Part 1 by Chris I

THE ROLE OF HEALTH PROMOTING GOALS IN RESIDENTIAL DECISION MAKING – A STUDY OF THE LIGHTSVIEW MASTERPLANNED COMMUNITY IN ADELAIDE

Christopher Illanes Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment for the degree of: Bachelor of Urban and Regional Planning (Honours) School of Natural and Built Environments Division of Information Technology, Engineering and the Environment PRINCIPAL SUPERVISOR Ms. Kirsten Potoczky ASSOCIATE SUPERVISOR Dr. Johannes Pieters

January 2014

“Above all, do not lose your desire to walk. Everyday, I

walk myself into a state of well-‐being & walk away from every illness. I have walked myself into my best thoughts, and I know of no thought so burdensome that one cannot walk away from it. But by sitting still, & the more one sits still, the closer one comes to feeling ill. Thus if one just keeps on walking, everything will be all right.” Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) Danish Philosopher

Kingston Parade, Lightsview – looking West

DECLARATION I declare that this thesis presents work carried out by myself and does not incorporate without acknowledgment any material previously submitted for a degree or diploma in any university; to the best of my knowledge it does not contain any materials previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the text; and all substantive contributions by others to the work presented, including jointly authored publications, is clearly acknowledged.

Christopher Illanes 29th January 2014

‘

III

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The opportunity to undertake research into aspects of health, planning and consumer preference for housing and residential amenity has been a challenging but rewarding experience. Throughout the highs and lows during this research, there has always been that one person who was continuously upbeat, caring, supportive and driven to ensure that I reached the light at the end of the tunnel regardless of what happened. This brilliant person was my Principal supervisor Ms Kirsten Potoczky, who as an experienced health planner has been an incredible source of information and guidance through all stages of this research. I was also fortunate to have an associate supervisor, Dr. Johannes Pieters who has provided support and direction from the early stages and right through to the final product. Both their academic guidance and enthusiasm has motivated me to do the very best that I can. It is without doubt, that if I weren’t privileged to have had either of them as a supervisor, the end product wouldn’t be what it is today. I would also like to thank both the team and residents of the Lightsview estate in South Australia, for being hospitable and assisting me wherever possible during this research. Last but definitely not least, I would like to say thank you to my family. They have always supported me in anyway that they can during this research and throughout my studies. Unfortunately for them, I will be undertaking a Masters of Marketing program continuing at the University of South Australia from 2014, so they won’t be able to get rid of me just yet.

ABSTRACT It is clear from the relevant literature that the design of the built environment does have a significant impact on our mental and physical health. However the literature on housing markets has not adequately addressed whether access to health promoting features is an important factor in residential location and home purchase/housing tenure decision-‐making. To address this gap, research was undertaken in the Lightsview development in Adelaide, South Australia. The Lightsview housing estate is the first master planned community in South Australia which has been developed using ‘Healthy by Design’ principles in order to promote and encourage a healthy and active lifestyle of its residents. In particular this thesis examines potential awareness (marketing) strategies such as branding for developments that employ health-‐promoting guidelines throughout its design, so the consumer is able to identify where this has occurred. In Australia there are 2 rating tools that exist which can be used to evaluate community design: ‘EnviroDevelopment’ and ‘GreenStar Communities.’ As the Lightsview estate is the pilot case study site for the latest Healthy by Design guidelines, the developers don’t currently use any branding in marketing the estate in relation to these features. A total of 215 individuals were surveyed, where data was collected and analysed with the developers research data providing a snapshot of how well health promoting features are understood. This research has found that majority of residents considered the idea of branding communities attractive, but had concerns regarding financial premiums that may be added on the development if this was to happen. The majority of residents found the design principles used as attractive and recognised particular design features as promoting health and reasons for why they live within Lightsview. V

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1

PAGE NO :

INTRODUCTION 1.1

AIMS OF RESEARCH ......................................................................................... 3

1.2

RESEARCH QUESTIONS ................................................................................... 3

1.3

CONTEXT.......................................................................................................... 3

1.4

METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................. 4

1.5

LIMITATIONS AND DELIMITATIONS ............................................................... 5

1.6

SYNOPSIS OF THE CHAPTERS ......................................................................... 7

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1

HEALTH ............................................................................................................. 8

2.2

HOUSING ........................................................................................................ 12

2.3

MASTERPLANNING ........................................................................................ 14

2.4

HEALTHY COMMUNITIES .............................................................................. 16

2.5

WHO BUYS INTO WALKABLE? ...................................................................... 19

2.6

GUIDELINES .................................................................................................... 20

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 3.1

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ................................................................................ 27

3.2

RESEARCH QUESTIONS ................................................................................. 27

3.3

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ......................................................................... 28

3.4

CASE STUDY ................................................................................................... 29

3.5

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS ............................................................. 31

3.6

ETHICS ............................................................................................................ 33 3.6.1 INFORMED CONSENT AND VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION ................ 34 3.6.2 CONFIDENTIALITY AND ANONYMITY ................................................. 34 3.6.3 RIGHT TO WITHDRAW, DO NO HARM & DEBRIEF ............................. 35

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS 4.1

SURVEYS ......................................................................................................... 36 4.1.1 QUESTION 1 .......................................................................................... 36 4.1.2 QUESTION 2 .......................................................................................... 38 4.1.3 QUESTION 3 .......................................................................................... 39

4.2

INTERVIEWS .................................................................................................... 40 4.2.1 BREAKDOWN OF RESPONSES ............................................................. 41 4.2.2 SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWS .................................................................. 42

4.3

LIGHTSVIEW POST OCCUPANCY SURVEY .................................................... 45

4.4

DISCUSSION ................................................................................................... 47

CHAPTER 5 5.1 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 51 5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 52 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................54 - 61 APPENDIX 1 LEED NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT CHECKLIST (V4) ........ 62 APPENDIX 2 BREEAM COMMUNITIES TECHNICAL MANUAL 2012 (SD202) ... 65 APPENDIX 3 QUESTIONNAIRE .......................................................... 69

VII

ABBREVIATIONS ABS AIHW BREEAM HBD LEED LEED-‐ND NHSC SA WHO

Australian Bureau of Statistics Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology Healthy by Design Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design -‐ Neighborhood Development National Housing Supply Council South Australia World Health Organisation

VIII

LIST OF FIGURES

PAGE NO:

