Measuring Wellbeing for Effective Placemaking

The School of Social Sciences, University of Dundee

Measuring Wellbeing For Effective Place-Making Centre for Environmental Change and Human Resilience (CECHR) and The Geddes Institute for Urban Research (Symposium 6)

A report on the Symposium proceedings by Husam AlWaer, Beverley Searle, Ioan Fazey (University of Dundee), Ian Cooper (Eclipse Research Consultants), and Eric Dawson (Architecture and Design Scotland) February 2016

Introduction The University of Dundee Centre for Environmental Change and Human Resilience (CECHR) and Geddes Institute for Urban Research held a Symposium with partners on 13 November 2015 on “Measuring wellbeing for effective place-making�. This symposium was used as a platform to find effective ways to measure the contribution that better place making can make to wellbeing, both in terms of social capital, health and quality of life indicators. This report summarises the key themes explored during the event which developed and built upon five earlier symposia.1 This report is organised in four sections: the first sets out the background to the event; the second summarises the key issues and questions raised by the speakers; the third explores the collected views of participants working together in groups; and the fourth reflects on these and draws conclusions.

A video of the symposium is available at: https://youtu.be/r_K5ZYtdnIQ

1. Background Considerable advances around the meaning of wellbeing have been made in recent years, with a view to influencing national policies which value quality of life, including linkages with the physical environment and the social health of communities. However, as yet there has been little consideration of how we llbeing can be achieved through collaborative forms of place making. Critics suggest that place making is often more concerned with the form and physical appearance of the built environment than with wider community needs, that it is not sufficiently resilient to be capable of delivering long-term outcomes, and that the processes of place making and the objectives of wellbeing are not well aligned. Within the growing body of academic and practitioner research into wellbeing, there are calls for greater clarity in the way wellbeing is used and applied in public policy. The existence of different and competing understandings and interpretations of wellbeing, risk creating barriers to communication across different sectors, reducing trust and confidence. The varied meanings have also blurred the lines between what aspects can contribute to wellbeing and how people actually feel in terms of their wellbeing, the value judgements they make. It is therefore timely to seek clarity within this debate, particularly to separate what wellbeing is from those factors that can impact on wellbeing.

Whilst steps have been made towards understanding individual or social wellbeing in terms more than material wealth, there are nonetheless many conflicting ideas and theories about both what constitutes wellbeing and how it should be measured. There is recognition that in order to evaluate the benefits of different policy interventions for enhancing wellbeing, clear definitions, standardised indicators and assessment tools are essential. These need to be accompanied by examination of the underlying processes employed if the use of standardised indicators and assessment tools are going to lead effectively to quality of place outcomes and wellbeing.

This symposium was used to explore how to fill the gap between the theory and practice of measuring wellbeing for effective place-making. It considered how to measure the contribution that better place making can make to wellbeing, both in terms of social capital and quality of life indicators. It also questioned whether professional practice needs be transformed to deliver more effective wellbeing oriented outcomes.

1 http://www.ads.org.uk/urbanism/features/masterplanning-in-current-conditions http://www.ads.org.uk/urbanism/features/practice-of-community-charrettes-in-the-uk http://www.ads.org.uk/urbanism/features/better-approaches-to-masterplanning-practice http://www.ads.org.uk/urbanism/features/professions-place-making-and-the-public-what-next http://www.dundee.ac.uk/environment/news/2015/article/enhancing-wellbeing-inclusive-community-collaborative-approaches-to-placemaking.php

In CECHR, we focus on robust evaluation of current professional practice in spatial design and planning, and on the critical assessment of new ideas and methods. Through these activities, we seek to provide practice, research and learning frameworks for promoting healthier places. CECHR, which lies at the heart of the University’s vision of Transformation - striving for excellence and impact - has explored the practice of place-making through a series of symposia.2 A framework of principles covering engagement, design, planning and development has emerged.

In this sixth symposium ‘Measuring wellbeing for effective place-making’, we explored how to measure wellbeing, including establishing key indicators and developing best practice standards and metrics.

Small groups discussed: What is happening? What needs improving? What do we want to happen?

Through a series of activities participants considered: 1. How should we measure wellbeing? How do we distinguish between identifying what people perceive wellbeing to be from the factors that actually impact on wellbeing?

2. What measures (indicators and related metrics) are appropriate for different contexts/schemes?

3. What kinds of approaches are needed for evaluating the contribution of place making to well being?

4. How can the evaluation of wellbeing of collaborative community place -making approaches be better integrated?

2. Summary of Speaker Presentations The symposium was introduced by Dr Husam Al Waer, University of Dundee, Dr Ian Cooper of Eclipse Research Consultants and Professor Kevin Murray, Kevin Murray Associates. A series of presentations were then delivered by speakers with a diverse range of expertise, including social sustainability, health and wellbeing, urban design, architecture and planning.

The opening provocation on ‘Measuring well-being – finding common ground’ was delivered by Dr Beverley Searle of University of Dundee who recapped points from the previous session:  Wellbeing is not static but is a process  Policy development is through co-production (e.g. charrettes)  Enhancing wellbeing and reducing health inequalities are part of the same agenda  Collaborative community application - learn from what has worked Beverley opened the session by suggesting how wellbeing is measured depends upon how it is defined. Several theories of wellbeing exist - e.g. ‘Economic’ (satisfaction arises from consumption, national wellbeing is therefore derived through economic growth and welfare focussing on income replacement) and ‘Sociological’ (wellbeing is about more than income but about having the resources necessary to participate in society). These theories describe what may impact on wellbeing, to understand what wellbeing is we need to draw on psychological theory.

The concept of good wellbeing first emerged during the 1950s with Maslow’s ‘Hierarchy of needs’ for self-actualisation (including basic needs, food and shelter, to more advance needs, being loved, a desire for confidence and knowledge). From the 1980s new theories of positive Psychology emerged. Distinction is made between hedonic wellbeing (pursuit of pleasure / avoidance of things that result in unhappiness) vs eudemonia - ‘human flourishing’/the good life (recognises that bad things happen, but it’s possible to move on, we may even learn/grow from negative experiences).

http://www.ads.org.uk/urbanism/features/masterplanning-in-current-conditions http://www.ads.org.uk/urbanism/features/practice-of-community-charrettes-in-the-uk http://www.ads.org.uk/urbanism/features/better-approaches-to-masterplanning-practice http://www.ads.org.uk/urbanism/features/professions-place-making-and-the-public-what-next http://www.dundee.ac.uk/environment/news/2015/article/enhancing-wellbeing-inclusive-community-collaborative-approaches-to-placemaking.php

A considerable number of measures of wellbeing have emerged from positive psychology which range from single questions on overall happiness or satisfaction to more complex measures combining questions that tap into different aspects of negative and positive emotions, to provide an overall assessment of an individual’s wellbeing (eg see https://www.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu ) Challenges exist with single measures; happiness can be short term and transitory, whereas satisfaction is a more global, longer term, engagement in deeper cognitive assessment.

Most single measure tend to produce an average two-thirds along the scale (eg 7 on a scale of 1 to 10). Challenges exist with composite measures ie how to define wellbeing/what aspects to measures.

Measures which capture both feelings of as well as the conditions that impact on wellbeing are being implemented in Scotland. A composite measure – the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) – is used in Scotland’s National Performance Framework (NPF) to measure mental wellbeing. The Getting it Right for Every Child initiative has 8 wellbeing domains to support young people to reach their full potential (SHANARRI - Safe, Healthy, Achieving, Nurtured, Active, Respected, Responsible, Included). Drawing from measures used in the NPF, Beverley drew attention to the fact that whilst health and wellbeing are often considered jointly, they are in fact separate entities (Figure 1). Over the life course wellbeing tends to go up, whilst self-reported health declines (Figure 2).

Figure 1: Mental Health and Self-assessed health

Mental Health (WEMWBs)

Self-reported health

52 % good/v good health

100.0

Average score

51 50 49 48

80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0

47 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 2008

2009

2010

2012

2013

2014

75+ 2011

Age 16-2425-3435-4445-5455-6465-74 75+ 2003

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Figure 2: Mental health and self-reported health over the life-cycle

In practice, wellbeing measures can tend to measure the performance of the service provider rather than the receiver. Place-making’s focus is also on what impacts on wellbeing rather than what

wellbeing is (Figure 3). In order to advance measures of wellbeing in Scotland we need to give greater voice to individuals – to ask them how they feel, and what they value in terms of their own wellbeing.

Figure 3: NPF and Place-making

Dr Ricardo Codinhoto, University of Bath, spoke about ‘Measurement challenges and Issues in Well-being’ and drew on research experience in relation to dementia. Wellbeing (= ‘being well’) is not one thing but a construct formed by a series of concepts that can be measured. You/we decide what the concepts are that should be used to measure.

It is possible to have wellbeing and an absence of health (e.g. enjoying quality of life whilst having terminal cancer); life has ups and downs (which includes dying); it is about ‘being’; it is about you/us.

Wellbeing exists across different scales and relates to: A. Characteristics of the individual – demographics, biological, psychological factors B. How we experience things differently through our senses Everything is interconnected, which raises the challenge of how should we measure wellbeing? How do you measure a series of feelings; what are the feelings? Measures need to be easy but are often complicated! A correlation / relationship exists between the built environment and health outcomes, but we still lack direct evidence to demonstrate this.

