4.2.2 Summary of Interviews Question 1 Based on the 15 interviews that were conducted within Lightsview, 86% (n.13) were residents and the remaining 14% (n.2) were those who lived locally within surrounding areas (Figure 18).
FIGURE 18 Residents and Non-‐residents
Those who were interviewed
Interviews
ranged from people who appeared to be within the age bracket of 20 – 70 years old,
13% Residents
therefore representing as a comprehensive demographic for
Non-‐residents 87%
interviews. Question 2 From these 15 people, 10 were aware that Lightsview has been designed to support a healthy and active lifestyle, therefore demonstrating that 66% of interviewees were aware of its design – compared to the 34% (n.5) who was not. Question 3 As show in Figure 19 on the following page, the most popular amenity that the interviewees appreciated about Lightsview was the aesthetics of the estate, with 73% (n.11) selecting this as one of their choices. As those who were interviewed were able to nominate multiple reasons as to what they enjoy about Lightsview, 33% (n.5) selected three, 40% (n.6) selecting two and 27% (n.4) selecting one reason.
42
FIGURE 19 Question 3 of Interview
What features they admire within Lightsview?
Footpaths
2
LocaEon
7
Parks
10
General AestheEcs
11 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Number of people
With 46% (n.7) of those who were interviewed selecting both parks and the overall aesthetics of the estate, as there most preferred features of Lightsview. Questions 4 and 5 With only 20% (n.3) knowing of the HBD guidelines, compared to 80% who were not familiar aware of them (n.12). None of those who were interviewed could identify any of the HBD principles. I briefly went through these principles, with 93% (n.14) of respondents seeing these as being attractive and would look upon communities which employ these guidelines and principles more favourably, compared to 7% (n.1) who felt otherwise due to safety concerns as a result of parks. Question 6 Based on those who were familiar, 66% (n.2) believed that Mawson Lakes, Blakes Crossing and Seaford Meadows were housing communities which were similar to Lightsview as these were newer forms of development.
43
Question 6 FIGURE 20 Question 7 of Interview
Interviewees who would support improved branding
27% 40%
Yes No No preference
33%
As shown in Figure 20 above, 40% (n.6) would
FIGURE 21 Heart Foundation Tick
support branding and improved marketing from the Heart Foundation on communities that utilise these design principles. From those 33% (n.5) who would not support improved branding, held concerns over the use of the well known and respected Heart Foundations tick as they are most commonly known for working with food
SOURCE Wellbeing
and not residential communities (Figure 21 right). Where the 27% who held no preference were cautious with potential branding as they felt it would likely contribute towards a financial premium being added on living within this development.
44
4.3 Lightsview Post Occupancy Survey As mentioned within previous chapters, I was able to obtain access to some of the data from the Lightsview Post Occupancy survey which was distributed to everyone who lives within the development. From the thousands who were emailed, there were a total of 190 responses received. As the survey allowed users to skip questions, there are some discrepancies with the sample size in each question.
FIGURE 22 Top 5 reasons for living within Lightsview
Top 5 reasons for living within Lightview (% of responses)
Quality of exis_ng development
Overall Lightsview Vision
Parks and Recrea_on Spaces
Look and feel of Lightsview
Proximity to CBD
36.60% 47.00% 49.40% 60.40% 82.30%
NOTE 164 Respondents
Similar to those questions which I asked in my surveys and interviews, those who participated in the Post Occupancy Survey were able to select more than one response. As shown in Figure 22 above, based on the 164 responses -‐ 82.3% (n. 135) selected that the estates close proximity to the CBD was one of the most popular reasons for living within the estate.
45
FIGURE 23 Other reasons for living within Lightsview
Other reasons for living within Lightsview
Sales process
Other (Unknown)
Close to schools
Recommenda_on
Variety in housing choice
To be close to family and friends
Sense of Community
1.8% 7.3% 9.8% 10.4% 13.4% 15.2% 24.4%
Close to where they previously live
27.4%
Access to high speed internet
28.7%
Proximity to Shops
28.7%
Affordability
32.3%
Encumbrance
32.9%
As shown in Figure 23 above, there was a wide range of different reasons received for this survey as to why people live within Lightsview. It is reflected above that the aesthetics, public spaces and overall vision of Lightsview were the main reasons why people live within the estate. Comparing to the other popular reasons such as its short proximity to amenities and the variety of housing on offer -‐ these reasons relate to the HBD principles.
