 8. Johor Bahru

72.81

Medium

9. Shah Alam

72.07

Medium

10. Ipoh

71.93

Medium

11. Alor Setar

70.18

Medium

12. Kuala T’ganu

69.37

Medium

13. Kota Kinabalu

68.32

Medium

14. Kangar

67.54

Medium

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Melbourne – LiveableRESULTS City Indicators SECTORAL : MURNInet 2005 “Indicators for liveable Cities” National Conference & World Town Planning Day Celebration Malaysia

Sustainable ( > 80 % )

Moderate ( 50 % - 80 % )

Unsustainable ( < 50 % )

Melbourne – Liveable City Indicators Some Indicator Result 2005 “Indicators for liveable Cities” National Conference Nos. Cities/Towns & World Town Planning Day Celebration Malaysia Indicators

Sustainable

Moderate

Unsustainable

Open Spaces

PrePre-school

Community Hall

Maintenance Tourist Areas

Accidents

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 2 Sector Melbourne – LiveableEnvironment City Indicators “Indicators for liveable Cities” National Conference & World Town Planning Day Celebration73.33 Malaysia TAHAP KEMAMPANAN

BANDAR

KURANG MAMPAN

SEDERHANA MAMPAN

MAMPAN

Kota Kinabalu

Kuching Selatan

Kuching Utara

72.22

Kuala Terengganu

66.67

Kota Bharu

72.22

Kuantan

61.11

Johor Bahru Melaka

72.22

Seremban

72.22

Shah Alam

66.67

Ipoh

66.67

Georgetow n

66.67 77.78

Alor Setar

61.11

Kangar

100

Peratus

Percentage of Budget for Landscaping Programme Kota Kinabalu Kuching Selatan Kuching Utara Kuala Terengganu Kota Bharu Kuantan Johor Bahru

2004

Melaka

2005

Seremban Shah Alam Ipoh Georgetow n Alor Setar Kangar 0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00

Peratus

Sustainable ( > 80 % )

Moderate ( 50 % - 80 % )

Unsustainable ( < 50 % )

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

FUTURE ACTION AND CONCLUSION  To make MURNInet is easy to operated.  To put MURNInet system in web sites, which is one of alternative to operated by others agencies and stakeholders.  Monitor the sustainable status of cities in Malaysia through the implementation of MURNInet.  In Nine Malaysia Plan (2006 – 2010), 14 cities in Peninsular Malaysia will involved MURNInet programmes started in second hierarchy.

Fwd

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

��

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

HEALTH INDICATORS TOWARDS ACHIEVING EQUITY IN HEALTH CARE DELIVERIES IN URBAN SETTINGS

DATO’ SHAFIE B. OOYUB Deputy Director General of Health (Public Health) Ministry of Health, Malaysia

Curriculum Vitae : Dato’ Dr. Shafie Ooyub is currently the Deputy Director General for Health (Public Health) of the Ministry of Health, Malaysia. A medical doctor by training, Dato’ Dr. Shafie first obtained his MBBS from Universiti Malaya in 1976 and later his MPH from the University of the Philippines in 1980. He has served as a medical officer in several hospitals in Johor, as Assistant Director for food quality control and family planning in the Ministry of Health and subsequently as Deputy Director for Health and Medical Services in the States of Pahang and Kedah, and Health Ministry. From 1995 to 2003 he was consecutively the Director of the Health Departments of the States of Pulau Pinang and Kedah, and Director of Disease Control in the

Ministry of Health. In 1993, he was appointed the Deputy Director General of Health (Public Health) in the Ministry of Health, Malaysia. Dato’ Dr. Shaﬁe sits as a Council or Board Member on the committees of various organisations related to occupational safety, social security, and health at the national level. He has produced several publications on the status of heavy metals in seafood, paraquat poisoning in Malaysia, and Clinical Practice Guidelines on Type II Diabetes Mellitus.

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 3 SPEAKER:

DATO’ DR SHAFIE OOYUB

PAPER 3:

HEALTH INDICATORS TOWARDS ACHIEVING EQUITY IN HEALTH CARE DELIVERIES IN URBAN SETTINGS

Abstract:

Environmental quality, economic well being, and supportive communities are all essential resources for a healthy population. Making meaningful local action plans for health requires a clear picture of the types of action needed. Health is not an activity. It is not jogging, or eating well, or not smoking, or living in a good environment, or being employed. Rather it is the outcome of these and other activities as well. People are more, or less, healthy according to the resources that they have in their everyday lives. Health is the outcome of these factors combined in the lives of individuals and communities. This paper reviews some of the key challenges faced by urban planners from the Health Ministry’s experience when striving to create sustainable cities. The paper is intended to illustrate some of the issues facing individuals who must choose to be active, but the way a community develops its built environment can ease or impede the desire to be active. As a society, we will be spending billions of dollars on health in the next two decades. We can spend it on piecemeal and possibly conflicting improvements, or we can spend it to maintain and enhance the liveability. This paper looks at sustainability as a dynamic, continuous process of sharing and exchanging knowledge and experiences, and of learning through action. It explores the resiliency of Sarawak and Johore Bharu’s experience of health cities by examining impediments that make the ideal of sustainability difficult to realize. These challenges include lack of resources, the need for political support, lack of information and research, and the tendency to address urban problems in isolation when a comprehensive, integrated approach is required. These challenges should be seen as everyone’s responsibility. Strategic and operational plans should be developed and priority must also be given to strengthening partnerships between all stakeholders in the nation’s health care services. Forging relationships and developing networks will pay enormous dividends when you need it most especially in crisis. Thus, critical success factors in these partnerships must be dealt wisely. Fully integrated health planning that includes the public and private sectors, health-related NGOs, Department of Environment, Local Government, town and country planners, the health care industry and others must evolve along this path of change, devising innovative methods and strategies with the ultimate aim of harnessing the entire resources of the health sector for the optimum benefit of the population.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Health planning and policies must tackle the social and economic determinants of health and be concerned with the health implications of economic and social policies, as well as with the benefits that investing in health policies can bring. The fallacy in present thinking rests on the assumption that health gains are possible only through expenditures on the formal health care system. Concerted efforts must therefore be instituted to change the perception of health boundaries as understood and accepted in the way that people should live and practice healthy living. National prosperity is vital to the physical and mental health of the population. Social and physical environments—as manifested in the places people work and live, their education, income, and social supports—have a major impact on peoples’ health. These responses are by no means very comprehensive, however, it provides an illustration of the types of actions being taken, and allows for some comparisons across international jurisdictions. Sustainability challenges are interconnected; so are the solutions. In almost every case, an intervention in one area of sustainability has multiple and positive impacts in the others. Exploring the need for momentum in term of sustainment in term of technical, social, political, financial realizing from being just a project to being a concept and finally illustrating several principle elements and key aspects in ensuring sustainability was a need to maintain effective leadership, a strong political commitment, and support. Keywords: Social Determinants of Health, Public Policies, Partnership, Effective Leadership, Political Commitment

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 3

Health Indicators Towards Achieving Equity in Health Care Deliveries in Urban Settings

Datoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Dr Shafie bin Ooyub Deputy Director General of Health (Public Health) Ministry of Health, Malaysia

Imagine a city... Johore Bharu

Kuala Lumpur ?

TOKYO ??

Livability?

New York ??

Amsterdam ??

Imagine a city above all, where our people live in a place of which they are proud, feel they matter and have a say in its future Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

THE PURPOSE This paper reviews some of the key challenges faced by urban planners from the Health Ministry's experience when striving to create sustainable cities. Illustrate some of the issues facing individuals who must choose to be active, but the way a community develops its built environment can ease or impede the desire to be active. As a society, we will be spending billions of dollars on health in the next two decades. We can spend it on piece-meal and possibly conflicting improvements, or we can spend it to maintain and enhance the livability.

Key Words:

Social Determinants of Health, Public Policies, Partnership, Effective Leadership, Political Commitment Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 3

What is Known: Global situation • • • • • •

Urbanization factors Low state of economies Unplanned and uncontrolled industrialization Too little available land Large number of children vulnerable to disease , injury , infections etc Weak planning and control of resources Maldistribution of services and development

• World’s Population expansion fourteen fold from 1900 to 2010 • Urban population exceeded the rural population. • Rural urban migration is still the common phenomenon.

Malaysian Scenario • Urban–rural ratio was 40% urban to 60% rural in 1980’s but will eventually be 70 % urban and 30 % rural by 2010 • Embarked on the Healthy Cities initiatives since 1994; and • Strengthening the primary health care delivery in urban areas and cities. Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

The Issue COMMUNITY Culture Economic Competitiveness Investment Clean and Healthy

INDICATORSWHICH ONE ??

VALUE JUDGEMENT

Stakeholder /Agencies- WHO, HOW, WHEN, WHY

Who and Whose Views and Needs Are We Addressing to Preserve and Enhance ?

Core Values • Cornerstone is health equity: – "the absence of unfair and avoidable or remediable differences in health among groups defined socially, economically, demographically or geographically"

• Inequity � inequality; health inequities reflect social stratification • Negative definition because equity most clearly seen in its negation (inequity) Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 3

What do we mean by social determinants? • The social determinants of health refer to both specific features of and pathways by which societal conditions affect health and that potentially can be altered by informed action. Krieger N. A glossary for social epidemiology J. Epidemiology Community Health 2001; 55;693-700

[1]

• The social conditions in which people live and work, reflecting their different positions in hierarchies of power, prestige and resources.

• Or more simply: "The social characteristics in which living takes place" (Tarlov 1996). THE DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH AND THE DETERMINANTS OF INEQUALITIES IN HEALTH. • The policies aimed at tackling the determinants of health are not also automatically tackling the determinants of health inequalities. • Tackling the determinants of health inequalities is about tackling the unequal distribution of health determinants. • Actions on health determinants are likely to focus on reducing overall exposure to health damaging factors along the causal pathway. • Actions of health inequality determinants are likely to focus on levelling up distribution of major or structural determinants.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

VISION FOR HEALTH â&#x20AC;˘ The Ministry of Health has envisaged, aspires for a nation of healthy individuals; families and community towards an enhanced quality of life will not neglected poor rural and urban population. â&#x20AC;˘ The healthy cities will be the appropriate mechanism in ensuring the health of the population can be improved, provided there were strong support and commitment from the affected population.

Ottawa Charter : Health Promotion Strategies 1. Public Health policies 2. Creating Supportive Environment 3. Intersectoral Collaboration 4. Community Empowerment 5. Reorienting Health Services

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 3

The Health Ministryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Experience 80

S ARAWAK E XPE RIE NC E LIVEABLE

COMMUNITY Convivial

EQUITABLE

ENVIRONMENT Viable

H ECONOMY Adequately prosperous

SUSTAINABLE

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

BRIEF HISTORY OF HEALTHY CITY “Beyond Health Care” Conference in Toronto, 1984

Healthy Cities project 1985 in Europe

Kuching & Johor Baru 1994 (10 yrs. delay) 81

WHAT IS HEALTHY CITY? Link our work to common vision

Common vision

Optimise use of resources

Agree on priorities

Clearing house for projects & organisations

Use maximum resources to bear upon a problem HEALTHY CITY

Deal with big issues that need many sectors & disciplines

Co-ordinate our expertise and efforts

The whole is bigger than the sum of its parts Forum for discussion & sharing of experiences & ideas

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 3

The objectives of a Healthy City are to: -accept a broad definition of health -focus on prevention and health promotion -put health first on the city's political agenda -share responsibility for health community-wide -involve local people in decision making about the health of a city -focus on hard-to-reach people including the poor, the elderly, children, and minorities -promote healthy public policies

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

THR E E INITIATIVE S IN MIR I There are currently three Initiatives in Miri � All of them are moving towards the same goal: to make Miri a Healthy, S ustainable R esort C ity � All of them involve almost the same people from the same agencies The challenge is how to coordinate them and optimize the use of resources Healthy Cities Programme Local Agenda 21 Integrated Coastal Zone Management

MULTIPLE INITIATIVE S MIR I C OOR DINATING VAR IOUS INITIATIVE S TOWAR DS HE ALTHY, S US TAINAB LE R E S OR T C ITY

COORDINATION IS DONE BY: 1. Having just one main coordinator (the �� of Miri division) 2. Having regular meeting of committee members 3. Delineation of areas of responsibility for each INITIATIVE Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 3

Miri Indoor Stadium

“Grand Old Lady” Viewing tower

Waste management etc

Miri City Fan

Flower park Sports Complex

Public park

Marina Park (in progress)

So c ia l

Healthy, Sustainable Resort City Miri

t en nm

Resource Center

o vir En

“Taman Selera” Park & seafood center

Economic

Curtin University Branch Campus

Luak Bay Esplanade

Kuala Baram Industrial Estate

Lutong Oil processing

Pelita commercial center

Miri New airport (in progress)

Miri Port Authority

Healthy city

Kuala Baram Bridge (in progress)

Integratged Coastal Zone Management

Local agenda 21

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

PASIR GUDANG PENANG KUALA LUMPUR ALOR STAR PETALING JAYA MIRI SERIAN KOTA KINABALU KUALA TERENGGANU ETC

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 3

S AR AWAK E XPE R IE NC E : S UC C E S S FAC TOR S • S trong top political leaders hip and s upport right from the s tart of the programme in 1994 • S ound organis ational s tructure with the S ecretary of S tate as the advis or • S tate Planning Unit as the main s ecretariat and s tate-level coordinator • S arawak Health Department as the technical s ecretariat • C apable advis ory committee • Pres ence of core team members as prime movers • Healthy cities initiative is implemented in the various towns only after they are ready to s tart

• Where there is more than one programme (e.g. Healthy C ities and LA21 in Miri city) the programmes are combined and coordinated under one leaders hip

CHALLENGES Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

How key health determinants connect upâ&#x20AC;Ś LABOR MARKET

Living condition

Socioeconomic position

EDUCATION SYSTEM

WELFARE STATE

Gender

Working condition

Ethnicity

Behaviour

Cohesion social

Health and social care

INDIVIDUAL`S SOCIAL STATUS

SOCIAL STRUCTURE

Structural Determinants

INTERMEDIARY FACTORS

Health and wellbeing

HEALTH OUTCOME

Intermediary Determinants

87 Ref: Modified of Briefing paper Health inequalities: concepts, frameworks and policy authors H. Graham , M P. Kelly 2004, NHS.

Framework for understanding the relation between social context and health outcomes Source: Adapted from Diederichsen and Hallqvist 1998 Challenging inequities in health

Social Context

Social Position

A B Specific Exposure

Policy Context

C Disease / injury

D Social Consequences of ill health Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 3 1

Program Social assistance : return and/ or maintenance Social status

SOCIAL STRATIFICATION Sexuality

Income

Gender Ethnicity ( racism)

DIFFERENTIAL EXPOSURE AND DIFFERENTIAL VULNERABILITY Life course, Target Early Child Development

- Living conditions - Working conditions - Food availability - Barriers to adopting healthy behaviour .

Level Selective Zone e.g Human Settlement

Education

HEALTH SYSTEM

Sickness and Disability

Access service personal and no personal

IMPACT OF HEALTH

SOCIAL POLITICAL CONTEXT Culture, Religion, function of Social System, Human Rights, Labour Market, Education System .

DIFFERENTIALS CONSEQUENCES

Social support or social cohesion Social position SOCIAL DETERMINANTS " STRUCTURE "

Specific exposure SOCIAL DETERMINANTS "INTERMEDIARY "

Globalization

Elaborated for equity team based on : Reducing inequalities in health a European Perspective J. Mackenbach, M Bakker 2002; Generating evidence on interventions to reduce inequalities in Health : the Duch case K. Stronks Scand J Public Helath 30 Suppl 59 ; Evans T, Whitehead M,

Critical Success Factors • Required strong political actions, broad participation and sustained advocacy from all parties, stakeholders, and every individual citizen; • Required proper planning and execution of appropriate strategies; and • Support from all sectors and settings, interest groups and individuals, NGOs and corporate bodies, policy makers and politician for these actions. Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Continuity of Care System: Wellness Focus Continuity of Care Framework Health Care Activities Not At Risk

At Risk

Presenting

Confirmed

Chronic Care

Health Care Resourcing Health Promotion

Prevention

Investigation and Early Treatment

Acute Hospital Care

Chronic & Extended Care

Benchmarking

Health Indicators in urban settings • • • • • • • • •

Demographic data Lifestyle Health care resources Preventive activities Community supported activities Sanitation and hygiene Land use for basic amenities Legislation and enforcement Health outcomes or conditions *** Equity- No Direct Indicator

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 3

Areas of action and change

 Adopt a population-level approach, including multiple determinants of health  Strengthen the governmental public health infrastructure  Build partnerships  Develop systems of accountability  Base policy & practice on evidence  Enhance communication

Business and Employers

Recommendations to government and business The corporate community and public health agencies should engage in joint efforts to strengthen health promotion, and disease and injury prevention programs for employees and their communities, including developing communication and information linkages, enhancing the research base, and recognizing business leadership in employee and community health.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Academia

Collaboration between Academicians and MOH Getting Private sector - esp. research and development Focus~ community-based prevention research.