Wellbeing is about place (e.g. the industrial revolution resulted in poor air quality). It is also about changing attitudes: contact with nature reduces stress, yet we spend 90% of time indoors and by age 80 have spent 72 years indoors! Is it possible to bring the outside inside (not just through windows)?

A place framework can consider the fabric of the physical environment, the quality of the ambient environment and psychological factors associated with place-making. Psychological factors link with memory (e.g. dementia) and how environments are experienced – are spaces recognisable; how to keep the memory of the place; what are changes to a modern city skyline telling you? How does this link with memory of place? The user experience is critical; there is a responsibility and accountability to engage users in the process.

In responding to the symposium prompts: 

measure well-being through individual and collective measures



feelings and familiarity are appropriate basis for measures for different contexts/schemes



thinking about dementia/memory/experience can help integrate the evaluation of wellbeing of collaborative community place-making approaches

Dr Christopher Boyko of Lancaster University in ‘Measuring wellbeing for effective place making’ described how a set of wellbeing indicators were derived as part of the ‘Liveable Cities’ project, a 5year, £6m programme grant to understand how cities can be transforme d from their current state to a more low-carbon, resource-secure, wellbeing-prioritised future. The wellbeing team began their research by trying to define wellbeing. They felt the following definition by DEFRA (2010) was a good start.

A positive physical, social and mental state; it is not just the absence of pain, discomfort and capacity. It requires that basic needs are met, that individuals have a sense of purpose, that they feel able to achieve important personal goals and participate in society. It is enhanced by conditions that include supportive personal relationships, strong and inclusive communities, good health, financial and personal security, rewarding employment, and a healthy and attractive environment.

However, this definition does not describe wellbeing at community or societal scale and there is no mention of ill-being. Through its statement of providing basic needs, it implies a connection with our surrounding environment. Thus, there is a need to understand the relationship between wellbeing and physical environment, and one way to do that is through the development of a mix of wellbeing indicators.

Figure 4: Wellbeing indicator sources with examples The wellbeing team looked for indicators that Scale range Count Example other people used to assess wellbeing and International 20 Euroba rometer found 2288 indicators from 98 sources - too National 29 Wel l? What do you think? many! (Figure 4). From this, a process was Regional/local 1 North Wes t Mental developed to decrease the total to an amount Wel lbeing Survey that could be used to assess the performance Sub-regional 1 Il linois State Ci vic Index of cities. To assist in this process, the team Local 7 Pl a ce Survey established 30 criteria across two scales: Local/sub-local 2 Wel lbeing a nd Resilience household/building/local scale (comfort not Mea s ure institutional) to neighbourhood/city scale Sub-local 38 Li fe Satisfaction Index (green space, accessible, quality of play space, Total 98 interaction with street) to regional/national/ international scales. This led to 100 indicators, with more subjective (75%) than objective (25%) indicators. Of these, a majority (87%) had no focus audience; of the remainder (23%) the majority (92% of the 23%) focussed on children; there was not a lot of wellbeing indicators for older people and adults. The biggest considerations for wellbeing included: Psychological health; Community participation; Environment; Social support; General health (Figure5). From here, the team could assess the performance of three case study cities: Birmingham, Lancaster and Southampton.

Wellbeing indicators are useful barometers of how a city is performing in relation to the built environment and low carbon. The team also wanted to assess the built environment through a series of audits, so they used the State of Place app (based on the Irvine Minnesota Inventory) and walked selected streets in the three case study cities. They also spoke with people living in those cities via focus groups to get a much better sense of the relationship between the wellbeing of city residents and the built environment around them.

Reflecting on the initial prompts: 1.

How should wellbeing be measured?

Through both objective and subjective indicators. Use both ‘pure’ wellbeing measures (e.g., asking about happiness, optimism etc.) and related indicators (e.g., asking about perceptions of crime in a neighbourhood). Be representative of the people involved and the issues you wish to examine – ask them what they think wellbeing is!

Figure 5: Percentage of wellbeing indicators by category

2.

What measures are appropriate for

different contexts/schemes?

Standard measures that relate to individual and societal wellbeing. Use different measures for different audience groups (e.g. elderly vs teenagers). How you collect data in different contexts is an important factor (e.g., using mobile phones for people who are ‘digitally fluent’).

3.

What kinds of approaches for evaluating the contribution of place making to wellbeing?

A more interactive way; talk to lots of end users; visual consultations; an app that includes place keeping as part of place-making; maintenance and management are part of the process 4. How can the evaluation of wellbeing of collaborative community place-making approaches be better integrated?

Pre / post evaluation of place-making process could be undertaken to assess wellbeing – assess impact of intervention; Part of regular activities – e.g. questionnaire at monthly meetings; Need to consider who is going to analyse interpret and present evaluation back to communities.

Maureen Mcateer from the Getting it Right for Every Child (GIRFEC) Project spoke from a practitioner focus about ‘Measuring wellbeing; an outcomes approach to work with children and families’. The background to the work is shaped by financial pressure on and rising demand for public services and pressures to reduce long term demand; improving outcomes by targeting inequalities and shifting from prevention to early intervention and utilising more person centred evidence based approaches.

The Children and Young Peoples Act 2014 enshrines the elements of GIRFEC approach in legislation.

This includes; •

Taking a holistic approach to the wellbeing of a child;

•

Working with children, young people and their families on ways to improve wellbeing;

•

Advocating preventative work and early intervention to support children, young people and their families; and

•

Believing professionals must work together in the best interests of the child.

There is a shift in culture and practice towards putting the interests of children at the heart of decision making.

There is provision in the Act on Community Planning partnerships (CPP) to report on wellbeing . The aim is that Children’s Services Plan’s will ensure local areas provide children’s services which; •

Promote the wellbeing of children and young people

•

Increase prevention and early intervention

•

Facilitate better integration between providers

•

And make the best possible use of all the available resources in a local area

The Wellbeing of Children and Young People / GIRFEC has 8 SHANARRI wellbeing domains to support young people to achieve outcomes (Safe, Healthy, Achieving, Nurtured, Active, Respected, Responsible, Included) under 4 four headings (Successful Learner, Confident Individuals, Effective Contributors and Responsible Citizens) (Figure 6). The single framework is aimed at promoting a shared language, common understanding of strengths and issues, reducing duplication and achieving consistency across a range of agencies.

The aim is to break the cycle of inequality through improving outcomes f or children and young adults. Two examples of models being used in practice were described (N Lanarkshire and Angus) where the conversations are structured across the 8 areas.

Concern was expressed that we can get caught up in measurement (lots of data) and lose sight of the purpose which is to help people experience increased levels of health and wellbeing. The challenge is to stay focused on early intervention and prevention in a very complex environment where services have reduced resources and greater levels of need to meet.

Sandy Robinson of the Scottish Government Figure 6: SHANARRI wellbeing domains spoke about ‘What does wellbeing mean for policy makers? Principles and Frameworks’ and noted that health inequality is part of wellbeing. Physical inactivity is a leading contributor to disease, and estimates have put the cost of obesity in Scotland at £3bn by 2030; however, the benefits of moderate exercise are linked to reducing diabetes, cancer or dementia; 25% of people are more likely to walk when streets are designed for people and not cars, with additional benefits for social and local economic activity.

Sandy referred to comments from Sir Harry Burns, Chair of Global Public Health at the University of Strathclyde and formerly Chief Medical Officer at the Scottish Government, that a key issue with Scotland’s poor health, is the health of the poor. Wellbeing is complex issue for Scottish society (with links to drugs, alcohol, violence) requiring a change in culture and behaviours. Part of built environment policy sits within larger wellbeing considerations, and there is a need to understand the impact of social change over time.

Many relevant principles and frameworks for policymakers centre on communication – understanding the problem in terms of impacts on people and outcomes for communities; distinguish between identifying what people perceive wellbeing to be from the factors that actually impact on wellbeing (crime statistics vs perceptions of safety). We need to measure / understand the problem; recognise the importance of daily living conditions; tackle inequitable distribution of power, money and resources.

Figure 7: Place Standard themes

The Place Standard offers a structured basis for conversation around 14 themes (Figure 7), each with a prompting question and supporting information. The graphic representation of the discussion (Figure 8) can provide an ‘asset map of the place’ where a community can identify strengths and weaknesses of place as a way of making decisions about targeting actions to make a difference.

Panellists took part in a Q+A session chaired by Eric Dawson of A&DS that addressed a range of themes:  Inward / outward focus - more than the individual – collective / society wellbeing Figure 8: Asset map ‘spider diagram’  A focus on outputs / measurement – lost connectedness with people?  Need to build wellbeing networks  Importance of walking (and talking); a link with social interaction  The conversation is pre-framed in terms of measurement – but this may miss the point!  Simplification of complexity  Best way to engage with people is over a cup of tea!  What about measuring ‘dreams and aspirations’ as part of wellbeing?  Prioritise - the cost of V&A or tram system could lift people out of fuel poverty in perpetuity!  Can wellbeing be achieved by direct action or is it an indirect consequence of other factors?

3: Group discussions Following lunch, a facilitated discussion in breakout groups led by Dr Ian Cooper of Eclipse Research Consultants, Dr Husam Al Waer and Professor Kevin Murray considered responses to three prompts and gathered feedback in a final plenary session. Participants in the Wellbeing Symposium were asked to discuss three previously circulated questions, in seven small, mixed groups: 1. What is happening now? (What is the current state of play in assessing the relationship of wellbeing to place?)