FIGURE 1

HBD Principles

FIGURE 2

Location of Lightsview

FIGURE 3

Percentage of overweight/obesity by State and Territory

FIGURE 4

State budget vs. health expenditure (SA)

FIGURE 5

HBD Principles

FIGURE 6

LEED certification

FIGURE 7

BREEAM rating system

FIGURE 8

EnviroDevelopment Logo

FIGURE 9

Heart Foundation ‘Tick’

FIGURE 10

Conceptual Framework

FIGURE 11

Masterplan of Lightsview

FIGURE 12

Community Garden

FIGURE 13

Survey

FIGURE 14

Question 1 of Survey (Part A)

FIGURE 15

Question 1 of Survey (Part B)

FIGURE 16

Question 2 of Survey

FIGURE 17

Question 3 of Survey

FIGURE 18

Residents and Non-‐residents

FIGURE 19

Question 3 of Interview

FIGURE 20

Question 7 of Interview

FIGURE 21

Heart Foundation ‘Tick’

FIGURE 22

Top 5 reasons for living within Lightsview

FIGURE 23

Other reasons for living within Lightsview

FIGURE 24

1st preference of what they enjoy most about living

within Lightsview FIGURE 25

Eastern Footpath – City View Boulevard

FIGURE 26

Western Footpath – City View Boulevard

FIGURE 27

Comment on Survey

CHAPTER O NE Introduction

In response to declining health caused by increase in obesity rates and lack of exercise, the design of residential communities now plays a pivotal role in promoting active living. In 2006, the National Heart Foundation of Australia (Victorian Division) developed a set of guidelines based on new urbanism principles in response to health concerns affecting our communities (Sutherland & Carlisle 2007). The Healthy by Design guidelines (HBD) are designed to encourage social inclusion and increase physical activity leading to better health of residents and communities. The 7 key objectives within the latest HBD guidelines are as shown below (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1 HBD principles

SOURCE National Heart Foundation of Australia (2012) This set of best practice guidelines is well respected and has received numerous planning awards across Australia. In 2012 the South Australian Heart Foundation released their own HBD guidelines based on their Victorian counterparts. Through working collaboratively with Government and Non-‐Government agencies, a bipartisan approach to encourage people to be more active has contributed to a 1

trend of good quality residential developments, which utilise this best practice model (Brown, Smith, Hanson, Fan, Kowaleski-‐Jones & Zick 2013). In addition to guidelines available for built environment professionals to use, there exist rating tools which assess plans against guidelines and assigns a value which can then be for marketing and promotional purposes. Internationally, there are two well-‐respected rating tools used by developers to assess their projects. Both LEED-‐ND (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design – Neighbourhood Development) and BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology) allocate branding elements such as tiers and stars respectively to those developments which meet most or all of their assessment criteria. In South Australia, there is only one development that is known within the planning industry for utilising the HBD principles throughout its masterplan (as of 2013). For this research, the Lightsview housing estate within Northgate in Adelaide’s North East (Figure 2 below) will be used as the case study site throughout this research.

FIGURE 2 Location of Lightsview

Adelaide, South Australia

Lightsview Estate, Northgate SOURCE Google Maps

1.1 Aims of Research The aim of this study is to investigate whether and how residents are attracted to live in residential communities in order to access particular design features that promote a healthy lifestyle. In particular those who reside within the Lightsview housing estate were influenced in their decision making as a result. The second objective is to understand public awareness of the HBD principles used within the Lightsview estate and to begin preliminary research into potential future marketing strategies.

1.2 Research Questions

The research questions for this thesis were: •

What were the reasons why people live within the Lightsview housing estate? o And whether health-‐promoting features were a factor?

•

Whether in this decision, residents were aware of the Heart Foundation Healthy by Design guidelines or anything similar? o Are these attractive to the consumer?

•

Would the consumer like to see improved marketing and potential branding on estates which are identified as being health promoting?

1.3 Context As the need to promote a healthy and active lifestyle within the communities in which we live becomes more evident, guidelines provided by government and non-‐government agencies continue to support the need to have health promoting principles incorporated into planning and the built environment. Some developments have not used guidelines as such but have been assessed against design criteria contained in ratings tools – which then assign a value to that development.

In South Australia (SA), there are a few residential developments, which have been rated as ‘EnviroDevelopments’ by the Urban Design Institute of Australia. These include Blackwood Park in Craigburn Farm and Lochiel Park in Campbelltown. This rating tool at this stage is the only tool which provides a rating relative to livability within residential communities in Australia, although a new tool “Greenstar Communities” is currently being trialled (EnviroDevelopment 2011). Internationally there are 2 other rating tools known for their assessment of masterplans– LEED-‐ND and BREEAM, where neither of the two have any sites within Australia (Global SKM 2012). The use of HBD guidelines at Lightsview by the developer has not constituted the use of a rating as the Heart Foundation does not assess built environment projects. The concept behind this research is to investigate consumer preference relative to particular housing communities and whether health promoting features mandated by these guidelines have any impact. The Lightsview housing estate within South Australia will be used as the case study site as the developers have used the latest HBD principles throughout its entire masterplan. The HBD guideline is not a rating tool but a set of guidelines, with no current use in the marketing materials of Lightsview.

1.4

Methodology

In order to research whether health-‐promoting features are attractive to the consumer, an empirical approach comprising both qualitative and quantitative methods and analysis was used. By following a case study design approach, this research was able to review concepts relevant to a specific location. By using this model, it will allow in depth data to be collected which will then be analysed with the current literature (May 2011). As Lightsview is the pilot project for HBD guidelines 4

within Adelaide, it presented as an ideal case study site as it allowed both the objectives and aims of this research to be looked into greater detail. Based on personal previous research conducted relating to housing affordability, health and consumer preference, this helped to guide this research. By undertaking surveys, interviews, personal conversations with relevant academics and analysis of the current literature, a wide range of primary and secondary resources was used throughout this research. Through interviewing members of the public and having meetings with key stakeholders, to handing out surveys at events within Lightsview, there were a total of 215 participants involved in the data collection. The findings of this research will be of interest to those who developed Lightsview, the built environment professionals and health-‐orientated professionals.