Intersectoral Collaboration •Built environment and health •Work and health •Housing and health •Media and health •Public interest law and health •Tax structure and health •Corporate business and health Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 3

CONCLUSION 92

-Mahatma Gandhi â&#x20AC;&#x201C;

THANK YOU "Let your thoughts be positive for they will become your words. Let your words be positive for they will become your actions. Let actions be positive for they will become your values. Let your values be positive for they will become your destiny."

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

��

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

THE MALAYSIAN QUALITY OF LIFE

MS YAP SIEW HONG DIRECTOR MACROECONOMICS SECTION, ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT PRIME MINISTERâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S DEPARTMENT MALAYSIA

Curriculum Vitae : Miss Yap Siew Hong is the Director of the Macroeconomics Section of the Economic Planning Unit of Malaysia. An economist by training, she holds a B. Econs (Hons) from the University of Malaya ( 1974 ) and an M.A. (Economic Policy) from Boston University, U.S.A ( 1987 ). She has been attached to the Economic Planning Unit since 1992 and has worked in the Industry and Energy Sections.

She is also responsible for preparing the short, medium and long-term macroeconomic framework for the country as well as monitoring and providing advice on current and prospective macroeconomic issues including implications of global economic trends.

In her current position as Director of the Macroeconomics Section she is responsible for planning and formulating policies and strategies in the areas of national income, output, expenditure, balance of payments and public sector accounts.

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 4 SPEAKER:

YAP SIEW HONG

PAPER 4:

THE MALAYSIAN QUALITY OF LIFE

Abstract: The thrust of the Malaysian development policy gives the highest priority to development in all dimensions and this includes the quality of life. Much has been achieved in various aspects such as improving the conditions of the poor, providing the opportunities for higher levels of income, investing in education, health, housing, and other amenities, improving working conditions and protecting the environment. But planning and implementing policies are only complete if accurate monitoring and gauging are also carried out on regular basis. The Malaysian Quality of Life Index complements the economic and social indicators that are currently used to track the effects of development from a more holistic point of view. It fulďŹ lls the need to have a single or composite measure that can encapsulate the changes entailed in the multidimensional development process, thereby overcoming the problem of trying to make sense of disparate trends of wide ranging socioeconomic indicators.

This presentation provides the background to the work undertaken in EPU to quantify of life, focusing on the selected components and indicators, the MQLI publications as well as discusses technical issues related to the computation of the index.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

HARI PERANCANGAN BANDAR SEDUNIA 2005

� � ��

� � � �� By Yap Siew Hong Director Macroeconomics Section Economic Planning Unit, Putrajaya 17 November 2005

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Development philosophy, machinery and process

Planning horizon and major policy evolution

Traditional vs new economic view of development & concept of quality of 4 life Malaysian Quality of Life Index (MQLI) & others

PLANNING HORIZON PLANNING HORIZON AND MAJOR POLICY EVOLUTION

BRIEFING OUTLINE

Paper 4

�

LONG TERM PLANNING –

Vision 2020, 1991-2020

–

First Outline Perspective Plan (OPP1), 1970-1990

–

– �

Third Outline Perspective Plan (OPP3), 2001-2010

MEDIUM TERM PLANNING –

– �

Second Outline Perspective Plan (OPP2), 19912000

Five-year development plans, such as the Eighth Malaysia Plan (2001-2005) Mid-term review (MTR) of the five-year Plans

SHORT TERM PLANNING –

Annual Budget

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

MAJOR ECONOMIC POLICIES National Vision Policy (NVP) National Development Policy (NDP)

Vision 2020 New Economic Policy (NEP)

Post-

independence

1957-70

Building a Resilient and Competitive Nation, 2001-10

Balanced Development, 1991-2000

Total Development, 1991-2020

Growth with Equity, 1971-90

• Laissez-faire / export-oriented • Economic and rural development

� � ��  Changing rules of competition

CHALLENGES AHEAD

 Rapid development in ICT

 A more integrated global economy

 Greater liberalization of the markets

 Competitiveness depends on knowledge rather than

factor inputs  Enable new entrants (lower-cost developing countries) to compete with established producers  Enable industrialized countries increase its share in high-technology industries  The need to stay ahead of the more dynamic developing countries & catch up with developed countries  Building capability to contend with foreign competitors  The need to become more receptive to know-how, increase skills and creativity

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 4

CHALLENGES AHEAD

DOMESTIC CHALLENGE



Increasing TFP and efficiency in capital usage Importance of building up resilience to shocks Over dependence on narrow range of products Strengthening unity and developing a caring society Improving the achievement of the restructuring objective

100

THIRD OUTLINE PERSPECTIVE PLAN (OPP3), 2001-2010

NATIONAL VISION POLICY (NVP), 2001-2010 

 



Theme : Building a Resilient and Competitive nation Overriding objective : National Unity Aims to establish a progressive and prosperous Bangsa Malaysia Maintains the key strategies of the NEP (eradicating poverty and restructuring of society) and the NDP (balanced development) with new dimensions

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

THRUSTS OF THE NATIONAL VISION POLICY

Promoting an equitable society

Building a resilient nation

Sustaining economic growth

TRADITIONAL VS NEW CONCEPT OF DEVELOPMENT

Meeting global competition

Developing a knowledgebased Economy

Strengthening HRD

Pursuing environmentally sustainable development

� � � �� Gross National Product (GNP) Per capita Income ‘Real’ per capita GNP

ALL ARE INCOME MEASUREMENTS AND FAIL TO CAPTURE ALL FACETS OF DEVELOPMENT

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

101

� � ��  Development is a multidimensional process  It is the sustained elevation of an entire society and social systems towards a ‘better’ or ‘more humane’ life

��

QUALITY OF LIFE

102

TRADITIONAL VS NEW CONCEPT OF DEVELOPMENT

Paper 4



Quality of life can be enhanced by improving social conditions



Increasing the quality of life is not just a function of material progress but also of psychological, economic and environmental security

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

QUALITY OF LIFE

��

1. Physical Quality of Life (PQLI) 2. Human Development Index (HDI) 3. Malaysian Quality of Life Index (MQLI)

103

MALAYSIAN QUALITY OF LIFE INDEX (MQLI)

� � � � � � � � � �� 1.

Access to assets and employment

 Income & distribution  Working environment

2. Access to physical infrastructure  Physical environment  Transport & communications

Access to social infrastructure    

Health Education Housing Safety

Access to family and community life   

Family life Social participation Cultural activities & leisure

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 4 � � � � � � ��

Com posite I ndex

MQLI

I ndex

Indices for Components

Sub-I ndices 104

Sub-Indices for Indicators

MALAYSIAN QUALITY OF LIFE INDEX (MQLI)

� ��

1. Income and distribution 2. Working life 3. Transport and communications 4. Health

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

MALAYSIAN QUALITY OF LIFE INDEX (MQLI)

� ��

5. Education 6. Housing 7. Environment

105

MALAYSIAN QUALITY OF LIFE INDEX (MQLI)

� ��

Family life

Social participation

10. Public safety 11. Culture and leisure

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 4

MALAYSIAN QUALITY OF LIFE INDEX (MQLI)

� � � � � � � � � ��

106

 Choice of components  Choice of indicators to calculate component indices  Difficult to obtain ideal set of data to overcome: • Approximations and roundups • Problem of comparability • Problem of multicollinearity (data is highly correlated)

MALAYSIAN QUALITY OF LIFE INDEX (MQLI)

��  The Inaugural report (MQLI 1998) (1980 - 1998) was published in 1999

 The second report (MQLI 2000)

(1990- 2000) was published in 2002, also contained the Malaysian Urban Quality of Life Index as well as the results of a perception survey in 2000

 The third report (MQLI 2002)

(1990–2002) was launched in January 2005. It consisted of the national index, report of development in all states, and a special focus chapter on housing

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

�� 110

109.8

Area

% Change 1990/2002

• Transport & comm.

108

• Working life • Education

106

• Housing • Health

104

• Culture & leisure • Social participation

102

• Income & distribution

100.0

• Family life • Environment

100

• Public safety 98 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02

MQLI

20.9 19.9 17.4 16.5 15.8 14.1 10.6 7.5 7.2 -1.8 -19.9 9.8

��

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��

• Human Development Index • Mercer Human Resource Cost of Living Survey • Economic Intelligence Unit Surveys • World Competitiveness Index

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

107

� � � � � �� 2003

2002

United States

Singapore

Korea

Malaysia

Thailand

Philippines

China

� � � � � � ��

COST OF LIVING SURVEY

108

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX

Paper 4

Ranking Among Asian Cities:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

(Published June 2004)

Tokyo Osaka Hong Kong Seoul Beijing Shanghai Hanoi Taipei Ho Chin Minh Jakarta Singapore Kuala Lumpur Bangkok Manila

Total number of cities

2004 1 4 5 7 11 16 29 31 36 45 46 104 119 138

144

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

COST OF LIVING SURVEY

� � �� Ranking Among Asian Cities:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Tokyo Osaka Hong Kong Singapore Seoul Taipei Beijing Shanghai Jakarta Ho Chi Min Bangkok Bandar Seri Begawan Kuala Lumpur Manila

(Published August 2004)

Total number of cities

2004 1 2 12 26 33 44 46 49 82 93 100 100 106 131

133

INTERNATIONAL SURVEY

�� Selected Countries Australia Switzerland Denmark US Singapore UK Malaysia Japan Thailand Korea China Philippines Indonesia

Competitive Position 2004 2005 1 4 7 14 19 24 28 35 38 41 53 54 55

4 3 9 19 18 24 25 29 38 40 51 54 55

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

109

Paper 4 � � � � � � � ��

ECONOMIC PLANNING UNIT

110

BEST LIVEABLE ASIAN COUNTRIES 2005

Determining Factors:

Ranking Among Asian Countries:

Material well-being - GDP per person, at PPP in $

2005

Health - Life expectancy at birth

1 Singapore 2 Japan 3 Hong Kong 4 Taiwan

11 17

5 South Korea 6 Malaysia 7 Thailand

Community life - Trade union membership (dummy variable)

36 42

8 Philippines 9 China

44 60

Climate and geography - Latitude, to distinguish between warmer & colder climes

18 21

10 Indonesia

Total no. of countries

111

Political stability and security - Political stability and security rating Family life - Divorce rate (per 1000 pop)

Job security - % unemployment rate Political freedom - Average of indices of political and civil liberties Gender equality - Ratio of average male and female earnings

Source : EIU, The Economist The World in 2005

THANK YOU www.epu.jpm.my

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

COMPONENT

INDICATOR

Income & Distribution

• • •

Real Per Capita Income Gini Coefficient Incidence of Poverty

Working Life

• • • •

Unemployment Rate Trade Disputes Man-Days Lost Due to Industrial Action Industrial Accident Rate

Transport & Communications

• • • • • •

Private Motorcars & Motorcycles Commercial Vehicles Road Development Index Telephones Internet Subscribers Average Daily Newspaper Circulation

Health

• • •

Life Expectancy at Birth Infant Mortality Rate Doctor-Population Ratio

111

COMPONENT

INDICATOR

Education

• • • • • •

Literacy Rate Pre-School Participation Rate Secondary School Participation Rate University Participation Rate Primary School Teacher-Student Ratio Secondary School Teacher-Student Ratio

Housing

•

Average Price of Medium-Low Cost House Per Capita Income

• • •

% Low-Cost Housing Units to Total Low-Income Households % Housing Units With Piped Water % Housing Units With Electricity

• • •

Air Quality Water Quality % Forested Land

Environment

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 4 COMPONENT

INDICATOR

8. Family Life

• • • •

% Divorces Crude Birth Rate Household Size Juvenile Crime

9. Social Participation

• •

Registered Voters Membership in Registered Non-Profit Societies

•

Number of Registered Residents’ Associations

10. Public Safety

• •

Crimes Road Accidents

11. Culture & Leisure

• • •

Membership in Public Libraries TV Viewers Domestic Hotel Guests

112

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

113

��

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Melbourne Liveable City Indicators

AUSTIN LEY Manager Melbourne City Research City of Melbourne Australia

Curriculum Vitae : Mr. Austin Ley is an economist with a Bachelor of Economics degree from Monash University (1977) and a Master of Urban Planning degree from Melbourne University (1984). For the past ten years, Mr. Ley has performed a key role in the City of Melbourne as both a member of the senior management team and the Research Manager informing and guiding the Council’s city planning, management, marketing, and sustainability activities. He has over twenty years experience in strategic planning and market research, in both the public and private sectors which has provided him with an extensive knowledge of the City and its development. His work focuses on understanding the city’s current and future economic, social, and

environmental conditions to develop the Council’s planning policies. Mr. Ley represents the City of Melbourne, presenting at major international, interstate, and local conferences. Among his many initiatives are the Benchmarking Melbourne project to measure the city’s competitiveness and liveability against other capital cities, which formed the basis of the Council’s key planning document “Cityplan” which won international recognition. He also developed and implemented the United Nations Global Compact City Model, focusing on good corporate citzenship practices to solving urban problems, which was commended by UN. He also conceived and supervised the City Dynamics project, coordinating a range of information to understand how the City functions.

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 5 SPEAKER:

AUSTIN LEY

PAPER 5:

MELBOURNE LIVEABLE CITY INDICATORS

Abstract: For a number of years now Melbourne has been ranked as “One of the World’s Most Liveable Cities” by a range of organisations, using different methodologies and information. But how meaningful is the notion of ranking cities in this way and how appropriate is it for city planning and management? This paper explores the concept of “City Liveability Rankings” and its inﬂuence on the City of Melbourne’s planning in recent years. The paper concludes by examining the lessons that can be learnt from Melbourne’s experience and how these might be applicable to other cities and, in particular, Malaysian cities, with the launch of the Malaysian Urban Indicators Network (MURNInet) and the Sustainable Urban Indicators System which the Department of Town and Country Planning, Peninsular Malaysia has formulated to measure the minimum quality of life standard that has to be achieved by each city in Malaysia.

116

“Indicators for Liveable Cities” National Conference in conjunction with The World Town Planning Day Celebration 17 & 18 November 2005 Department of Town and Country Planning (DTCP) Malaysia on behalf of Malaysian government Part A - City of Melbourne Benchmarking Project Part B - Melbourne - A Liveable City Presented by Austin Ley, Manager, Melbourne City Research City of Melbourne The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reﬂect the views of the Melbourne City Council. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the author.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

CONTENTS 1.0

Introduction

Part A - The City of Melbourne Benchmarking Project 2.0 The Benchmarking Melbourne Project 2.1 Origin 2.2 Approach 2.3 Examples of findings 2.4 Difficulties 2.5 What we learned 2.6 Selected key findings from the Benchmarking Melbourne project 3.0 Evolution into integrated planning 4.0 What the City of Melbourne is doing now 4.1 City Plan 2010 Monitoring Report 4.2 The AIDS Environmental Indicators Bulletin 4.3 Other projects Part B - Melbourne—A Liveable City 5.0 Liveability Measures—different examples & how Melbourne rates 5.1 Melbourne’s planning history 5.2 Melbourne 2030 Planning for Sustainable Growth 5.3 Review of selected ranking projects & how Melbourne rates 5.4 Conclusions 6.0 Explanations as to why Melbourne rates well on most indicators 7.0 Conclusions 8.0 Lessons learned Appendices References

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

117

Paper 5 Part A: The City of Melbourne—Benchmarking Project 1.0 INTRODUCTION For a number of years now Melbourne has been ranked as “One of the World’s Most Liveable Cities” by a range of organisations, using different methodologies and information. But how meaningful is the notion of ranking cities in this way and how appropriate is it for City planning and management? Part A of this paper explores the development of the concept of “City Liveability rankings”, the City of Melbourne’s response and its inﬂuence on the city’s planning in recent years. Part B explores why Melbourne tends to rate highly in various “Liveability” and ‘City Benchmarking’ studies. It examines a selection of these studies and their different methodologies. The paper concludes by examining the lessons that can be learned from Melbourne’s experience and how these might be applicable to other cities and in particular launch of the Malaysia Urban Indicators Network (MURNInet) and the Sustainable Urban Indicator System the DTCP has formulated to measure the minimum quality of life standard that has to be achieved by each city in Malaysia.

