How Liveable is Melbourne? Conceptualising and testing urban liveability indicators: Progress to date.

Abstract

'Liveability' is a popular, contemporary urban planning concept in Victoria, Australia. Yet, until recently, limited systematic research has examined (i) the influence of ‘liveability’ on health and wellbeing; or (ii) how best to measure ‘liveability’ within a policy context. Popular ‘global’ liveability indicators also mask within-city differences. In 2011, the University of Melbourne and Victorian Department of Health and Human Services established the 'Place, Health, and Liveability' research partnership to conceptualise, define, measure spatially, and validate urban liveability, and its associations with health and wellbeing in a policy-relevant context. Seven domains of urban liveability have been identified: (i) employment; (ii) food environment; (iii) housing; (iv) public open space; (v) social infrastructure; (vi) transport; (vii) walkability. A series of conceptual models have been developed to map how each liveability domain is associated with health and wellbeing outcomes. Neighbourhood-level spatial measures have been developed for each of the ‘neighbourhood attributes’ identified in the conceptual models. Where possible, the spatial measures selected align with Australian planning policy. Where none exist, proposed measures have been based on the literature. Spatial data are initially being sourced through various data custodians. Once the spatial measures are created they will be individually tested with data from the 2013 Victorian Preventive Health Survey. Key deliverables expected by December 2016 include: (i) creation of a liveability index; (iii) a policy-relevant tool to benchmark and monitor progress of built environment features that support liveability; (iii) in-depth understanding of how liveability is associated with a range of health and social outcomes.

Full text

Hannah Badland, Rebecca Roberts, Iain Butterworth & Billie Giles-Corti
How Liveable is Melbourne?
Conceptualising and testing urban liveability indicators:
Progress to date
Research
Paper 3

How liveable is Melbourne? Conceptualising and testing urban liveability indicators: Progress to date
1

Howliveableis
Melbourne?
Conceptualisingand
testingurbanliveability
indicators:
Progresstodate
Researchpaper3
HannahBadland1,RebeccaRoberts1,
IainButterworth2,BillieGiles‐Corti1

McCaugheyVicHealthCommunityWellbeingUnit
1Place,Health,andLiveabilityProgram,McCaugheyVicHealth
WellbeingUnit,TheUniversityofMelbourne
2DepartmentofHealth,NorthWestMetropolitanRegion
How liveable is Melbourne? Conceptualising and testing urban liveability indicators: Progress to date
2

How liveable is Melbourne? Conceptualising and testing urban liveability indicators: Progress to date
©HannahBadland,RebeccaRoberts,IainButterworth,Billie
Giles‐Corti&TheMcCaugheyVicHealthCommunityWellbeing
Unit.
ISBN:978‐0‐9804620‐5‐0
FirstprintedFebruary2015

Thisworkisjointcopyright.Itmaybereproducedinwholeorin
partforstudyortrainingpurposessubjecttoan
acknowledgementofthesourceandnocommercialuseorsale.
Reproductionforotherpurposesorbyotherorganisations
requiresthewrittenpermissionofthecopyrightholder(s).
APDFcopycanbedownloadedfromTheMcCaugheyVicHealth
CommunitywellbeingUnitwebsiteat
www.mccaughey.unimelb.edu.au

TheMcCaugheyVicHealthCommunityWellbeingUnit
Level5,207BouverieStreet
TheUniversityofMelbourne
VIC3010AUSTRALIA
T:+61383449101
F:+61393482832
E:info@mccaugheycentre.com.au

Citation:BadlandH,RobertsR,ButterworthI,Giles‐CortiB.
(2015).HowliveableisMelbourne?Conceptualisingandtesting
urbanliveabilityindicators:Progresstodate.TheUniversityof
Melbourne:Melbourne.

Credits
Photos:JanaPetrakov
Formatting:MariaSortino




3

TABLEOFCONTENTS
Glossary5
Fundingacknowledgements5
1Introduction6
ExecutiveSummary
KeyDeliverables

2Relatedpublications8
3Relatedpresentations9
4Background10
Thepolicycontext

5VictorianLiveabilityResearchProgram11
Definingliveabilityinanurbancontext
Conceptualisingandcreatingtheliveabilityindicators

6Employment14
Rationaleforemploymentasaliveabilitydomain

7Foodenvironment16
Rationaleforthefoodenvironmentasaliveabilitydomain

8Housing18
Rationaleforhousingasaliveabilitydomain

9Publicopenspace20
10Socialinfrastructure22
Rationaleforsocialinfrastructureasaliveabilitydomain

11Transport25
Rationalefortransportasaliveabilitydomain

12Walkability27
Rationaleforwalkabilityasliveabilitydomain

13Accessingdata29
14Examplesofspatialmapping30
Employment
Housing
Publicopenspace
Transport
Walkability

15Nextstages35
References36
How liveable is Melbourne? Conceptualising and testing urban liveability indicators: Progress to date
4

How liveable is Melbourne? Conceptualising and testing urban liveability indicators: Progress to date
GLOSSARY

ABS AustralianBureauofStatistics
AURIN AustralianUrbanResearchInfrastructureNetwork
CRE CentreofResearchExcellence
DEECDDepartmentofEducationandEarlyChildhoodDevelopment
DTPLI DepartmentofTransport,Planning,andLocalInfrastructure
GIS Geographicinformationsystem
HILDA HouseholdIncomeandLabourDynamicsofAustralia
MeshblockGeographicunit~30‐60dwellings/area
NH Neighbourhood
NWMRNorthWestMetropolitanRegion
OECD OrganisationforEconomicCo‐operationandDevelopment
POS Publicopenspace
PSMA PublicSectorMappingAgency
PT Publictransport
PWC Populationweightedcentroid
RMF RegionalManagementForum
SA1 Statisticalareaunit–level1(geographicunit~400persons/area)
SA2 Statisticalareaunit–level2(geographicunit~10,000persons/area)
SA3Statisticalareaunit–level3(geographicunit~30,000–130,000persons/area)
VPHS VictorianPreventiveHealthSurvey

FUNDINGACKNOWLEDGMENTS

HannahBadlandandRebeccaRobertsareinpartsupportedbyVicHealth,theNHMRCCentreofExcellencein
HealthyLiveableCommunities(#1061404),andtheAustralianPreventionPartnershipCentre(#9100001)with
fundingprovidedbyNHMRC,ACTHealth,NSWHealth,theAustralianNationalPreventiveHealthAgency
(ANPHA),theHospitalsContributionFundofAustraliaandtheHCFResearchFoundationaregratefully
acknowledged.BillieGiles‐CortiissupportedbyanNHMRCPrincipalResearchFellowAward(#1004900)and
VicHealth.
5

1INTRODUCTION
ExecutiveSummary
Usingasocialdeterminantsofhealthlens,liveable
communitiesareregardedassafe,attractive,socially
cohesiveandinclusive,andenvironmentallysustainable,
withaffordableanddiversehousinglinkedviapublic
transport,walking,andcyclingtoemployment,education,
publicopenspace,localshops,healthandcommunity
services,andleisureandculturalopportunities.Thenotion
ofliveabilityandhowbesttomeasureit,hasbecomea
keypriorityfortheStateofVictoria,Australia.Yet,until
recently,limitedsystematicresearchhasexaminedthe
influenceof‘liveability’onhealthandwellbeing,and
evenlessattentionhasbeenpaidtohowbestto
measure‘liveability’withinapolicycontext.