2. What needs improving in how wellbeing is assessed?

3. What do we want to happen next to improve how wellbeing is assessed?

In their title for the symposium, the organisers gave prominence to three issues – wellbeing, placemaking and inclusive, collaborative community approaches (to decision-making). Their intended focus of attention for the symposium was on how to measure the impact of community -based approaches to place-making on enhancing (individual and community) wellbeing, Overall, in the ir discussions, participants only partial reflected these emphasised concerns. They gave most attention to ‘wellbeing, ‘measurement’, ‘assessment’, ‘community’ and ‘people’ but comparatively little to ‘place-making’. Figure 1 combines all seven groups’ responses, across all three questions, shown as a TagCrowd (Tagcrowd.com). What the large number of issues recorded here illustrates is the wide range of perspectives and opinions expressed during the group discussions, presumably reflecting the diverse backgrounds of those who took part in the symposium (see Section 4 and Appendix 2).

Over-arching concerns Figure 9 shows the over-arching concerns arising from responses to all three questions (group responses archived in Appendix 1). Gauged by frequency of mention, they shared a clear set of priorities: first, wellbeing followed by measures and assessment; then a secondary emphasis on people, community, assessment and differences. Behind these most frequently mentioned issues stand other sets of concerns about a) social, learning, sharing, understanding, users, engagement and place-making, and b) data, information, indicators, individuals, resources, services and Figure 9. Overall priorities reported by the discussion groups working.

Question 1. What is happening now? (What is the current state of play in assessing the relationship of wellbeing to place?)

Figure 10 shows the seven groups’ combined responses to this question as a Tag Crowd. Here there are fewer frequently mentioned (shared) issues than shown in Figure 9. And those that were frequently mentioned differ slightly. Unsurprisingly, there remains an emphasis on wellbeing and measurement. But this is accompanied by a concern about what is currently missing, variously expressed as lack of: • focus • common goal • communication • interaction between sectors • consistency across sectors • resources, and • emphasis on built aspect in place-making.

These responses suggests that participants think that at present: Although attention is being given to measuring wellbeing, this is occurring without a shared and common goal, without sufficient communication and interaction between the sectors involved, leading to a lack of consistency (of measures, approach and indicators), hampered by insufficient resources. Groups seldom gave priority to place-making in their discussions, though a few signposted the Place Standard.

This interpretation is reflected in what individual groups reported back as their key issues during the feedback session. One group called for a “need to focus” while another suggested that there are a “wide Figure 10. Priority issues in response to Q1 spectrum of perspectives”, adding: “However shared, perception that we are all over the place because there is a number of valuable local projects but lack of national co-ordination.” Another suggested that: “… a will to focus, create and engage exists to have discussions and assess wellbeing across sectors and scales.”

One of the groups reported that there is a lot happening in relation to measuring but questioned how much was being achieved. Another questioned whether the predominance of top -down approaches meant that people were being engaged well enough and called for more empowerment.

One of the groups identified that: “We still require robust, valid and reliable data over a longer period of time”. While, critically, another commented that: “We have indicators for place-making and for wellbeing. You can use these to assess both concepts but this does not necessarily assess the wellbeing component of place or vice versa. Is there a fit between the two?”

This issue, crucial to the purpose of the symposium, remained unresolved by the group discussions – and indeed by the end of the symposium (see below).

Question 2. What needs improving in how wellbeing is assessed?

The responses to Question 2 were markedly different. There was less agreement between groups about what needs improving. A first order emphasis on wellbeing and measurement remains, as do second order emphases on people, assessment and sharing. But, beyond, this there is little commonality in what the groups want to see improved. Instead of agreeing, as Figure 11 illustrates, groups raised a wide range of unshared issues.

Divergence not convergence is evident here. For instance, just three of the groups mentioned: definitions, impacts, individuals, groups and users, information sharing, and learning. And only two groups mentioned: dementia, data, indicators, hierarchies, integration, interventions, involvement, understanding, and monitoring - along with 14 other issues. As a result, in combination the issues emphasised by groups when discussing Question 2 reveals that: Beyond their attention to measuring wellbeing, participants in the symposium did not

Figure 11. Priority issues in response to Q2

possess a clear or shared agenda about what needs to be improved in how this is being done . They did, however, share (conspicuous by its absence) one characteristic: unlike the symposium organisers, none of them prioritised place-making in their discussions about what needs to be improved in how wellbeing is assessed.

Despite this apparently shared lack of attention to place-making, during the reporting back in the closing plenary session, one of the groups chose to highlight precisely the “need to mainstream the place-making/wellbeing connection”. Others were more basic, one calling for: “Understanding what wellbeing is and why measuring (asking people).” In the key issues that other groups brought back to the plenary, there was a measure of agreement. Three of them chose to stress related issues: empowerment, involvement, participation and buy-in (from grassroots people and organisations).

Question 3. What do we want to happen next to improve how wellbeing is assessed?

The key issues that groups reported back against Question 3 show more convergence, see Figure 12.

A majority of the groups identified a community-focus as where they wanted changes and improvements to be made, with an emphasis on learning, respecting differences, and engaging communities and people in planning for and in measuring and assessing wellbeing. One group called for more collaborative research – involving practitioners, academics, and users at the concept/research design phase.

Another wanted data to be used faster and smarter, with an understanding of the level at which action was needed, adding: “If we are going to elevate wellbeing to be the central driver of public policy, we need to commit to a core data set over a long period of time.”

Figure 12. Priority issues in response to Q3

One group wanted to improve “buy-in” and “governance”. Another agreed, calling for “multiple approaches to hook multiple stakeholders into the conversation”. This should be achieved through inspirational stories e.g. Edinburgh meadows, grassroots discussions, pairing communities for actual learning, and community-led assessment of wellbeing and place in order to: “Make it real. Better understanding of what wellbeing means relative to people and place.”

Another agreed that it is important to “get good stories of community involvement out”, while another wanted a “stop to measuring social wellbeing via economics”, replacing this instead with: • • •

engaging the unengaged focus resources where they make the most difference, and encouraging personal responsibility

4: Individual responses During the one-day symposium, participants were requested to respond to three questions using in a self-response form provided in their delegate pack.

1. How should we measure wellbeing?

2. What indicators are appropriate for assessing wellbeing? (And what metrics should be used for measuring these?)

3. What kinds of approaches are needed for evaluating the contribution of place -making to well-being Participants were requested to answer these questions drawing on their own experience and on the presentations made at the symposium during the morning session. Only twenty-six of the participants completed and returned the form (see Appendix 2). Their combined responses, across all three questions, are shown in Figure 13.

Figure 13. Key issues raised in individual response forms (n= 26)

The top four key issues, highlighted in red, were also those most frequently mentioned in the group discussions (c.f. Figure 13), whereas those highlighted in yellow were not. This comparison is set out in Table 1.

Key issues in group discussions wellbeing measures people community assessment different learn share lack users data event place-making understanding

Key issues in individual response forms community wellbeing measuring people levels health different local subjective indicators individual social understand objective

Table 1. Comparison of key issues emerging from group discussions and individual res ponses

As Table 1 illustrates, both when responding as individuals and in their group discussions, participants gave the highest priority to the same four issues – wellbeing, community, measuring and people. But beyond this, their individual and group re sponses diverged. When responding as individuals, participants gave second order priority to health, subjective and objective indicators, and levels (of measurement). When responding as groups, they gave second order priority to assessment, sharing, learning, users, data, events and place-making. This suggests that, while group discussions did reflect what participants saw as their (individual) first order priorities, such discussions did not cohere around their second order ones - moving away from how to measure

subjective and objective indicators at different levels towards, for instance, (place -making) events as opportunities for shared learning between users.

Question 1. How should we measure wellbeing?

Participants’ answers to this question on their individual response forms illustrate a shared focus on community-based measurement of wellbeing, using both subjective (qualitative) and objective indicators, at different levels.

Question 2. What indicators are appropriate for assessing wellbeing? (And what metrics should be used for measuring these?)

When asked to express their individual preferences for how wellbeing should be measured, the symposium participants exhibited little agreement, see Table 2.

Figure 14. Key issues identified by participants for measuring wellbeing (n=26)

Proposed indicators Health status/rates/ Level of impairment and activity/times in hospital by age Levels of poverty/deprivation reduction/rates Empowerment/sense of control/control over environment/distribution of power and resources Community and civic participation/involvement/engagement Happiness/satisfaction (domain-based) Social interaction/speaking to others/sociability Mental wellbeing/health Mortality/causes of death Sense of belonging and community/loneliness Stress Active lifestyle/time spent in exercise Resilience (personal) Life satisfaction/quality of everyday life (Access to) greenspace Mobility Transport Depression Fear Crime and safety Feeling of inclusion in society and world Isolation from people and pl aces Engagement with and ownership of public services and public realm Contact with nature Understanding and empathy Self-confidence and esteem Safety (as seen by individual) Nutrient Leisure time PERMA: Seligman World Health Organisation assessment methodologies IMB and SIMB stats Table 2. Individually proposed indicators for measuring wellbeing (n=26)

Frequency of mention 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Twenty-eight (clusters of) indicators were proposed by individual participants. None of these were mentioned by a majority of the participants. Instead, in each case, indicators were proposed by only small minorities of them. For instance, only two – those dealing with physical health and with poverty/deprivation – were mentioned by five individuals, while two more – focused on empowerment/sense of control and with community participation/engagement – by four of them.