118

In preparing a paper of this nature I have attempted to explain events as I have observed them. These events involve the reaction and adaptation to political realities, as much as a logical plan or progression. This paper attempts to make sense of the events, both those that were planned or intended and those that were reactive or opportunistic. One of my favourite quotes is appropriate in this regard... “Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans” (John Lennon) Indeed we need to have measures it least to tell us how we are progressing, according to our plans or not! Melbourne in context The following diagram shows some key aspects of Melbourne, in terms of its “Metropolitan context and “the City of Melbourne” the local municipal government, responsible for administering the “Central Business District”. Australia population 19,603,500 Area 7,658,000 km2

Victoria Population 4,854,133 Area 227,000 km2 City of Melbourne Population 52,117 Area 36.5 km2

Metropolitan Melbourne Population 3,521,957 Area 8,800 km2

Central City Population 13,700 Area 3.9 km2

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

2.0 THE BENCHMARKING MELBOURNE PROJECT Aim The aim of the Benchmarking Melbourne project was to develop indicators to assist in evaluating the performance of the Capital City (comprising Melbourne and the wider metropolitan area as appropriate) in terms of its competitiveness and liveability. It involved collecting information and data for indicators related to one of the benchmarking themes namely a: “Prosperous”, “Innovative”, “Culturally Vital” “People”, and later “Attractive” and “Sustainable” City. The indicators covered Melbourne’s performance over time, as well as comparisons with selected Australian and overseas cities. Most of the comparisons between cities were at the metropolitan level. In addition to the collection of indicators two national Benchmarking Cities conferences evolved from the project in 1997 and 1998. These included representatives from other Australian capital cities, namely Sydney, Brisbane, and Adelaide. 2.1 Origins of the Project - Why Benchmark Melbourne? The context in which the Benchmarking Melbourne project developed was the notion that globalisation of the economy has intensified competition not just between countries, but also between cities, as the latter are the focus of knowledge-based industries on which prosperity and employment increasingly depends. These industries value the liveability, as much as the cost competitiveness, of potential urban locations. Benchmarking against successful cities was considered an essential tool for effective and progressive urban management. The intention was that by Benchmarking Melbourne’s relative performance compared to other cities, we could learn to do things better from those cities that perform well. 1990 The Development Concept of the “World’s Most Liveable City” The concept of comparing and ranking different cities based on indicators of their “liveability” appears to have commenced in 1990 when the Population Crisis Committee, a Washingtonbased research group released the findings of its two year study conducted as part of its investigation into the rapid growth of cities and living standards. The results were reported to suggest that fast population growth accompanies poor living standards, although researchers argued about which is the cause and which is the effect. The study involved an assessment of cities on ten basic indicators and tied Melbourne with Montreal and Seattle in the first place, among the 100 biggest cities. Sydney came ninth and Athens, which held the 2004 Olympics, was 39th. The study found that the worst big cities were in the third world, and they also tended to be those with the fastest population growth. As the population grew rapidly, social services were unable to keep pace. Overcrowding, poor sanitation, pollution, high crime rates, and inadequate schooling often resulted. Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

119

Paper 5 In stark contrast to the media headlines at the times, the Vice-President of the Population Crisis Committee was reported as saying that the survey was not an indication of quality of life in the cities listed. Weather was not assessed, which the reporter added, was just as well, for he considered that none of the top three cities had a great climate. Nor was any account taken of museums, sports arenas, or any other indicators of leisure activities. The Vice-President of the Population Crisis Committee was also reported to have said that there was no single measure (of leisure) that wasn’t elitist and that countries consulted during the preliminary investigations could not agree on these measures anyway. Apparently the Vietnamese said leisure wasn’t important! (See Appendix 1 for more details).

120

The ten criteria used in the Population Crisis Committee’s survey were: • Air pollution level • Infant deaths per 1000 live births - (Taipei/Osaka/ Nagoya equal lowest/Melbourne 2nd) • Level of ambient noise (no graph) • Murders for 100-thousand people - Madrid lowest/Melbourne second lowest • People per room - Philadelphia lowest/Melbourne second • Percentage of children in secondary school - (no graph) • Percentage of homes with water & electricity - (no graph) • Percentage of income spent of food - Washington DC lowest/ Melbourne-Sydney second • Telephones per 100 people - (no graph) • Traffic speed at rush hour - Kiev 1 st (82km/h)/Melbourne 2nd (approx 35 km/h) In the early 1990’s, Melbourne was suffering a deep recession. Victoria, with its significant manufacturing base was severely affected. The business excesses of the mid to late 1990s and the commercial property boom, had lead to a massive commercial office building over supply. Coupled with this employment levels were declining as some companies closed and others contracted. Both the State and local governments were very keen to support businesses and to determine from which sectors future growth could come. At the time, for a city trying to recover from a bad recession and encourage business investment, being ranked “One of the World’s Most Liveable Cities” understandably presented wonderful marketing opportunity, regardless how questionable the basis of the analysis from which this ranking was achieved, might have been! (The fact that Melbourne had tied with Montreal and Seattle for first place was conveniently overlooked on many occasions!) In 1994 the joint State and Local government report “Creating Prosperity, Victoria’s Capital City Policy” was produced, focussing on enhancing the city’s national and international profile, role, and competitiveness. It committed the city to a monitoring project in the form of a halfyearly “Capital City Index” to provide indicators of the city’s performance across key indicators including, property, employment, environment, retail confidence, and cultural activity. (Creating Prosperity, 1994 p59).

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

The City of Melbourne produced twelve City Index reports and, while interesting “coffee-table” style publications, their value in actually monitoring the City’s performance was questionable. No guides had been given about how the City’s performance was to be measures nor who the audience was for this report and what actions if any were to be taken as a result of it! As will be discussed later, in order to make these reports more relevant to the city’s performance measurement, the concept was later refocussed to monitor Council’s new policy document City Plan 2010. In 1994, the Victorian State Government commissioned management consultants KPMG to examine the State’s key competitive strengths. Among other items the report concluded that ... “Activities that are distinguished by innovation, creativity and knowledge, are particularly important for modern economies and the key to future international growth” (KPMG 1994 pagel 1) With respect to knowledge and innovation the report also concluded that: • “Research and technology are major growth areas in the modern economy. • Information and communications technology is a major strength in metropolitan Melbourne’s economy. • Melbourne is known internationally for its medical research, with hospitals and medical institutions an important part of the City’s activity. • Metropolitan Melbourne is the leading centre for education in Australia, with considerable potential for ‘export’ growth, particularly to the Asia-Pacific region.” (KPMG 1994 pp l 1- 14) This report shaped both the State Government’s and City of Melbourne’s economic development activities in subsequent years. It identified and reinforced Melbourne’s “high quality” lifestyle as an important competitive advantage in attracting and retaining the highly skilled workers required for future growth industries. The Benchmarking project was also a response to the need for more robust assessments of city performance than were available in ‘city league tables’ such as those compiled by Fortune magazine (‘World’s Best Cities’) and the Population Crisis Committee. The project’s emphasis was to learn from those cities which the indicators demonstrated were successful in certain areas. This entailed an honest evaluation of Melbourne’s performance, rather than a superficial search for marketing advantage. However indicators which were positive for Melbourne were, of course, useful in marketing the city! 2.2 Approach Two types of benchmarking are undertaken by local government. Corporate performance benchmarking compares the efficiency of service delivery, while urban benchmarking compares the performance of regions. Benchmarking Melbourne was of the latter type. The Benchmarking Melbourne concept consisted of a number of related research projects, most developed in partnership with other organisations. This reflected the wide of spread of issues involved in benchmarking a city. The need to consult widely to establish what was important to the community was also considered an essential part of the project. Some of the key partners included: the Department of Justice, Business Victoria, the Australian Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

121

Paper 5 Local Government Association, the Australia Council for the Arts, the Australian Institute of Urban Studies, the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, the Property Council, Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Arts Victoria, Tourism Victoria, RMIT, the Universities of Melbourne and Monash and the Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research. Themes The Benchmarking Melbourne indicators were organised around six themes developed through extensive consultation with the business, academic, community and government sectors. These themes, discussed earlier, were later used as the basis for Council’s City Plan, demonstrating the evolution of the Benchmarking project into the concept of “Integrated Planning’ which will be discussed later in this paper. Benchmark Cities Criteria There were two categories of Benchmark Cities. Cities in the ‘primary’ list were selected according to a number of criteria including population, status within country, economic base, competitor with Melbourne for investment, or source of investment for Melbourne. Osaka and Tianjin, the two sister cities in our region, were selected. The long-term intention was to collect data for all of the indicators for all of these cities. The ‘basic benchmark’ cities are listed in the following table. 122

Primary Benchmark Cities Bangkok Barcelona Copenhagen Hamburg Milan Montreal Santiago Seattle-Tacoma Tianjin Toronto

Boston Kuala Lumpur Osaka-Kobe Singapore

Brisbane Manchester San Francisco Sydney

The second category comprised cities that appeared to excel in particular fields. They were global capitals of the first rank (eg Paris, London, New York, and Tokyo) or they represented best practise in a particular field, but otherwise were not regarded as being in competition with Melbourne. These cities are listed in the following table. Secondary Benchmark Cities Dallas Glasgow (culture) New York (global) Paris (global)

Helsinki (culture) Tokyo(global)

London (global) New York (global)

Structure of the Benchmarking Report Indicators were arranged according to themes—Prosperous City, People City, Innovative City and Culturally Vital City. These were preceded by some indications of the world context of Melbourne and Victoria in terms of population, economy and environment. (Refer to the diagram in PowerPoint presentation accompanying this paper).

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

2.3 Examples of ﬁndings Some examples of the information obtained are set out in the PowerPoint presentation accompanying this paper, namely • Quality of Life rankings of cities by expatriates for international companies • Inner Metropolitan development % of total development • Importance of birth to being accepted • Average annual homicides per 1000 persons As discussed earlier, a Benchmarking conference was held to discuss the ﬁndings of the project and gain insights from other cities. In particular Mr Liu Thai-Ker in the Benchmarking Cities ’98 conference gave a very interesting paper “Singapore the Innovative Island” on Singapore’s approach to indicators. He described what he called the “Aspiration Iceberg” as follows: The “Aspiration” Iceberg

��

Mr Thai-Ker explained that this triangle is metaphorically an Iceberg. The horizontal line cutting through it represents the “water level”. A visitor judges a city by what he sees above the water level—the tip of the iceberg. A citizen, especially a home maker, aspires to have all those qualities below the water level ﬁrst, in ascending order. Planners, he suggested, would do well to understand the aspirations of the common people and strive to have those incorporated in the planning goals. 2.4 Difﬁculties in the Benchmarking Melbourne Project As discussed earlier, the intention was to acquire data from a range of sources, focussing initially on those cities known to have accessible data and which were willing to cooperate.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

123

Paper 5 Data Issues There were many difficulties in collecting consistent and comparable data for each city for the following reasons. The data was not always in the appropriate form, frequently related to differing dates, was not available or unable to be tracked down. For example, one would consider that information on a city’s population would relatively easy to obtain, but often the timing, methods and sources varied significantly, causing comparability of growth rates to be particularly difficult. It was often difficult to ensure the data collected was based on consistent areas or regions, to ensure that “like” was being compared with “like”. For example data was often only available at either the central, local government or municipal versus the metropolitan level. This was complicated by the fact that area definitions in different cities could vary depending on the particular data collected. Data, definitions, accuracy, reliability, authenticity, often varied, not just between countries and cities but between organisations within them. Using proxies or substitute indicators because those sought were unavailable was also a problem as this reduced comparability.

124

What appears to be a simple indicator, eg crime rates as an indicator for safety, can be difficult to interpret accurately and is not necessarily appropriate. For example in Melbourne, crime rates were often quoted per 1000 of resident population. The municipality of the City of Melbourne has a low population, but ten times the number of visitors. In addition the city has many attractions and events that draw undesirables as well as law abiding citizens. Hence on this basis of estimation, the indicator gives a false or “unsafe” measure of city’s performance. Crime rates can also fluctuate depending on resources devoted to catching and prosecuting offenders. In addition, the public’s confidence in the relevant authorities abilities to apprehend and prosecute criminals, can influence their willingness to report crimes. Hence an increase in resources eg a “crack down” may be effective dealing with crime, but it can also create the false impression that the crime rate has increased and the city is less safe. A better indicator would be “crime victimisation”. Indeed the best approach would be to examine the divergence between perceptions, victimisation, reported and actual prosecutions, but this is often difficult and expensive to collect. Cooperation between cities also varied. Often, just finding the right organisation and department, let alone the right person to speak to, was difficult. Gaining agreement to provide information was not necessarily a problem. Initially there was great interest in participating, but this interest often waned when the reality of the task of collecting the data became apparent. In addition, our indicator priorities and selections did not necessarily match those of the cities with which we chose to benchmark Melbourne.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Finally maintaining Council’s own commitment to the project and the resources required for collecting and purchasing data was difficult. The project itself was very ambitious, but the primary aim was to establish a well constructed theoretical framework, one that could be adapted according to Council’s needs, priorities and resources. To sum up, the Benchmarking project presented the ideal concept and its purpose was to guide how the City of Melbourne went about collecting information comparing different cities’ liveability and competitiveness. So What? The ability to act on the results The ability to act on the results is such a fundamental element of a benchmarking or performance measurement exercise that it is often forgotten! There are a number of reasons for this. Often it is just assumed that reporting results will somehow automatically find its way into shaping plans, policies and action. It would appear that the greater the length of time between the initial reason for plan in the first place and the report on its performance, the less desire there is to act. The mood or climate may have changed and new issues or priorities may have emerged, often as a result of elections. If the period for reporting is too short a period then the plan may not have had time to take effect. The indicators may be of aspects of the city over which the authority (or individual) responsible for the plan has no influence. A good example of this from the City of Melbourne’s perspective was the unemployment level in the city. This indicator of the city’s economy alone is subject to many factors beyond the council’s control. There needs to be a link between the plan, the indicators and the performance report interpreting the results. The City of Melbourne incorporated a conference to present and debate the results of the Benchmarking project together with information from other speakers around a particular them, eg “City Futures” and “Innovative Cities”. The importance of this was that it enabled an assessment and interpretation of the result to decide key issues or findings that could be considered in the next planning cycle. 2.5 What we learned In 1994 the joint City and State Governments’ Capital City Policy, made commitments to benchmarking Melbourne’s competitiveness and liveability and reporting on a six monthly basis. But no guide was given as to how this was to be done and, though very interesting as they were, the subject’s covered in each City Index report tended vary with each edition, depending on what information was available or a priority at the time. In addition, the questions of “who is the audience?” and “how are we to respond to the issues raised?” became increasingly significant with the production of each City Index report.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

125

Paper 5 Integrate Performance Measures into the Planning Process Benchmarking of this nature needs to be incorporated into the city’s planning process to be effective. It is not very useful to simply report on the city’s competitiveness and liveability for its own sake. The Benchmarking Melbourne Project was designed to provide a framework for measuring Melbourne’s liveability and competitiveness relative to other cities. Its aim was to contribute to effective urban management. The theory was that this could highlight those things that Melbourne does well and areas where improvement was needed. Use the Results to Assign Priorities The aim was to identify where speciﬁc initiatives were required and any policies and programs employed by successful cities that Melbourne could learn from and adapt. It was also intended to assist in identifying the most effective deployment of resources and assignment of priorities in urban management. The project produced some very useful outcomes. For example the comparative costof-doing business reports, provided the necessary evidence to convince the State government to reduce uncompetitive land tax charges. 126

Ensure the Indicators are Based on a Framework In addition, the approach used also provided a framework for measuring the city’s competitiveness and liveability performance and stimulated discussion and debate on specific areas for action eg economic, social and environmental sustainability. An excellent example of this latter point were the “sparks” generated in the Benchmarking Melbourne conference by the contrasting views between Dr Peter Brain and Ms Eva Cox. Ms Cox took issue with Dr Brain’s notion that the number future economic sectors that would stimulate growth and employment were limited and focussed mainly on Melbourne and Sydney and those in the community who were not a employed in these sectors would have to rely on a secondary or “trickle down effect” for any benefits. Ms Cox’s view was that governments should take action to ensure the benefits were better spread across the city and society. This lead directly to the concept of Council encouraging “corporate social responsibility” being incorporated into the Council’s plans. It also drove home the point that we can’t just monitor, we need to have the ability to act and respond to what we do. Planning and monitoring are interdependent and should be integrated. In its first City Plan report 1999, Council adopted six “City Themes” derived from its own Benchmarking Melbourne project. One of the main aims of the “Innovative City Theme” was to strengthen Melbourne’s position locally and internationally as a place for innovation, specifically in education, medical and scientific research and development, the arts and multimedia. Again the importance of Melbourne’s quality of life was explicitly recognised as “Major corporations now enjoy much greater flexibility in locating their regional headquarters and the “liveability” of a city is a vital factor in attracting investment”. City Plan p 27.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

But there were significant difficulties in learning from other cities. The task was very ambitious and complex. Another lesson learned was that small is better. The concept of a major study was beyond Council’s resources and needed to be reduced to a more manageable size. Be Clear about What Can and Can’t be Measured There is one view that you can’t improve what you can’t measure. This is the case in many respects, but some very important things are not capable of measurement due to their subjectivity. The Choice of Indicators is Subjective One key point learned was that the choice of indicators are subjective and can bias the results. For example some people may prefer a hot climate to a cold, hence someone living in Delhi may enjoy the hot humid environment and consider Melbourne’s climate as relatively cold and wet. In this sense “Liveability” like “beauty” is in the eye of the beholder! Ensure the Community Agrees with Your Indicator Framework The Benchmarking Melbourne project highlighted the importance of being clear about what is being measured and community and purpose for which it is being undertaken. The project focussed attention on the aspects of a City that are valued and enable Council to prioritise plans, policies and actions base on a well-considered framework. The project also highlighted some useful points regarding the nature and types of indicators and where their use is most appropriate. These are set out in the form of a series of questions as follows. Action & Implementation Indicators Did you do what you said you would do? Did you do it (implement it) in the way that was intended? Result & Output Indicators What was the result? Was this the result intended? Yes -was this due to the action or something else? No - was this due to the action or something else? Outcome Indicators Was the desired outcome achieved Yes - was this due to the output or something else? No - was this due to the output or something else? In addition the following classifications are also useful. Contextual Indicators These describe the nature of characteristics of the environment in which the organisation, the planning body operates.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

127

Paper 5 Corporate Performance Indicators These relate to the business of the planning organisation and how it is performing with respect to what it does and can control, eg street cleaning and rubbish collection. City Perception Indicators These relate to how the planning organisation’s activities affect the communities view of the city. The organisation may be performing well in cleaning the streets and collecting rubbish, but this may not result in the community considering the streets are clean. Other factors inﬂuence this, eg the presence of grafﬁti. Hence it is important to select the appropriate indicator for the particular purpose or plan. Equally important, is the policy or plan to be framed in such a way that its implementation, results and intended outcomes can be determined.