Whoisthisreportfor?
ThisreportprovidesanoverviewoftheVictorian
liveabilityresearchprogramtodate,andoutlines
proposedfutureactivitiesinthecontextofthePlace,
Health,andLiveability(TheUniversityofMelbourne)–
VictorianDepartmentofHealthNorthWest
MetropolitanRegionPartnership.Policyadvisors,
decision‐makers,peakbodieswithaninterestinhealth,
sustainability,orurbanplanning,non‐government
organisations,andresearchersmayfindthisreportof
use,andwewelcomeanyfeedback.

Victorianliveabilityresearchprogram
ThroughthePlace,Health,andLiveability–Victorian
DepartmentofHealthNorthWestMetropolitanRegion
Partnership,asubstantialworkprogramwasinitiatedin
2011toconceptualise,define,measurespatially,and
validateurbanliveability,anditsassociationswith
healthandwellbeinginapolicy‐relevantcontext.
How liveable is Melbourne? Conceptualising and testing urban liveability indicators: Progress to date
TheaimsoftheVictorianliveabilityresearchprogram
areto:
1. Conceptualise,develop,andapplypolicy‐relevant
spatialmeasuresofurbanliveabilityacrossVictoria;
and
2. Examineassociationsbetweenurbanliveabilityand
healthandwellbeinginadultslivinginVictoria.
In2012‐2013,thePlace,Health,andLiveabilityteam
conductedanin‐depthinternationalreviewofurban
‘liveability’domainsandhowtheyhavebeenmeasured.

PreliminaryfindingswereworkshoppedattheNorthand
WestMetropolitanRegionalManagementForum’s
IntegratedPlanningConferenceinOctober2012.Report
findingswerealsopresentedtostateandfederal
policy‐makersandpractitionersataworkshopheldin
June2013.Since,theresearchteamhaspublishedtwo
furtherliveabilityreviews.

Sevendomainsofurbanliveabilitywereidentified
throughtheseactivities:
 Employment
 Foodenvironment
 Housing
 Publicopenspace
 Socialinfrastructure
 Transport
 Walkability

Aseriesofconceptualmodelshavebeendevelopedto
maphoweachofthesevenliveabilitydomainsare
associatedwithhealthandwellbeingoutcomes.
Neighbourhood‐levelspatialmeasureshavebeen
identifiedandcreatedforeachofthe‘neighbourhood
attributes’identifiedintheconceptualmodels.Where
possible,thespatialmeasuresselectedalignwith
Australianplanningpolicy,andwherenoneexist,the
measureshavebeenproposedbasedontheliterature.
6

Accessingdata

ThePlace,Health,andLiveabilityspatialteamare
creatingthedomain‐specificspatialmeasuresusing
geographicinformationsystems(GIS).Spatialdataare
initiallybeingsourcedthroughvariousdatacustodians.
Oncethespatialmeasuresarecreatedtheywillbe
individuallytestedwithhealthandwellbeingsurveydata
drawnfrom2013VictorianPreventiveHealthSurvey
(VPHS)data.TheVPHSisaself‐reportsurveyconducted
bytheVictorianDepartmentofHealth.TheVPHS
assessedarangeofhealthandwellbeingbehavioursand
outcomesfrom~9,000adultsresidinginVictoria.The
Place,Health,andLiveabilityspatialteamhave
successfullygeo‐coded~6,700participantsbasedonthe
residentialaddressdataprovided.Wearelinkingthe
spatialmeasurestothesedatapointsandwillgenerate
andtestthespatialmeasuresatdifferentscales.

Testingtheliveabilitymeasures

Relationshipsbetweentheliveabilityspatialmeasures
andgeo‐codedVPHShealthdatawillbeexplored.
Spatialmeasuresthatareassociatedwithselected
healthbehavioursandoutcomesintheVPHSwillbe
carriedforwardtocreatedomain‐specificliveability
indicators.Onceconfirmed,wewillcreateandapplythe
finalsuiteofliveabilityindicatorsatafine‐grained
geographicscaleacrossmetropolitanMelbourne.

Creatingandapplyingtheliveability
index

Thefinalsuiteofliveabilityindicatorswillbecombined
intoanurbanliveabilityindex.ThePlace,Health,and

How liveable is Melbourne? Conceptualising and testing urban liveability indicators: Progress to date
Liveabilityteamwilltestdifferentcombinationsof
spatialdatatoidentifytheoptimalindicatorsfor
inclusioninthefinalliveabilityindex.Theindexwillbe
presentedtoAdvisoryGroupsandfeedbacksoughtprior
tofinalisingthetool.Theliveabilityindexwillbeapplied
tourbanVictoriaandtestedwithhealthandwellbeing
outcomesdrawnfromvariouslinkedgeo‐coded
Victorianpopulationdatasets.Thisworkisscheduledto
takeplaceoverthenexttwoyears.
Oncetheindexistestedwithindividual‐ andarea‐level
data,thefinalliveabilityindex(orliveabilitydomains
dependingonthestrengthofassociations)willbemade
availabletoresearchers,planners,andpolicymakers
throughthePlace,Health,andLiveabilityprogram.