46
FIGURE 24 1st preference of what they enjoy most about living within Lightsview
1st Preference of what they enjoy most about living within Lightsview
Encumbrances Level of Security
Quality of Parklands
Sense of Community
2 6 7 8 17
Mix of Housing
36
Walkability
NOTE 76 Respondents
Within this survey, residents were able to select what their first preference was of what they enjoy most about living within Lightsview (Figure 24 above). From the 76 responses received for this question, 47.3% (n.36) selected that walkability was what they enjoyed most about being a resident.
4.4 Discussion Survey
As shown previously within this chapter, walkability and aesthetics are the most attractive features based on those surveyed at the community garden launch. Where visual elements were easier to identify as opposed to things one couldn’t visualise such as safety, healthy food availability, housing tenure, etc. From the participants who undertook the surveys, all acknowledged a range of features that they identified as existing within Lightsview. The most popular combination being both walking and parks which was answered by 48% of respondents.
47
These responses showed that the participants held a comprehensive understanding on what health-‐promoting features exist within Lightsview. However the only gap in the responses provided was Safety which is a feature commonly discussed in literature but not marketed as health. As discussed within the HBD guidelines (Heart Foundation 2004), the feeling of safety has a significant impact on our health and affects how we are involved within our communities. During the completion of the surveys, there were a lot of verbal cues from the participants with most praising the design of Lightsview. The only complaint from the 36 surveyed, was of an elderly gentleman who complained that the design of Lightsview attracted too many ‘bad eggs’ due to the width of the footpath and the danger this presents to other pedestrians – although a wide and narrow footpath is provided on opposite sides of the street as shown in Figure 25 and 26 below.
FIGURE 25 Eastern footpath on Cityview Boulevard (Wide)
FIGURE 26 Western footpath on Cityview Boulevard (Narrow)
The other complaint by the same participant was that due to the amount of construction which is currently taking place, there is a lot of rubbish dumped along the footpaths and nature reserves which make it difficult to use. 48
However in opposing views, 75% of participants went out of their way to compliment key features within Lightsview when they were filling out these surveys. These features included the wide footpaths, many parks and good quality infrastructure that exist within Lightsview. Where one participant even went to the effort of writing: ‘There needs to be more urban planning and design like Lightsview available in all areas of Adelaide’ (Figure 27 below).
FIGURE 27 Comment on Survey
Interviews Surprisingly the data obtained from these interviews were similar to that of the surveys. From the interviews, 93% would look upon communities, which engage with the HBD principles within its design more favourably. However in terms of potential branding there was mixed results. The strong verbal cues from those interviewed suggest that most would welcome the idea, but held
49
reservations about price increases on the development as a result of its use and how this would work. An interesting point to highlight during the interviews was that those who were familiar only knew so after the sales staff from Lightsview pointed out the main design features. Similar to those who were surveyed earlier in the research, participants were able to define those features that were HBD related as these were visuals (footpaths, cycling trails etc.). Where again only 20% was aware of the HBD guidelines and 93% found this attractive. As Lightsview is a new development, those who were interviewed saw Lightsview as being similar to other new developments that are currently taking place across the state. However only 20% were aware of the HBD guidelines existence, and those who were aware of its existence, 66% associated other new housing estates as being similar to that Lightsview in terms of design features. Post Occupancy Data An interesting point that is evident in this data is the estates close proximity to the CBD proved to be the most popular reason why people live in Lightsview. However other features such as aesthetics and the amount of parks provided proved as also very important amenities to the consumer. Where 47.3% selected that walkability was what they enjoyed most about being a resident of Lightsview. As with both the surveys and interviews, the residents identified that the features they enjoy about Lightsview were qualities which promote a healthy lifestyle and likely unaware that these features all relate to the HBD principles.