Just three more (clusters of) indicators – happiness/satisfaction, social interaction/sociability, and mental wellbeing – were proposed by three participants. All of the remaining 21 indicators were proposed by two participants or less. This illustrates that there was little agreement amongst those who participated in the symposium about how wellbeing should be measured in practice . Only three participants, professionals operating in the wellbeing domain, recommended using existing indicator systems, assessment methodologies, or recognised sets of statistics.

Participants were also asked to identify a metric to be used to measure the indicators they proposed. The metrics proposed are shown in Table 3.

Proposed indicators

Suggested metrics

Health status/rates/ Level of impairment and activity/times in hospital by age

Life expectancy Length of time spent walking Ordinal scale, self assessment Net income or employment (but do people see themselves as living in poverty?)

SIMD Number of events local level Number of people attending events Percentage elections (all levels) Percentage community activity Percentage volunteering Percentage of time spent volunteering Unhappiness index Census Number of cafes Community centres Inspiring stories of how social engagement and active place-making work together Percentage illness by type

Levels of poverty/deprivation reduction/rates

Empowerment/sense of control/control over environment/distribution of power and resources Community and civic participation/involvement/engagement

Happiness/satisfaction (domain-based) Social interaction/speaking to others/sociability

Mental wellbeing/health

Table 3. Metrics proposed by participants for measuring indicators they had proposed (top 7 cl us ters onl y)

Taken together, the contents of Tables 2 and 3 can be read as suggesting that most of the participants in the symposium were not well practised in the design of indicators and metrics for measuring wellbeing. Some of the metrics offered appear to be only indirectly relevant to the indicator that needs to be measured, while others do not conform to the guidance criteria for setting up so-called ‘SMART’ measurement frameworks 3.

3

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART_criteria.

Q3. What kinds of approaches are needed for evaluating the contribution of place-making to wellbeing?

Figure 15. Key issues identified by participants for approaches required for measuring wellbeing

On their individual response forms, participants prioritised community-based measurement of wellbeing, by engaging people in conversations and discussions to identify locally-relevant indicators meaningful to the individuals concerned. This interpretation accords with many of the participants’ written responses: “Discussions with groups who are in neighbourhoods that have changed.”

“Discussions with groups who are contemplating improving wellbeing in their place.”

“Asking people what factors contribute to their feeling of wellbeing and gather ones [that] are place-related.”

“Learning matters far more than measuring.”

Direct engagement with local communities was also stressed, through conversations and stories as a means of co-producing assessments of wellbeing: “While direct measures are important but conversations with those affected more so.”

“Conversations and stories to be shared.”

“Findings need to be communicated with communities and services and then co-produce actions which all can take whether an individual, community or on service, agency basis.”

One participant commended listening to people, using a qualitative approach to find out “How do you feel about where you live?” Another commended seeking the voices of the users “however challenging”. And another call for: “… measure[ment] at different scales – individual and community, home and neighbourhood, town, city, region and national. Need to go beyond quantitative measurement approaches, especially to understand community wellbeing and impact of local environment, e.g. participatory. Need to integrate objective and subjective indicators, global wellbeing measures and domain-based indicators, and fund the collection of data on the latter in particular.”

Others wanted “Community involvement – bottom up”, “On-going discussions”, or “Deliberative dialogue”. One participant suggested: “National/local conversation matters more than a national/local indicator framework”; while another sought an assessment framework that was: “Consistent from Scottish Government to community level.”

Another wanted “sense checking” to see: “Are places generating wellbeing or not? What power relations do they represent? Contacts with nature and contact with other people.”

And one participant suggested that the criterion for gauging the success of an intervention should be: “Has it engendered community spirit?”

Q4. How can the evaluation of wellbeing and collaborative approaches to place-making be better integrated?

Figure 16. Key issues identified by participants for integrating the evaluation of wellbeing and collaborative approaches to place-making

Answering this question on their individual response forms, participants again prioritised community-based approaches that engage local people in measuring wellbeing. But participants’ written responses also illustrate that they also wanted a more integrated approach to be employed by the service providers involved, with, for example: “Stronger links between social and health factors.”

“Collaboration between different bodies, private and public, etc.”

“Better levels of communication between investigative organisations and the public.”

“Plain English to encourage wide participation and use of visual facilitation.”

“Far greater integration and communication between communities and the community planning partners – we still tell communities what we think they need rather than letting them identify needs and issues.”

“Community planning partners to use the tools provided so that local communities participate in designing services and resource allocation.”

Between them, they also set out a clear agenda for what this integrated approach required: “Have common goals which drive all areas of public and private sector, with shared ownership to achieve them and well defined roles for each sector.”

“Combine subjective and objective feedback and make policy and practice change based on this iteration (i.e. have to have an impact).”

“Focus on the areas which would have the most impact on people that need it most.”

“Make an explicit link for the legacy of tried and tested indicators and where wellbeing fits in for this structure, identify the gaps in wellbeing relative to health and wealth and then specify how this gap can be filled in with the appropriate content.”

And, as one participant identified, there is a need to: • understand how (or if) we should be weighting indicators on different domains relative to place, or prioritising domains for intervention. To what extent does this need to be identified through public engagement • develop standardised approaches to measuring community wellbeing. Can we measure community wellbeing or do we need to focus on determinants of wellbeing at the community scale (as in the Place Standard)?

• be sensitive to differential impacts on different groups in society, working with differen t population groups to better understand what wellbeing means for them, and what key aspects of place are most salient for their wellbeing But, as another observed: “Local authority systems are not well set up for this! Planning system hard to access and follow. How do people hear about decisions which affect them? [Need for] meetings at different times to engage with different groups. Trying a bit harder to empower the unemployed. A lot of current interventions empowers the already empowered and may create great fissures.”

While another participant averred a need to: “Align social policy and practice with environmental policy and practice (they are the same thing because we are part of socio-ecological systems). The fragmentation of policy (climate change, population health, inclusivity, state of nature, etc.) are all the same problem and have their root in place-making and empathy between people and people and nature.”

But this attention to ‘place’ was not widely shared by the participants, only three of whom referred to it when answering this question.

Additional comments Space was provided at the end of the individual response forms for participants to add their own comments. Nearly three-fifths (15/26) of them took this opportunity. Three offered positive comments: “Useful morning in terms of breadth.”

“Sandy’s spider diagram was particular thought provoking and how similar can be used to meet requirement of Community Empowerment Act.” “A truly inspiring event.”

Three offered negative comments, only one of which was directed at the symposium itself: “Very interesting but scientifically poor set of presentations. Interesting discussions.”

“Place standard not there yet in terms of user-friendly utility (lose the spider bit).”

“We spend a lot time justifying wellbeing still rather than making it central to output achievement. Stop apologising and justifying spend on wellbeing. It is not a luxury – this goes for nature and green space – not a luxury product.”

The remaining (9/26) comments were categorised as neutral. None of these related directly to the content or conduct of the symposium itself. They ranged from one participant’s comment on their capacity to answer the questions posed: “I could not respond about place-making as I do not know enough about it”, through statements about wellbeing itself: “Wellbeing does not mean the same thing to everybody. People will have views depending on their circumstances and socio-economic status.”

“Wellbeing must become mainstream like in Denmark and Bhutan so that it enters the collective psyche of everyone.” to personal observations and position statements about it: “Was thinking about this on my commute this morning. On paper my town is well -connected.

Regular buses and trains. But in practice the service is packe d by the time it reaches our stop.

Stressful situation with people crammed in, turned away, ticket machines out of service etc.

Really affects mental wellbeing and much make employees less effective on arrival at work.

Most would like to walk to work but local authority focussed on housing target not job creation or bringing in jobs. This impacts on connections in communities - commuter towns are created. How do we take everything back to root: connections between people and places and family and job.”

“Sustainable development which ticks all of the boxes will help to improve wellbeing. Do developments have strong environment/nature part? What is cultural impact? Do they encourage displacement of jobs from homes? More unactive travel? Lack of daytime community? Damage to town centres? Lack of appreciation of local aesthetic?”

Emergent conclusions Through this symposium, its organisers set out to develop a wider public understanding by encouraging discussion, across a range of disciplines and practice domains – (community) planners, architects, local authority, health sector, and heritage staff, academics and students - about the measurement of wellbeing and its relationship to place-making. The organisers’ starting point was an acknowledgement that there have been considerable advances around the meaning of wellbeing in recent years, with a view to influencing national policies which value quality of life, including linkages with the physical environment and the social health of communities. But, as yet, there had been little consideration of how wellbeing can be achieved through collaborative forms of place making. This focus – finding effective ways to measure the contribution that better place -making can make to wellbeing, both in terms of social capital, health and quality of life indicators – was the primary lens through which the organizers asked the presenters to address wellbeing.

This emphasis was only partially reflected in the presentations made by the wide range of experts who spoke during the morning session. Boxes 1A and 1B contain collations of these presenters’ position statements. More of these addressed wellbeing (Box 1A) than place( -making) (Box 1B).