KeyDeliverables
 Reviewswhichtheoriseliveabilityfromhealth
andurbanplanninglenses
 Conceptualframeworksmappingliveability
domainswithhealthandwellbeingoutcomes
 Creationoftheoreticallyunderpinned,andpolicy
relevantliveabilityspatialmeasures
 Linkedspatialandpopulationhealthdatasets
 Validatedsetofspatialdomain‐specificliveability
indicators
 Creationofaliveabilityindex(orliveability
domainsdependingonstrengthofassociations)
 Apolicy‐relevanttoolthatcanbeusedto
benchmarkandmonitorprogressofbuilt
environmentfeaturesthatsupportliveability
 In‐depthunderstandingofhowliveabilityis
associatedwitharangeofhealthandsocial
outcomes
7

How liveable is Melbourne? Conceptualising and testing urban liveability indicators: Progress to date
Giles‐CortiB,BadlandH,FosterS,MavoaS,Whitzman
C,TurrellG.(2014).Creatinghealthycities,in
Environmentalplanning:Currentproblemsandfuture
prospects.EdsByrneJ,SnipeN,DodsonJ,Routledge:
Sydney

LoweM,WhitzmanC,BadlandH,DavernM,AyeL,Hes
D,ButterworthI,Giles‐CortiB.(inpress).Healthy,
liveable,andsustainablecities:Developingandusing
indicatorstosupportintegratedplanning.UrbanPolicy
andResearch(Specialissue:Builtenvironment,urban
planning,andhealth)

LoweM,WhitzmanC,BadlandH,DavernM,HesD,Aye
L,ButterworthI,Giles‐CortiB.(2013).Healthy,liveable,
sustainable:WhatarethekeyindicatorsforMelbourne
neighbourhoods?Melbourne:TheUniversityof
Melbourne.p.58

MavoaS,KoohsariMJ,Astell‐BurtT,BadlandH,Davern
M,FengX,Giles‐CortiB.(2014).Equitableaccessto
publicopenspaceinmetropolitanMelbourne.Urban
PolicyandResearch,doi:10.1080/08111146.2014.974747.

VillanuevaK,BadlandH,HooperP,KoohsariMJ,Mavoa
S,DavernM,RobertsR,GoldfeldS,Giles‐CortiB.(in
press).Developingindicatorsofpublicopenspaceto
promotehealthandwellbeingincommunities.Applied
Geography.

VillanuevaK,BadlandH,Giles‐CortiB,GoldfeldS.(in
press).CanspatialanalysisoftheAustralianEarly
DevelopmentIndex(AEDI)advanceourunderstanding
of‘neighbourhoodeffects’onchildhealthand
development?JournalofPaediatricsandChildHealth
2RELATEDPUBLICATIONS

BadlandH,MavoaS,VillanuevaK,RobertsR,DavernM,
Giles‐CortiB.(inpress).Thedevelopmentofpolicy‐
relevanttransportindicatorstomonitorhealth
outcomesandbehaviours.JournalofTransport&Health

BadlandH,WhitzmanC,LoweM,DavernM,AyeL,
ButterworthI,HesD,Giles‐CortiB.(2014).Urban
liveability:EmerginglessonsfromAustraliaforexploring
thepotentialforindicatorstomeasurethesocial
determinantsofhealth.SocialScience&Medicine,111:64
‐73

Giles‐CortiB,BadlandH,MavoaS,TurrellG,BullF,
Boruff B,PettitC,RedmanS,BaumanA,HooperP,
VillanuevaK,Astell‐BurtT,FengX,LearnihanV,Davey
R,GrenfellR,ThackwayS.(2014).Reconnectingurban
planningwithhealth:Thedevelopmentandvalidationof
nationalliveabilityindicatorsassociatedwith
non‐communicablediseaseriskfactorsandhealth
outcomes.PublicHealthResearchandPractice,
25:doi:10.17061/phrp2511405

Giles‐CortiB,BadlandH,MavoaS,TurrellG,BullF,
Boruff B,PettitC,RedmanS,BaumanA,HooperP,
VillanuevaK,Astell‐BurtT,FengX,LearnihanV,Davey
R,GrenfellR,ThackwayS.(2014).Reconnectingurban
planningwithhealth:Thedevelopmentandvalidationof
nationalliveabilityindicatorsassociatedwith
non‐communicablediseaseriskfactorsandhealth
outcomes.PublicHealthResearchandPractice,25:
doi.org:10.17061/phrp2511405
8

How liveable is Melbourne? Conceptualising and testing urban liveability indicators: Progress to date
Giles‐CortiB,WhitzmanC,BadlandH.(2013).Health
andthecity:Improvingpublichealththroughmore
sustainableurbanplanning.SustainabilityandUrban
ScienceCSIROConference.CSIRO:Melbourne

LoweM,WhitzmanC,BadlandH,DavernM,AyeL,Hes
D,ButterworthI,Giles‐CortiB.(30May‐2June2014).
Healthy,liveableandsustainablecities:Developingand
usingindicatorstoinformurbanplanningpolicies.2014
InstituteofAustralianGeographyandTheNewZealand
GeographicalSocietyConference,Melbourne,Australia

WhitzmanC,LoweM,BadlandH,AyeL,HesD,
ButterworthI,DavernM,Giles‐CortiB.(2013).Healthy,
liveable,andsustainablecities–Whatarethekey
communityindicatorsforMelbourne,Australia?Urban
AffairsConference.UrbanAffairsAssociation:
Melbourne,Australia
3RELATED
PRESENTATIONS

BoruffB,BadlandH,MavoaS,TurrellG,BullF,PettitC,
RedmanS,BaumanA,HooperP,VillanuevaK,Astell‐
BurtT,FengX,LearnihanV,CollettJ,HurniA,Thackway
S,MillerJ,Giles‐CortiB.(21‐25April2015).The
developmentandvalidationofnationalliveability
indicators:linkinggeography,urbanpolicy,chronic
diseaseriskfactorsandhealthoutcomesinAustralia.
AssociationofAmericanGeographersAnnualMeeting,
Chicago,USA

Giles‐CortiB,BadlandH,RacheleJ,GunnL,HooperP,
BullF.(15‐18October2014).HealthyLiveable
Communities:Strengtheningtheevidencebase.Be
Active2014SportsMedicineAustraliaConference,
Canberra,Australia

9

How liveable is Melbourne? Conceptualising and testing urban liveability indicators: Progress to date
Forexample,the2014PlanMelbourne[5]focuseson
‘creatinghealthyandactiveneighbourhoodsand
maintainMelbourne’sidentityasonetheworld’smost
liveablecities’.Toachievethisvision,numerous
initiativesarebeingputinplace,includingcreatinga20
minutecity,anddesigningneighbourhoodsand
communitiesthatsupportsafety,health,publicopen
space,socialinfrastructure,andappropriatedesign
principles;allwhichaligntotheconstructsofliveability.
Moreover,Initiative4.4.4inPlanMelbournecommitsto
measuringandmonitoringtheliveabilityofMelbourne’s
neighbourhoods.
ItislikelythefocusonliveabilityinVictoriawillcontinue
withtherecentchangeofstategovernmentleadership.
Duringtheelectioncampaign,theVictorianLaborParty
madenumerousreferencestocreatingamoreliveable
Victoria.Indeed,asectionintheVictorianLaborParty
Platformdocumentwasdevotedto‘liveable,inclusive,
andsustainablecommunities’[6],withfocuson:
 Accommodatingpopulationgrowththroughwell
plannedinfilldevelopments,ensuringcommunity
viewsmatterwhendeterminingneighbourhood
character;
 Ensuringlocalplanningschemespromotesocially
cohesiveneighbourhoodsthroughgoodurban
designprinciplesthatincorporatediverseand
affordablehousing;
 Ensuringhealthandwell‐beingissuesare
consideredthroughouttheplanningsystem’s
legislativeandpolicyframeworksothatfuture
communitiesaredesignedwithpublichealth
outcomesinmind;and
 Usingobjectivecriteriatoidentifystrategic
locationsfordevelopmentclosetotransportand
otherservices(p.74).
Thisongoingpolicyfocusonliveabilityhascontributed
totheresearchagendaledbythePlace,Health,and
LiveabilityProgramatTheUniversityofMelbourne,in
partnershipwiththeVictorianDepartmentofHealth
NWMR.Thisinitialworkhasculminatedinthesuccessful
fundingofafive‐yearnationalNHMRCCentreof
ResearchExcellence(CRE)inHealthyLiveable
Communities.AspartoftheCREactivities,multi‐sector
AdvisoryGroupshavebeenestablishedinQueensland,
WesternAustralia,andVictoria.Thesegroupsarecritical
toguidingandinformingapolicy‐relevantresearch
agendafortheCRE,aswellasprovidingactive
disseminationchannelsforemergingresearchfindings.