128

Some indicators need to be carefully considered as either “contextual” or “performance” measures, depend on the planning organisation’s level of inﬂuence and what the organisation is trying to achieve. For example: • the city’s unemployment level or life expectancy could be used to lobby the State or federal government but are likely to be of little value in measuring the Local Authorities performance; and • Perceptions versus actual performance. Perceptions can become reality, eg the perception that a city is not a good place to visit or live means people may not want to live there, hence businesses suffer, the economy suffers and the attractiveness and liveability of the city deteriorates. Just as policies should have a stated goal or objective, indicators should preferably have a trend or forecasting component to illustrate the direction toward a desired goal. Indicators, like policies should be matched to the level of inﬂuence. Plans, goals and actions should be set at the level which has the resources to ensure they can be achieved. Know Your Audience The analysis, interpretation and reporting process should understand who the audience is, who has the ability and resources to act and should be timed so that the authority can incorporate its informed response into action. Beware of Indices Indicators of a composite nature, such as indices should be used with caution. The treatment of their components can introduce value judgements that can skew their interpretation. It is important to obtain ongoing political and organisational commitment. The concept of having a city measuring its liveability against others for promotional purposes tends to defeat its purpose, as one would expect the city to pick the criteria for assessment that presents it in the best light.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

2.6 Selected Key Findings from the Benchmarking Melbourne Project Prosperity is not the only measure of a successful city. Innovation is an important component. An innovating city: • is a knowledge creator; • encourages people’s face to face contact; • develops its uniqueness; and • continuously learns and adapts The role of trust is important. Isolation can lead to unfamiliarity, anxiety, and fear of the community in which one lives. Concerns of safety can lead to a fortress mentality gated communities which further divides the community. After the initial framework was developed, the project focussed on developing a specific set of research projects. • Culture studies (ALGA/Australia Council Project) • Social Indicators • Attractive City Indicators • Innovative City Indicators • Sustainable City Indicators • City Dynamics - economics, land use and employment changes, population and demographic forecasts and city user/visitor estimates. • AIUS Environmental Indicators The following section describes how the Benchmarking Melbourne became integrated into the planning process. 3.0 EVOLUTION INTO INTEGRATED PLANNING The Benchmarking Melbourne project highlighted that there is little value in just monitoring and reporting a city’s competitiveness and liveability to achieve some value from this exercise it is necessary to have the ability to act and respond to the findings. Planning and monitoring are interdependent and should be integrated. Hence, as discussed in the previous section in its first City Plan report 1999, Council adopted six “City Themes” derived from its Benchmarking Melbourne project. This process has not been easy. It is ongoing, evolving with each planning cycle and changes in priorities, as described in the following diagram. The City of Melbourne’s integrated planning process evolved works

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

129

Paper 5 ��

��

City Plan sets out the Community’s vision for the city for the next ten years. It is “aspirational” designed to guide the city’s development. The Council plan, (previously the corporate plan), sets out how the Council will deliver the City Plan in its four-year term of ofﬁce. Recent changes to the local government election processes have changed the terms of ofﬁce from three to four years. All Council’s in Victoria are now required to prepare a “Council Plan” within six months of their election. The City of Melbourne chose to “convert” its corporate plan into its council plan. The aim was to align all aspects of the council’s activities to achieve both the City Plan and Council plan objectives, as shown in the diagram below. 130

The City of Melbourne’s Integrated Planning Process ��

��

One of the key lessons we have learned is to make goals and objectives: Simple Actionable Realistic and Time-focussed or “SMART” 4.0 WHAT CITY OF MELBOURNE IS DOING NOW City Plan 2010 is Council’s primary planning strategy; setting out what we believe must happen over the next 10 years. It sets out Council’s vision for a thriving sustainable city based on the simultaneous pursuit of economic prosperity, social equity and environmental quality. It is organised around the following four themes: 1. Connection and accessibility; 2. Innovation and business vitality; 3. Inclusiveness and engagement; and 4. Environmental responsibility. Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

4.1 City Plan 2010 Monitoring Report The City Plan 2010 Monitoring Report summarises the City’s economic, social and environmental performance over recent years and how it is progressing towards the vision of sustainability as described in City Plan 2010. City Plan 2010 incorporates specifically designed indicators and the Monitoring Report examines these using trend analysis. The most recent report concludes that, as measured by these indicators and based on the available information, the City: • Is well connected and accessible in terms of its road infrastructure, public transport, freight and communications infrastructure: • the volume of goods passing through the Port of Melbourne has been steadily increasing; • the total park area managed by the City of Melbourne has increased; and • More city workers use public transport for commuting. • Continues to provide employment growth through new establishments and the expansion of existing establishments in major industry sectors: • the city has experienced a steady growth of total employment; • most priority industry sectors grew in the 2002 to 2004 period; • Melbourne CBD was regarded as the strongest commercial office market in Australia; and • CBD retail floorspace will have increased by 30 percent between 2003 and 2006. • Is improving in most aspects of its inclusiveness and community engagement: • more people live in the city; • more students study and live in the city; and • visitor numbers, including international, are expected to spike in the next year because of the Commonwealth Games. • Is progressing along the strategic directions established to achieve environmental sustainability: • A downward trend can be seen in the number of days of poor visibility in the city. In summary, the Monitoring Report information evidences positive performance with respect to each City Plan theme. The latest edition of City Plan 2010, adopted by council earlier this year, has some additional indicators. Although the data sources for these indicators were identified during the development stage, we do not have data series available to provide any trend analysis. These additional indicators will be included in the next reporting cycle. The following provides some examples taken from the City Plan Monitoring report. Theme 1: Connected & Accessible City A `Connected City’ has local, regional, national and global connections. It has an integrated transport system with high levels of infrastructure to develop strategic alliances and networks. A broad definition of ‘connection’ incorporates physical links through transport and communications infrastructure as well as the alliances through which sustainable business opportunities and the City’s social capital can be facilitated and enhanced. Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

131

Paper 5 An `Accessible City’ has easy access to and within the City and key sites, and provides a welcoming and supportive environment for all citizens. Indicator 1.1: Changes to volume and monetary value of imports/exports handled through Melbourne Port Summary status What we measure Indicator 1.1 was chosen to measure strategic direction 1.1, “ensure that the city’s transport infrastructure is world-competitive and supports the Victorian economy, whilst minimising its impact on local neighbourhoods”. The source for the indicator is the Port of Melbourne Annual Report, 2004.

132

Why we measure The state of Victoria relies on sea transport for more than 98% of its trade. The port also directly creates employment for about 18,000 people and a further 62,000 indirectly. Fortytwo container shipping lines, as well as a number of other general cargo carriers, make approximately 3,200 ship calls a year to Melbourne and provide services to ports of call in all major parts of the world. The City Plan promotes the City of Melbourne as a gateway to Victoria, so ensuring that transport infrastructure is well managed is critical to the city’s international competitiveness. For the people who live in Melbourne and regional Victoria a large, efﬁcient port and the associated rail freight network in the Dynon Hub area also means easy and more affordable access to public and private consumption. The Melbourne Airport is also important in this network. Trend and what it means Total trade In another record year for the Port of Melbourne, total trade for the 2003/04 ﬁnancial year increased by 8.8% to 59.9 million revenue tonnes, equivalent to 26.7 million mass tonnes. All trade sectors achieved positive growth with: -

Overseas exports increasing 7.6% to 16.8 million revenue tonnes; Overseas imports up 7.4% to 23.3 million revenue tonnes; Coastal exports were up 10.6% to 8.6 million revenue tonnes: and Coastal imports up 12.4% to 10.7 million revenue tonnes.

Trade growth was driven by high consumer conﬁdence and a strong Australian dollar resulting in buoyant retail sales boosted by household spending, non-residential construction activity, an improving agricultural sector, and continuing low interest rates.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

��

Figure 1: Total trade: revenue tonnes (million) through Port of Melbourne, 1999 to 2004 Expected trend or established target

The volume of goods passing through the Port of Melbourne is expected to increase to 2004/5 year to around 63,000 if the current trend continues. The expected trend for 2005 is based on a linear trend analysis which is conducted using the method of least squares. It works by ﬁtting a `straight line’ to the past trends shown above and returns an expected value. Indicator 1.2: CBD private (non-residential and non-commercial) car parking space Summary status What we measure Indicator 1.2 measures strategic direction 1.3, “ensure a sustainable and highly integrated transport system services the needs of the city and its people”. The indicator is measured using data on the numbers of car parking spaces in the CBD, from the Sustainable City Research Branch’s Census of Land Use and Environment (CLUE). Why we measure One of the major objectives of the Strategic direction 1.3 is to “manage the city’s parking supply to ensure priority for affordable short-term car parking within the city”, and this indicator directly addresses that purpose. Trend and what it means Off-street private (non-commercial and non-residential) car spaces in the CBD Off-street commercial car spaces are those available to the general public for a fee. Off-street residential car spaces are allocated to residents only. Off-street private car spaces are usually reserved by companies for their staff or their customers. Between the years 2000 and 2002 the supply of these car parking spaces declined slightly from 12, 352 to 12, 064, but increased again by 2004.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

133

Paper 5 According to the chart over the page, the City of Melbourne had 13,048 non-commercial and non-residential off-street car parking spaces in 2004, an increase of 696 over the whole period shown. The results show that the city appears to be managing its car parking supply in the way the City Plan 2010 intends. ��

��

Figure 2. Off-street private (non-commercial & non-residential) car spaces in the CBD, 2000-04 Expected trend or established target

134

Expected trend or established target If the trend evidenced in the ﬁgure above continues. the number of off-street parking private spaces for non-residential and non-commercial purposes is unlikely to increase greatly in the next year. In fact the number of spaces could remain around its current level of approximately 13,000. Recently the State Government announced a car parking levy applying to long-term commercial and private car parking spaces, which was supported by the City of Melbourne. The levy will require car park owners to pay $400 per space, rising to $800 in 2007. The levy is due to come into effect on I January, 2005. The State Government expects that in the long term the levy will have the effect of increasing investment in short-term, off-street parking in the city. Indicator 1.3:Number of people accessing the city for work using car, walking, cycling or public transport Summary status What we measure Strategic direction 1.3 is to, “ensure a sustainable and highly integrated transport system services the needs of the city and its people “. This indicator shows the method of travel that people use to get to work. The source is the Australian Bureau of Statistics Census of Population and Housing 2001 (cat. no. 2001.0) Why we measure As an accessible city, the City of Melbourne has easy access to and within the City, and provides a welcoming and supportive environment for all citizens.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Strategic direction 1.3 aims to increase the use of sustainable transport options in the city, such as walking, cycling, and public transport. This indicator serves as a measure of any increasing switch toward sustainable transport options, by city workers. Trend and what it means Journey to work in City of Melbourne by mode of transport Based on ABS Journey to Work data from the census, the following chart shows a 7% decline in car use for journey to work purposes. At the same time relatively more sustainable transport options like trains, bicycles and walking became more popular among city workers. Overall, public transport options became slightly more popular as a means of travelling to work, increasing from 37% to 40% of total trips. This was mainly due to the increase in the use of trains. In the period between 1996 and 2001 tram and bus trips slipped slightly, although not enough to bring about a decline in the proportion of public transport trips.

��

The increased use of public transport is indicative of the accessibility of this public transport as an option for commuters.

135 ��

��

�

��

4.2 The Australian Institute of Urban Studies Environmental Indicators Bulletin In addition to the City Plan monitoring report there are a other projects Council is involved in which have evolved from the Benchmarking Melbourne project. An excellent example is the Australian Institute of Urban Studies (AIUS) Environmental indicators report. This has been joint undertaking between the City of Melbourne and the AIUS in collaboration with twelve metropolitan councils and State government agencies. The project has run over eight years since the inaugural issue in 1998. A report is published every year, but a set of indicators is updated every two years.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 5 The report gathers information from a wide range of government bodies, research organisations and local community to reﬂect the conditions of the environment, responses from the community and the state and local governments. It is the only state of the environment report for local councils of this kind and a unique publication which presents case studies and best practice for councils. It aims to show leadership of environmentally sustainable initiatives. Some of the key ﬁndings from the latest bulletin are shown below:

136

Air quality • Particles and ozone are the only major pollutants that exceed air quality objectives in Melbourne. Biodiversity • 70 threatened plant species and 66 threatened animal species (7 mammals, 43 birds, 4 reptiles, 3 frogs, 6 ﬁsh and 3 invertebrates) have been recorded in the metropolitan area in the past 10 years (out of approximately 1800 plant species and 432 vertebrate species). • 15 of Melbourne’s 31 councils offer biodiversity conservation and land management incentives Buildings • Houses and buildings may not seem like big polluters as they don’t emit fumes like cars, but they account for 36% of Victoria’s Greenhouse gas emissions and 40% of all waste going to landﬁll (from construction and demolition). Residential use of water accounts for 60% of the city’s drinking water use. • According to one product rating system, only 12% of products marketed as “green” address a wide range of environmental criteria. The majority of environmental products (59%) only address one or two aspects of environment conservation. The environmental criteria that most products addressed was preservation of resources (70%), followed by protection of habitat and land (45%). Litter • Melbourne is ranked one of the cleanest cities in Australia. Cigarette butts remain the most littered item. • In 2004, 730 m3, or the equivalent of 9700 household size garbage bins, of litter was removed from litter traps in the Yarra and adjoining waterways. The amount of litter the traps intercept is less than 1 % of the estimated total amount of waste that is washed into our waterways from our streets. The litter that is not intercepted in our waterways is washed into our bay.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Transport • In 2004 Melburnians made over 360 million boardings of public transport, one third less than the total number of boarding recorded in 1950, while our population is two and a third times greater in size. This means that on average Melburnians use public transport 102 times per year (or less than one boarding every three days), compared to 415 per year (slightly more than once per day) in 1950. • The total kilometres travelled by motor vehicles in Melbourne increased 63% in 20 years, while the population increased by 24%. • Relevant statistics: as above • Relationship of the City of Melbourne with organisers/guests: we sponsor the cost of the publication by about half its cost and do media and promotion activity. • Is the City of Melbourne supporting this event/project? yes 4.3 Other Projects Other projects which are currently being undertaken by the City of Melbourne in conjunction with other organisations include investigations into the nature of the City’s culture and sustainability. A city’s culture is very important. A key ingredient to liveability is “culture” and understanding and preserving a city’s culture is very important. We all need to eat, but what, how, when and where we choose to prepare and eat it is part of our culture. Culture deﬁnes a city and gives a community a unique sense of place. Planning sets the ground rules. You can’t plan culture, just as you can’t plan spontaneity, but planning can support cultural development and sustain it. Crosscultural activities stimulate ideas so do cross disciplines. Equally a city’s sustainability is also very important. The questions must be asked, is what we do sustainable, will our children have the same opportunities & choices we do and how do our choices impact on others countries cultures?

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

137

Paper 5 Part B: Melbourne—A Liveable City 5.0 LIVEABILITY MEASURES—DIFFERENT EXAMPLES & HOW MELBOURNE RATES “As we move to the 21st Century the question of liveability is becoming increasingly fundamental to the challenges facing our cities. It is not hard to predict that those cities that do not embrace concepts of sustainability and liveability will pay for it dearly as our cities compete into the next century. This realisation makes debates about where the social issues ﬁt in the hierarchy of a city’s agenda redundant. If we do not put the social issues right up front, the consequences of the cities we build... will be that more than half of our populations live in places they do not enjoy and do not support their well-being” R Adams (1999).

138

Mr Adams, Director of the City of Melbourne’s City Projects division made this statement addressing the “Urban Design & Liveability Integrated Urban Planning Conference in 1999, accepting a national design award for the City of Melbourne. It is interesting to note that Mr Adams at the time gave the example of Paris as a city that has preserved its key design elements; but as recent events demonstrate good design is only one element of a city, a sense of social and economic equity are essential. Melbourne, like many cities, has all the ingredients for being a liveable city, but what is it that Melbourne has done to combine them in such a way as to make it consistently rank highly among the “most liveable” cities regardless of the sources of these ranking? The aim of the second part of this paper is to explore this question and the author’s contention that, the answer lies largely in Melbourne’s planning heritage. 5.1 Melbourne’s Planning History It is worth very brieﬂy exploring Melbourne’s early planning heritage. As discussed in part A of this paper, “liveability” like “beauty” is in the “eye of the beholder”. Before European settlement, the place where Melbourne now stands was a “very liveable”. “sub-tropical paradise” for the Kulin nation, the indigenous people, that lived there, according to Dr T. Flannery when he launched AIUS Environmental indicator #5. European settlement changed this dramatically. Originally an English penal colony then transformed by an extraordinary growth spurt created by a gold rush, the European’s who ﬁrst settled tried to recreate an English-style City. Like many other cultures at the time they imposed their values and ideas on both the people and environments they wanted to control. On the back of the gold rush and agriculture “Marvelous Melbourne” established itself. (M Lewis 1995, p25).

