Early delivery of equitable and healthy transport options in new suburbs: Policy, place and people
Introduction
Globally, 54% of the world’s population now live in urban areas (WHO, 2014) with even higher figures in developed nations, such as Australia (86%) and the USA (82%) (World Bank, 2018). Recent population flows from immigration have led to high levels of population growth in some cities, putting pressure on housing and infrastructure development (Kellett and Nunnington, 2019; Wear, 2016; State Government of Victoria, 2019; OECD, 2018). Additionally, in many cities, transport infrastructure and services are unevenly distributed, with greater public transport supply in the more densely settled inner and middle urban areas of cities (Jeffrey et al., 2019; McCormack et al., 2012). In Australia, North America and some European countries (e.g., Spain), sprawl and the legacy of post-war suburban land-use patterns have increased the costs of infrastructure provision and triggered a reliance on car use as a means of transportation (Hortas-Rico and Solé-Ollé, 2010; Mattioli, 2017; Currie and Senbergs, 2007; Ewing et al., 2003). Although a complex issue (Mattioli, 2017), this has contributed to an increase in both the costs of transportation and transport disadvantage in newly established growth and outer suburban areas where public transport services are lacking (Filion, 2018; Bento et al., 2005; Ewing and Hamidi, 2017).
Melbourne, in the state of Victoria, Australia, is one example of a city with strong population growth which is predicted to reach 9.0 million by 2056 from 4.7 million in 2016 (State Government of Victoria, 2019; ABS, 2017; DELWP, 2019b), that is expanding into Greenfield or growth areas on the urban fringe (Wear, 2016; Brain et al., 2019). This has accelerated problems with transport and social infrastructure provision (e.g., primary and secondary schools, community centres, and doctor’s clinics), that are key destinations and factors defining liveable cities that have been shown to support healthy living and wellbeing (Lowe et al., 2013; Davern et al., 2017).
In planning for population growth, both transport and social infrastructure are often the last to be delivered with recent evidence showing a lack of infrastructure provision in Melbourne’s growth areas impacting on the mental and physical health of residents (Davern et al., 2017; Gunn et al., 2017a). A lack or unreliability of public transport and an absence of proximate access to everyday services and destinations does not support active transport as a feasible transport alternative, with most suburban residents travelling by car on congested roads to access key destinations (Delbosc, 2016). This means that transport costs are externalised to households exacerbating transport inequities and increasing health disparities between residents of established, well-serviced areas and those attracted to more affordable housing on the urban fringe (Zapata-Diomedi et al., 2019; Currie, 2010; Badland and Pearce, 2019). To address these inequities and support healthy behaviours, it is critical to deliver transport and social infrastructure that supports active transport, early on in the lifetime of new growth areas to encourage healthy behaviours when people move in (Cao, 2015; Wang et al., 2016; Krizek, 2003; Kamruzzaman et al., 2020).
Planning policies and guidelines are critical to the early delivery of health supporting and sustainable infrastructure in growth areas since they typically provide information on how to design new growth areas. However, recent research in Australia shows that there is a discrepancy between planning policies and guidelines and their implementation on-the-ground (Hooper et al., 2014). For example, some planning policies are not well defined nor are they based on research evidence, potentially hampering efforts to deliver healthy, liveable cities (Arundel et al., 2017). More detailed research is required to identify the specific policy mechanisms that enable the implementation of healthy, liveable cities and to quantify and assess whether places in new growth areas are healthy and liveable, as envisaged by the policy guidelines.
In Melbourne, Precinct Structure Plans (PSP) have been developed over the last decade as instruments seeking to integrate and organise planning processes for new growth areas (GAA, 2013; Kroen et al., 2018). However, to date, the extent to which these plans reference built environment features, which are linked to walkability features, are yet to be analysed. Walkability is associated with walking, cycling and public transport use, as well as greater street connectivity and mixed land uses (Boulange et al., 2017; Kroen, 2019; Cervero and Kockelman, 1997). In this study a policy review and content analysis of PSP Guidelines is completed to establish the role of policy in delivering built environment features (e.g., shops, schools, and transport) that support active transport and walkability. Once identified, these built environment features are quantitatively and spatially assessed using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis providing place-based evaluation of access to transport and social infrastructure. This assessment is also combined with social survey results collated from people living in growth areas allowing measurement of the impact of a lack of transport access and social infrastructure on health and wellbeing.
With these multiple methodological approaches this research aimed to measure the health and wellbeing impact of transport and social planning policies, on residents living in growth areas. More specifically, the research explores if policies explicitly mention active transport and social infrastructure, and whether such infrastructure is delivered on-the-ground. It seeks to demonstrate the impact of infrastructure delivery on the health and wellbeing of residents, consequently providing an evidence base for future policy development and the encouragement of timely delivery of transport and social infrastructure.
The research presented in this study uses two new master planned estates as case studies from western and south-eastern areas of Melbourne, Victoria: the Allura estate associated with the Truganina South PSP located in the west; and the north section of the Cranbourne East PSP known as Selandra Rise located in the south east. Selandra Rise provides a contrast to Allura – it was originally developed as an example of a health promoting residential development designed as a walkable suburb that has now been fully developed with improved transport options (Delbosc et al., 2015; Giles-Corti et al., 2016).