4BACKGROUND

Thepolicycontext
Usingasocialdeterminantsofhealthlens,liveable
communitieshavebeendefinedassafe,attractive,
sociallycohesiveandinclusive,andenvironmentally
sustainable,withaffordableanddiversehousinglinkedvia
publictransport,walking,andcyclingtoemployment,
education,publicopenspace,localshops,healthand
communityservices,andleisureandculturalopportunities
[1].

InVictoria,Australia,themunicipalpublichealth
planningframework,‘Environmentsforhealth:
Promotinghealthandwellbeingthroughbuilt,social,
economicandnaturalenvironments’,[2]createdabroad
conceptualframeworkfordiscussingliveability[3].This
hassincebeenreinforcedthroughtheamended
VictorianPublicHealthandWellbeingAct(2008)and
thesubsequentVictorianPublicHealthandWellbeing
Plan2011‐2015[4].

Consequently,creatingliveablecommunitiesisindirect
‘lineofsight’totheongoingworkofVictoria’sRegional
ManagementForums(RMF).Forexample,liveabilityhas
beenapriorityfortheNorthandWestMetropolitan
Region(NWMR)RMFsince2011,andwasfurther
endorsedin2012duringinterviewswithseniorRMF
managersandseniorVictoriangovernmentpersonnel.
Intervieweesidentifiedthatthegroupitselfcould
becomeamajordriverofintersectoralactiontoaddress
thekeyupstreamdeterminantsthataffectpeople’s
healthandwellbeingacrossVictoria.Duringthese
interviewsfourmainareasrelatedtoliveabilitywere
identifiedasessentialtopromotehealthandwellbeing
intheregionandrequiringcollectiveactionbytheRMF:
1.Creationoflocaljobs;
2.Accesstopublictransport;
3.Educationalopportunities;and
4.Secureandaffordablehousing.

During2014,thenotionofliveabilityandhowbestto
measureit,hasbecomeakeypriorityforthenewRMFs
establishedacrosstheInner,Northern,Westernand
Barwon‐SouthWestregions.Moreover,thenotionof
creating,measuring,andmonitoringliveabilityisalsoa
keystatepriority.
10

How liveable is Melbourne? Conceptualising and testing urban liveability indicators: Progress to date
ThisVictorianliveabilityresearchprogramisbeing
consolidatednationallythroughCREactivities.
TheaimsoftheVictorianliveabilityresearchprogram
areto:
1. Conceptualise,develop,andapplypolicy‐relevant
spatialmeasuresofurbanliveabilityacrossVictoria;
and
2.Examineassociationsbetweenurbanliveabilityand
healthandwellbeinginadultslivinginVictoria.

Specificobjectivesofthisresearchprogramareto:
1. Createandtestspatialmeasuresofurbanliveability
thatalignwithVictorianplanningpolicy;
2.Examineassociationsbetweenliveabilityindicators
andhealthandwellbeingoutcomesinadultslivingin
Victoria;
3.Createapolicy‐relevanturbanliveabilityindex;
4. Examineassociationsbetweentheurbanliveability
index(and/orindicators)andhealthandwellbeing
outcomesinadultslivinginVictoria;and
5.Maximisethepotentialfortranslationoffindingsinto
policyandpracticebyengagingandcollaborating
withVictoriandecisionmakersfrommultiplesectors
(e.g.health,urbanplanning,transport).

ThisreportprovidesanoverviewoftheVictorianlivea‐
bilityresearchprogramtodate,andoutlineproposed
futureactivitiesinthecontextofthePlace,Health,and
Liveability–VictorianDepartmentofHealthNWMR
Partnership.

Figure1.outlinesthefourkeyphasesundertaken
throughtheVictorianliveabilityprogramofwork.
5VICTORIAN
LIVEABILITY 
RESEARCHPROGRAM

Embeddedwithinasocioecologicalframework[7],
liveablecommunitiescreateconditionsthatcan
optimisehealthandwellbeingoutcomesinresidentsby
influencingvarioussocialdeterminantsofhealth[8]
throughprovisionofsupportiveinfrastructure:walkable
neighbourhoods,publictransport,publicopenspace,
localamenities,accessibleemployment,andsocialand
communityfacilities(whichareinthemselvesmajor
sitesoflocalemployment).
Thenotionofthehealthbenefitsassociatedwith
liveablecommunitiesisconsistentwithinternational
initiativessuchastheWorldHealthOrganization’s
HealthyCitiesMovementthat,formorethantwo
decades,haspromotedthecreationofhealth‐enhancing
cities[9].Yet,untilrecently,limitedsystematicresearch
hasexaminedtheinfluenceofthese‘upstream’factors
onhealthandwellbeing[8],andevenlessattentionhas
beenpaidtohowbesttomeasurethemwithinapolicy
context.
Assuch,throughthePlace,Health,andLiveability–
VictorianDepartmentofHealthNWMRPartnership,a
substantialworkprogramwasinitiatedin2011to
conceptualise,define,measurespatially,andvalidate
liveability,anditsassociationswithhealthandwellbeing
inapolicy‐relevantcontext.
Figure1.Victorianliveabilityresearchprogramstructure
11