1.5

Limitations and Delimitations Limitations Literature on the effect of design on health promoting behavior is easy to find, however a review of the current literature into consumer preference with regards to health promoting features, it was discovered that a small number of studies looked into some of the areas of this research. In particular the RESIDential Environment Study (RESIDE) project conducted in Western Australia by the Department of Planning, the Heart Foundation, Water Corporation and the University of Western Australia which evaluated the impacts of urban design on health, specifically the impact of walking, cycling, use of public transport and sense of community. Unfortunately after 5

several attempts, I was unable to obtain access to this study, as it’s confidential. But there is some research conducted on the results of their findings that are available publically. Another limitation was the need for confidentiality when accessing data from the developer based study where additional data from the developers who were conducting a post occupancy survey of residents which had some overlapping with this research. Concerns regarding overlapping and survey fatigue had to be addressed. Another issue that was faced was the limited potential case study sites that exist where HBD was used during design and development. Delimitations During the interview stage with members of the public at Lightsview, majority was asked whether they were aware of the HBD guidelines. Where potentially those who were interviewed may have been aware of other similar documents but I may have appeared as someone who was only interested in HBD. As a result of the cross-‐disciplinary nature of this topic, studies may have been missed as a result of the search terms used or differences in terminology during the literature review. As the studies found were relating to either consumer preference or health, these studies used variables which were significantly at variance from this research, this limited the use of their findings and conclusions. Based on the little literature that exists, and that majority reflects on walkability rather than guidelines and consumer preference, the findings of this research is certainly something of significance to the relevant stakeholders (Government and non-‐Government organisations).

1.6

Synopsis of the Chapters

This thesis is separated into 5 chapters – the first being the Introduction providing an overview of the aims of this research, its context, methodology used and identifying the limitations faced. The second chapter – Literature Review, analyses the existing literature that relates specifically to how housing and residential location decisions are made and the linkages with personal and family health objectives and perceptions. This chapter will also look into consumer preference and the effects of branding on developments. The third chapter – Methodology outlines the research objectives and questions, the concept behind the research (conceptual framework), the research design and outline the ethical requirements relating to the research. The fourth chapter – Findings will discuss the results of the data collected through the surveys, interviews and the post occupancy data, analysis and discussion of the results against themes from the literature. The fifth and final chapter – Conclusions and Recommendations will summarise the key findings of this research relative to the research questions and objectives. It will also outline the recommendations.

CHAPTER T WO Literature R eview 2.1 Health Increasing population As outlined in the 2010 Australian Intergenerational Report, the National government predicts the population of Australia to increase to 35.6M by 2050. Where in 2006, the Australian population was 21.6 million people; therefore the predicted increase will be 58.9% in as many years according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2006. This figure raises the issue that we need to plan for future population growth (Colitis 2007). Obesity According to Stanton (2009), 67.4% of all Australians are classified as either being overweight or obese. Where the Heart Foundation (2012a) highlighted that South Australians have the highest overweight/obesity rates anywhere in Australia in 2011/12 as shown in Figure 3 below.

FIGURE 3 Percentage of overweight/obesity by State and Territory

Overweight/

S.A

W.A

QLD

TAS

67.1% 65.9% 65.8% 65.6%

ACT

VIC

NSW

63%

62.4%

62%

61.2%

Obesity SOURCE Heart Foundation 2012

Those who are either overweight or obese have significant health, social and economic consequences as a direct result of their lack of physical activity and poor diet. Where those 67.4% are more likely to suffer from health illnesses such as heart disease and diabetes – two of the biggest killers in Australia (Heart Foundation 2012b). 8

In addition to combatting cancers, mobility problems and sleep apnoea, the shift to promote physical activity is vital to stop the alarming increase of poor health and to promote a healthy way of life. Lack of physical activity Despite the much-‐publicised benefits to ones health as a result of physical activity, people globally have been reducing the amount of physical activity they undertake (Harvard School of Public Health 2013). According to the World Health Organisation (WHO) (2011), across the Globe only 1 in 3 people get little, if any physical activity. This report also highlights that people’s physical activity levels are declining not only within wealthy countries such as Australia, but also in low and medium income countries such as China and India. The need to support a healthy and active lifestyle is becoming increasingly more important. Chronic disease in Australia has a high incidence of health diseases such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes, often caused by poor lifestyles and little physical activity (Davies 2011). The greatest component of these diseases is the lack of physical activity that results in overweight/obesity for the individual. Costs to individual and community health In South Australia (SA), the health budget represents $5 billion dollars out of the total $16 Billion for the state each year. Effectively 1/3 of the state’s entire revenue is devoted entirely to health as reflected in Figure 4 on the following page (SA Health 2013). The alarming fact is that this number is increasing each year to a point that is not justifiable and requires urgent attention.

FIGURE 4 State budget vs. health expenditure (SA)

SOURCE Department of Health 2007

According to Kiviniemi & Rothman (2008), to change ones perceptions and behaviours is a difficult task and will not happen quickly. Within many countries and jurisdictions, their healthcare system is struggling with increasing costs and to meet demand (Giles-‐Corti & Donovan 2003). As well as monetary value there is the loss of the individuals quality of life and community potential from a high burden of disease and disability. Children’s Health As discussed by Coulter & Woods 2011, children were born to be active. Whether this was through running, hopping, skipping or jumping, it was vital for children to be physically active in order to promote and support their muscular, skeletal, metabolic and neurological systems (Esliger et al 2010). However studies have found that today most children are in a sitting position throughout each day (Ngo, Pquet, Howard, Coffee & Adams 2013). By sitting to type, study, watch TV, play sports, using gaming consoles and even as a passenger in a car – these all contribute negatively towards ones lack of physical activity. Dollman (2010) found that many children replicate their parents’ attitudes and behaviour whilst growing up and believe that

sedentary behaviour is the norm, therefore highlighting the need to become more active. Ageing South Australia has the highest rate of ageing population compared to any other state or territory in Australia (South Australian Government 2012). Where by 2031, they predict 1 in 5 people will be over the age of 65 in SA. In 2007, the World Health Organisation released a set of guidelines called Global Age-‐friendly Cities. Within this document it identifies 8 design principles similar to those within the HBD guidelines. These include: 1. Design and maintenance of public spaces and buildings 2. Transportation 3. Housing 4. Social participation 5. Respect and social inclusion 6. Civic participation and employment 7. Communication and information 8. Community support and health service

SOURCE WHO 2007

To manage the rate of ageing population, 4 fundamental pillars need to be adopted by both government and non-‐government agencies, these include: security (vulnerability), activity (inclusion), education and improving health through built environments (WHO 2007). Social determinants of Health According to the South Australian Government (2013), our health and wellbeing is influenced by a wide range of factors including social, economic and environment, which are referred to as social determinants of health.