Box 1A: Presenters’ collated position statements on wellbeing       

Wellbeing is a positive physical, social and mental state; not just the absence of pain, discomfort and capacity. It requires that basic needs are met, that individuals have a sense of purpose, that they feel able to achieve important personal goals and participate in society.

Wellbeing is enhanced by conditions that include supportive personal relationships, strong and inclusive communities, good health, financial and personal security, rewarding employment, and a healthy and attractive environment Wellbeing is about more than income, about having the resources necessary to participate in society.

Measures which capture both feelings of as well as the conditions that impact on wellbeing are being implemented in Scotland.

Wellbeing measures can tend to measure the performance of the service provider rather than the receiver.

Whilst health and wellbeing are often considered jointly, they are in fact separate entities. It is possible to have wellbeing and an absence of health.

Poor health statistics have a relationship with the health of the poor: this is a systemic issue for Scottish society (with links to drugs, alcohol, violence) requiring a change in culture and

       

behaviours.

We need to measure / understand the problem; recognise the importance of daily living conditions; tackle inequitable distribution of power, money and resources.

To advance measures of wellbeing in Scotland we need to give greater voice to individuals – to ask them how they feel, and what they value in terms of their own wellbeing.

There is a shift in ‘wellbeing’ culture and practice towards putting the interests of children at the heart of decision making.

A single wellbeing framework is being used, aimed at promoting a shared language, common understanding of strengths and issues, reducing duplication and achi eving consistency across a range of agencies.

The aim is to break the cycle of inequality through improving outcomes for children and young adults.

The challenge is to stay focused on early intervention and prevention in a very complex environment where services have reduced resources and greater levels of need to meet.

According to the Liveable Cities project, the biggest considerations for wellbeing include: psychological health; community participation; environment; social support; and general health.

Wellbeing indicators are useful barometers of how a city is performing in relation to the built environment and low carbon.

Box 1B: Presenters’ collated position statements on place(-making)  Wellbeing is about place: a place framework can consider the fabric of the physical environment, the quality of the ambient environment and psychological factors associated with place -making.  Place-making’s focus is also on what impacts on wellbeing rather than what wellbeing is.  The Place Standard offers a structured basis for conversation and provide an ‘asset map of the place’ where a community can identify strengths and weaknesses of place as a way of making decisions about targeting actions to make a difference.  Thinking about dementia/memory/experience can help integrate the evaluation of wellbeing and collaborative community place-making approaches.

This same imbalance was reproduced in both the participants’ discussion groups and in the statements captured on their individual response forms.

In the afternoon session, three questions were posed for discussion by the symposium participants in their breakout groups.

1. What is happening now? (What is the current state of play in assessing the relationship of wellbeing to place?)

2. What needs improving in how wellbeing is assessed?

3. What do we want to happen next to improve how wellbeing is assessed?

A clear narrative thread links the responses that the groups gave to these three questions. Through their group discussions, participants indicated shared concerns and priorities. Participants reported that, although they agreed that attention is being given to measuring wellbeing, this is occurring without a set of shared and common goals, and without sufficient communications and interaction between the sectors involved. This is leading to a lack of consistency (of measures, approach and indicators), in turn hampered by insufficient resources. Participants in the symposium did not

possess a clear or shared agenda about what needs to be done to improve how wellbeing i s measured. The groups did, however, share one characteristic (conspicuous by its absence): unlike the symposium organisers, few of them prioritised place-making in their discussions about what needs to be improved. They did agree about what they wanted to happen next. A majority of the participants identified a community-focus as where they want changes and improvements to be made, with an emphasis on learning, respecting differences, and on engaging communities and people directly in planning for and in measuring and assessing well-being.

During the symposium, participants were requested to respond to three questions using in a self response form provided in their delegate pack.

1. How should we measure wellbeing?

2. What indicators are appropriate for assessing wellbeing? (And what metrics should be used for measuring these?)

3. What kinds of approaches are needed for evaluating the contribution of place -making to wellbeing A shared narrative thread can also be discerned in their responses to these questions. Responding as individuals, participants also prioritised community-based approaches that engage local people in measuring wellbeing. And they want a more integrated approach to be employed by all of the service providers involved.

Between them, the participants identified twenty-eight (clusters of) indicators for measuring wellbeing. None of these received majority support: indeed three-quarters of them were mentioned by only one or two participants. So there was little agreement amongst those who particip ated in the symposium about how wellbeing should be measured. And, given the lack of precision in the indicators and metrics that participants did proposed, it would appear that most of them are not well-practised in designing robust measurement systems for wellbeing. Responding as individuals, participants again demonstrated that their favoured approaches involved community-based measurement of wellbeing, by engaging people in conversations and discussions to identify locallyrelevant indicators meaningful to the individuals concerned.

As their individual and group responses reveal, those who took part in the symposium were interested in how the measurement of wellbeing could be improved. But few of them shared the symposium organisers’ interest in doing this by integrating it with place-making. As a result, by the end of the symposium, the overarching question that the organisers had posed at the start: Can we find effective ways to measure the contribution that better place -making can make to wellbeing, both in terms of social capital, health and quality of life indicators? remained substantively unanswered.

APPENDIX 1: COLLATED RESPONSES FROM THE GROUP DISCUSSIONS GROUP 1 REPORTED BACK TOP 3 POINTS What is happening now? (What is the current state of play in assessing the relationship of wellbeing to place?)

We still require robust, valid and reliable data over a longer period of time.

What needs improving in how wellbeing is assessed?

Accepting some level of imperfection.

What do we want to happen next to improve how wellbeing is assessed?

Use data faster and smarter to understand at which level it needs to be actioned.

“If we are going to elevate wellbeing to be the central driver of public policy, we need to commit to a core data set over a long period of time.” _____________________________________________________________________ GROUP DISCUSSION SHEETS What is happening now? (What is the current state of play in assessing the relationship of wellbeing to place?)

1. Multitude of measures from local to global and context specific 2. Appear to be lots of individual measures of wellbeing – however unsure of the measures of community wellbeing 3. We still require robust and reliable data over a longer period of time.

What needs improving in how wellbeing is assessed?

1. Definitions – can we use the same questions for all?

2. It’s better to have a small number of data sets that are more reliable.

3. Accepting some level of imperfection.

“Is wellbeing just trendy new name for quality of life?”

“If something becomes everything – it is in danger of becoming nothing!”

What do we want to happen next to improve how wellbeing is assessed?

1. Use data faster and smarter to understand at which level it needs to be actioned.

2. Understanding the whole community through triangulation of data.

3. Commit to consistent measures.

GROUP 2 REPORTED BACK TOP 3 POINTS What is happening now? (What is the current state of play in assessing the relationship of wellbeing to place?)

Need for focus.

What needs improving in how wellbeing is assessed?

Clearer purpose: relationships, measuring, buy-in.

What do we want to happen next to improve how wellbeing is assessed?

Buy-in: prototype, see change, governance. _____________________________________________________________________ GROUP DISCUSSION SHEETS What is happening now? (What is the current state of play in assessing the relationship of wellbeing to place?)

1. No consensus 2. Too many approaches 3. Lack of focus: who is it for and why do it Is it clear that wellbeing is addressed?

What needs improving in how wellbeing is assessed?

1. Be specific on impact. Be more simple on approach. Clearer purpose.

2. Clearer relationship with other subjects. Assess different age cohorts. Assess transition between age groups 3. Move towards monitoring. Simple measure on walking. Buy-in from different agencies.

Clearer purpose.

4. How you measure?

What do we want to happen next to improve how wellbeing is assessed?

1. Pilot / test / learn by doing 2. Buy-in achieving regular monitoring – need a governance structure 3. People should see change 4. Target factors that affect it.

5. Control / informing choices.

6. What’s it going to do – the next step – need a governance structure 7. Prioritisation 8. Transparency

GROUP 3 REPORTED BACK TOP 3 POINTS What is happening now? (What is the current state of play in assessing the relationship of wellbeing to place?)

Wide spectrum of perspectives. However shared perception that we are all over the place because there is a number of valuable local projects but lack of national co-ordination.

What needs improving in how wellbeing is assessed?

Need to mainstream the place-making/wellbeing connection.

What do we want to happen next to improve how wellbeing is assessed?

Getting good stories of community involvement out. _____________________________________________________________________ GROUP DISCUSSION SHEETS What is happening now? (What is the current state of play in assessing the relationship of wellbeing to place?)

1. Number of valuable individual / local projects but no nationwide standard. However potential to mainstream tool such as Place Standard 2. Wide spectrum of perspectives due to different backgrounds What needs improving in how wellbeing is assessed?

1. National guidelines but tailored to local implementations 2. Community-led regeneration building on existing resources, e.g. greenspace maps, and on established nation guidance.

3. Prevention.

What do we want to happen next to improve how wellbeing is assessed?

1. Link academics, government and general public 2. Greater community involvement in policy decision-making, improvements in public participation 3. Share stories.

GROUP 4 REPORTED BACK TOP 3 POINTS What is happening now? (What is the current state of play in assessing the relationship of wellbeing to place?)

People – not engaging well enough yet (still top-down). Need to empower.

What needs improving in how wellbeing is assessed?

Understanding what wellbeing is and why measuring (asking people) What do we want to happen next to improve how wellbeing is assessed?