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

The following has been very “roughly” summarised from M Lewis 1995: Melbourne: the City’s History and Development. According to Lewis, the development of town planning ideas in Victoria in the early 1900s was inspired largely by British models, with evidence of the English Garden City movement. He notes that around this time town planning began to be a serious issue in Melbourne, with three main concerns: • the garden city concept (based partly on the America, City Beautiful movement) • the crusade against slums; and • the move toward civic design on a public scale. Another more practical consideration was the length of the fire brigade ladders and the pressure to which water could be pumped. This lead to the first height controls being placed on buildings in the city. Motor car registrations had increased eightfold in the decade 1917 - 1928, and city traffic increased by 31 % in the years 1924-6. Traffic planning was therefore a major concern. The Metropolitan Town Planning Commission produced reports on various critical planning issues and its major output was the Plan of General Development, Melbourne, published in 1929. This dealt especially with: • Transportation (especially roads) • Open space • Zoning. According to Lewis of these it was land use zoning that was to be the major new concern from the 1920s until the 1950s. Although the physical proposals in the 1929 report were not implemented, but the ideas remained current for a quarter of a century until the next planning report and well beyond that. Land use zoning remained important, as did the concern for the motor car at the expense of public transport, for the public transport system expanded only very little in relation to population growth. The Town and Country Planning (Metropolitan Area) Act of 1949 gave the MMBW the authority to plan for a radius of fifteen miles from the Post Office, with extensions down the bayside to Frankston. It was important in principle because it was the first introduction of mandatory land-use planning powers in Victoria, and was noted as a turning point in the history of planning in the state. In December 1949 the Board established a Town Planning Committee and a Planning Panel was established, statistics gathered, questionnaires sent out, and relevant professional bodies invited to establish consultative committees. The plan was displayed in October 1954 and there were 4,000 objections.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

139

Paper 5 The plan was concerned largely with issues like the containment of urban growth, reservations of land for public purposes, and the establishment of land use zoning. It also contained a number of speciﬁc proposals for civic improvement in the heart of Melbourne. Summing up Melbourne’s planning heritage demonstrates a clear concern with “liveability” even if not expressly stated as such. The 1954 Planning scheme was very much concerned with: • the provision of sufﬁcient space to provide for future population and industry growth; • planning for the appropriate mix of uses, ensuring that compatible activities were located together and incompatible ones were not; • ensuring buildings activities and services were delivered or constructed in a planned and coordinated way to ensure that they were in place at the appropriate time. That is, that residential developments did not occur before the infrastructure and services they required were in place or at least planned for. The 1954 Planning scheme was also remarkable for the extensive consultation and research that went into its development. This was largely due to the fact that the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works (MMBW) had been given the responsibility to undertake this work, after the councils at the time had been unable or unwilling to act. 140

Melbourne was fortunate in this regard to have an institution like the MMBW. It had the interest, skills, resources and power to undertake this monumental task. It was responsible for Melbourne’s water supply, sewerage and drainage and in this sense had a keen interest in ensuring the plan would ﬁt the infrastructure required to support it. In addition, the MMBW could levy its own rates, which gave it the resources and power it needed to complete the planning exercise. In a sense, it was a fourth level of government, between the Federal, State and local councils, a fact that it could be argued lead to its ultimate demise! At the metropolitan level the MMBW’s 1954 plan provided the structure for the next 13 years. As the process of appeal and review continued the interim development order was extended, objections to it were determined in 1958. Between 1966 and 1970 the planning debate was focussed on the most appropriate for Melbourne’s future growth should take concepts such as “growth corridors” and satellite metro-towns, predicated on differing assumption of population growth rates The MMBW’s Planning Policies for the Melbourne, released in 1971 allowed for a population in excess of four million by the year 2000, assuming, in contrast to current experience, signiﬁcant growth of the CBD was neither likely nor desirable. In 1974, there was evidence of a dramatic fall in the birth-rate, and plans sought to maintain the dominance of the CBD, together with complementary growth centres in selected corridors. In 1981 the MMBW produced another set of policies for the metropolis as a whole, which advocated the redevelopment of the inner suburbs at a higher density, instead of allowing the continued spread of the suburbs.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

The CBD Plan of 1964, the Melbourne Strategy Plan, the rise of conservation planning, and the establishment of the Underground Rail Loop of 1974 were to be major features of the city planning scene. In one way or another all of Melbourne’s planning approaches have been concerned either explicitly or implicitly with ensuring Melbourne is “liveable” for its community. Successive governments have attempted to ensure the community has had an input to these plans. When they haven’t done justice to this critical component of planning they have generally made themselves heard, forming lobby groups and protesting vigorously. A quick examination of the key planning documents in Melbourne’s recent past demonstrates the key common themes, which I would argue are about “Liveability” • A Place to Live—Shaping Victoria’s Future; • Cities in the Suburbs—the District Centre Policy for the 1990’s; • Planning a Better Future for Victorians—New Directions for Development and Economic Growth; • Living Suburbs—A policy for metropolitan Melbourne into the 21” century; • From Doughnut City to Cafe Society, Department of Infrastructure, Melbourne; • Investing For Our Future—Growing Victoria Together; and most recently; 5.2 Melbourne 2030—Planning for Sustainable Growth A closer examination of the themes in Melbourne 2030 exemplify Melbourne’s concern with a “liveable” city for the community: “Economic, social and environmental matters are integral to Melbourne 2030, but it is not an economic development plan, a community development strategy or a comprehensive environmental management plan. Rather, it gives a high-level overview of the directions metropolitan Melbourne is expected to take. Its clear focus is the management of future growth, land use and infrastructure investment. It will provide a vital context for other sectoral plans in areas like transport and housing.” Directions The core of Melbourne 2030 is nine ‘directions’—or desired results Direction 1—A more compact city • Build up activity centres as a focus for high-quality development, activity and living for the whole community • Broaden the base of activity in centres that are currently dominated by shopping to include a wider range of services over longer hours, and restrict out-of-centre development • Locate a substantial proportion of new housing in or close to activity centres and other strategic redevelopment sites that offer good access to services and transport Direction 2 —Better management of metropolitan growth

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

141

Paper 5 • Establish an urban growth boundary to set clear limits to metropolitan Melbourne’s outward development • Concentrate urban expansion into growth areas that are served by high-capacity public transport • Manage the sequence of development in growth areas so that services are available from early in the life of new communities • Protect the green wedges of metropolitan Melbourne from inappropriate development Direction 3—Networks with the regional cities • Promote the growth of regional cities and key towns on regional transport corridors as part of a networked cities model • Control development in rural areas to protect agriculture and avoid inappropriate rural residential development

142

Direction 4—A more prosperous city • Maintain access to productive natural resources and an adequate supply of well located land for energy generation, infrastructure and industry • Strengthen Central Melbourne’s capital city functions and its role as the primary business, retail, sport and entertainment hub for the metropolitan area • Further develop the key transport gateways and freight links and maintain Victoria’s position as the nation’s premier logistics centre • Create opportunities for innovation and the knowledge economy within existing and emerging industries, research and education • Encourage the continued deployment of broadband telecommunications services that are easily accessible Direction 5—A great place to be • Promote good urban design to make the environment more liveable and attractive • Recognise and protect cultural identity, neighbourhood character and sense of place • Improve community safety and encourage neighbourhood design that makes people feel safe • Protect heritage places and values • Promote excellent neighbourhood design to create attractive, walkable and diverse communities • Improve the quality and distribution of local open space and ensure long-term protection of public open space • Rectify gaps in the network of metropolitan open space by creating new parks and ensure major open space corridors are protected and enhanced • Improve the environmental health of the bays and their catchments • Protect coastal and foreshore environments, and improve public access and recreational facilities around Port Phillip Bay and Western Port • Maintain and develop metropolitan Melbourne as a desirable tourist destination

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Direction 6 — A fairer city • Increase the supply of well-located affordable housing • Plan for a more equitable distribution of social infrastructure • Improve the coordination and timing of the installation of services and infrastructure in new development areas • Develop a strong cultural environment and increase access to arts, recreation and other cultural facilities Direction 7—A greener city • Ensure that water resources are managed in a sustainable way • Reduce the amount of waste generated and encourage increased reuse and recycling of waste materials • Contribute to national and international efforts to reduce energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions • Reduce the impact of stormwater on bays and catchments • Protect ground water and land resources • Ensure that land-use and transport planning and infrastructure provision contribute to improved air quality • Protect native habitat and areas of important biodiversity through appropriate land-use planning • Promote the concept of sustainability and develop benchmarks to measure progress • Lead by example in environmental management Direction 8—Better transport links • Upgrade and develop the Principal Public Transport Network and local public transport services to connect activity centres and link Melbourne to the regional cities • Improve the operation of the existing public transport network with faster, more reliable and efﬁcient on-road and rail public transport • Plan urban development to make jobs and community services more accessible • Coordinate development of all transport modes to provide a comprehensive transport system • Manage the road system to achieve integration, choice and balance by developing an efﬁcient and safe network and making the most of existing infrastructure • Review transport practices, including design, construction and management, to reduce environmental impacts • Give more priority to cycling and walking in planning urban development and in managing our road system and neighbourhoods • Promote the use of sustainable personal transport options Direction 9 —Better planning decisions, careful management • Achieve better planning decisions • Speed up resolution of appeals • Keep Melbourne 2030 up to date • Develop a strong partnership with local government • Implement Melbourne 2030 in an integrated way that involves the community

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

143

Paper 5 The time taken to produce the report, the extent of consultation involved and the level of debate in the community, pays testament to the concern theccommunity and the government have for planning Melbourne and ensuring we maintain our liveability. Having considered the Melbourne’s planning & liveability heritage it is appropriate to examine some if the various rating systems of cities that rate Melbourne highly in this regard. 5.3 Review of selected “city rating projects” how they rate cities and how Melbourne rates. Melbourne’s liveability regularly rates well compared to other cities. With its sustainable growth and development, it has been classiﬁed as one of the best cities in which to live twice by the Economist Intelligence Unit and highly ranked in various studies. As discussed in Part A of this paper, the City of Melbourne’s benchmarking project evolved into an integrated planning process. But the City Research branch continues to track different projects from a variety of sources that purport to measure cities “liveability”. This study explores the methodologies of city ranking in which Melbourne is included and the following examines a selection of these.

144

Country Level Comparisons The United Nations Human Development Index The United Nations Human Development Index (HDI) is part of the Human Development Report, ﬁrst launched in 1990 and is a comprehensive global database. Annual data of common indicators from over 170 countries have been collected since its establishment. The database does not only allow cross country or state comparison but also provides sufﬁcient information and data for comparison between gender, ethnicity and other socioeconomic groupings. The concept of human development looks at development beyond GDP and economic performance alone. It examines human resource development and basic needs as a measure of human progress and also assesses such factors as human freedom and dignity. It has been widely used to refocus attention away from the more usual economic statistics to more human outcomes. Recent Human Development Reports show that Australia is among the highly placed countries. It has remained in the top 5 countries in the world since 2000. Australia’s ranking moved up from 7th position in 1999 to 4th in 2000.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Top 10 Countries in the HDI Ranking Ranking1 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9 th 10 th

2000 Canada Norway United States Australia Iceland Sweden Belgium Netherlands Japan United Kingdom

2001 Norway Australia Canada Sweden Belgium United States Iceland Netherlands Japan Finland

2002 Norway Sweden Australia Canada Netherlands Belgium Iceland United States Japan Ireland

2003 Norway Iceland Sweden Australia Netherlands Belgium United States Canada Japan Switzerland

2004 Norway Sweden Australia Canada Netherlands Belgium Iceland United States Japan Ireland

HDI for high human development countries-the HDI is constructed to compare country achievements across all levels of human development. However. among the top HDI countries. including Australia, the indicators currently used in the HDI yield very small differences, and thus the top of the HDI rankings often reﬂects only the very small differences in these underlying indicators. For these high-income countries an alternative indexthe human poverty index can better reﬂect the extent of human deprivation that still exists among populations and help direct the focus of public policies. Source: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

Quality of Life Index Unlike the HDI, the Economist Intelligence Unit quality of life index aims at better understanding objective as well as subjective aspects of life. The index has been recently developed by the Economist Intelligence Unit based on a unique methodology to link subjective life satisfaction, derived from life satisfaction surveys, and the objective determinants of quality of life across countries. The index has been calculated for 111 countries for 2005 and all countries have been ranked accordingly. The following nine quality of life factors are considered signiﬁcant: • Material well-being (GDP per capita at PPP) • Health (life expectancy at birth) • Political stability and security (political stability and security ratings) • Family life (divorce rate converted into index of 1 lowest to 5 highest) • Community life (dummy variable taking value 1 if the country has either a high rate of church attendance or trade-union membership; zero otherwise) • Climate and geography (latitude, to distinguish between warmer and colder climates) • Job security (unemployment rate) • Political freedom ( average of indices of political and civil liberties) • Gender equality (ratio of average male and female earnings) Similarly to the Human Development Index, the quality of life index ranks Australia highly. Although the country GDP per capita, at PPP, ranks 14th the country stands at 6th with overall quality of life score 7.925, behind Ireland, Switzerland, Norway, Luxembourg and Sweden.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

145

Paper 5 Worldwide Quality of Life Index, Top Ten Countries Country Quality of life Score1 Rank Ireland 8.333 1 Switzerland 8.068 2 Norway 8.051 3 Luxembourg 8.015 4 Sweden 7.937 5 Australia 7.925 6 Iceland 7.911 7 Italy 7.810 8 Denmark 7.796 9 Spain 7.727 0

GDP Per Person $ at PPP 36,790 33,580 39,590 54,690 30,590 31,010 33,560 27,960 32,490 25,370

Rank 4 7 3 1 19 14 8 23 10 24

Difference in Ranks 3 5 0 -3 14 8 1 15 1 14

Score on a scale from 1 to 10 Source: The Economist Intelligence Unit

City/Municipality Level Comparison As centres of administrative, business, cultural and major activities cities provide for the development and growth of a region as well as national economy. Various studies have been undertaken and produced signiﬁcant results in comparing and ranking major cities in the world. 146

Cost of Living Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU)—Worldwide Cost of Living Survey The EIU conducts their worldwide cost of living survey twice a year, in June and December. The survey is designed to gather comprehensive information on the cost of more than 160 products and services in over 130 cities. Melbourne and major Australian cities are included, across 86 countries. The survey and analysis allow cross city and country comparison of cost of living necessities ranging from food, toiletries and clothing to domestic help, transport and utilities. More than 50,000 individual prices are collected in each survey round. The prices of products and services are grouped into 13 categories: • Shopping basket • Alcoholic beverages • Household supplies • Personal care • Tobacco • Utilities • Clothing • Domestic help • Recreation & entertainment • Transportation • Housing rents • International schools, health & sports • Business trip costs The price data is used to calculate cost of living index to express the differences in the cost of

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

living. New York is used as an index city and is always expressed as 100 and each destination city is indexed against this number. Recent surveys show that Australian cities have become more expensive as the Australian currency appreciates against US currency. Sydney remained the most expensive city in Australia and its rank jumped from 40th to 14th in 2 years, 2003-2004. Similarly, Melbourne’s cost of living rose sharply from 43rd to 18th during the same period followed by Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide with similar trend. Cost of Living of Selected Cities City Country Tokyo Osaka Kobe Paris Oslo Copenhagen Zurich London Reykjavik Geneva Sydney Melbourne Brisbane Perth Adelaide

Japan Japan France Norway Denmark Switzerland UK Iceland Switzerland Australia Australia Australia Australia Australia

Rank 2004 1 2 3 3 5 6 6 8 9 14 18 30 31 43

2003 1 2 7 3 6 4 10 9 7 40 43 63 63 73

Source: the Economist Intelligence Unit

Mercer Human Resource Consulting—Cost of Living Survey Similarly, Mercer Human Resource Consulting conducts its cost of living survey twice a year. The survey is normally conducted in March and September. The survey is designed to collect prices of over 200 standard goods and services in more than 250 cities in 39 countries. The prices of various goods and services are collected and categorised into the following groups: • Food at home • Alcohol and tobacco • Household supplies • Health and personal care • Clothing and footwear • Domestic services • Utilities • Food away from home • Transportation • Sports and leisure The data is used to calculate three main cost of living indexes to accommodate the differences

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

147

Paper 5 in shopping habits: (i) (ii) (iii)

The reversible Mean-to-Mean Index is the best indicator of overall differences in prices between two locations as it, compares the mean prices (average of the price of each item) in the base city to the mean prices in the host city. The EfďŹ cient Index applies to a relatively experienced shopper and compares the average of the low and mid prices in the base city to the mean prices in the host city. The Convenience Index applies to a less experienced shopper or a newcomer in the location and compares the average of the low and mid prices in the base city to the high prices in the host city, except for selected categories for which it compares mean base prices.