As discussed by the WHO (2008), poor social and economic circumstances have a negative effect on our health throughout life. This is greater felt at opposite ends of the social hierarchy, where within this same report it notes that those who are at the lower end of this scale do suffer from double the risk of serious illness and early death compared to those on top. Other disadvantages include poor education, insecure employment and poor quality housing, where these social determinants of health exist within all countries (Marmot 2007).

2.2 Housing As discussed above, housing is a key component of the social determinants of health. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) in their Housing Assistance Report (2013) emphasises housing plays a crucial role in the health and wellbeing of all Australians. By offering safety, security and privacy, housing is seen as a basic human right by many. Owner occupied housing is the most common form of housing tenure across Australia, where in 2011 67% of Australians (5.3 million people) owned their own dwelling (with or without a mortgage). With 25% (2.3 million people) renting their properties privately, with 5% (460,000 people), renting through public housing programs with the remaining 3% seen as unspecified as outlined in the Census. The Great Australian dream has always been to own a large family home on a quarter acre block, with a huge backyard for the kids. But the issue of public and private tenure becomes more evident due to the combination of unaffordability, dwindling supply of vacant land and our changing needs (Homelessness Australia 2011; Bruce & Kelly 2013). Adelaide is often seen as one of the most competitively priced property markets in Australia, however

the supply of well-‐located and affordable land fluctuates as a result of population growth and market demands (Forster 2006). Affordable Land and Housing In part to address the issue of well-‐located and affordable land, in 2010 the South Australian Government released the 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide. This planning strategy identifies how to accommodate growth, transport and infrastructure whilst still preserving our heritage. This plan and the legislation also attempts to address the issue of affordable housing by amending the SA planning policy to ensure that all large developments were required to include at least 15% of the total number of residences (including 5% high need), to be purchased by consumers whose income falls within certain income thresholds; these properties are referred to as affordable housing which enables both public and private investment into the issue of accessibility (South Australian Government 2010). Housing access and shortfalls According to the AIHW (2013), housing accessibility varies on supply and demand, where low accessibility remains a significant issue for all Australian Governments. According to the ABS (2009), there were approximately 7.8 million households living within private dwellings in 2008 1. This has been an increase of 10% since 2006 and of 34% since 1991 based on the Census data respectively (Housing Assistance Report 2013). The National Housing Supply Council (NHSC) estimated that the shortfall of residential properties to be approximately 228,000 dwellings in between 2001 and 2011, where this gap will increase to 370,000 dwellings by 2016 and to 492,000 dwellings by 2021 (NHSC 2012). The demand for housing in 1 It must also be noted, that this number has increased significantly during the Early 2000’s as discussed by the ABS (2009). 2 BASIX only exists in New South Wales and is included within the Environmental Planning and

most areas across Australia will always be greater for private tenure compared to public (rental) demand (NHSC 2011). Price increases Between 2001 and 2011, the median house price nationally increased by 147%; where in 2001 the median was $169,000 to $417,500 in 2011. The average income nationally increased by 57%, from $36,000 to $57,000 in the same time period, where it is predicted that a similar pattern will continue in the future (National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling 2011).

2.3 Masterplanning Much of the new housing supply in Australia is expected to come via masterplanned communities. As discussed by Bajracharya & Minnery (1999), masterplanned residential communities are large scale projects primarily driven by private sector investment. The stakeholders behind masterplanned projects, such as councils, government agencies and the developers may have an overall vision which they are aiming to achieve. Through masterplanning most variables can be incorporated to develop a strategy to help achieve the principle aims of the project (Madden 2001). Previous approach to development Moran (2007) highlights that Australia has one of the lowest population densities compared to other countries with a similar population globally. During the Mid 1900’s, suburbs were designed to support the motor vehicle, as it was a popular trend at the time. As populations within cities increase, urban sprawl is becoming a significant issue. With most areas of Adelaide being known for its heritage listed buildings and mainly low density living within our urban growth boundary (Allan 2011).

But now as our needs change and our cities continue to expand, new models of how we should design our communities and cities begins to become of even greater importance (Wales 2005). Future of masterplanning According to the South Australian Governments 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide released in 2010, the expected population of the state will be 2 million people when this plan is fully realised. That means extra land will need to be made available to accommodate this influx. The Plan for greater Adelaide has identified in order to support this growth, expanding our urban growth boundary into what used to be classified as regional areas is vital (Forster 2006). Within this planning strategy, the upgrade of the 42km commuter rail line from Gawler in the North to Noarlunga in the South is vital to support the increased density envisaged (Allan 2011). One of the key features of this strategy and the upgrade of the rail line are the several strategically placed Transit Orientated Developments (TODs) that will be established. These developments are a combination of residential, retail and commercial land use located within close proximity to community spaces and transportation corridors within a medium to high-‐density setting as envisaged in the State Governments Transit-‐orientated developments through a health lens guideline document (2011). These guidelines also follow similar design philosophies as HBD. In tandem with this, as discussed by Randolph (2004), there has been a strong demand for housing within the city core. Through urban infill and the development of Greenfield sites, this has increased densities across the metropolitan region. A local example of where masterplanning has been heading is Fulton (2006). He discusses the primary amenities of Mawson Lakes such as the train

station and the university; developers were able to take into consideration accessibility to these services. Through careful consideration of the layout of neighbourhoods and accessibility for private vehicles, stakeholders were able to have some influence and control regarding public transportation usage and increasing pedestrian activity.

2.4 Healthy Communities Town planners and government officials play a crucial role in designing and implementing the urban environments in which we live and work (Farrow & Vanderkaay 2011; Baum 2007; Capon 2007). As discussed by WHO (2010) within urbanised areas globally, children spend 80-‐90% of their day indoors within some jurisdictions. Therefore vulnerable groups such as children, elderly and those with a disability are at serious risks of poor health as a result of the urban and social environment in which they live. In 2004 the Heart Foundation in Victoria, Australia introduced: Healthy by Design – A planners guide to environments for Active Living (Heart Foundation 2012a). This document has been designed to be used as a tool for creating masterplans, designing guidelines, assessing development applications and establishing visions and planning strategies. This document is primarily aimed towards the planning profession, but also engineers, landscape architects, developers and health planners. Recently the Heart Foundation has also released a range of additional resources looking at promoting health within communities by working closely with the relevant government stakeholders. These resources include: Healthy Spaces and places – a national guide to designing places for healthy living; Active and Healthy Communities – a resource package for local government to create supportive environments for physical activity and healthy eating; Neighbourhood Walkability 16

Checklist; Food Sensitive Planning and Urban Design and Creating Healthy Neighbourhoods. To complement these new resources, the Government of SA in 2012 released its Streets for People Compendium, designing people-‐ friendly streets that promote cycling and walking. To support the HBD guidelines written by the Heart Foundation in Victoria, the Heart Foundation in SA in close partnership with key Government and non-‐Government stakeholders in 2012, released Healthy by Design SA – A guide to planning, designing and developing healthy urban environments in South Australia. HBD refers to a range of principles that contributes to the propensity of the individual being physically active (see Figure 5 below).