Stop measuring social wellbeing via economics: • engaging the unengaged • focus resources where make the most difference • encouraging personal responsibility _____________________________________________________________________ GROUP DISCUSSION SHEETS What is happening now? (What is the current state of play in assessing the relationship of wellbeing to place?)

1. Measuring quality of place is ‘theoretical’ 2. We learn more about what doesn’t work from UK examples. Good practice cases are from other countries.

3. Empowering people – trying to balance top-down and bottom-up processes. But in practice delivery of this is still mixed 4. Resource limitations 5. Things still dominated by sectoral approaches but moving towards more partnership working and collaborative approaches – disadvantage: where does the buck stop then – responsibility?

6. Ownership – public space privatisation and removal of public access What needs improving in how wellbeing is assessed?

1. Societal wellbeing and objective indicators e.g. fuel poverty, housing 2. Psychological wellbeing / individual.

3. Subjective indicators of living conditions – cold, comfort 4. Measurement that integrates 5. Bottom-up asking people to define / decide what is relevant to them. Aspirations and satisfaction of individual 6. Raising wellbeing is reducing inequality 7. Tackling inequality from before birth will raise wellbeing overall 8. Helping people help themselves – preventative measures, early intervention, lowering societal costs What do we want to happen next to improve how wellbeing is assessed?

1. Personal responsibility and how to encourage the uptake of services that are available by concentrating resources on where they can make the greatest difference 2. Services ‘one stop shop’ 3. Social networks utilising social connections 4. Engage people first, then develop plan – who is the service for?

5. Limited by resources, identifying the right stakeholders 6. Community empowerment – delivery needs to engage the difficult to engage 7. Measure societal wellbeing on something other than economic growth.

GROUP 6 REPORTED BACK TOP 3 POINTS What is happening now? (What is the current state of play in assessing the relationship of wellbeing to place?)

A will to focus, create and engage exists to have discussions and assess wellbeing across sectors and scales.

What needs improving in how wellbeing is assessed?

Socialization matters – big issue: we had difficulty defining this further, e.g. dog poo.

What do we want to happen next to improve how wellbeing is assessed?

Need to hook multiple stakeholders into the conversation. Need multiple approaches e.g.

• inspirational stories e.g. Edinburgh meadows • grassroots discussions • pairing communities for actual learning • community-led assessment of wellbeing and place. _____________________________________________________________________ GROUP DISCUSSION SHEETS What is happening now? (What is the current state of play in assessing the relationship of wellbeing to place?)

1. Wellbeing to focus, create engage 2. Lack of interaction between sectors 3. Lack of consistency across / between sectors 4. Disconnect between measures and applicability to place 5. Silo mentality 6. Budget drives decision-making 7. Lack of resources 8. Lack of communication 9. Lack of common goal 10. Need for baseline 11. Proliferation of tools 12. Lack of emphasis on built aspect in place-making What needs improving in how wellbeing is assessed?

1. Incorporate the social into consideration of wellbeing 2. Socialization and place What do we want to happen next to improve how wellbeing is assessed?

1. Inspirational stories from Scotland e.g. meadows in Edinburgh, Brechin, capturing planned and unplanned 2. Grassroots discussion about wellbeing 3. Embedding wellbeing in planning policy 4. More support for community-led assessment of wellbeing and place – not just money but also skills and confidence, etc 5. Pairing communities for mutual learning.

Group 7 REPORTED BACK TOP 3 POINTS What is happening now? (What is the current state of play in assessing the relationship of wellbeing to place?)

Lots but measuring not achieving?

What needs improving in how wellbeing is assessed?

User involvement: enable, empower, ownership What do we want to happen next to improve how wellbeing is assessed?

Make it real. Better understanding of what wellbeing means relative to people and place. _____________________________________________________________________ GROUP DISCUSSION SHEETS What is happening now? (What is the current state of play in assessing the relationship of wellbeing to place?)

1. Lots – complex but good – starting to address silos but starting from different points, defining understanding in different ways!

2. Assumptions made – lip service to users but more examination of evidence (not same as end user) heading in right direction and better than 20 years ago 3. Lots of information but related to people and place. Do to people v people e.g. Place Standard / charrette – entry point to discussion 4. People need to have real say – co-production, co-design, ownership – people trained to use self assessment?

5. Health and wellbeing – separate but linked 6. Bogged down in measurement, research, evidence, but need to impact on lives, inputs v outputs 7. Measure things but miss the point?!

8. Happy city – Aarhus – events / colour / activity – everyone benefits, take community with you. Do we expect answer What needs improving in how wellbeing is assessed?

1. Better shared understanding of what is meant by wellbeing! It’s complex, seen as woolly.

Shared definition – impact on place-making and holistic – not valued. Definition (e.g. police stats) can mislead e.g. crime stats v perception / threatening 2. Application of knowledge of good impact of action. Intervention – learning – share – apply – monitoring. Learn from elsewhere – dementia 3. Co-ordination / integration, shared understanding bring people / users together, more holistic 4. More situations to come together to discuss user involvement. User involvement shaping where want to go? Ultimately not our decision – enable / empower, empathetic conversations, community ownership / responsibility 5. Social return on investment, monetise non-monetary benefit. Eco-system services.

Operationalise – learn from dementia – memorable inclusion across generation / ability, not for one group. Should be better solutions – flexible, fit for purpose, inclusion and belonging.

What do we want to happen next to improve how wellbeing is assessed?

1. Dissemination of what happening now, e.g. today’s event, Place Standard. What is groundwork that is required?

2. Sell it to the community! More shared learning events with users. Mainstreaming hashtag# / social media – popularise, Facebook adverts enact wellbeing

3. Community groups doing it already! It’s already out there but not spoken about in those terms. Practical: lunch clubs.

4. Trial, pilot, experiment, explain – inspire – replicate. What does ‘doing wellbeing’ look like, feel like? How to share?

5. Change the way it’s being done now. Planning Departments / LAs have responsibility but fund / action / deliver. Rethink the way we deliver from welfare – wellbeing – change mindsets. The Wellbeing Department. NPF = Wellbeing Framework 6. Knowing the goal … what working towards? Clear message – what is wellbeing? How does it change in different places? Prioritise / make real in different places!

GROUP 8 REPORTED BACK TOP 3 POINTS What is happening now? (What is the current state of play in assessing the relationship of wellbeing to place?)

We have indicators for place-making and for wellbeing. You can use these to assess both concepts but this does not necessarily assess the wellbeing component of place or vice versa. Is there a fit between the two?

What needs improving in how wellbeing is assessed?

Flip/crush the hierarchy through common terminology and earlier participation from grassroots people and organisations.

What do we want to happen next to improve how wellbeing is assessed?

More collaborative research – practitioners/ academics / users at the concept/ research design phase. _____________________________________________________________________ GROUP DISCUSSION SHEETS What is happening now? (What is the current state of play in assessing the relationship of wellbeing to place?)

1. Wellbeing and place-making is integrated but how integrated depends on your position 2. In developing countries and some European, the concept of wellbeing is not being taken forward. Can you think about wellbeing when you are still trying to develop the infrastructure? Getting representation is hard.

3. In teaching, wellbeing and place-making are still separate concepts 4. There are place-making indicators and wellbeing indicators – few overlap. You can use indicators to assess wellbeing but doesn’t necessarily assess the place or suggest place is influencing wellbeing. Is there a fit between the two?

5. What is ‘place’? Space? Wellbeing definitions? Determines what gets measured.

What needs improving in how wellbeing is assessed?

1. Asking people what are they taking into consideration when they are assessing their wellbeing 2. Having time to communicate / share information 3. Consistency in measurement – stop cherry-picking from what’s available and what policy supports – representation / validity – adapt to different needs / groups 4. Qualitative / context in which data is gathered. Individual information vs aggregation 5. People who are being evaluated need bringing into the process to help design the wellbeing measures 6. Flip the hierarchy / crush the hierarchy – through common terminology / earlier participation 7. Continuous assessment?

8. Creative ways to gather information, move beyond the questionnaire 9. Finding ways to measure the more intangible elements of wellbeing, e.g. enjoying a nice environment, enjoyment from art and culture 10. Sometimes we just need to air our views and be listened to – we can’t and perhaps don’t need to fix everything.

What do we want to happen next to improve how wellbeing is assessed?

1. Grassroots wellbeing assessment 2. More collaborative research – academics, practitioners, users from the conceptual design stage 3. Time to understand the methodology / tools for collecting data – engaging with new and old technology 4. Build up a culture of empathy through the process of wellbeing assessment 5. Learn from ‘What Works Wellbeing Centre’ – don’t keep re-inventing the wheel 6. Genuine use of wellbeing measures / outcomes, not just reinforcing the political economic growth agenda 7. Talk to the organisations / people already working with people whose wellbeing you want to measure / enhance, grassrooting 8. Learning from the bottom-up – from the people in the places we would like to engage in place-making 9. More local measures / assessment to make a difference on the ground and not just at national level.

Group 8 What is happening now?

• Planning and design processes – well-being from outputs? Lived experience, delivery?

• Well-being from co-delivery. Scottish Government desire to do more: cocommission, co-production, co-assess = co-delivery • A lot happening but not connected, lost as trickle down “contrary to what it is professing” • Charrettes but need for more resources • Bits and Bobs: little evidence to show delivery of long lasting well-being What needs improving?