How liveable is Melbourne? Conceptualising and testing urban liveability indicators: Progress to date
collectiveopportunitiesandbuildsocialcapital,while
alsobeingananchorforlocalemployment.The‘natural
environment’wasabsorbedintothe‘publicopenspace’
domain.
The‘socialcohesionandlocaldemocracy’domainwas
removedfortworeasons:1)itisextremelychallenging
tosourcespatialmeasuresrequiredtomeasurethis
concept;and2)andperhapsmoreimportantly,thishas
beenshowntobebothacauseandanoutcomeofa
liveablecommunity[1213].‘Crimeandsafety’wasalso
removedfromthefinallistofliveabilitypolicydomains,
asweregardedthisasanoutcomeratherthanacauseof
liveability.Finally,‘Walkability’wasaddedasaliveability
domainasitislinkedtothesocialdeterminantsof
healthandhasstrongurbanplanningandpolicy
relevance.Thefinalsuiteofliveabilitydomainsis
presentedinFigure2.
Importantly,ourworkconceptualisesliveabilitywithin
anurbancontextforageneralpopulation,ratherthan
encompassingruralpopulationsorforspecific
sub‐groups.Theintentionisthatdiverseregions(e.g.
ruralareas),sub‐groups(e.g.indigenouspopulations,
olderadults,peoplewithdisabilities),andoutcomes
(e.g.familyviolence)couldbeexploredinfuture,
more‐focussedresearch.Moreover,otherconstructsof
liveabilitythattietoindividual,cultural,collective
historyandidentity[1415],suchasplacemaking,
belonging,acceptance,andsenseofcommunity,could
alsobeinvestigated.

Conceptualisingandcreating
theliveabilityindicators
Usingasocialdeterminantsofhealthlensand
socioecologicalframework,aseriesofconceptual
modelshavebeendevelopedtomaphowwe
hypothesizeeachofthesevenliveabilitydomainsare
associatedwithhealthandwellbeingoutcomes(seethe
followingliveabilitydomainsections).Neighbourhood‐
levelspatialmeasureshavebeenidentifiedandcreated
foreachofthe‘neighbourhoodattributes’identifiedin
theconceptualmodels.Wherepossible,thespatial
measuresselectedalignwithAustralianplanningpolicy,
andwherenoneexist,themeasureshavebeenproposed
basedontheliterature.
Definingliveabilityinan
urbancontext
In2012‐2013,thePlace,Health,andLiveabilityteam
conductedanin‐depthinternationalreviewofurban
‘liveability’domainsandhowtheyhavebeenmeasured.
TheMelbourneSocialEquityInstituteandthe
MelbourneSustainableSocietyInstitutefundedthis
work.Elevendomainsofurbanliveabilitywereidentified
throughthisprocess:crimeandsafety;education;
employmentandincome;foodandotherlocalgoods;
healthandsocialservices;housing;leisureandcultural
facilities;naturalenvironment;publicopenspace;social
cohesionandlocaldemocracy;andtransport[1].

Preliminaryfindingswereworkshoppedwith~80
participantswhoattendedtheNorthandWest
MetropolitanRegionalManagementForum’sIntegrated
PlanningConferenceinOctober2012.Reportfindings
werealsopresentedtostateandfederalpolicy‐makers
andpractitionersataworkshopheldinJune2013.These
activitieswereusedtoshapethescopeoftheliveability
agendawithintheVictoriancontext.Thefinalreportcan
befoundhere:
http://mccaugheycentre.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/
pdf_file/0005/799592/Research_Paper_1_‐
_Liveability_Indicators_3.pdf.
Since,theresearchteamhaspublishedtwofurther
liveabilityreviews.Onereviewappliedasocial
determinantsofhealthlensandwaspublishedinSocial
ScienceandMedicine[10].SocialScienceandMedicineis
rankedinthetop10%ofpublichealthjournals
internationally,andthearticlehasbeenaccessedover
2,000timessofar.Thesecondreviewexploredhow
liveabilityindicatorscouldbeusedtosupport
integratedplanning[11]andwillbepublishedin2015.
Subsequently,theinitialliveabilitydomainsofinterest
werefurtherrefinedandreducedfromeleventoseven.
A'socialinfrastructure'domainbroughttogether
education,healthandsocialservices,aswellasleisure
andculturalfacilities.Thiswaslargelybecausethese
aspectsofliveabilitywerehypothesizedtofollowa
similarconceptualpathwayintermsofcommunity
benefits.Theseservicesandfacilitiesprovidesettings
wherelocalresidentscanimprovetheirindividualand
12

How liveable is Melbourne? Conceptualising and testing urban liveability indicators: Progress to date
Forthisbodyofwork,wewillinitiallycreateandtestthe
measuresusinggeo‐codedresidentialaddressdata,and
onceconfirmed,willcreateandapplythefinalsuiteof
indicatorsusingPWCattheSA1levelacross
metropolitanMelbourne.Suchanapproachiscommon
inbuiltenvironmentandwalkingresearch,wherebuffer
distancesof400mto1600m(approximatingto5to15
minutewalkingtimes,respectively)aroundaperson’s
address,PWC,orSA1areoftenconsidered[1819].
Furthermore,collectingdataatsmallerareasenables
aggregationtolargerspatialunitsifrequired[20].

Theconceptualmodelsandpreliminaryselectionof
spatialmeasuresforeachoftheliveabilitydomainswere
presentedtoandworkshoppedwiththeNWMR’s
CommunityPracticeinPlace‐makingandLiveabilityin
October2014.Theworkshopcommencedwith
presentingthebackgroundtoidentifyingtheliveability
domains,followedbyoutliningtheprocessusedto
conceptuallyframeandspatiallycapturethepotential
measures.Afterthisoverview,workshopattendees
separatedintosmallworkinggroupstodiscussthe
appropriatenessoftheproposedmeasures,andif
necessaryrefinetheconceptualmodelsandsuggest
additionaloralternativespatialmeasuresforeachofthe
liveabilitydomains.Theserefinementswerethen
incorporatedintothefinalmodelsandspatialmeasures
asappropriate.
Thefollowingsectionspresenttheconceptualmodel
and‘neighbourhoodattribute’spatialmeasuresthatare
beingcreatedforeachliveabilitydomain.
Thiswillassistinevaluatingprogressovertime,andthe
effectivenessofpolicyinpromotinghealthand
wellbeing.Inadditionwesuggest,wherepossible,
indicatorsshouldbeexpressedasproportionsandrates.
Thiswillalsoenablecomparisonswithinandbetween
Australiancities.