FIGURE 5 HBD principles

SOURCE National Heart Foundation of Australia (2012) Whether this is done through creating higher densities and having amenities nearby, or by providing aesthetically attractive environments to promote walking and promote physical activity. All of which contribute to an individual’s tendency to be physically active which will result in improved health outcomes (Sutherland & Carlisle 2007).

Throughout various reports and journal articles, it was clear to notice that there were various case studies found globally relating to health and our built environment, but very few within Australia. Although the literature from Australia commended the design of developments which utilise the HBD principles and how it would work in promoting pedestrian activity, but there was no research available publically to prove that there was an actual effect locally. The HBD principles can be seen as an ‘umbrella’ of planning design and policies, where transport, social integration, different housing types, accessibility to food and employment are key examples which must be thoroughly planned for in order to reap its benefits. Currently the HBD guidelines and principles are simply a guide and are not legislation, so developers are not obligated to follow these design principles. Whether legislation needs to change to ensure that all developers are required to implement these well-‐respected and recognised design principles; this already appears to be an observable recommendation within the early stages of this research. By strategically placing facilities such as schools, parks, public transport, shops and employment within close proximity; we are able to support a healthier lifestyle, which then supports an active routine and therefore reducing ones car dependency as a result of its neighbourhood design (Rose 2000). As discussed by Cleary & Mcclintock (2000), neighbourhoods which feature cycling infrastructure would encourage the community to utilise these facilities regardless of whether they were a cyclist or not. An interesting point found within research from Delaware in the United States, was that

properties within a close proximity to a bicycle path would increase in value by 4% (Dhanju & Racca 2006). The HBD guideline appears as an important tool, particularly when combined with achieving the goals of our planning strategy. However little evidence could be found of the general public awareness of this document. Although the report itself recognises that it increases awareness and involvement by both the public and private sector developers. It suggests that this document is primarily used by those professionals within the planning industry, however public awareness of this document which identifies key principles relating to how they live appears to be lacking.

2.5 Who buys into walkable? As discussed by Mapes & Wolch (2011), in the past decade there has been an increasing trend developing by those marketing new residential communities across the Globe, that claim their neighbourhoods set them apart from the rest. These developments are often advertised as being environmentally friendly, high quality and attractive – an address which residents can take ‘pride’ of living in (Kriese & Scholz 2011). These qualities which consumers would value would vary between each development. As discussed by Evans & Unsworth (2001), there is a strong focus on environmental qualities relating to consumer preference. Other amenities such as close proximity to playgrounds and feeling of safety are equally as important (Lichtenstein & Slovic 2006). From small to large sized allotments, these qualities can be attributed to any community. According to research undertaken by Ayturk & Fischer (2011), the size of the property is a critical factor when deciding where to live. Where adaptability to ones changing needs as time progresses, namely 19

around family and work commitments is a major factor (Dunse, Thanos & Bramley 2013; Beer, Faulkner, Baker, Tually, Raftery & Cutler 2009). In terms of identifying the type of individual who would live within a community which has been designed to support a healthy and active lifestyle, this remains unclear. Although one would likely assume that a health focused and active individual would move into this estate, there is no evidence that supports this locally. There have been studies from the United Kingdom which looks into consumer preference, however these related healthy communities to merely an increase of density (Fisher & Ayturk 2011). In terms of analysing the main features of a healthy community, there are various studies which support elements such as footpaths, playgrounds, parks, access to food and cycling infrastructure as being attractive (Dunse et al 2013). In terms of density, concerns relative to overcrowding, noise and privacy act as the main deterrence towards following similar modelling in SA as outlined by Fisher & Ayturk 2011.

2.6 Guidelines Across the globe, guidelines have been produced by several bodies to promote either health or environmental responsibility (or both). In Australia, these guidelines are limited. In the United States there are many, but the most commonly used guidelines include: Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED), Living Building Challenge, Green Globes, Build it Green, National Association of Home Builders National Green Building Standard (NAHB NGBS), International Green Construction code (IGCC) and Energy Star (Azhar, Carlton, Olsen & Ahmed (2011)). The LEED rating system has been applied to over 60,000 projects in the United States and across 30 other countries mainly in China, United Arab Emirates, Brazil, Canada and 20

India. LEED is one of the few bodies that have established a rating tool for communities – LEED for Neighbourhood Development (LEED-‐ND). These guidelines take into consideration within the assessment; its location, ecology, water and land conservation, remediation works, access to quality transport, bicycle facilities, housing and jobs proximity, conservation management, walkability, open spaces, density, affordability, accessibility, community involvement, education, streetscapes and local food production (Kyrkou & Karthaus 2011). As discussed by Mapes & Wolch 2011, there has been a strong push to provide uniform guidelines for new community developments. The LEED-‐ND model was first used in 2007 as a pilot project based on new urbanism concepts. Where Forysth (2005) pointed out that after extensive negotiations with the relevant planning authorities and key stakeholders, many developers found the concept unattractive and ‘abandoned’ using similar guidelines as it was not required to be used by the relevant planning authorities in order to obtain approval for their developments. All LEED rating systems -‐ including the LEED-‐ND model, use a point structure where developments are awarded up to 110 points within the following categories: Smart location & linkage, Neighbourhood pattern & design, Green Infrastructure & buildings, Innovation & Design Process and Regional Priority Credits – with the last two act as bonus categories to increase the points obtained (see Appendix 1 for LEED-‐ND Checklist pg. 62). As shown in Figure 6 on the following page, all LEED certifications are awarded tokens relevant to their tier, where Certified requires 40-‐49 points, Silver 50-‐59 points, Gold 60-‐79 points and Platinum 80+ points (US Green Building Council 2013). As of October 2013, there are a total of 115 LEED-‐ND certified projects throughout the United States according to their website.