• Redistribution of access to resources and organisation of democracy: smaller communities and democratic organisation sizes • Freedom to express aspirational ideas and thinking (drives out dialogue if can’t) • Recognition of professional expertise and community expertise: need both • Issue of who owns the process, e.g. client paying for engagement, or who has the power • Cultural change: “Just say yes”, practical ways to get around the system, bureaucracy What do we want to happen next?

• Encourage dialogue, facilitate change – need a systems approach or start with individual?

• Capacity and capability and change from within – dialogue is not a risk, allowed things to get worse, work out a solution together • Need a longer term view, too many planning iterations • Learn to have dialogue from an early age (schools) • Things are too outcomes driven at present – need to be driven to achieve outcome • Community knowledge – expert knowledge

APPENDIX 2: COLLATED RESPONSES FROM INDIVIDUAL RESPONSE FORMS How should we measure well-being?

Individual response • Health.

• Stress.

• Happiness.

• Indicators for place-making and wellbeing.

• Assess use of terminology, ‘hierarchy’, etc,, grassroots • A more collaborative process, cross-discipline, cross-practice • Social equality, mobility indicators.

• Normalised health outcomes.

• Transport use.

N/A • Providing regular opportunities for intelligent conversations between diverse people who can learn from one another.

• Use mix of quantitative and qualitative methods to explore the complex interactions that cause wellbeing or misery.

• Compile and share inspirational case studies that have a good chance of being replicated.

• • • •

Occupation Undisclosed.

Undisclosed.

Undisclosed.

Undisclosed.

Undisclosed.

Planner

• •

Income.

Poverty.

Psychology..

Disease levels and death rates – different aggregate levels, society and neighbourhood.

Mental illness and happiness gauges (cf. Aarhus City).

Community participation levels (events, activities – not just elections).

Crime levels and prison and detention levels.

Health.

Level of footfall – increase in wellbeing activity.

Time people spend outdoors.

Asking people what they think wellbeing is and what factors influence it.

Define the term well before measuring it, and make sure you know why you measure it.

Subjective measures are more relevant, although objective mea sures may play a part.

Asking age and demographic appropriate questions anew, ensuring that all people are able to respond and have their views and opinions heard rather than just focus on those most likely to respond.

Health inequalities and all other inequalities are directly correlated with wellbeing.

Comparing the subjective with objective wellbeing indicators – qualitative and quantitative Listening to local people using tools such as Place Standard, OST. Measuring at individual, family and community level

• • • • • •

Surveying life satisfaction.

Levels of crime and safety within communities.

Social services interventions requirements.

By understanding people’s everyday lives.

Look at local level, communities and neighbourhoods.

Understand why rather than trying to measure wellbeing.

Architect

•

There are different parts to wellbeing. I have a family life and work life but they are in different places and it is the lack of connection between these two places that affect

LA (policy officer)

• • • • • • • • • •

• •

Planning and Community Consultant

Planning student

Planning student

Community Planning

Community Learning & Development Manager

Architect

• • • • •

wellbeing rather than my home or work or even home/work balance.

Understanding complexities that of what triggers stressful situation is key.

Connecting people with place and nature and reducing isolation should be measured .

Sense of place.

Real communication, especially listening.

Movement in and out of high (bad) SIMD (Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation) bands and the causality of that.

• • • • • •

Engage with communities.

Engage with different groups.

Feedback from people who using specific places or services.

Eudaemania scale.

PERMA model – Seligman.

Most ineffective is economics.

•

Community wellbeing with objective measures looking at factors that impact on wellbeing with subjective wellbeing included.

Remembering not a static concept but part of a process with no end point.

Composite measures of subjective wellbeing (time intensive, needs high resolution).

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • •

•

•

• •

LA (middle manager)

Health-related (Health Care Researcher) Health-related (Psychological training programme practitioner) Health-related (Policy officer)

Deliberative dialogue.

Sense check: are places generating wellbeing or not? What power relations do they represent?

Contacts with nature and contact with other people.

Heritage (Strategy Manager)

Via survey analysis, qualification of the form it takes and cross -referencing of subjective evaluation with objective material.

Situational, boundary set studies, not universal specification!

Must be geared and acceptable to the individual, group i.e. age appropriate Let the individuals choose their own domains or factors important to them where possible – individual issues Use the information to bring about changes, interventions – then reassess and use the data Health (mental health is bringing non-wellbeing everywhere) Environment – social characteristics Children Qualitative in-depth data collection through interviews, focus groups and ethnographic observation followed by critical analysis, discussion of findings, and development of solutions Evaluation over time and across different scales On-going discussion and link academia to other sectors

Academic

Academic (Research Assistant)

Student (PhD Life Sciences) Student (Undergraduate Geography)

Measure global wellbeing , e.g. WEMWBS, satisfacti on with life (individual level), Social researcher useful for comparing groups in society, teasing apart relative contributions of different factors to overall wellbeing Measuring domains that contribute to wellbeing – objective and subjective indicators of domains such as housing, access to services, quality and access to natural environment – particularly relevant for prioritising interventions and measuring impact of interventions Qualitative approaches – participatory, visual – useful for developing a grounded understanding of what wellbeing and place mean for the population in question Measuring poverty and comparing direction of travel over a period of time (objective) Measuring community involvement and the views/opinions of people in the community (subjective)

Energy Adviser

•

Backcasting – where do we want to get to and where do we need to be at each stage to get there?

• • •

Measure the causes of wellbeing Social contact How far walking

Computer Programmer

What indicators are appropriate for assessing wellbeing? And what metrics should be used for measuring these?

Indicators

Metric

Occupation

Mortality Greenspace and access Stress Mobility and equality Transport Social interaction

Age of death Scottish Geographical Map WEMWBS Differences income Percentage active travel to work Number of cafes Community centres Number of events local level Number of people attending events Frequency and enjoyment of exercise Inspiring stories of how social engagement and active place-making work together

Undisclosed

Working hours Routine Causes and roots Percentage/’000 in court Percentage/’000 in prison Percentage/’000 in community service Percentage illness by type Percentage elections (all levels) Percentage community activity Percentage volunteering Percentage of people reading news regularly WEMWBS

Planner

Empowerment and engagement Active lifestyle Sociability

Stress Depression Fear Crime and safety

Mental wellbeing Community and civic participation Feeling of inclusion in society and world Mental health Community participation and involvement Poverty reduction

Resilience Health status Participation

Satisfaction Has ‘wellbeing’ entered the general psyche?

Life satisfaction Quality of everyday life Distribution of power and resources Outdoor time spent in exercise – paths, safety, social

Undisclosed Undisclosed

Undisclosed

Planning and Community Consultant

Planning (student) Community Planning

Net income or employment (but do people see themselves as living in poverty?)

Length of time spent walking Percentage of time spent volunteering

Census Monitor media for frequency of ‘wellbeing’ mentions and stories

Community Learning and Development Manager

Architect

Architect Understand behaviours

LA (Policy Officer)

connectivity Do you speak to anyone about what causes ill-being?

Programmes which reduce isolation from people and places Levels of deprivation Health status Engagement with and ownership of public services and public realm

SIMD Life expectancy ???

LA (Middle Manager)

Level of impairment and activity Ordinal scale, self assessment Ability to use what they have Detail both activity and help required – spider web Ability to participate and Spider web interact

Health- related (Healthcare Researcher)

PERMA: Seligman

Health-related (Pyschological training programme practitioner) Health-related (Policy officer)

These really depend on what you are trying to assess and in which areas. Audience very important. Might be some standard ones, however, need to make more specific Contact with nature Sense of control Understanding and empathy World Health Organisation assessment methodologies IMB and SIMB stats Self-confidence and esteem Sense of belonging and community Safety (as seen by individual) Nutrient Causes of death Times in hospital by age Personal resilience Happiness Deprivation Domain based satisfaction Mental wellbeing

Access to good quality green and blue space Co-production and involvement in framing and solving problems Dialogue and participatory democracy

Heritage (Strategy Manager) Planner

Academic

Yes but need to integrate proactively across services to actually deliver.

Academic (Research Assistant)

Student (PhD Life Sciences) Qualitative data collected over time Student (Undergraduate, Unhappiness index Scottish Multiple Index Deprivation SIMD Geography) E.g. satisfaction with housing, employment opportunities, etc WEMWBS

Social Researcher

Health rates Poverty rates Loneliness Control over environment Leisure time

Energy Adviser

Inequality Face-to-face contacts (social not business) How far walked or cycled

Computer Programmer

What kinds of approaches are needed for evaluating the contribution of place-making to well-being

Individual response • Consistent from Scottish Government to community level • Longitudinal • Share good practice N/A N/A N/A • Life stories • Art projects • Empathy boosters?

• Motivating inclusive conversation at all levels • National/local conversation matters more than a national/local indicator framework • Learning matters far more than measuring • • • • • • •

• • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Occupation Undisclosed.

Undisclosed.

Undisclosed.

Undisclosed.

Undisclosed.

Undisclosed.

Consultation Research Outreach Are people walking and cycling more?

Mechanism for people to meet at different scales more than six times per year.

Discussions with groups who are in neighbourhoods that have changed Discussions with groups who are contemplating improving wellbeing in their place N/A Asking people what factors contribute to their feeling of wellbeing and gather ones are place-related.