50
CHAPTER FIVE Conclusion and Recommendations 5.1 Conclusion After a thorough literature review, it was evident to note that a lack of literature and research exists relating to health promoting communities and why people live within those particular developments. After talking with numerous university academics across Australia, researching what is available within the current literature, it became clear that there was a lot of research discussing the importance of communities which support a healthy and active lifestyle, but very little on consumer preference relating to this area. I believe that this thesis is the first research of its kind which looks at a South Australian example of a healthy community. After researching the thoughts of a total of 215 participants, I feel the findings of this research are significant and important to the team which designed Lightsview, the Heart Foundation, town planners, property developers, marketing staff, university academics and those who have a general interest within these fields. Complemented by the estates close proximity to the CBD, walkability, quality public spaces and aesthetics of the estate, these acted as the primary reasons for why people live within Lightsview, where these reasons reflect on the HBD guidelines and principles. As shown in the data within the previous chapter, walkability is an important quality about living within the development. Based on the surveys and interviews, 84% (n.43) were aware that Lightsview has been designed to support a healthy and active lifestyle but mainly associate the visual elements
51
such as bike and walking facilities as examples. Of those who were interviewed, 20% were aware of the Heart Foundations HBD guidelines, where 66% recognised other housing estates across SA as being similar to that of Lightsview, which is likely as a result of these being newer types of development. As a brand the Heart Foundation is well respected, however they are known for food and not for urban development projects. Those who were interviewed found the idea of branding attractive on estates, however they held concerns over the likely financial premiums being added for entry into the development. During the data collection, there was overwhelming praise of the design and quality of the Lightsview estate where after my surveys and interviews, it was likely that the participant would now look at Lightsview from a different perspective.
5.2 Recommendations Based upon the research conducted, the following recommendations are suggested: •
The well-‐known and respected Heart Foundation to partner with GreenStar and develop a scoring system similar to that of LEED-‐ND in the United States, but with a strong focus on the respected HBD principles and use Lightsview as the pilot project. This tool can then be used during the design of a developments masterplan in future projects and to promote the development during the sales phase.
•
Although a widely recognised and respected trend, the need to design communities which promote a healthy and active lifestyle is not a legal requirement for developments. Therefore potential lobbying should be
52
undertaken to encourage the Government to introduce legislation requiring developments to be assessed using this tool, particularly as our planning system is undertaking a reform. •
By ensuring that all developments are required to use this tool, this would aid in establishing a new norm and demand for high quality health promoting communities and would reduce the concern regarding financial premiums on entry as all developments are required to use this tool and publically display their rating during the sales phase, in order to obtain approval for the masterplanned development.
•
A long-‐term research recommendation is to examine how much of an effect, HBD principles has had on residents health as was initially suggested by the Healthy Places and Spaces Case Study on Lightsview in 2009.
53
References