FIGURE 6 LEED Certification

SOURCE Vert Energy Group

Within the U.S., many federal, state and local governments provide incentives to developers who use LEED certification. These include: tax breaks, reduced development application fees, expedited approvals, government grants and low interest loans, with the goal to promote uniform use of this tool (Arny 2005). As discussed by Fuerst & McAllister (2011), LEED is well recognised by consumers for acting as the authority in assessing developments in terms of sustainability. According to their research, they discovered that sale prices and occupancy rates within commercial office buildings increased, as a result of using the LEED rating system on its marketing material, where rental properties attracted a 9% increase and resale attracted an 18% -‐ 25% premium. Buildings which had more than one certification, e.g. LEED and Energy Star attracted an additional 5-‐10% respectively on top of the LEED premiums (Cole & Valdebenito 2013; Fuerst & McAllister 2011). However nothing was found to show whether residential property values increased after using the LEED-‐ND tool. Another well-‐known rating tool is the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM). Similar to LEED, BREEAM undertakes an assessment of developments based on certain criteria and awards a star rating as shown in Figure 7 on the following page (Anderson, Sheirs & Sinclair 2008). 22

FIGURE 7 BREEAM Rating System

SOURCE BREEAM

The BREEAM rating tool is primarily used within the United Kingdom and over 50 other countries mainly within Europe and Asia, with over 200,000 developments certified using this tool (Aspinal 2012). Similar to LEED, the BREEAM rating tool is mainly used to assess environmental sustainability within the construction industry. In 2008 BREEAM released its BREEAM Communities rating tool, with a restructure of the checklist in 2012. The main categories that residential developments are now assessed under include governance, social and economic wellbeing, resource and energy, land use and ecology and transport and movement (see Appendix 2 for the BREEAM Communities checklist (2012) pg. 65). Within Australia there are several rating tools which exist: the National Australian Built Environment Rating Scheme (NABERS) which assesses environmental impact and use; Building Sustainability Index (BASIX) which aims to reduce water and energy consumption2; Sustainable Tools for Environmental Performance (STEPS); Sustainable Design Scorecard (SDS); Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS); Greensmart which supports builders in developing environmentally sustainable housing; ‘EnviroDevelopment’ which provides certification under the elements of 2 BASIX only exists in New South Wales and is included within the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (NSW Government Planning and Infrastructure 2012). 23

ecosystems, waste, energy, materials, water and liveability within the community and ‘Greenstar’ which provides ratings for commercial spaces and communities (Global SKM 2012). The latter two rating tools: ‘EnviroDevelopment’ and Greenstar are the only ratings tools which exist within Australia to assess residential communities. As the Greenstar community rating tool is still in its pilot stage, this rating tool is unlikely to be seen for sometime within private sector development, as the pilot site is the $6 billion Barangaroo urban regeneration project on the Sydney Harbour in New South Wales (Municipal Engineering Australia 2013). As with Greenstars’ other rating systems, communities will be awarded on a point system where 45-‐59 points is seen as Best Practice (4 Star), 60-‐74 points is Australian Excellence (5 Star) and 75+ points is seen as World Leadership (6 Star) (Green Building Council of Australia 2012). The tool assesses communities under: governance, design and liveability, economic prosperity, environment and innovation. For communities to be assessed using this rating tool from the Green Building Council of Australia, as of October 2013 the fee is $60,000 for each development after the pilot project is completed (Green Building Council of Australia 2013). As this rating tool is still in the early stages, the final checklist has not been released to the public at this stage. However the current draft is very similar to that of BREEAM Communities (Appendix 2 pg. 65). Effectively the only rating tool which exists in Australia relative to communities currently, is the ‘EnviroDevelopment.’ As reflected in Figure 8 on the following page, these type of developments are assessed under 6 different elements as mentioned previously, where the assessment will

award different symbols so the developer can include them in their marketing material (see Figure 8 below).

FIGURE 8 EnviroDevelopment Logo

SOURCE UDIA

The community element is assessed for safety, aesthetics, walkability, accessibility and design. Where developers can pay up to $16,500 for certification under this rating tool (EnviroDevelopment 2011). Use of the ‘EnviroDevelopments’ rating tool is popular across the eastern states of Australia (Municipal Engineering Australia 2013). These developments are well respected and acknowledged by planning professionals; however these types of developments primarily focus on environmental sustainability. Future A neighbourhood is no longer defined by its boundary on a map, but is now widely recognised as having its own identity. Where people can live, work, shop and interact with their neighbours within a cohesive manner, where residents can walk the streets and feel safe (Slavin 2011). Essentially there are many qualities which one can find located within a ‘good quality’ neighbourhood as discussed by Duany & Plater-‐Zyberk (2010), these include: a distinct town centre, a variety of different housing options, mixed use, access to education, playgrounds within walking distance from all dwellings, connected streets for walkability, narrow and shaded streets, pedestrian priority and good quality public open spaces and facilities. Studies have shown that developments, which utilise branding for being environmentally conscious does attract a sales premium (Langdon 2007). The real estate market has identified higher financial returns on 25

developments when branding by well-‐respected rating tools such as LEED and Green Star on residential properties is used (Fuerst & McAllister 2009). Nonetheless, use of these guidelines in branding of developments has become increasingly popular. Branding by the Heart Foundation is well respected and widely recognised by its distinguishable tick too most (Figure 9

FIGURE 9 Heart Foundation ‘Tick’ of Approval

right). However it is only used for identifying healthy food, therefore restricting its potential use in rating communities (Mueller & Umberger 2010). These guidelines aid in establishing a best practice model to help the relevant

SOURCE Wellbeing

stakeholders in achieving a high quality development in terms of achieving environmental sustainability and improved quality of life for its users. As majority of the rating tools which exist globally are third party, there is little requirement for developers to use these guidelines, however particular branding allows developers to increase their financial return as a result of its use (Cole & Valdebenito 2013; Philiastides & Ratcliff 2013; Fuerst & McAllister 2009). After an analysis of the guidelines which exist currently, the LEED-‐ND (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for New Developments) appears to be the most comprehensive model which includes health and environmental aspects. Where these tools essentially act as a branding element for developers who are able to use this in marketing their developments and within some jurisdictions receive from incentives from governments for their use. Use of these guidelines are expensive with fees varying on the size of the development, as of 2013 use of the ‘EnviroDevelopment’ rating tool starts from $3300, to over $500,000 for LEED-‐ND certification. 26

CHAPTER THREE Methodology Within this section of the thesis, it will detail the following: research objectives, research questions, conceptual framework, research design and ethical considerations as required by the University.