Spatiallyattributableliveabilityindicators(i.e.theunit
ofmeasurementhastobewithinaspatiallydefined
buffer)havebeensought.Spatiallydefinedboundaries
provideastructureforcomparingandcontrasting
differentneighbourhoodsorregions,inordertogaina
betterunderstandingofinfrastructureavailablewithin
anarea.Second,finer‐graineddata(i.e.smallerareas)
aregenerallyregardedasbeingmoreappropriatefor
inclusion.Usingfiner‐graineddatahelpstoisolatethe
influencetheneighbourhood(ratherthanlargerregional
units)builtenvironmenthasonhealthoutcomesandto
identifysmalllocalareasofdisadvantage.Inmany
instancesthelocalenvironmentisabetterpredictorof
anindividual'sbehaviour,ratherthanregionalor
city‐levelattributes[1617];however,weacknowledgea
bi‐directionalrelationshipexistsbetweenlocaland
regionalsettings[13].Usingthesmallestgeographical
scaleavailable(i.e.SA1units,equatingtoanarea
domiciling~400persons)enablesfiner‐grainedarea
comparisonstobemadeandismorelikelytodetect
associationswithhealthoutcomes.Alternatively,
population‐weightedcentroids(PWC)canbegenerated
andaspecifiedroadnetwork(optimal)orEuclidian(sub
‐optimal)bufferdistancesapplied.

Figure2.DomainsbeingexploredthroughtheVictorianliveabilityprogram
13

How liveable is Melbourne? Conceptualising and testing urban liveability indicators: Progress to date
illnesses,someethnicminorities,carersandsingle
parents,andolderandyoungerworkers;thus
contributingtoacycleofentrapment[24].
Thusfar,mostoftheemploymentandhealthliterature
hasfocusedontheassociationsbetweendifferenttypes
ofemployment(includingunemploymentand
underemployment)acrossarangeofhealthandsocial
outcomes[2125].Whileimportant,suchevidencedoes
notconsiderthemoreupstreamneighbourhood‐level
determinantsthatcontributetothelocationand
accessibilityofurbanemploymentopportunities,and
theavailableevidencesuggeststhatthelocationof
employment(orunemployment)maybeimportantfor
healthandwellbeing.Forexample,workusingthe
HouseholdIncomeandLabourDynamicsofAustralia
(HILDA)surveyhasshownastrongerrelationship
betweenarea‐levelunemploymentandjobinsecurity
amongcasualbasisorfixed‐termcontractemployed
workersthanpermanentworkers[26].

Theemploymentconceptualmodelispresentedin
Figure3andtheproposedspatialmeasuresare
presentedinTable1.
6EMPLOYMENT

Rationaleforemploymentas
aliveabilitydomain

Beingingood,convenient,andaccessibleemployment
(e.g.havingadecentliving‐wage,opportunitiesfor
in‐workdevelopment,flexibility,commutemode
options,andwork‐lifebalance)providesfinancial
securityandfosterspersonaldevelopmentandsocial
networks[21],withmuchresearchdemonstratingthese
areprotectiveofhealth[22].Conversely,unemployment
orpoorworkingconditionsnegativelyaffectphysical
andmentalhealth.RecentworkbyAustralian
researchersdemonstratedthatcomparedwiththose
whoareemployed,beingunemployedwasassociated
withahigherriskofsuicide,andthisrelationshipwas
morepronouncedformen[23].Employmentpatterns
mirrorthesocialgradient,wherebyunemploymentrates
arehighestinthosewiththeleastskillsand
qualifications,peoplewithdisabilitiesandmental
Figure3.Employmentconceptualmodel
14

How liveable is Melbourne? Conceptualising and testing urban liveability indicators: Progress to date
ACCESSTOEMPLOYMENT
MeasuresReferencesDatasourcesScale
PercentageofworkingadultsdomiciledperSA1thataccessmain
placeofemploymentbypublictransportastheprimarymode
(e.g.train,bus,ferry,tram)
[27]Roadnetwork:PSMA 
Administraveboundaries:ABS
Zoning:VicMap2012 
SA1

PercentageofworkingadultsdomiciledperSA1thataccessmain
placeofemploymentbyacvetravelastheprimarymode(e.g.
walking,cycling)
[27]Publictransportstopsandstaons:VicPTstops
2012
Workplacecommutetravelmode:ABS

PercentageofworkingadultsdomiciledperSA1thataccessmain
placeofemploymentbyprivatemotorvehicleastheprimary
mode(e.g.cardriverorpassenger,taxi,truck,van,motorbike,
scooter)
[27]
Meanroadnetworkdistance(km)frompopulated‐weightedcen‐
troidofSA1tomainplaceofemployment
Nosourceidenfied


NEIGHBOURHOODEMPLOYMENTLEVEL
MeasuresReferencesDatasourcesScale
PercentageofworkingageadultsemployedperSA1[28]Administraveboundaries:ABS
Zoning:VicMap2012 
Employmentstatus:ABS
Employmentlocaon:ABS
SA1
SKILLSMATCHTOTHELOCALWORKFORCEOPPORTUNITIES
MeasuresReferencesDatasourcesScale
Percentageofemployedpeoplelivingandworkingwithinthe
sameSA3
[28]Administraveboundaries:ABS
Zoning:VicMap2012 
Employmentstatus:ABS
Employmentlocaon:ABS
SA3
Table1.Employmentspatialmeasures
15

How liveable is Melbourne? Conceptualising and testing urban liveability indicators: Progress to date
advantageremainsequivocal.Forexample,
internationallysomestudiesshowmoresupermarkets
arelocatedindisadvantagedneighbourhoodscompared
withadvantagedareas[3233],whileotherresearch
suggeststheoppositerelationship[3134].

WithintheVictoriacontext,thoseofalower
socioeconomicpositionandlivinginmore
disadvantagedneighbourhoodstendtohaverestricted
accesstofood,primarilybecauseoflessdiscretionary
income(youngeradults),difficultyliftingitems(older
adults,thosebornoverseas),andreducedcaraccess
[35].However,althoughsomesocio‐spatialpatterning
exists,greaterthan80%ofurbanMelbourneresidents
livewithinan8‐10minutecartriptoamajor
supermarket,whichcansupporthealthyfoodchoices
[31].
Thefoodenvironmentconceptualmodelispresentedin
Figure4andtheproposedspatialmeasuresare
presentedinTable2.
7FOODENVIRONMENT

Rationaleforthefood
environmentasaliveability
domain

Arangeofindividualfactorsincludingfoodpreference,
perceptionsofthefoodenvironment,and
socioeconomicpositioninfluencesdietaryintake.Yet,
thereisevidencethatlocalaccesstofoodissomewhat
socio‐spatiallypatterned.Areasofhigherdisadvantage
tendtohavelessaccesstofreshfoods[29]andhigher
accesstofast‐foodoutletsandconveniencestores[30
31],whichcanleadtohealthinequity.However,the
literatureregardingthesitingofsupermarkets(selling
bothhealthyandnon‐healthyfoods)byarea‐level