1. Allan, A 2011, Land use planning and its role in transforming the Adelaide-‐ Gawler line into a transit corridor of connected transit oriented developments, Australasian Transport Research Forum, South Australia. 2. Arny, M 2005, Strong incentives exist for LEED-‐EB; economic rewards will drive participation by building owners (Engineering For Green Buildings), Penton Publishing, United States. 3. Aspinal, S 2012, How Accurately Does Breeam Measure Sustainability?, Creative Education, Vol. 3, Issue no. 7. 4. Australian Bureau of Statistics 2009. Housing occupancy and costs, 2007–08. ABS cat. no. 4130.0. Canberra: ABS 5. Australian Government, 2010, Intergenerational Report 2010, Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. 6. Australian Bureau of Statistics 2013. Housing occupancy and costs, 2011–12. ABS cat. no. 4130.0. Canberra: ABS 7. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2013. Housing assistance in Australia 2013. Canberra: AIHW. 8. Azhar, S, Carlton, WA, Olsen, D & Ahmad, I 2011, Building information modeling for sustainable design and LEED rating analysis, vol. 20, issue. 2, pp. 217-‐224. 9. Bajracharya, B & Minnery, J 1999 'Visions, planning processes and outcomes: master planned communities in south east Queensland', Australian planner, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 33. 10. Baum, F. 2007. People and places, Bedford Park, South Australia, Flinders University. 11. Beer, A, Faulkner, D, Baker, E, Tually, S, Raftery, P & Cutler, C 2009, Our Homes, Our Communities: the aspiration and expectations of older people in South Australia, Flinders University for ECH Inc, South Australia. 12. Breeam 2012, BREEAM Communities Technical Manual SD202, viewed 20 December 2013, <http://www.kwvp.nl/template/media/breeam_communities_1_0_0_-‐ _sept_2012.pdf>
54
13. Brown B, Smith, K, Hanson, H, Fan, J, Kowaleski-‐Jones, L & Zick, C, 2013, Neighborhood Design for Walking and Biking: Physical Activity and Body Mass Index. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 44, 231-‐238. 14. Bruce, M & Kelly, S 2013, Expectations, Identity and Affordability: The Housing Dreams of Australia’s Generation Y, Routledge, London. 15. Capon, A. G. 2007. The way we live in our cities. Medical Journal of Australia, 187, 658-‐61. 16. Chegut A, Eicholtz P, Kok N. Supply, Demand and the Value of Green Buildings. Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, March 2012. 17. Colitis, P (2007), ‘Planning for Regions in Australia,’ Chapter 3, Reshaping-‐Urban Problems and Policies, Pluto Press, Sydney Australia. 18. Cole, RJ & Valdebenito, MJ 2013, The importation of building environmental certification systems: international usages of BREEAM and LEED, Routledge, London. 19. Coulter, M & Woods, CB (2011), An exploration of children's perceptions and enjoyment of school based physical activity and physical education', Journal of Physical Activity and Health, vol.8, pp. 645-‐654. 20. Davies, R 2011 'Parliamentary Inquiry into Environmental Design and Public Health', Planning News, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 15-‐16. 21. Dhanju, A & Racca, D 2006, Property Value/Desirability Effects of Bike Paths Adjacent to Residential Areas, Delaware Centre for Transportation (USA), viewed 29 November 2013, <http://www.ce.udel.edu/dct/publications_files/Rpt.%20188%20Bike%20Paths .pdf> 22. Department of Health & South Australian Government (2011), Transit-‐oriented development … through a health lens, viewed 20 December 2013 23. Dollman, J 2010, Changing associations of Australian parents' physical activity with their children's sport participation : 1985 to 2004, Wiley-‐Blackwell Publishing, Asia. 24. Dunse, N, Thanos, S & Bramley, G 2013, Planning policy, housing density and consumer preferences, Routledge, London.
55
25. Esliger, D, Tremblay, M, Copeland, J, Barnes J, Huntington, G & Bassett D (2010), ‘Physical activity profile of old order Amish, Mennonite and contemporary children,’ Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, vol. 42, no. 2, February, pp. 296-‐303. 26. EnviroDevelopment 2011, Fees, viewed 20 December 2013, <http://www.envirodevelopment.com.au/01_cms/details.asp?ID=219> 27. Evans, A & Unsworth, R 2012, Housing Densities and Consumer Choice, Routledge, London. 28. Forster, C. (2006), ‘The Challenge of Change: Australian Cities and Urban Planning in the New Millennium,’ Geographical Research, 44(2): 173-‐182. 29. Fogarty, S 2011, Lightsview Community Plan: Review and Update, viewed 10 December 2013, <http://www.sa.gov.au/upload/franchise/Housing,%20property%20and%20lan d/PLG/Northgate/Report_9_LV_Community_Plan_Final.pdf> 30. Giles-‐Corti, B. & Donovan, RJ., (2003) 'Relative influences of individual, social environmental, and physical environmental correlates of walking', American journal of public health, vol. 93, no. 9, pp. 1583-‐1589. 31. Global SKM 2012, Guide to Sustainability Rating Tools, viewed 22 December 2013, <http://www.globalskm.com/2011-‐12annualreview/PDF/Sustainability-‐ Rating-‐Tools.pdf> 32. Green Building Council of Australia 2013, Green Star -‐ Communities Rating Tool, viewed 20 December 2013, <http://www.gbca.org.au/green-‐star/green-‐star-‐ communities/rating-‐tool/> 33. Green Building Council of Australia 2012, Green Star Communities Q&A, viewed 20 December 2013, <http://www.gbca.org.au/uploads/134/2694/Green%20Star%20-‐ %20Communities%20Q%20and%20A.pdf> 34. Healthy Places and Spaces (2009), Case Study -‐ Lightsview Subdivision, Australian Local Government Association, National Heart Foundation of Australia and Planning Institute of Australia Canberra, viewed 6 November 2013, <http://www.healthyplaces.org.au/userfiles/Lightsview%20Subdivision%20Jun e09.pdf