3.1 Research Objectives

The research objectives for this thesis were to: •

Investigate why people decide to live within communities designed with health promoting principles

•

To understand the level of awareness of the Healthy by Design principles used within the Lightsview estate

•

And to begin preliminary research and analysis into potential branding for communities which promote a healthy and active lifestyle.

3.2 Research Questions

The research questions for this thesis were: •

To identify what were the reasons why people live within the Lightsview housing estate? o And whether health-‐promoting features were a factor?

•

Whether people are aware of the Healthy by Design guidelines or anything similar? o Are these attractive to the consumer?

•

Would the consumer like to see improved branding on estates which are identified as being ‘healthy?’

3.3 Conceptual Framework

FIGURE 10 Conceptual Framework Review the literature that looks into d evelopments/communities and consumer preference within Australia

Identify gap in knowledge/research

Significance of research Review the literature that looks into d evelopments/communities and consumer preference globally

Identify case study

Recommendations for future work

The aim of this research is to identify why consumers live within a masterplanned housing estate and specifically whether health promoting design features were a reason why they chose to live within this development. Secondly to review the current literature and research that looks into healthy communities and consumer demands both within Australia and globally. This will assist in identifying the amount of literature which exists on the topic to date and where gaps currently exist within this area as shown in the Conceptual Framework in Figure 10 above. The amount of literature that exists on consumer preference when purchasing property within healthy communities is limited. Although the research already assumes that consumers would likely find the idea of living within a healthy community attractive, research is needed to identify what could assist them in identifying these developments.

According to May (2011), by using a case study research approach it allows the researcher to obtain in depth data on a specific site related to the topic. Where due to the limited case studies that exist, there was a narrow selection. Within South Australia, the only example of a community that has used the Heart Foundations HBD guidelines throughout its masterplan (which is known publically) is the Lightsview housing estate in Northgate in Adelaide’s North East. As reviewed in Chapter 2, due to the rising concerns around health it is expected that this research will be of great significance to various stakeholders. Ranging from the team who designed Lightsview, to town planners, the Heart Foundation, property developers, marketing staff, university academics and those who have a general interest within any of these areas. The findings of this research will assist key stakeholders in promoting these types of communities.

3.4 Case study

In order to determine why people live within the Lightsview housing estate and whether health-‐promoting features are attractive to the consumer, an empirical approach comprising both qualitative and quantitative methods and analysis was used. By using a case study design approach, this research was able to relate the current literature to a selected site in order to investigate the objectives and aims of this research. The Lightsview housing estate is a master planned development which has been developed on a Greenfields site and is located 8kms North East of the Adelaide CBD within the suburb of Northgate in SA. The private and public joint-‐venture development between the Canberra Investment Corporation (CIC) and Renewal SA (at the time the Land Management Corporation) used HBD guidelines to develop a residential community that promotes a healthy 29

and active lifestyle from the initial concept in 2007 and therefore acting as a pilot site for the HBD guidelines in SA (Heart Foundation 2012). Complemented by its landscaped parks, open reserves, water features, lakes and meticulously designed and located walkways and cycling trails found throughout the development as shown in the Masterplan below (Figure 11), aid in establishing Lightsview as a ‘prestigious’ community in which residents can take ‘pride’ in the high quality community which they call home, as discussed on the Lightsview website.

FIGURE 11 Masterplan of Lightsview

SOURCE Fogarty 2007

Lightsview is advertised as a ‘premium’ development and this is reflected in their marketing material and cost of land. According to RPData (2013), Northgate has a median sale price of $517,500 in 2013, where the metropolitan region of Adelaide had a median price of $355,000 for the same time period. The HBD pilot project can be identified as an expensive area, regardless of the 15% allocation of affordable housing as required by the planning legislation. 30

As discussed by Fogarty (2011), the developers had the aim of establishing a new benchmark for masterplanned developments. With input from government agencies and health organisations, the Lightsview development has been recognised to date as a successful project which has incorporated walkability, good quality open spaces, promoting sustainability and providing wide housing diversity. Merged with what has been discussed in the Literature (Chapter 2), the Lightsview estate can be seen as an ideal case study site, as it strives to set new industry standards and promote the HBD guidelines throughout its masterplan.

3.5 Data Collection and Analysis

The research will be of a deductive approach as the observations and findings was based on theory obtained from the relevant literature. In order to accomplish the research aims and objectives as examined previously within Chapters 3.1 and 3.2, a combination of surveys and interviews were conducted. Post Occupation Survey Centred on preliminary discussions within the early stages of this research with the developers (CIC Australia) at their request, I amended my questions which I asked in the surveys, due to their concerns regarding overlapping and survey fatigue of residents in their post occupancy survey and my research. This survey was sent to all of those who live within Lightsview where various aspects of the development were researched. Surveys Fortunately I was provided unidentified data obtained from their post occupation survey for the questions which were relevant to this research. However as a result of other reasons, interviews were conducted as I was no longer expecting to receive this data from their surveys. 31

Fortunately I received this data after I had undertaken these interviews, so the total number of participants was greater which further supports the findings of this research. In order to obtain an adequate sample size, a goal of at least 20 valid responses from the surveys was required in order to make these findings valid and supported (May 2010). The questions asked in my surveys looked into what HBD principles were important to the residents of Lightsview and which ones they identified as existing within the development. These surveys were conducted on the 25th of August 2013 when Lightsview launched their ‘Community Veggie Patch’, which is located in front of the Urban Lights Café within Lightsview (Figure 12 below). FIGURE 12 Community Garden

SOURCE Urban Sprout Facebook Page

Within the HBD guidelines, one of the seven design principles that underpin this set of guidelines is the supply of local food. As described within this document, developments should support the ability to grow food locally (Heart Foundation 2012a). As this launch was during the ‘Fair Food Week,’ OPAL (Obesity Prevention and Lifestyle) teamed with Lightsview to launch its community vegetable garden. OPAL is a State Government initiative which works with local 32

councils to promote healthy eating and exercise within the community. This launch allowed local residents to meet each other and to indulge in a free healthy breakfast. This allowed me to meet the local residents from a wide range of demographics who were present and to complete my surveys. An A5 size postcard was created to be used in the survey and outlines the nature of my research to the public and the questions being asked, as shown in Figure 13 below. I have kept it as short as possible in order to obtain as many responses as I can (see Appendix 3 pg. 69 for a larger size of the survey). FIGURE 13 Survey

Front side of Questionnaire

Back of Questionnaire

Interviews For the interviews, a total of 15 were conducted at random locations throughout Lightsview in Late 2013. The questions asked allowed both residents and non-‐residents to offer their opinion on potential branding and identify what features they enjoy most about Lightsview. All of this data is shown within graphs and discussions in later chapters.