The latest surveys have revealed that major Australian cities are becoming more expensive due to the signiďŹ cant appreciation of currency against the US dollar. Sydney remained the most expensive city in the country, its rank has increased from 103 in 2001 to 20 in 2004, while: Melbourne held the second position, it rose from 129th position to 67th position during the same period. With similar pattern other major Australian cities have also become more expensive.

148

Cost of Living in Major Australian Cities City 2005 2004 2003 Index Sydney 95.20 91.80 73.70 Melbourne 80.0 77.50 62.70 Brisbane 74.90 72.70 59.10 Perth 73.50 70.70 58.20 Adelaide 73.90 72.00 58.60 Rank Sydney 20 20 67 Melbourne 68 67 111 Brisbane 84 87 121 Perth 93 94 124 Adelaide 89 89 124

2002

2001

62.20 53.20 50.20 49.70 49.60

59.80 51.20 47.90 48.00 47.60

95 127 134 137 138

103 129 133 132 134

Source: Mercer Human Resource Consulting

Cost of Living Index of Major Australian Cities

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

��

Source: Mercer Human Resource Consulting

Quality of Life Surveys EIU—Quality of Life City Ranking Unlike Mercer’s quality of life index, the quality of life index of the Economist Intelligence Unit quantifies the level of hardship and is based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative information. The assessment looks at various hardship determinants which grouped in three categories: • health & safety: threat of violent crime, threat posed by terrorism/armed conflict and health/disease rating of 13 health indicators • culture & environment: rating of cultural hardship; recreational availability. (availability of nightclubs, restaurants, sporting events, sporting facilities, theatres, cinemas and concerts); climate rating; availability of consumer goods/services; and corruption rating • infrastructure: rating of transport infrastructure; rating of housing stock; index of education indicators (up to 12 indicators); and rating of utility networks. Indicators are given a rating of between one and five, where one, at 0%, means there is no hardship and five, at 100%, means extreme hardship. These are then weighted using the above breakdown and converted into an overall percentage. A final index of 0% means that there is no hardship entailed in living in a city and 100% means that every aspect of life entails extreme hardship. In each section a mixture of quantitative and qualitative data are used to give an overall Hardship Index. In the 2003 and 2004 assessments, major Australian cities emerged in the top list of the best

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

149

Paper 5 cities in which to live. Melbourne was ranked as the best city for two consecutive years, 2003 and 2004. Other Australian cities in the top 10 of the list were Adelaide, Brisbane and Sydney. Although the difference between major Australian cities is minimal, lower crime level and better climatic conditions suggest Melbourne is a better city than Sydney in which to live. Overall Quality of Life Ranking of Selected Cities City Country

150

Melbourne Vancouver Vienna Perth Geneva Adelaide Brisbane Copenhagen Montreal Oslo Sydney Zurich Helsinki Stockholm Toronto

Australia Canada Austria Australia Switzerland Australia Australia Denmark Canada Norway Australia Switzerland Finland Sweden Canada

Feb-04 1 1 1 4 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 13 13 13

Ranking

Oct-02 1 1 4 3 4 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 16 16 4

Source: The Economist Intelligence Unit

Mercer Human Resource Consulting—Worldwide Quality of Life Survey The Mercer Human Resource Consulting Worldwide quality of living survey is designed to provide an objective assessment of the quality of living in 235 cities worldwide. The outputs of the survey are used to compare the difference in quality of living conditions in different cities. New York is used as the base score of 100 points. The ranking is based on an assessment and evaluation of 39 quality of life determinants which are grouped into the following categories: • • • • • • • • • •

Consumer goods (availability of food/daily consumption items, cars, etc) Economic environment (currency exchange regulations, banking services, etc) Housing (housing, household appliances, furniture, maintenance services, etc) Medical and health considerations (medical supplies and services, infectious diseases, sewage, waste disposal, air pollution, etc) Natural environment (climate, record of natural disasters) Political and social environment (political stability, crime, law enforcement, etc) Public services and transportation (electricity, water, public transport, trafﬁc congestion, etc) Recreation (restaurants, theatres, cinemas, sports, and leisure etc) Schools and education (standard and availability of schools etc) Socio-cultural environment (censorship, limitations on personal freedom, etc)

The recent studies have revealed that mayor Australian cities remained m the top list of the most Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

liveable cities. Melbourneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s position has changed slightly over the last three years. It was ranked 15th in 2003 with an overall quality of life index of 103.5 and then went up to 12th place, sharing with Brussels and Dusseldorf in 2004 with an increase of 0.5 for its overall quality of life index. Melbourne has then slipped slightly to 14th in 2005 as its index slightly dropped to 2003 level. Quality of Living Index and City Ranking of Major Australian Cities City 2005 2004 Index Sydney 105.00 105.00 Melbourne 103.50 104.00 Perth 103.00 103.00 Adelaide 102.00 102.00 Brisbane 101.50 102.00 Rank Sydney 8 5 Melbourne 14 12 Perth 20 20 Adelaide 25 24 Brisbane 31 24

2003 105.00 103.50 103.00 101.50 101.50 5 15 20 31 31

Source: The Mercer Human Resource Consulting

Quality of Living Index and City Ranking of Top 20 Cities Ranking City Country 2005 2004 2003 Geneva Switzerland 1 1 2 Zurich Switzerland 1 1 1 Vancouver Canada 3 3 2 Vienna Austria 3 3 2 Frankfurt Germany 5 5 5 Munich Germany 5 10 10 Dusseldorf Germany 5 12 12 Auckland New Zealand 8 5 5 Bern Switzerland 8 5 5 Copenhagen Denmark 8 5 5 Sydney Australia 8 5 5 Amsterdam Netherlands 12 10 10 Brussels Belgium 13 12 12 Melbourne Australia 14 12 15 Berlin Germany 14 15 15 Luxembourg Luxembourg 14 15 15 Stockholm Sweden 14 15 15 Toronto Canada 14 15 12 Wellington New Zealand 14 15 15 Ottawa Canada 20 20 20

151 Index 2005 106.50 106.50 106.00 106.00 105.50 105.50 105.50 105.00 105.00 105.00 105.00 104.50 104.00 103.50 103.50 103.50 103.50 103.50 103.50 103.00

2004 106.50 106.50 106.00 106.00 105.00 104.50 104.00 105.00 105.00 105.00 105.00 104.50 104.00 104.00 103.50 103.50 103.50 103.50 103.50 103.00

2003 106.00 106.50 106.00 106.00 105.00 104.50 104.00 105.00 105.00 105.00 105.00 104.50 104.00 103.50 103.50 103.50 103.50 104.00 103.50 103.00

Source: The Mercer Human Resource Consulting Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 5 Creativity and Regional Growth Other studies compare cities by looking at relationships between their growth and creativity. In a fast growing economy, the regional economic growth is claimed to be the product of the creative class who prefer places that are diverse, tolerant and open to new ideas. Diversity increases the odds that a city will attract different types of creative people with different skill sets and ideas. Cities with diverse mixes are likely to provide a better environment for creative people who work together to speed the ﬂow of knowledge and translate it into activities. It is argued that greater and more diverse concentrations of creative capital in turn lead to higher rates of innovation, high-technology business formation, job creation and economic growth. The cities that can attract creative people, generate innovation will stimulate economic growth. They have three economic development determinants: technology, talent and tolerance. Although the original study focused mainly on US cities an attempt has been made to apply the concept and analysis to Australia by using a survey conducted by the National Economicsthe State of the Regions Report 2002. The results allow some cross country and interstate comparison between Australia and the United States.

152

The “creativity” concept which is measured by a “creative index”—a mix of four equally weighted factors: (1) Talent index; (ii) Innovation index; (iii) High-Tech index; and (iv) Diversity index, was used to compare Australian regions with the US regions. The results revealed that Central Melbourne was ranked among the highest, 7th equal to Houston Texas, compared to 268 regions in the United States. Central Melbourne rates fourth on the “talent” index, which looks at the education attainment of the population, and fourth on the “creative class” index, which looks at the percentage of workforce employed in highly skilled/creative positions. Nationally, the Inner Melbourne region is marginally behind the Global Sydney region with a creativity score of 985. Melbourne however outperforms Sydney on “Talent” index and “Innovation” index, which looks at the number of patented innovations per capita. Creativity Index of Selected Australian Regions Region Population Creativity Score Global Sydney 689,401 992 Melbourne Inner 453,604 985 Australian Capital Territory 311,947 831 Perth Central 580,289 733 Brisbane 888.449 718 Western Sydney 1,776,942 581 Tasmania 455,726 138 Queensland Coastal 485,266 10 Remaining Australia 4,832,184 151

US Rank 6 7 34 58 105 130 262 n.a. 262

rank against 268 regions in the United State Source: The State of the Region Report 2002

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Disaggregated Indexes of Selected Australian Regions Tech Index 1/ Talent 2/ Innovation3/ Global Sydney Melbourne Inner Melbourne Inner Melbourne Inner Global Sydney Global Sydney Remaining Melbourne ACT ACT Western Sydney Sydney Outer North Gold Coast Melbourne South & East Melbourne South & Brisbane East

Diversity4/ Global Sydney Melbourne Inner Sunshine Coast Western Sydney Gold Coast

Source: The State of the Region Report 2002 1/ the basic measure for high-technology industry is a widely used measure developed by Ross DeVol and his colleagues at the Milken Institute. It measures both the size and the concentration of a region’s economy in growth sectors such as software, electronics, biomedical products and engineering services. It ranks metropolitan areas based on a combination of two factors: (i) its high-tech industrial outputs as a percentage of total high-tech industrial output; and (ii) the percentage of the region’s own total economic output that comes from high-tech industries compared to the nationwide percentage. According to the Milken Institute researchers, the former favours large metropolitan areas, while the second favours smaller regions with large technology sectors. By combining them, the High-Tech Index creates a less biased measure. 2/ a measure of the human capital in a region, based on a region’s share of people with a bachelor’s degree and above. 3/ a measure of patented innovations per capita. 4/ a composite measure combines three indexes: (i) the Gay Index which is a measure of the over- or under-representation of couple gay people in a region relative to the country as a whole. The fraction of all such gay people who live in a given metropolitan area is divided by the fraction of the total population who live in that area. The resulting number is a ratio: a value over 1.0 says that a region has a greater-than-average share of gay couples, while a value below 1.0 suggests that gays are underrepresented; (ii) Bohemian Index which is calculated in the same fashion as the Gay Index, the Bohemian Index is a measure of artistically creative people. It includes authors, designers, musicians, composers, actors, directors, painters, sculptors, artists, printmakers, photographers, dancers, artists, and performers; and (iii) Melting Pot Index which measures the relative percentage of foreign born people in a region.

Quality of Life Monitoring—Municipality Level It has been generally acknowledged that quality of life goes beyond material income. Quality of life is a broad concept referring to the overall level of well-being of individuals in a society1. Knowing how much people earn on average and how satisﬁed they are with their life are important, but it is even also important to know the relationship between their satisfaction level and the resources and conditions in the society where they live in. This facilitates the development of a better understanding of how people come to evaluate their work, family and community life and the interrelationships between them. Various comprehensive quality of life reporting systems have been established in many countries to better understand and monitor the quality of life determinants. The systems are designed to gather relevant information, analyse and inform policy makers of any pressing issues and p-erformance. They are used to quantify and monitor changing social, environmental and economic conditions. The results are 1

Fahey. T.,Nolan, B and Whelan, T C. 2003, p. 1.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

153

Paper 5 used to raise awareness of issues affecting quality of life, and hence, better target policies and resources to improving quality of life. The following monitoring systems are some examples of comprehensive and well-developed systems: â&#x20AC;˘ Canadian Quality of Life Reporting System- Developed in 1999 by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) to measure, monitor and report on the quality of life in Canadian urban municipalities using data from a variety of national and municipal sources. It started with 16 municipalities and increased to 20 by 2004 covering 40 per cent of total population. The system is to collect time series data of various indicators grouped into six quality of life determinants: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) 154

Develop and maintain a vibrant local economy; Protect and enhance the natural and built environment; Offer opportunities for the attainment of personal goals, hopes and aspirations; Promote a fair and equitable sharing of common resources; Enable residents to meet their basic needs; and Support rich social interactions and the inclusion of all residents in community life.

â&#x20AC;˘ New Zealand Quality of Life Reporting System- established in 1999 to provide social, economic and environmental indicators of quality of life in New Zealandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s six largest cities. The system has started with six cities and expanded to eight covering most cities with over 150,000 residents. The system has been designed to collect, analyse and report on the following indicators of quality of life. (a) People (b) Knowledge and skills (c) Economic standard of living (d) Economic development (e) Housing (f) Health (g) Natural, environment (h) Build environment (i) Safety (j) Social connectedness (k) Civil and political rights The system has yielded several reports in 2001, 2003 and 2004. They have been used to advocate policy responses. The above is only a selection of quality of life monitoring systems. There are many other systems are designed to monitor cities.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

5.4 Conclusions The selected studies examined in this paper show a range of methods using different information and data to rank countries and cities, with varying results. Australia and Melbourne perform well across all of these studies. The HDI ranks Australia in the top five countries in the world. Whereas quality of life index of the Economist Intelligence Unit which combines both quantitative and qualitative information ranks Australia sixth. Similarly, “city studies” also show significant variations, but Melbourne generally rates well across most ranking systems. Cost of Living surveys compare of cost of living necessities ranging from food, toiletries and clothing to domestic help, transport and utilities. Quality of Life Surveys compare: • health & safety: threat of violent crime, threat posed by terrorism armed conflict and health/ disease; • culture & environment, cultural hardship; recreational availability, availability of consumer goods/services; and corruption; • infrastructure: transportation, housing; schools & education and utility networks; • medical and health considerations; • natural environment (including climate)! • political and social environment; • public services, utilities; and • recreation The main purpose of these surveys is to provide businesses with a guide to the cost of doing business in selected cities. In particular, so-called “Quality of life” surveys have focussed on providing businesses with some broader assessment of a city and the extent to which it may be necessary to compensate employees to work there, if there quality of life is less that that of their city of origin. Generally they have been based on surveys of expatriates and their experiences. It is important to note this: ...the “quality of life” being ranked” is that of an expatriate, generally a professional or business executive. The “audiences” are businesses interested in doing business in the relevant cities. It is only recently that these surveys have been used as “proxies” for a city’s quality of life in general, hence caution should be used in interpreting the results. The Economist Intelligence Unit’s survey has rated Melbourne as the best place to live in twice in recent years. By contrast, Mercer’s quality of life survey, which uses only quantitative data, has ranked Melbourne fourteenth after many major cities. Two notes of caution have emerged from the latest publications of these surveys.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

155

Paper 5 • Major Australian cities are getting expensive due to the signiﬁcant appreciation of currency against the US dollar; and • It appears that congestion levels may be emerging a factor that could adversely impact on Melbourne’s ranking in the future. These points are of concern to government and planning ofﬁcials alike, not because they could cause Melbourne’s rating to suffer, but because they adversely impact on the community. The problems of growing congestion in Melbourne have been increasing and a great deal of attention is currently focussed on addressing this issue. Creativity and Regional Growth surveys are more recent developments. The Creativity index takes a different approach to ranking cities by determining factors contributing to growth. It also include indices such as the “Gay Index”—measuring openness and acceptance, the “Bohemian Index”—measuring the proportion of artistically creative people and the “Melting Pot Index” —which measures the relative percentage of foreign born people in a region. This survey ranked Melbourne second after Sydney and seventh compared to major United States cities. Nationally, the Inner Melbourne region is marginally behind the Global Sydney region with respect to its creativity rating, but it outperforms Sydney on the “Talent” index and “Innovation” index. 156

It is important to note then that Quality of life monitoring systems provide substantial information and data on cities and can be useful tools with which to measure a city’s relative performance, as well as identify pressing issues. Quality of Life measures at the municipality level are only recently being developed, but will provide useful guides for the development of future municipal measures of changing social, environmental and economic conditions. They are intended to assist in informing policy makers of any pressing issues and performance regarding an area’s quality of life. 6.0 EXPLANATIONS AS TO WHY MELBOURNE RATES WELL ON MOST INDICATORS Melbourne’s planning heritage has contributed signiﬁcantly to its liveability Planned with the community in mind and involved. As R Adam’s explained Melbourne has for a long time been concerned about the livability of its city. The fact that it managed to preserve its tram systems long after many cities had lost theirs, that it still has a heavy emphasis on public transport, its concerns about crime and living in the city are all indicators of this deep felt concern. It is also unusual among cities the strategy that was modest and recoginised the importance of building on the essential strengths already inherent within the city.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Melbourne unlike many other cities, eg Sydney, Capetown or Rio cannot rely on its geographic location to have a strong sense of its own identity. In a sense Melbourne has had to manufacture its identity and has successfully achieved this. Across most indicators and ranking systems Melbourne rates well. It is continuing to focus on factors influencing its liveability, but these are presenting significant challenges. It is particularly hard to persuade the community, and vested interests of the need to consider the total metropolitan perspective, but even harder to convince them of the need to change certain aspects of their lifestyles in order to address global issues, such as energy efficiency, water conservation and green house gas reduction. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS The aim of this paper has been to explore the nature of what it means to be a liveable city, to go beyond the notion of some “badge” or award and to try to understand how this notion has developed, been used and applied in city planning. Part A of the paper examined the concept of the “Worlds Most Liveable City” from the City of Melbourne’s perspective, the development of the “Benchmarking Melbourne” project and its evolution into “Integrated Planning” The key lessons learned include the following. Data Issues There are many difficulties in collecting consistent and comparable information: • The data may not always be in the appropriate form, relate to different dates or just not available or unable to be tracked down. • It is often difficult to ensure the data collected is based on consistent areas or regions, to ensure that “like” is being compared with “like”. • Data, definitions, accuracy, reliability, authenticity, often vary, not just between countries and cities, but between the organisations within them. • Using proxies or substitute indicators reduces comparability. • Caution must be exercised that the indicator is an accurate measure of a selected subject and that its variations are related to that subject and not other independent factors, eg crime rates as an indicator of city safety. • Cooperation between cities and organisation can vary. Maintaining, not gaining interest is difficult, when the reality of collecting the data becomes apparent. • Indicator priorities and selections may not be consistent across all cities. • Maintaining the initiating organisations commitment to the project can be very difficult. Strong political and organisational commitment, backed up by appropriate resources are essential.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

157

Paper 5 Ensure the Indicators are Based on a Framework Be clear about what can and can’t be measured. The choice of indicators is subjective ... “Liveability” like “beauty” is in the eye of the beholder! Ensure the community agrees with your indicator framework. Focus attention on the aspects of a City that are valued and enable the planning agency to prioritise plans, policies and actions base on a well-considered framework. It is important to select the appropriate indicator for the particular purpose or plan, eg • Action & Implementation Indicators • Result & Output Indicators • Outcome Indicators • Contextual Indicators • Corporate Performance Indicators • City Perception Indicators—“Perceptions can become reality!” • Beware of Indices—they should be used with caution. Where possible, indicators should incorporate a trend or forecasting component to illustrate the direction toward a desired goal.