56
35. Farrow, TS & Vanderkaay, S 2011 'Bringing healthy design to the suburbs', Canadian architect, vol. 56, Issue 3, pp. 31-‐32. 36. Forsyth, A 2005, Reforming Suburbia The Planned Communities of Irvine, Columbia, and The Woodlands, Berkeley: University of California Press, United States. 37. Kriese, U & Scholz, RW 2011, The Positioning of Sustainability within Residential Property Marketing, vol. 47, no. 7, pp. 1503-‐1527. 38. Kyrkou, D & Karthaus, R 2011, Urban sustainability standards: predetermined checklists or adaptable frameworks?, Routledge, London. 39. Fogarty, S (2011), Lightsview Community Plan: Review and Update, viewed 10 December 2013, <http://www.sa.gov.au/upload/franchise/Housing,%20property%20andland/PL G/Northgate/Report_9_LV_Community_Plan_Final.pdf> 40. Forster, C. (2006), ‘The Challenge of Change: Australian Cities and Urban Planning in the New Millennium,’ Geographical Research, 44(2): 173-‐182. 41. Fuerst, F & McAllister, P 2009, An investigation of the effect of eco-‐labeling on Office Occupancy Rates, vol. 1, no.1, viewed 20 November 2013, <http://www.costar.com/josre/JournalPdfs/03-‐Effect-‐Eco-‐Labeling.pdf> 42. Fulton, A & Environments., UO 2006, A proposal for transit-‐oriented development at Mawson Lakes interchange, Thesis (BUrbanandRegionalPlanning)-‐-‐University of South Australia, 2006. 43. Gehl, Jan; Svarre, Birgitte Bundesen and Risom, Jeff. Cities for People [online]. Planning News, Vol. 37, No. 4, May 2011: 6-‐8. 44. Harvard School of Public Health 2013, Physical Activity (Obesity Prevention Source), Harvard University, viewed 20 November 2013, <http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-‐prevention-‐source/obesity-‐ causes/physical-‐activity-‐and-‐obesity/> 45. Heart Foundation of Australia (2012a) Healthy by Design SA – A guide to planning, designing and developing healthy urban environments in South Australia, 2012. 46. -‐ 2012b, Overweight and Obesity Factsheet, http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/Factsheet-‐
57
Overweight-‐and-‐obesity.pdf, viewed 14th December 2013. 47. Heart Foundation 2013, Creating Built Environments for Active Living – Walking Evidence into Practice, viewed 15 December 2013, <http://www.be.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/upload/pdf/cf/hbep/publicati ons/attachments/Built_environment_position_statement.pdf> 48. Homelessness Australia (2011), Homelessness and Affordable Housing, Canberra, Australia, viewed 20 November 2013, <http://www.homelessnessaustralia.org.au/UserFiles/File/Fact%20sheets/Fact %20Sheets%20201112/Homelessness%20&%20Affordable%20Housing%20201 1-‐12.pdf>. 49. Kiviniemi, MT & Rothman, AJ 2008 'What do people think about changes in health behaviours? Differential perceptions of consequences of increases and decreases in health behaviours', Psychology & Health, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 867-‐ 885. 50. Lichtenstein, S & Slovic, P 2006, The construction of preference, Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, New York USA. 51. Madden, K 2001. How To Turn a Place Around: A Handbook for Creating Successful Public Spaces, New York: PPS Inc. 52. Mapes, J & Wolch, J 2011, ‘Living Green’: The Promise and Pitfalls of New Sustainable Communities, Taylor & Francis Group, USA. 53. Marmot, M 2007, Achieving health equity: from root causes to fair outcomes, The Lancet, Vol. 370, Issue. 9593, London. 54. Matthews, B & Ross, L 2010, Research methods : a practical guide for the social sciences, pg. 187, Essex: Pearson Longman, United Kingdom. 55. May, T 2011, Social research issues, methods and process, Open University Press, Berkshire, Great Britain, pg. 220. 56. Mueller, S & Umberger, W 2010, 'Pick the tick' the impact of health endorsements on consumers' food choices, Refereeed proceedings of the 2010 EAAE/AAEA seminar for The Economics of Food, Food Choice and Health, Germany. 57. Municipal Engineering Australia 2013, Barangaroo milestone, vol. 39, no. 5, Sydney, Australia.