3.6 Ethics Prior to the commencement of this research, in July 2013 Dr Ian Clark – Associate Head of the School of Natural and Built Environments, provided 33

ethics approval on behalf of the University of South Australia’s Human Research Ethics committee. By using the well-‐known IVCARD ethics model used in social and medical research, this guided the research through each of the requirements needed to obtain ethics approval from the University (National Health and Medical Research Council 2011).

3.6.1 Informed Consent and Voluntary Participation

One of the ethic requirements is to ensure all participants involved in the data collection do so at their own will. All data collected, from interviews and surveys will be stored in a locked cabinet for 5 years as required by the University of South Australia’s Human Research Ethics committee. All data collected will be used entirely and only for those purposes necessary to complete this research.

3.6.2 Confidentiality and Anonymity

One of the major ethical requirements is to ensure confidentiality. Where all data collected, from interviews and surveys will be stored in a locked cabinet as required. All data collected was used entirely and only for those purposes necessary to complete this research. Both survey participants and the identities of those who were interviewed, will remain confidential at all times. Prior to commencing the interviews, I would advise them beforehand, and if requested, I would not record a transcript and or publish their name and occupation if it arose during the interviews.

No identity markers was used during the data collection, to not identify them in any way in order to protect their identity as discussed by Matthews & Ross 2010, pg. 187.

3.6.3 Right to Withdraw, Do No Harm & Debrief

All participants involved had the right to withdraw at anytime without prejudice. All data collection was undertaken in a respectful and responsible manner, where their personal safety was maintained throughout. I also ensured that I always wore the University’s polo shirt and had my student ID available at all times during the data collection to confirm my identity. If requested by any of the participants, I would have been more than happy to provide them with a summary of the findings from this research with all confidential information omitted – however no request was made.

CHAPTER FOUR Findings The following chapter provides a description of the results obtained from the surveys and interviews that were undertaken as described within the previous chapters. Due to the empirical approach which has been undertaken, surveys and interviews were decided to be used to best answer the aims and objectives of this research. As mentioned within the Methodology (Chapter 3), I was able to access data from the Lightsview Post Occupancy survey which was distributed to its residents in Late 2013.

4.1 Surveys The following results came from after attending the community garden launch on the 25th of August 2013. Where a total of 36 valid responses was obtained – 35 from asking them questions directly and filling out the survey, and 1 who completed the survey at a table set up next to the café.

Question 1 The first question asked, ‘Are you aware that Lightsview has been designed to promote a healthy and active lifestyle?’ From these 36 responses, 92% (n.33) were aware that Lightsview has been designed to promote a healthy and active lifestyle, compared to 8% (n.3) who were not as shown in Figure 14 on the following page. Those who were not familiar therefore did not list any features in their response.

FIGURE 14 Question 1 of the Survey (Part A)

Are you aware that Lightsview has been designed to promote a healthy and acbve lifestyle?

Yes (33)

No (3)

92%

The next part of this question asked participants: if yes, what features are you aware of? From the 92% (n.33) who answered yes, there was a diverse range of responses provided. As there were not any hints on this side of the survey form, participants were required to think on what those features were. As shown in Figure 15 below, there were 10 different responses provided to this question.

FIGURE 15 Question 1 of the Survey (Part B )

What features are you aware of? 3 3

Water Recyling Community Events Design Encumbrances Community Garden Gardens Tennis Courts Playgrounds Cycling Paths Parks Walking

6 6 7 8 9 10 18 19 0

Number of People

As shown previously the most common response to this question was walking with 57% of participants (n.19) selecting this as one of their responses. Out of the total 33 who answered, all selected a range of features as their response to this question.

4.1.1 Question 2

The second question of the survey listed: Lightsview has been designed to incorporate: o an integrated network for pedestrians and cyclists o provide an attractive and safe streetscape and environment o local amenities which promote vibrant neighbourhoods o good quality open spaces & infrastructure o range of good quality higher density properties o and supply of local sustainable food Are these important to you? Please tick which ones are most important above. As shown in Figure 16 below, from the 36 responses obtained, good quality open spaces and infrastructure, was the most important feature selected by majority of the participants (72% (n.24)). As with Question 1 of the survey, respondents were able to select more than one choice. FIGURE 16 Question 2 of the Survey

What features are most important to you? 18

Supply of local sustainable food

Range of good quality higher density

Good quality open spaces & infrastructure 19

Local amenites which promote vibrant

Provide an asractve and safe streetscape and

An integrated network for pedestrians and 0

Number of People

It was assumed that most residents would not have recognised that these 6 principles are what underpin the Heart Foundations HBD guidelines. From those 35 who completed this survey in front of me, none alluded that these belonged to a specific document or anything similar. It is unknown whether the one individual who completed this survey at the tables, knew of these guidelines as I was not able to observe their verbal and physical cues. Based on the total of 36 responses, all participants nominated at least two principles which were most important to them -‐ these are discussed in Chapter 4.4 pg. 47.

4.1.2 Question 3

The third and final question of the survey asked participants: ‘Do you feel that the design of Lightsview has supported an active and healthy lifestyle? Please briefly state your reasons why: ’

FIGURE 17 Question 3

Out of the 36 responses, 97% (n.35) said Yes to this question (Figure 10). The participant who answered No to this was one who completed this in front of

Has Lightsview supported a healthy and acbve lifestyle? 3%

me. Where this elderly Yes

gentleman held concerns

regarding dangers to pedestrian safety due to the extra width of

97%

some footpaths, promoting cycling and skateboarding use. As shown in Figure 17 above, out of the 97% who answered Yes, 86% (n.31) referred to those features which were listed in either Question 1 or 2. With 39

the remaining 13% (n.5) identified that Lightsview has encouraged them to exercise more frequently due to the good quality and attractive facilities which exist within the estate.

4.2 Interviews

A total of 15 interviews were conducted within Lightsview on the 2nd and 3rd of November 2013. Those who were interviewed were approached at random locations throughout the estate. Each participant was asked 7 questions, where these are shown on the following page.