158

It is equally important, that policies or plans be framed in such a way that there implementation, results and intended outcomes can be measured. The City of Melbourne uses a “SMART” approach, Simple, Measurable, Actionable, Realistic, and Time focussed. Indicators, like policies should be matched to the level of inﬂuence, just as plans, goals and actions should be set at the level which has the resources to ensure they can be achieved. So What! Issues There needs to be a link between the plan, the indicators and the interpretation of the results. It should also be borne in mind that if the period for reporting is too short then the plan may not have had time to take effect. If it is too long then the original purpose and commitment may be lost. Know Your Audience When reporting on indicators it is essential to be clear who the audience is and how they are able to respond to the issues raised. The analysis, interpreting and reporting process should be timed so that the authority can turn its informed response into action. The results can then be used to assign priorities. The City of Melbourne’s solution to this has been to integrate Performance Measures into its Planning Process. The incorporation a of a conference to present and debate a report is an effective way of assessing and interpreting of the results and to decide key issues or ﬁndings that could be considered in the next planning cycle.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Selected Key Findings from the Benchmarking Melbourne Project The concept of having a city measuring its liveability against others for promotional purposes tends to be self-defeating. One would expect the city to pick the criteria for assessment that presents it in the best light. The more cities that embark on this course and claim to be “the most liveable” the more ridiculous the exercise becomes! The Benchmarking project presented an ideal indicator framework. Its purpose was to guide how the City of Melbourne in its collection of information comparing different cities’ liveability and competitiveness. Some of the key findings were as follows: • Prosperity is not the only measure of a successful city. • An innovating city: -is a knowledge creator -encourages people’s face to face contact -develops its uniqueness -continuously learns and adapts The role of trust is important and an important indicator of community cohesion. Isolation can lead to unfamiliarity, anxiety, and fear of the community in which one lives. Concerns of safety can lead to a fortress mentality gated communities which further divides the community. Part B of the paper examined a selection of studies measuring and comparing cities. It identified a range of methods and different information and data used to rank countries and cities, with varying results. Quality of Life Surveys compare: • health & safety: threat of violent crime, threat posed by terrorism/armed conflict and health/ disease; • culture & environment, cultural hardship; recreational availability, availability of consumer goods/services; and corruption; • infrastructure: transportation, housing; schools & education and utility networks; • Medical and health considerations; • Natural environment (including climate)! • Political and social environment; • Public services, utilities; and • Recreation It must be noted that the main purpose of these surveys is to provide businesses with a guide to the cost of doing business in selected cities. In particular, so-called “Quality of life” surveys have focussed on providing businesses with some broader assessment of a city and the extent to which it may be necessary to compensate employees to work there, if there quality of life is less that that of their city of origin.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

159

Paper 5 Generally they have been based on surveys of expatriates and their experiences. It is important to note this: ......the “quality of life” being ranked” is that of an expatriate, generally a professional or business executive. The “audiences” are businesses interested in doing business in the relevant cities. It is only recently that these surveys have been used as “proxies” for a city’s quality of life in general, hence caution should be used in interpreting the results. Bearing the above in mind, Melbourne compares very favourably with most other cities and on a number of occasions has been ranked as “One of the World’s Most Liveable Cities”, using different methodologies and information. But these findings confirmed those from Part B, that the selection of indicators is subjective and subject to significant variations. An important conclusion from this review is that the notion of ranking cities in this way has little innate value itself unless there is a link to action, a process by which any issues identified can be acted upon. In Melbourne’s case, the concept of “Liveability” has been implied, if not expressly stated in the city’s planning since its inception. This concept in fact has been at the core of Melbourne’s Urban Planning, but only in recent years, with the advent of “globalization” has the term been articulated taken on new meaning and become something akin to a “global urban sport”. 160

Melbourne’s liveability is about good fortune as much as good planning. 8.0 LESSONS LEARNED I offer the following comments from my experience dealing with indicator studies in Melbourne. Like “beauty”, “liveability” is in the eye of the beholder. The question of “whose liveability?” is being measured should be clear and the indicators should relevant to what is important to them. A key ingredient to liveability is “culture” and I would consider understanding and preserving a city’s culture as very important. We all need to eat, but what, how, when and where we choose to prepare and eat it is part of our culture. Culture deﬁnes a city and gives a community a unique sense of place. Planning sets the ground rules. You can’t plan culture, just as you can’t plan spontaneity, but planning can support cultural development and sustain it. Crosscultural activities stimulate ideas so do cross disciplines. I would consider it important to learn from other cities but adapt their ideas to your own environment and create your own sense of “liveability”. It will be what attracts others! What’s the point of travelling if everything looks and feels the same? Equally a city’s sustainability is also very important. The questions must be asked, is what we do sustainable, will our children have the same opportunities & choices we do and how do our choices impact on others countries cultures?

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Prosperity is not the only measure of a successful city. Innovation is an important component. An innovating city: • is a knowledge creator; • encourages people’s face to face contact; • develops its uniqueness; and • continuously learns and adapts The role of trust is important. Isolation can lead to unfamiliarity, anxiety, and fear of the community in which one lives. Concerns of safety can lead to a fortress mentality gated communities which further divides the community. The following comments refer more to the process of undertaking a study using city indicators. It is important to have regional coordination and appropriate resources. The idea of sharing skills is useful as these will be likely to differ among organisations. Indicator differences at the local level can be accommodated. For example, the following approach could be used to establish a regional indicator for the preservation of environmental diversity. The regional indicator could be the proportion of local governments that have identiﬁed a speciﬁc number of key issues of importance to their communities and have plans, goals and actions to address these issues. Once one hundred percent level has been reached, then the indicator could change to measure the extent of progress to the individual goals. Other key observations include the following. • Integrate Performance Measures into the Planning Process • Use the Results to Assign Priorities • Ensure the Indicators are Based on a Framework • Be Clear about What Can and Can’t be Measured • The Choice of Indicators is Subjective • Ensure the Community Agrees with Your Indicator Framework • Action & Implementation Indicators • Result & Output Indicators • Outcome Indicators • Contextual Indicators • Corporate Performance Indicators • City Perception Indicators • Match Policies & Indicators to the Appropraite Level of Responsibility • Know Your Audience • Beware of Indices • Obtain ongoing political and organisational commitment. Finally, it is worth remembering ... “Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans” We need to have measures to tell us how we are progressing, according to our plans or not!

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

161

Paper 5 APPENDIX 1 - ONE OF THE WORLD’S MOST LIVABLE CITIES From Peter Stephens, The Age - Washington Monday Nov 19, 1990 Melbourne comes first among the world’s big cities for liveability, according to a statistical analysis compiled over the past two years by a Washington-based research group. The study, based on ten basic indicators, tied Melbourne with Montreal and Seattle in first place, among the 100 biggest cities. Sydney came ninth and Atlanta, which two months ago beat Melbourne for the 1996 Olympic Games, was fourth. Athens, which also sought the Olympics, was 39th. The study was conducted by the Population Crisis Committee as part of its investigation of rapid growth of cities and living standards. The results suggest that fast population growth accompanies poor living standards, although researchers argue about which is cause and which is effect. The worst big cities were in the third world, and they also tended to be those with the fastest population growth. Committee officials said that as a population grew rapidly, social services were unable to keep pace. Overcrowding, poor sanitation, pollution, high crime rates and inadequate schooling often resulted. 162

The Vice-President of the Population Crisis Committee, Dr Sharon Camp, said she found it surprising that such cities as Stockholm and Amsterdam were not among the 100 biggest, and that nine cities from China and nine from India made the list. Dr Camp emphasised that the survey was not a holiday guide or an indication of quality of life in the cities listed. Weather was not assessed, which is just as well for the top three cities, none of which has a great climate. Nor was any account taken of museums, sports arenas or any other indicators of leisure activities. The ten criteria were: Air pollution level - (no graph) Infant deaths per 1000 live births - (Taipei/Osaka/ Nagoya equal lowest/Melbourne 2nd) Level of ambient noise (no graph) Murders for 100-thousand people - Madrid lowest/Melbourne second lowest People per room - Philadelphia lowest/Melbourne second Percentage of children in secondary school - (no graph) Percentage of homes with water & electricity - (no graph) Percentage of income spent of food - Washington DC lowest/ Melbourne-Sydney second Telephones per 100 people - (no graph) Trafﬁc speed at rush hour - Kiev 1 st (82km/h)/Melbourne 2nd (approx 35km/h) “There was no single measure (of leisure) that wasn’t elitist”, Dr Camp said. The countries consulted during the preliminary investigations could not agree on these measures anyway. “The Vietnamese said leisure wasn’t important”, she said

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Melbourne outscored Sydney in two areas: speed of traffic at peak hour and percentage of children in secondary school. Sydney regained some ground by having more telephones per 100 people. Both cities scored perfect marks for clean air, which may surprise people who have coughed their way to work on smog-alert days. Montreal and Seattle also have more telephones than Melbourne. Just think; if Melbourne had more telephones, it could stand alone as the best city in the world. For the record (in 1990) Sydney is the 56th biggest city and Melbourne the 71st. APPENDIX 2 Vancouver tops liveability ranking according to a new survey by the Economist Intelligence Unit Press release 03 Oct 2005 A new survey by the Economist Intelligence Unit assessing the “liveability” of 127 cities worldwide has found Vancouver to be the most attractive destination. The survey shows cities in Canada, Australia, Austria and Switzerland as the most ideal destinations thanks to a widespread availability of goods and services, low personal risk and an effective infrastructure. Jon Copestake, editor of the report, comments: “In the current global political climate, it is no surprise that the most desirable destinations are those with a lower perceived threat of terrorism.” The Economist Intelligence Unit’s LIVEABILITY RANKING, part of the Worldwide Cost of Living Survey, assesses living conditions in 127 cities around the world by looking at nearly 40 individual indicators grouped into five categories: stability; healthcare; culture and environment; education; and infrastructure. The survey gives a rating of 0%-100% and judges a city with a lower score to be the more attractive destination. A rating of 20% is where real problems are seen to begin - anything over 50% places severe restrictions on lifestyle. Is west the best? • Sixty-three cities - almost half of those surveyed in total - fall into the top liveability bracket. This reflects the fact that many global business centres have a developed infrastructure and widespread availability. Still, the overwhelming majority of cities in the top liveability range are based in western Europe and North America. • Only three cities in eastern Europe fall into this bracket along with 13 cities from Asia. All cities in North America and western Europe have ratings below 20%. In contrast all cities in Latin America, Africa and the Middle East exceed this. • The worst destinations in the survey are those of Algiers and Port Moresby in Papua New Guinea - where many aspects of daily life present challenges. All ten cities where the liveability index exceeds 50% are in Asia, Africa or the Middle East.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

163

Paper 5 Regional liveability averages

��

�

��

� ��

��

� ��

��

�

��

�

��

Source: Economists Intelligence Unit

Europe: A closing gap? Despite the clear difference in living standards between eastern and western Europe, the expansion of the EU and the strong economic development experienced in eastern Europe since the break-up of the Soviet Union is helping the east catching up with the west. 164

The three cities in eastern Europe with the best liveability indices (Budapest, Bratislava and Prague) are found in EU accession countries. Factors such as improved transport and communications infrastructure along with greater availability of goods, services and recreational activities have played a part in slowly bringing these cities into line with the west. Much less desirable are states beset by corruption and instability further to the east. Tashkent and Baku in the former Soviet republics ofUzbekistan and Azerbaijan score among the- worst in the region with ratings of 42% and 38% respectively. Both countries are prone to corruption and civil unrest, with the threat of petty crime, terror and a lack of general amenities also playing a part. Istanbul, in EU accession-hopeful Turkey, has an unenviable liveability rating of 39% - in part due to recent terror attacks including the 2003 attacks which speciﬁcally targeted expatriates. Conversely, Austria’s capital Vienna shares joint second spot with Geneva, Switzerland. Both cities have a rating of 2%, with their climates, a factor beyond human control, as the main pitfall to living there. Athens, the least liveable destination in Western Europe, also suffers from climate issues, although its infrastructure also serves to bring its ranking down. Despite this Athens still occupies the top tier of the Economist Intelligence Unit’s liveability scale. Canada betters neighbour With low crime, little threat from instability or terrorism and a highly developed infrastructure, Canada has the most liveable destinations in the world. With a rating of just 1% (as a result of a small threat from petty crime) Vancouver is the highest ranked city of all 127 surveyed. A further two Canadian cities (Montreal) and Toronto) feature in the top ﬁve with ratings of just 3%. All 4 cities surveyed score well in all respects.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Although higher crime rates and a greater threat of terror puts US cities below those of Canada, US cities are still among the world’s most liveable. Cleveland and Pittsburgh are the joint best scoring cities in the United States (7%), in joint 26th place in the global ranking. A lack of availability of recreational activities and certain infrastructural shortfalls put Lexington as the least liveable US city surveyed, in 56th place-although its rating of 13% is still low. Latin America dogged by instability Although no Latin American city surveyed manages to present ideal living conditions, neither do any fall into the category where extreme difficulties are faced - although Bogota in Colombia (117th) comes close with a rating of 49%. Bogota, like Caracas, Venezuela, has been subject to high profile levels of instability, unrest and violence. The two cities score 90% and 75% respectively in terms of stability due to widespread guerrilla warfare in Colombia and violent civil unrest in opposition to Venezuela’s President, Hugo Chavez. With scores of 20%, Montevideo in Uruguay, Santiago in Chile and Buenos Aires in Argentina (joint 64th) offer the best living conditions in Latin America. This is largely thanks to relatively efficient infrastructure and the availability of goods and services. These are closely followed by US commonwealth territory San Juan in Puerto Rico (23%), ranked 68th and Latin America’s longest serving unbroken democracy, San Jose in Costa Rica (24%) ranked 70th. Asia : The best and worst of both worlds Alongside Canada, Australia is has some of the most liveable places in the world. Melbourne is ranked joint second overall with a rating of just 2%. Perth, Adelaide and Sydney join Zurich, Toronto and Calgary in joint 5th place with ratings of 3%. Just below this is Brisbane in joint 11th place. Elsewhere in the region cities in Japan, New Zealand, Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan all offer a good standard of living, with a humid climate bringing scores down slightly. Just North of Australia, however, a very different picture emerges, with Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, returning the joint worst score of all 127 cities surveyed. With a rating of 66%, Port Moresby suffers from high crime rates, corruption, instability, low availability of entertainment, goods or services and a dilapidated infrastructure. The proximity of Port Moresby to Australia highlights the two-tiered nature of liveability in Asian countries, with a number of well developed urban centres next door to countries where less favorable conditions apply. The influx of investment in China alongside the increased availability of goods following WTO entry has helped all six Chinese cities surveyed perform relatively well, scoring between 24% and 30%. Alongside them are other emerging business centres such as Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur. Less developed cities, especially those where unrest or terrorism is an issue, fare much worse - with Phnom Penh (55%), Karachi (60%) and Dhaka (61%) all falling into the worst liveability category.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