58
58. National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling 2011. The great Australian dream—just a dream? Housing affordability trends for Australia and our largest 25 cities. Canberra: NATSEM.
59. National Health and Medical Research Council 2011, History of ethics and ethical review of human research in Australia, Australian Government, viewed 18 December 2013, <http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/health-‐ethics/human-‐ research-‐ethics/history-‐ethics-‐and-‐ethical-‐review-‐human-‐research-‐australia> 60. National Heart Foundation of Australia (2012) Healthy by Design SA – A guide to planning, designing and developing healthy urban environments in South Australia, 2012. 61. National Heart Foundation of Australia (Victorian Division) 2004, Healthy by Design: a planners’ guide to environments for active living, National Heart Foundation of Australia (Victorian Division). 62. Ngo, A. Paquet, C. Howard, N. Coffee, N. Adams, R. Taylor. A., (2013) 'Area-‐level socioeconomic characteristics and incidence of metabolic syndrome: a prospective cohort study', BMC Public Health, vol. 13, no. pp. 681. 63. NHSC 2011. Projections of housing demand in Australia 2008–2039, narrative report. Canberra: Australian Government. 64. NHSC 2012. Housing supply and affordability: key indicators 2012. Canberra: Australian Government. 65. NSW Government Planning and Infrastucture 2012, BASIX and the Planning System, accessed 18 December 2013, <https://www.basix.nsw.gov.au/basixcms/about-‐basix.html> 66. Palmer, C., Ziersch, A., Arthurson, A. and Baum, F. (2005), “Danger lurks around every corner”: Fear of Crime and its Impact on Opportunities for Social Interaction in Stigmatised Australian Suburbs, Urban Policy and Research, Vol. 23, No. 4, 393-‐411. 67. Philiastides, MG & Ratcliff, R 2013, Influence of Branding on Preference-‐Based Decision Making, Glasgow, United Kingdom. 68. RP Data 2013, Market Update Northgate – May 2013, viewed 22 November 2013, <http://www.myrp.com.au/suburb/sa/northgate/5085>
59
69. Slavin, M 2011, Sustainability in America’s Cities: Creating the Green Metropolis, Island Press/Centre for Resource Economics: Washington, DC, United States.
70. South Australian Government (2010), The 30-‐year plan for Greater Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Department of Planning and Local Government, Australia. 71. Saiz, A 2010, The geographic determinants of housing supply (Report), Journal of Economics, August 2010, Vol. 125(3), pp.1253. 72. South Australian Government (2009) Metropolitan Adelaide, Planning SA 73. South Australian Government (2010), Affordable Housing (SA Planning Framework & Policy), viewed 10 October 2013, <http://www.sa.gov.au/upload/franchise/Housing,%20property%20and%20lan d/Housing%20SA/Affordable_Housing_Planning_Framework_and_Policy.pdf>. 74. SA Health 2012, How OPAL works, Department of Health and Ageing, viewed 2 October 2013, <http://www.sahealth.sa.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/public+content/sa+health +internet/healthy+living/healthy+places/where+we+live+and+play/opal/how+ opal+works> 75. Stanton, R 2009 'Who will take responsibility for obesity in Australia?', Public Health, vol. 123, no. 3, pp. 280-‐282. 76. Sutherland, E. & Carlisle, R., (2007) 'Healthy by Design: an innovative planning tool for the development of safe, accessible and attractive environments', New South Wales public health bulletin, vol. 18, no. 11-‐12, pp. 228. 77. US Green Building Council 2013, LEED v4 for Neighbourhood Development Checklist, USGBC, viewed 10 December 2013, <http://www.usgbc.org/resources/leed-‐v4-‐neighborhood-‐development-‐ checklist> 78. Wales, N 2010, Achieving Sustainable Designs within Master Planned Communities, School of Urban Development, Queensland University of Technology, viewed 18 December 2013, <http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/81379/environment al-‐city-‐20-‐wales.pdf>
60
79. World Health Organisation (2008). Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Final Report of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Geneva. 80. World Health Organization 1998, The World Health Report 1998. Life in the 21st century. A vision for all. Report of the Director-‐General, Geneva. 81. World Health Organisation 2007, Global Age-‐friendly Cities A Guide, World Health Organization, Geneva. 82. World Health Organisation 2011, Global recommendations on physical activity for health, Geneva. 83. Yates, J., (2008) Policy forum: housing affordability: What are the policy issues? The Australian Economic Review, 41, 200–214.