Closed and open questions While direct measures are important but convers ations with those affected more so Findings need to be communicated with communities and services and then co produce actions which all can take whether an individual, community or on service, agency basis Conversations and stories to be shared

Planner

Post-intervention assessment of places Make wellbeing measurement (possibly) more quantitative so it can be included in the normal workflow in professions (e.g. RIBA Plan of Work) Understand communities Listen to people, qualitative approach

Architect

Planning and Community Consultant

Planning student Planning student Community Planning

Community Learning & Development Manager

Architect

How do you feel about where you live?

LA (policy officer) do you appreciate local landscape? (aesthetic/intangible) can you walk about? LLTI versus pedestrian investment versus participation stats do you meet people? (health stats and connectiveness) do you feel safe? community policing interventions can you access everything they need? can you influence decisions? e.g. stop inappropriate development, improve local environment, help set up community project can you travel safe routes to school?

Sustainability – easily maintained and community owned LA (middle manager) Shifts in SIMD and in absolute deprivation Conversations with real people over time

N/A

Health-related (Health Care Researcher) Health-related (Psychological training programme practitioner) Health-related (Policy officer)

•

Interaction

•

Need a broader framework that explains wellbeing and then shows the contribution to place-making

• •

Deliberative dialogue.

Sense check: are places generating wellbeing or not? What power relations do they represent?

Contacts with nature and contact with other people.

Heritage (Strategy Manager)

Assessment by exception, using set theory and appropriate satisfaction techniques The approaches outlined in the presentations are ‘rubbish’!

Seeking the voices of the users however challenging Before and after testing (after changes and interventions) Place needs to be suitable for individuals but also their families, friends, careers, etc.

N/A

Academic

• • • • • •

Academic (Research Assistant)

Student (PhD Life Sciences) Student (Undergraduate Geography)

• • •

Subjective through the use of interactive maps and interviews On-going discussions Link theory to practice

•

Need to measure at different scales – individual and community, home and Social researcher neighbourhood, town, city, region and national Need to go beyond quantitative measurement approaches, especially to understand community wellbeing and impact of local environment, e.g. participatory Need to integrate objective and subjective indicators, global wellbeing measures and domain-based indicators, and fund the collection of data on the latter in particular

•

•

• • •

Community involvement – bottom up Health improvement statistics Poverty and fuel poverty statistics

Energy Adviser

• • •

Focus on outcomes, particularly sustainable movement Has it engendered community spirit?

Reduced commuting and more home working

Computer Programmer

How can the evaluation of wellbeing and collaborative approaches to place-making be better integrated?

Individual response • Map with other datasets N/A N/A N/A • Plain English to encourage wide participation • Use of visual facilitation • Motivating inclusive conversation at all levels • National/local conversation matters more than a national/local indicator framework • Learning matters far more than measuring • • • • • •

Occupation Undisclosed.

Undisclosed.

Undisclosed.

Undisclosed.

Undisclosed.

Undisclosed.

Stronger links between social and health factors Collaboration between different bodies, private and public, etc.

Better levels of communication between investigative organisations and the public Have gatherings and conversations Combine subjective and objective feedback Make policy and practice change based on this iteration (i.e. have to have an impact) N/A Have common goals which drive all areas of public and private sector, with shared ownership to achieve them and well defined roles for each sector Focus on the areas which would have the most impact on people that need it most Know your resources and use them efficiently for the delivery of these goals Far greater integration and communication between communities and the community planning partners – we still tell communities what we think they need rather than letting them identify needs and issues Collectively identifying solutions responding to need Better communication between community planning partners and local communities Community planning partners to use the tools provided so that local communities participate in designing services and resource allocation

Planner

• • • • •

Include in curriculum of relevant professional education Increase the profile of wellbeing rather than wealth Government commitment trickling down to grass roots level By looking at neighbourhood level, quality of everyday life By empowering people and communities

Architect

•

Local authority systems are not well set up for this! Planning system hard to access and follow. How do people hear about decisions which affect them? Meetings at different times to engage with different groups. Trying a bit harder to empower the unemployed. A lot of current interventions empowers the already empowered and may create great fissures.

Measuring and sharing data helps Better sense of why – shared purpose More ‘real’ community involvement in the creation of the evaluation Fewer tools used more often to allow real across-sector measurement over time

LA (policy officer)

N/A

Health-related (Health Care Researcher)

• • • •

• • •

• • • •

Planning and Community Consultant Planning student Planning student

Community Planning

Community Learning & Development Manager

Architect

LA (middle manage)r

• •

Ask people at the bottom and feed the info in Keep an open dialogue

• • •

Tools such as the Place-making Standard Look at work such as liveable cities Emphatic relations

•

Align social policy and practice with environmental policy and practice (they are the same thing because we are part of socio-ecological systems). The fragmentation of policy (climate change, population health, inclusivity, state of nature, etc.) are all the same problem and have their root in place-making and empathy between people and people and people and nature

Heritage (Strategy Manager)

•

Academic

• • •

Make an explicit link for the legacy of tried and tested indicators and where wellbeing fits in for this structure, identify the gaps in wellbeing relative to health and wealth and then specify how this gap can be filled in with the appropriate content.

Adopt an exceptional approach ie. its absence rather than its presence Open data where possible Find ways of asking questions, using measures that are more acceptable to individuals. More inclusive.

Those with language, cognition or literacy problems can be included Architects need to see the point Use social media and online tools

• • •

Inter-disciplinary discussion Standard guidelines but tailored approach More interactive, end user-centred approach

•

Need to understand how (or if) we should be weighting indicators on different domains relative to place, or prioritising domains for intervention. To what extent does this need to be identified through public engagement Need to develop standardised approaches to measuring community wellbeing. Can we measure community wellbeing or do we need to focus on determinants of wellbeing at the community scale (as in the Place Standard)?

Need to be sensitive to differential i mpacts on different groups in society, working with different population groups to better understand what wellbeing means for them, and what key aspects of place are most salient for their wellbeing

Social researcher

• •

More collaboration End user involved at an earlier stage and involved throughout

Energy Adviser

• • •

Focus on sustainable transport Stop zoning (separating housing from businesses) Involve communities

Computer Programmer

• • •

•

•

Health-related (Psychological training programme practitioner) Health-related (Policy officer)

Academic (Research Assistant)

Student (PhD Life Sciences) Student (Undergraduate Geography)

Additional comments Positive responses Useful morning in terms of breadth Sandy’s spider diagram was particular thought provoking and how similar can be used to meet requirement of Community Empowerment Act A truly inspiring event

Occupation Planning and Community Consultant Community Planning Academic (Research Assistant)

Neutral responses We need to consider community capacity, resilience, sense of belonging.

Wellbeing does not mean the same thing to everybody. People will have views depending on their circumstances and socio-economic status.

Work with communities to co-produce services, building capacity of communities to improve their lives through learning, health and wellbeing Wellbeing must become mainstream like in Denmark and Bhutan so that it enters the collective psyche of everyone Was thinking about this on my commute this morning. On paper my town is well connected. Regular buses and trains. But in practice the service is packed by the time it reaches our stop. Stressful situation with people crammed in, turned away, ticket machines out of service etc. Really affects mental wellbeing and much make employees less effective on arrival at work. Most would like to walk to work but local authority focussed on housing target not job creation or bringing in jobs. This impacts on connections in communities - commuter towns are created. How do we take everything back to root: connections between people and places and family and job/ Sustainable development which ticks all of the boxes will help to improve wellbeing.

Do developments have strong environment/nature part? What is cultural impact? Do they encourage displacement of jobs from homes? More unactive travel? Lack of daytime community? Damage to town centres? Lack of appreciation of local aesthetic?

I could not respond about place-making as I do not know enough about it

Planning student Community Planning Community Planning

Negative responses Place standard not there yet in terms of user-friendly utility (lose the spider bit)

Architect Planning and Community Consultant LA (Policy Officer)

Community Learning & Development Manager Architect LA (policy officer)

LA (policy officer)

Health-related (Health Care Researcher) Different approaches have value in different circumstances. You need to be clear to Health-related (Policy what means you are trying to measure officer) Biggest challenge to devise ways to engage with those who usually won’t contribute an Academic (Research opinion – the marginalised and less confident.

Assistant)

We spend a lot time justifying wellbeing still rather than making it central to output achievement. Stop apologising and justifying spend on wellbeing. It is not a luxury – this goes for nature and green space – not a luxury product Very interesting but scientifically poor set of presentations. Interesting discussions.

Academic

For further details on this report, contact: - Dr Husam AlWaer Senior Lecturer in Sustainable Urban Design, The University of Dundee School of Social Sciences Matthew Building, 13 Perth Road Dundee DD1 4HT, UK T: +44 (0) 1382348805 E: H.AlWaer@dundee.ac.uk

The report of the Symposium is also available on the Geddes Institute website: http://www.dundee.ac.uk/geddesinstitute/events/planandplace/measurewellbeing/

Centre for Environmental Change and Human Resilience Research Report 2015-1 University of Dundee Dundee DD1 4HN, UK Tel: +44 (0)1382 388692 Email: cechr@dundee.ac.uk Web: http://www.dundee.ac.uk/cechr/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/cechr_uod @cechr_uod Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CECHRUOD/

38