Figure4.Foodenvironmentconceptualmodel
16

How liveable is Melbourne? Conceptualising and testing urban liveability indicators: Progress to date
Table2.Foodenvironmentspatialmeasures
AFFORDABILITYOFHEALTHY/UNHEALTHYFOOD/DRINK
MeasuresReferencesDatasourcesScale
Potenalmeasureisahealthyfoodbasket,butthesedataare
difficulttosourceataregionalscale
[36]Administraveboundaries:ABS
Zoning:VicMap2012 
Employmentstatus:ABS
Employmentlocaon:ABS
SA1
AVAILABILITY&ACCESSIBILITYOFHEALTHY/UNHEALTHYFOOD/DRINKOUTLETSINTHENEIGHBOURHOOD
MeasuresReferencesDatasourcesScale
Densityofsupermarketswithin800mnetworkbuffer(pedestrian
catchmentarea)
NosourceidenfiedAdministraveboundaries:ABS
Zoning:VicMap2012 
SA1
Densityoffastfoodrestaurantchains*within800mnetwork
buffer(pedestriancatchmentarea)
[37]Employmentstatus:ABS
Employmentlocaon:ABS

Densityofsupermarketswithin3kmroadnetworkbuffer[38]
Densityoffastfoodrestaurantchains*within3kmroadnetwork
buffer
Nosourceidenfied
Variety(number)ofdifferentfastfoodrestaurantchains*within3
kmroadnetworkbuffer
[39]
Raooffastfoodrestaurantchains:supermarketswithin3km
roadnetworkbuffer
[39]
Roadnetworkdistancetonearestsupermarket[38]
RoadnetworkdistancetonearestfastfoodchainrestaurantNosourceidenfied
Fooddesertmeasure:Dwellinghasnosupermarketwithin800m
pedestriannetworkbufferor3kmroadnetworkbuffer
[40]
TRANSPORT
PleaserefertotheTransportdomainformoreinformaon
LANDUSEMIX
PleaserefertotheWalkabilitydomainformoreinformaon
17

How liveable is Melbourne? Conceptualising and testing urban liveability indicators: Progress to date
Morespecifically,abi‐directionalrelationshipexists
betweenhousingaffordabilityandhealth,suggesting
physicalandmentalhealthstatusinfluencesthetypeof
housingonecanafford,andconversely,housing
affordabilityinfluencesmentalhealthoutcomes[47].
Moreover,theseeffectsaremostpronouncedforsingle
parentsandlowincomehouseholds[4647].The
developmentof‘affordable’low‐densityhousingin
greenfieldsitescanalsobepotentiallydetrimentalto
health.Althoughinitiallymoreaffordabletopurchase,
thereareoften‘hidden’on‐goinglivingcosts,asthe
lowerresidentialdensitiesareunabletosupportlocal
services,employment,andpublictransport
infrastructure[48],therebyincreasingmotorvehicle
dependency.AsshownbyDodsonandSipeinthe
VAMPIREIndex[49],residentsingreenfieldsitesareat
particularriskofmortgagestressshouldoilpricesrise.

ThehousingconceptualmodelispresentedinFigure5
andtheproposedspatialmeasuresarepresentedin
Table3.
8HOUSING

Raonaleforhousingasa
liveabilitydomain
Livinginlower‐qualityhousinghasbeenassociatedwith
poorermentalhealthandhigherratesofinfectious
diseases,respiratoryproblems,andinjuries[4243].
Provisionofaffordablehousingisamajorhealthequity
issue[44].Thosewholiveinrentedaccommodation
haveworsephysicalandmentalhealththan
owner‐occupiers,andsomestudieshaveshownhousing
tenuretobeabetterpredictorofhealthcomparedwith
educationmeasures[45].

UsingAustraliandata,livinginunaffordablehousinghas
beenassociatedwithpoorerhealthoutcomes[46].
Figure5.Housingconceptualmodel
18

HOUSINGDIVERSITYANDADAPTABILITY
MeasuresReferencesDatasourcesScale
NumberofdifferentdwellingtypesperserviceareaNosourceidenfiedABScensusdataSA1
Proporonofstand‐alonedwellings;semi‐detacheddwellings;
flats,units,andapartments;andotherdwellings
[50]
AFFORDABLEHOUSING
MeasuresReferencesDatasourcesScale
Raoofstate‐ownedoccupieddwellings:alloccupiedprivate
dwellings
[50]ABScensusdataSA1
Proporonofhouseholdsspending>30%ofgrossincomeon
rent/mortgage
[2850]
HOUSINGTENURE
MeasuresReferencesDatasourcesScale
Raoofrentaldwellings:owner‐occupierdwellingsNosourceidenfiedABScensusdataSA1
HOUSINGDESIGN&QUALITY
Nosuitablespaalmeasureshavebeenidenfied
INCIVILITIES
Nosuitablespaalmeasureshavebeenidenfied
HOUSINGDENSITY
MeasuresReferencesDatasourcesScale
>15dwellingsperhectareingrowthareas[5]ABScensusdataSA1
Proporonofmul‐unitdwellings/hectareNosourceidenfied
Numberofresidenaldwellings[51]
NEIGHBOURHOODWALKABILITY
PleaserefertotheWalkabilitydomainformoreinformaon
LANDUSEMIX
PleaserefertotheWalkabilitydomainformoreinformaon
Table3.Housingspatialmeasures
How liveable is Melbourne? Conceptualising and testing urban liveability indicators: Progress to date
19

How liveable is Melbourne? Conceptualising and testing urban liveability indicators: Progress to date
Ournationalworkhasshowninequitiesinaccessto
greenspacebyarea‐leveldisadvantageacrossthefive
mostpopulouscities,wherebythosewhoarelivingin
themostdisadvantagedareasarelesslikelytohave
greenspaceaccess[59].However,themagnitudeof
inequitydiffersbetweencities;Melbournehadthemost
equitabledistributionofgreenspacesofallthecities[59
60],potentiallyreflectingtheVictorianPlanning
Provisionspublicopenspaceproximitystandard[61].
ThisfindingforMelbourneisconsistentwithearlier
publicopenspaceresearch[62].However,although
publicopenspaceappearstobemostequitably
distributedacrossMelbourne,approximatelyonethird
ofhouseholdsarelocatedinareasthatdonotalignwith
theVictorianPlanningProvisions[60].Furthermore,
Crawfordandcolleagues[63]comparedpublicopen
spacesbyneighbourhooddisadvantageinMelbourne.
Lessdisadvantagedneighbourhoodshadsignificantly
moreamenitiesavailablewithinagivenpublicopen
spacecomparedwithmoredisadvantaged
neighbourhoods.
Thepublicopenspaceconceptualmodelispresentedin
Figure6andtheproposedspatialmeasuresare
presentedinTable4[64].
9PUBLICOPENSPACE

Rationaleforpublicopen
spaceasaliveabilitydomain

Contactwithnatureandengagingwithpublicopen
spacesareimportantforhealthandwellbeing;they
promotephysicalactivity,mentalhealth,andhencecan
reducebloodpressure,bodysize,andstresslevels[52‐
54].Theimportanceofpublicopenspaceprovisionhas
receivedmuchattentioninthebuiltenvironmentand
publichealthfield[55‐57].Asmallerbodyofworkhas
examinedassociationsbetweendisadvantageandpublic
openspaceaccess.MitchellandPopham[58]showed
thatinequalitygradientswereflatterinpopulationswith
higherlevelsofgreenspace,potentiallybecausethere
aremoresettingsforverticalandhorizontalsocial
interactions.