All unsourced work is authors own.
61
Appendix 1
LEED Neighborhood Development Checklist (v4 – current) Smart Location & Linkage
28
Prereq 1
Smart Location
Required
Prereq 2
Imperiled Species and Ecological Communities
Required
Prereq 3
Wetland and Water Body Conservation
Required
Prereq 4
Agricultural Land Conservation
Required
Prereq 5
Floodplain Avoidance
Required
Credit 1
Preferred Locations
10
Credit 2
Brownfield Remediation
2
Credit 3
Access to Quality Transit
7
Credit 4
Bicycle Facilities
2
Credit 5
Housing and Jobs Proximity
3
Credit 6
Steep Slope Protection
1
Credit 7 Credit 8 Credit 9
Site Design for Habitat or Wetland and Water Body Restoration of Habitat or Wetlands and Water Bodies Long-Term Conservation Management of Habitat
1 1 1
or Wetlands and Water Bodies
Neighbourhood Pattern & Design
41
Prereq 1
Walkable Streets
Required
Prereq 2
Compact Development
Required
Prereq 3
Connected and Open Community
Required
Credit 1
Walkable Streets
9
Credit 2
Compact Development
6
Credit 3
Mixed-Use Neighborhoods
4
Credit 4
Housing Types and Affordability
7
Credit 5
Reduced Parking Footprint
1
Credit 6
Connected Circulation Network
2
62
Credit 7
Transit Facilities
1
Credit 8
Transportation Demand Management
2
Credit 9
Access to Civic & Public Space
1
Credit 10
Access to Recreation Facilities
1
Credit 11
Visitability and Universal Design
1
Credit 12
Community Outreach and Involvement
2
Credit 13
Local Food Production
1
Credit 14
Tree-Lined and Shaded Streetscapes
2
Credit 15
Neighbourhood Schools
1
Green Infrastructure & Buildings
31
Prereq 1
Certified Green Building
Required
Prereq 2
Minimum Building Energy Performance
Required
Prereq 3
Indoor Water Use Reduction
Required
Prereq 4
Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
Required
Credit 1
Certified Green Buildings
5
Credit 2
Optimize Building Energy Performance
2
Credit 3
Indoor Water Use Reduction
1
Credit 4
Outdoor Water Use Reduction
2
Credit 5
Building Reuse
1
Credit 6
Historic Resource Preservation and Adaptive Reuse
2
Credit 7
Minimized Site Disturbance
1
Credit 8
Rainwater Management
4
Credit 9
Heat Island Reduction
1
Credit 10
Solar Orientation
1
Credit 11
Renewable Energy Production
3
Credit 12
District Heating and Cooling
2
Credit 13
Infrastructure Energy Efficiency
1
Credit 14
Wastewater Management
2
Credit 15
Recycled and Reused Infrastructure
1
Credit 16
Solid Waste Management
1
Credit 17
Light Pollution Reduction
1
63
Innovation & Design Process
6
Credit 1
5
Innovation ®
Credit 2
LEED Accredited Professional
1
Regional Priority Credits
4
Credit 1
Regional Priority Credit: Region Defined
1
Credit 2
Regional Priority Credit: Region Defined
1
Credit 3
Regional Priority Credit: Region Defined
1
Credit 4
Regional Priority Credit: Region Defined
1
Project Totals (Certification estimates)
110
Certified: 40-49 points Silver: 50-59 points Gold: 60-79 points Platinum: 80+ points
SOURCE US Green Building Council (2013)
64
Appendix 2 BREEAM Communities Technical Manual 2012 (SD202)
65
66
67
SOURCE BREEAM (2013)
68
Appendix 3 Questionnaire Front side of Questionnaire
Back of Questionnaire
69