165

Paper 5 Africa and the Middle East: A long way to go Africa and the Middle East, where cities have an average rating of 40%, fares worst of any region. Recent instability in the Middle East has made the threat of terror a key issue - although in Israel this is offset by a generally high level of development making Tel Aviv (23%) the best destination surveyed in the region. Strong anti-crime measures in many Arab states are also a stabilising factor, although a low crime rate can be outweighed by the many cultural restrictions in place. As a result, only Dubai (25%) and Abu Dhabi (26%) in the United Arab Emirates and Manama in Bahrain (27%) have similar liveability ratings to Israel. Cities perform much more poorly overall in Africa. The civil unrest and volatile nature of many countries, and the current political and economic climate mean cities such as Harare (53%), Lagos (59%), Abidjan (54%) and Douala (53%) prop up the ranking as some of the worst destinations. Alongside these are Tehran in Iran (52%), where the threat of war has been enhanced by concerns over the country’s nuclear programme. With a rating of 66% Algiers, in Algeria, comes joint bottom of the liveability scale with Port Moresby. Although the threat of civil war has diminished slightly, the country has a ravaged infrastructure and has very little available by way of entertainment or goods and services to ease the cultural restrictions in place. 166

Editor’s notes: About the survey The Economist Intelligence Unit’s liveability ranking is an expansion on the methodology of previous “Hardship” surveys that have been published. In addition to the factors that were previously attributed to specifically causing hardship a number of other factors have been included to give a more rounded impression of how liveable a city is. The survey takes over 40 factors into consideration which are weighted across five different categories: Stability; Healthcare; Culture & Environment; Education; and Infrastructure. Across the survey a mixture of quantitative and qualitative data are used, which are combined to give an overall Quality of Life Index rating. Each indicator is given a rating of between one and five, where one means there is no impact and five means the factor is extremely challenging. These are then weighted to produce an index, where 0% means the a city is exceptional and 100% means it is intolerable. About the Economist Intelligence Unit The Economist: Intelligence Unit, the business information arm of The Economist Group, publisher of The Economist, is the world’s leading provider of country intelligence, with over 500,000 customers in corporations, banks, universities and government institutions. Our mission is to help companies do better business by providing timely, reliable and impartial analysis on market trends and business strategies. More information about the Economist Intelligence Unit can be found on the Web at www.eiu.com. Source: Economist Intelligence Unit, 2005, Online http://store eiu com/index asp?layout=pr story&press id=660001866&ref=pr list Date: 05 October 2005

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

REFERENCES 2001, Quality of Life in New Zealand’s Six Largest Cities, available: http://www.bigcities.govt.nz/report.htm 2002, State of the Regions Report 2002, National Economics, Australian Local Government Association and Jardine Lloyd Thompson 2003, Quality of Life in New Zealand’s Eight Largest Cities 2003, available: http://www. bigcities.govt.nz/report.htm Cummins, A. R., Davern, M., Okerstrom, E., Lo, K. S., and Eckersley, R., 2005, Report 12.1 Australian Unity Wellbeing Index: Special Report on City and Country Living, Australian Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin University, Melbourne, available: http://acgol.deakin.edu.au Economist Intelligence Unit, 2004, Worldwide Cost of Living 2004, UK, available: http://www.finfacts.con/costofliving4.htm [Viewed 26 April 2005] Economist Intelligence Unit, 2005, The World in 2005-the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Quality of Life Index, available: http//www.economist.con/theworldin/international/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3372495 &d=2005 Economist Intelligence Unit, October 2002, Quality of Life, available: http://store.eiu.con/index.asp?layout=pr_story&press_id=540000654&ref=pr_list Economist Intelligence Unit, Worldwide Cost of Living Surveys, UK, available: http://eiu.enumerate.com/asp/wcol HelpWhatIsWCOL.asp [Viewed 15 April 2005] Fahey, T., Nolan. B and Whelan, T C, 2003, Monitoring Quality of Life in Europe, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Luxembourg, available: http://www.eurofound.ie/publications/EF02108.html Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 1999, The FCM Quality of Life Reporting System: Quality of Life in Canadian Municipalities May 1999, available: http://www.fcm.ca/gol3/archives.html Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 2004, The FCM Quality of Life Reporting System: Highlights Report 2004 Quality of Life in Canadian Municipalities, available: http://www.fcm.cWgol3/archives.html Florida. R, 2003, The Rise of the Creative Class: and How It Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life, Pluto Press Australia, Melbourne Australia Jones Lang LaSalle, 2002, Property Futures-World Winning Cities, Volume 2-2002, available: http://www.research.joneslanglasalle.com/GlobalReports.asp’?LanguagelD=1 Jones Lang LaSalle and LaSalle Investment Management, 2003, World Winning Cities II Potential Urban Rising Stars of the Future, available: http://www.research.ionesIanglasaIIe.com/GlobalReports.asp?LanguagelD=1 Mercer Human Resource Consulting, 2001-2004, Worldwide Cost of Living Survey, available: http://www.mercerHR.con/costofliving Mercer Human Resource Consulting, 2001-2005, Worldwide Quality of Life Surveys, available: http://www.mercerhr.con/knowledgecenter/reportsummary.jhtml/dynamic/idContent /1128060 United Nations Development Programme, 2000-2004, Human Development Reports, available: http://hdr.undp.org Urban Design And Livability Integrated Urban Planning Conference Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

167

Paper 5

168

Shaping Urban Communities For The 21 st Century Rob Adams, Director City Projects, City Of Melbourne 1999? Lewis, M., November 1995, Melbourne: The City’s History and Development, City of Melbourne. Ratio Consultants, December 1996, Benchmarking Melbourne - Final Report, Ratio Consultants Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia. Ratio Consultants, April 1997, Benchmarking Melbourne - Summary, Ratio Consultants Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia. City of Melbourne, 1998, Innovating Cities - Conference Papers, Papers from the Benchmarking Cities ‘98 Conference held on 22nd & 23rd July 1998, Melbourne Town Hall, Melbourne, Australia, City of Melbourne. City of Melbourne, 1998, Benchmarking Melbourne - Indicators of Melbourne’s Competitiveness and Liveability May 1998, City of Melbourne. City of Melbourne, 1999, Future Cities - Conference Papers, Papers from the Benchmarking Cities ‘99 Conference held on 19 th & 20 th October 1999, Melbourne Town Hall, Melbourne, Australia, City of Melbourne. City of Melbourne, March 1999, City Plan - Municipal Strategic Statement, City of Melbourne. City of Melbourne, June 2002, City Plan 2010 - Towards a Thriving and Sustainable City, City of Melbourne. Department of Infrastructure, October 2002, Melbourne 2030- Planning for Sustainable Growth, State of Victoria. City of Melbourne, 2005, City of Melbourne Council Plan 2005- 2009, City of Melbourne. Australian Institute of Urban Studies, October 2005, Environmental Indicators for Metropolitan Melbourne, Bulletin 8, City of Melbourne.

A Selection of Melbourne’s Key Planning Documents Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, November 1971, Planning Policies for the Melbourne Metropolitan Region, Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works. Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, March 1979, The Challenge of Change -A review of Metropolitan Melbourne’s Planning Options, Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works. Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, October 1979, Alternative Strategies for Metropolitan Melbourne, Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works. Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, November 1979, Alternative Strategies for Metropolitan Melbourne - Background Papers, Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works. Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, 1981, Metropolitan Strategy Implementation, Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works. Department of Planning and Environment, December 1984, Victoria, Central Melbourne: Framework for the Future - Land Use and Development Strategy, State Government of Victoria. Department of Planning and Environment, August 1987, Shaping Melbourne’s Future, State Government of Victoria.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Department of Planning and Environment, April 1989, Metropolitan Activity Centres, State Government of Victoria. Department of Planning and Urban Growth, 1990, The Urban Development Program, Metropolitan Melbourne, 1990- 1994, State Government of Victoria. Department of Planning and Urban Growth, 1990, Urban Development Options for Victoria - A Discussion Paper, State Government of Victoria. Department of Planning and Housing and City of Melbourne, 1992, Directions 1992 - 95: A review of the City of Melbourne Strategy Plan 1985, State Government of Victoria. Department of Planning and Housing, April 1992, A Place to Live - Shaping Victoria’s Future, State Government of Victoria. Department of Planning and Housing, August 1992, Cities in the Suburbs - the District Centre Policy for the 1990’s, Government of Victoria. Department of Planning and Development, August 1993, Planning a Better Future for Victorians - New Directions for Development and Economic Growth, State Government of Victoria. Department of Planning and Development, June 1994, Melbourne Metropolitan Strategy -A Discussion Paper, State Government of Victoria. State Government of Victoria and City of Melbourne, 1994, Creating Prosperity - Victoria’s Capital City Policy, Government of Victoria. State Government of Victoria, December 1995, Living Suburbs - A policy for metropolitan Melbourne into the 21st century, State Government of Victoria. Department of Infrastructure, 1998, From Doughnut City to Cafe Society, Department of Infrastructure, Melbourne. Department of Premier and Cabinet, September 2002, Investing For Our Future - Growing Victoria Together, State of Victoria.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

169

Paper 5 Melbourne – Liveable City Indicators “Indicators for liveable Cities” National Conference & World Town Planning Day Celebration Malaysia

Austin Ley Manager City Research City of Melbourne 170

Outline Introduction: Parts A & B & Melbourne in context Part A – The Benchmarking Melbourne project Part B- Melbourne – A Liveable City •

Liveability Measures- examples

•

Melbourne’s planning history

•

Melbourne 2030 Planning for Sustainable Growth

•

Selected ranking projects & how Melbourne rates

Explanations why Melbourne rates well on most indicators Conclusions & Lessons learned Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

171

City of Melbourne in Context Australia population 19,603,500 area 7,658,000 km2 Victoria Population 4,854,133 Area 227,000 km2 Metropolitan Melbourne population 3,521,957 area 8,800 km2

City of Melbourne Population 52,117 Area 36.5 km2

Central City Population 13,700 Area 3.9 km2

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 5 City of Melbourne in Context Residents

City Users

City of Melbourne

Day 61,700 Night 61,700

644,700 Day Users International

Regional Victoria

Day 40,900 Night 37,800

Interstate

Day 24,100 Night 23,800

172

Day 38,000 Night 6,900

280,200 Night Users

Metropolitan Day 480,000 Night 150,000

The City of Melbourne â&#x20AC;&#x201C; then & now 1980s Globalizing, deregulation & decentralizing Focus on business expansion 1990s Economic recession business contraction Focus on core business activities & key strengths 2000s Sustainability Focus on business growth round key strengths Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

173

Paper 5

“Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans”

174

We need to have measures to tell us how we are progressing, according to our plans or not!

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Benchmarking Evolved Into Integrated Planning

City Plan 2010 (10 years)

City Index Monitoring Report

Council Plan (4 years)

City of Melbourne Annual Report

Community Feedback

175

Integrated Planning Framework

City Plan 10 Year Vision

Council Plan 4 Year Vision

Annual Plan

City Plan Monitoring Report Annual

Council Plan Report Annual

Annual Budgets

Work Area Business Plans

Individual Performance & Development Plans Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 5

Liveability Indicators Different methods ranking countries & cities Varying results Australia & Melbourne generally perform well

176

Cost of Living surveys compare: • food, toiletries • clothing to domestic help • transport & • utilities

Quality of Life Surveys • • • • • • • •

health & safety: threat of violent crime, terrorism/armed conflict & health/disease; culture & environment, cultural hardship; recreational availability, availability of consumer goods/services; & corruption; infrastructure: transportation, housing; schools & education & utility networks; medical & health considerations; natural environment (including climate)! political & social environment; public services, utilities; & recreation

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Quality of Life Surveys Melbourne: • Twice rated as a “World’s Most Liveable City”

(Population Center, NY. 1999 and 2003)

• Rated as one of the best business locations in the world (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2002).

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

177

Paper 5

Quality of Life Surveys Mercer Cost of Living Survey 2003

178

•

Zurich

(1st - 106.5)

•

Vienna

(2nd - 106.0)

•

Vancover

(2nd - 106.0)

•

Toronto

(12th - 104.0)

•

Melbourne

(15th - 103.5)

•

San Francisco

(20th - 103.0)

•

Tokyo

(26th - 102.0)

•

Singapore

(36th - 101.0)

•

New York

(44th - 100.0)

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Quality of Life Surveys Business focus - cost of doing business & QoL • surveys of expatriates • EIU - rated Melbourne “best place to live” in twice in recent years • Mercer’s survey rated Melbourne 14th • Notes of caution • Increasing expenses • Increasing congestion levels not because rating may suffer, but because they adversely impact on the community.

Quality of Life Ranking of Cities by International Companies Source: ECA Pacific International

Host City

MELBOURNE

JAKARTA

AUCKLAND

KUALA LUMPUR

SINGAPORE

Ranking Score

5 10 15 20 25

Home City

NEW YORK HONG KONG TOKYO LONDON SINGAPORE PARIS

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

179

Paper 5

Creativity & Regional Growth Surveys • Determine factors contributing to growth • Include indices such as: • “Gay Index”- openness & acceptance, • “Bohemian Index” - proportion of artistically creative people • “Melting Pot Index” - % foreign born people 180

Creativity & Regional Growth Surveys • Melbourne 2nd after Sydney 7th compared to major US cities • Nationally, Inner Melbourne marginally behind the Global Sydney region re creativity rating, but outperforms Sydney on the “Talent” index & “Innovation” index. • Quality of Life measures at the municipality level are only recently being developed Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Why Is Melbourne a “Liveable City” ? • • • •

Melbourne’s planning heritage - liveability Planned with & for the community Melbourne has had to manufacture its identity Focussed on sustainable living

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

181

Paper 5

182

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

2006 Commonwealth Games

183

2007 World Swimming Championships

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 5

AFL Grand Final

184

Melbourne is the regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s most multi- cultural city Dublin

Osaka

No. of primary languages

Manila

spoken in homes

Hong Kong

4 4

Singapore Kuala Lumpur

5 13

London

Melbourne

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

185

Population & Demographic Forecasts

2001

52,000

2003

60,000

2005

68,000

2016

109,000

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 5

186

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Industries Employment & Space Use

Office 43% 4.3mill m2

Health 9.2% hospitals & clinics occupy > 800,000 m²

Retail 6% ~1mill m2

Industry 11% 5mill m2

Education 5% 136 locations student accommodation occupy 1.1 mill m² • 1,991 dwellings 106,464 students capacity • 2,653 beds

Council’s Vision: Melbourne, a thriving & sustainable city Strategic Directions - where to focus attention City Plan 2010 •Connected & Accessible •Innovative & Vital Business •Inclusive & Engaging •Environmentally Responsible

Council Plan •City Plan 2010 Themes plus….. •Well Managed, Leading & •Financially Responsible Corporation

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

187

Paper 5

State Vision: Melbourne 2030:

Planning for Sustainable Growth

188

9 Directions - desired results • A more compact city • Better management of metropolitan growth • Networks with the regional cities • A more prosperous city • A great place to be • A fairer city • A greener city • Better transport links • Better planning decisions, careful management

Sustainability “the simultaneous pursuit of economic prosperity, social equity and environmental quality” City Plan 2010 Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Building in Sustainability

189

Building in Sustainability â&#x20AC;&#x201C; CH2 Social benefits - Healthier building, improved service delivery Environmental benefits - 50% less water, 87% less energy, lower emissions Economic benefits - Improved staff productivity, lower utility bills Internal benefits - lessons, particularly in procurement, applied to overall processes & decisions External benefits - Landmark building to catalyse industry change & educational role through documenting & publicising lessons Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 5

Significant challenges Hard to persuade the community to consider the total perspective

190

Harder to convince them to change aspects of their lifestyles to address global issues, eg energy efficiency, water conservation & green house gas reduction. Objectives for a Sustainable City City Plan Thriving & Sustainable City Connected & Accessible City •Connected internationally & locally •economic prosperity •social equity

Innovative & Vital Business City •Business & jobs retention and growth •economic prosperity

Inclusive & Engaging City •engaged community •quality of life

Environmentally Responsible City •Greenhouse, water & waste •environmental quality

•social equity

All of these elements together = thriving & sustainable city Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Internal Sustainability Priorities Social

Economic

Environmental

Health & well being of employees & contractors.

Corporationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ongoing revenue generation and fiscal viability

Greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, water consumption and waste generation

Attraction & retention of high calibre employees.

191

Municipal Sustainability Priorities Social

Economic

Environmental

Social participation and cohesion

Business retention, growth and investment

Greenhouse gas emissions energy consumption water consumption & waste generation

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

Paper 5

TBL Reporting TBL Planning

TBL Decision Making

Integrated Planning 192

Conclusions & Lesson’s Learned Select the appropriate indicators for the particular purpose or plan, eg • Action & Implementation Indicators • Result & Output Indicators • Outcome Indicators • Contextual Indicators • Corporate Performance Indicators • City Perception Indicators - “Perceptions can become reality!” • Beware of Indices - they should be used with caution. Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

National Convention

World Town Planning Day 2005

Conclusions & Lessons Learned Incorporate trends or forecasts Frame policies & plans for implementation, so results & outcomes can be measured. City of Melbourne uses a “SMART” approach • Simple, Measurable, Actionable, Realistic, & Time focussed Indicators, like policies should be matched to the level of influence, just as plans, goals & actions should be set at the level which has the resources to ensure they can be achieved.

Federal Department of Town and Country Planning Peninsular Malaysia Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

193