Figure6.Publicopenspaceconceptualmodel
20

How liveable is Melbourne? Conceptualising and testing urban liveability indicators: Progress to date
QUALITYOFPUBLICOPENSPACE
Nosuitablespaalmeasureshavebeenidenfied
PUBLICOPENSPACEAMENITIES
Nosuitablespaalmeasureshavebeenidenfied
QUANTITYOFPUBLICOPENSPACE
MeasuresReferencesDatasourcesScale
%POSareawithinSA1NosourceidenfiedAdministraveboundaries:ABSSA1
%POSareaofsubdivisibleSA1landarea[65]PSMAGreenspace2012
Zoningdata:VicMap2012

NumberofPOSavailablewithinSA1Nosourceidenfied
NumberofPOSbysize/typeNosourceidenfied
DISTANCETOPUBLICOPENSPACE
MeasuresReferencesDatasourcesScale
RoadnetworkdistancefromSA1populaon‐weightedcentroidto
nearestPOSborder
NosourceidenfiedRoadnetwork:PSMA;
Administraveboundaries:ABS;Zoningdata:
SA1
95%ofdwellingshaveaccesstoalocalparkPOS<400m[61]VicMap2012;
95%ofdwellingshaveaccesstoalargeneighbourhoodparkPOS<
800m
NosourceidenfiedPSMAGreenspace2012
95%ofdwellingshaveaccesstoadistrictparkPOS<800mNosourceidenfied
Table4.Publicopenspacespatialmeasures
21

How liveable is Melbourne? Conceptualising and testing urban liveability indicators: Progress to date
residentsinareaslargerthanaSA1.Theuseofthese
facilitiesdependsonvariousfactorsincludingthe
location,quality,openinghours,programsoffered,and
admissioncosts[7475].Importantly,useofrecreational
facilitiesshowsstrongassociationswithhealth;research
fromtheUSshowedthosewhousedaprivate
recreationalfacilitywereoverseventimesaslikelytobe
classifiedasactiveforhealthbenefitswhencompared
withthosewhodidnotusearecreationalfacility[75].
Despitetheserelationships,littleresearchhasexamined
accesstoandavailabilityofformal(eitherprivateor
public)leisureandculturalfacilities;themajorityof
researchinthisfieldhasfocussedonaccessand
availabilityofpublicopenspace(asarecreational
destination),orexaminedthebehavioursundertakenat
thelocationinrelationtohealthandwellbeing(e.g.art,
culturalactivities,groupsinging,attendingreligious
services[76]).Toourknowledgenoresearchhas
examinedhowaccessandavailabilityofleisureand
culturalfacilitiesrelatestohealthandwellbeingwithin
theAustraliancontext.

HealthandSocialServices
Healthandsocialservicesisabroaddomain,
encompassinghealthcare,childcareandyouthservices,
maternalservices,seniorcitizenorganisations,
communitycentres,andpublicamenities.Thissocial
infrastructureisrequiredforcommunitiestofunction
adequately,andtoensureservicesandresourcesarein
placetorespondtodisruptiveorextremeevents.
Servicespromotehealthandwellbeingiftheysupport
independentlivinginthecommunity;thereby
minimisinginstitutionalorhigh‐needcaresolutionsand
improvingqualityoflifeacrossthesocialgradient.They
playakeyroleincapacitybuildinganddeveloping
autonomy,throughaidssuchastrainingandon‐going
educationalopportunities,debtmanagement,resolving
housingissues,outreachprograms,andrelationship
management[21].Provisionoftheseservicessupports
thedevelopmentandmaintenanceoflifeskills,enabling
peopletoreachtheirfullpotential.Yetthosewhoare
moredisadvantagedoftenhavethegreatestchallenges
accessingtheseamenities.Reasonsincludebeing:
unabletoaffordtheservices[77];incapableofaccessing
servicesbythemodesoftransportavailable[78];
marginalisedbystigmatisingattitudes[79];andunable
tonavigatethehealthcaresystem[2179].
Thusfar,Australianresearchhascomparedhealthcare
accessinrelationtocardiacservicesofferedacross
urbanandruralenvironments[80],buthasnotexplored
differenceswithinametropolitancontextorbydifferent
travelmodes.Howeverofrelevance,PlanMelbourne
seekstohaveavarietyofhealthservicesabletobe
accessedwithin20minutesby:walking(general
practitioner),publictransport(communitycentre/
primaryhealthcarehub),andcar(majorhospital)[5].
10SOCIAL
INFRASTRUCTURE

Rationaleforsocial
infrastructureasaliveability
domain

Provisionandutilisationofcommunityspacesprovide
animportantavenuetofacilitateinteractionsand
partnershipswithinandbetweencivilsocietiesandmore
formalgovernancestructures.Suchactivitiesbuildsocial
capitalandpromotecivicengagementandgoodhealth
[66].Inthisresearchsocialinfrastructurehasbeen
conceptualisedascomprisingeducation,leisureand
culture,andhealthandsocialservices.Eachisbriefly
describedbelowinrelationtoliveability.

Education
Educationisconsistentlyfoundtobeastrongpredictor
ofmortalityandmorbidityacrossthelifespan[2167].
Gaininganeducation,especiallyinchildhood,isstrongly
associatedwithbetteremployment,income,and
physicalandmentalhealthtrajectoriesoverthelife
course,aswellasreducedlikelihoodofcommitting
crime[68].Importantly,theseassociationsholdacross
thesocialgradient[68],withprovisionofgoodearly
yearseducationhavingadisproportionatepositive
effectondisadvantagedchildren[69].Theimportance
ofagoodeducationhasbeenrecognisedinAustralia,
withitbeingmandatorysince2009forallyoungpeople
toremaininformalschoolinguntilYear10,witha
furtherrequirementoffull‐timeeducation,training,or
employmentuntil17yearsofage.However,16%of
Australianyouthdisengagefromtheseprograms
prematurely.Thisgroupisatgreaterriskoffutureunder
‐ andunemployment,particularlysince80%of
Australianjobsrequirepost‐schoolqualifications[70].
Schoolssituatedwithinacommunityhubcanmake
importantsocial,health,andeconomiccontribution
throughmixedlandusedevelopments(especially
co‐locationwithcommunityfacilitiessuchaslibraries
andplaying