Section snippets
Policy: Review of precinct structure planning guidelines
This analysis reviewed the Victorian PSP Guidelines, a document which provides “guidance on the integrated planning of new urban areas in greenfield locations” (Victorian Planning Authority, 2019) which assist in the production of Precinct Structure Plans (PSPs). PSPs are predominantly prepared by the Victorian Planning Authority (VPA) which is the state agency responsible for managing land use planning for specified areas in the state of Victoria, Australia. PSPs: provide a framework for
Policy: Inclusion of active transport options and built environment features conducive to healthy behaviours and outcomes
Many of the built environment features, standards and design responses introduced in the policy methods section above were mentioned in the Victorian PSP Guidelines reviewed in this analysis as summarized below.
Discussion
This paper aimed to review Victorian PSP Guidelines and to quantify and assess growth areas for their adherence to this planning policy. Resident perceptions on the importance, satisfaction and health and wellbeing implications of access to social and transport infrastructure were presented. Overall, we found that PSP Guidelines support planning for active transport options and access to key social and transport infrastructure (Saelens, 2008; Wang et al., 2016; Gunn et al., 2017a; Ewing and
Limitations
The datasets used to produce the GIS measures may not contain all available data-points, particularly for Allura which is still under-going development at the time of writing, potentially leading to increased and more variable distances to these destinations. Combined primary and secondary schools were not considered in the analysis of distance to schools, and this omission did preclude identification of at least one private school located proximal to Allura; a post-office known to be located
Conclusion
This research has uniquely brought together three aspects to urban policy and health by investigating the quantification and implications of policy on new urban development and the ultimate outcome of resident health and wellbeing. Efficient and effective public policy and urban planning must continue to make tangible and practical links using the strengths of academic research. We hope that the descriptive findings and novel methodologies presented can be useful in shaping and influencing
Funding declaration
AK, MD, LDG and TS are supported by the RMIT University Enabling Capability Platform Opportunity Fund. LDG, CH and TS are supported by the NHMRC funded Centre for Research Excellence in Healthy Liveable Communities (#1061404) and the NHMRC funded Australian Prevention Partnership Centre (#9100001). MD is supported by the Clean Air and Urban Landscapes Hub – National Environmental Sciences Programme. CDG is supported by an RMIT University Vice-Chancellor’s Research Fellowship.
Authors’ contribution
LDG and AK conceived the research for this manuscript. LDG, AK, CDG, CH and TS conducted the analyses. All authors drafted the manuscript. All authors contributed to data interpretation, added intellectual content, commented on drafts and approved the final version. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare they have no actual or potential competing interests.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Project Advisory Group for their helpful contributions to this research and the assistance in providing additional analytical support of Afshin Jafari. Spatial data have been provided by the Australian Urban Observatory (auo.org.au) and Healthy Liveable Cities Group, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University with funding support provided through the NHMRC funded Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, NESP Clean Air and Urban Landscapes Hub and NHMRC
References (108)
Public transport access and availability in the RESIDE study: is it taking us where we want to go?
J. Transport Health
(2014)Examining associations between area-level spatial measures of housing with selected health and wellbeing behaviours and outcomes in an urban context
Health Place
(2017)Identifying, creating, and testing urban planning measures for transport walking: findings from the Australian national liveability study
J. Transport Health
(2017)'Taking up cycling after residential relocation
Am. J. Prev. Med.
(2012)OSMnx: new methods for acquiring, constructing, analyzing, and visualizing complex street networks
Comput. Environ. Urban Syst.
(2017)- et al.
Travel demand and the 3Ds: density, diversity, and design
Transport. Res. Part D
(1997) Quantifying spatial gaps in public transport supply based on social needs
J. Transport Geogr.
(2010)The cost-effectiveness of installing sidewalks to increase levels of transport-walking and health
Prev. Med.
(2014)Identifying destination distances that support walking trips in local neighborhoods
J. Transport Health
(2017)Testing spatial measures of public open space planning standards with walking and physical activity health outcomes: findings from the Australian national liveability study
Landsc. Urban Plann.
(2018)
Using walkability measures to identify train stations with the potential to become transit oriented developments located in walkable neighbourhoods
J. Transport Geogr.
Spatial biases in residential mobility: implications for travel behaviour research
J. Trav. Behav. Soc. Nat. Resour.
Infrastructure for new Australian housing: who pays and how?
Cities
The relationship between cluster-analysis derived walkability and local recreational and transportation walking among Canadian adults
Health Place
Exploring public transport equity between separate disadvantaged cohorts: a case study in Perth, Australia
J. Transport Geogr.
Pedestrian environments and transit ridership
J. Publ. Transport.
Rethinking habits and their role in behaviour change: the case of low-carbon mobility
J. Transport Geogr.
1270.0.55.001 - Australian statistical geography standard (ASGS): volume 1 - main structure and greater capital city statistical areas, July 2016
Australian demographic statistics: June quarter 2017. Cat No 31010—released 14 December 2017
Australian Schools List
National Registers (geocoded by Healthy Liveable Cities Group, RMIT University)
Creating liveable cities in Australia: mapping urban policy implementation and evidence-based national liveability indicators
Liveable for Whom? Prospects of Urban Liveability to Address Health Inequities
Progress and pitfalls in the use of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) for adult physical activity surveillance
J. Phys. Activ. Health
The effects of urban spatial structure on travel demand in the United States
Rev. Econ. Stat.
Examining Associations between Urban Design Attributes and Transport Mode Choice for Walking, Cycling, Public Transport and Private Motor Vehicle Trips
Melbourne: how big, how fast and at what cost?
Tale of two ecosuburbs in Freiburg, Germany: encouraging transit and bicycle use by restricting parking provision
Transport. Res. Rec.: J. Transport. Res. Board
Sustainable transport in Freiburg: lessons from Germany's environmental capital
Int. J. Sustain. Transport.
Examining the impacts of neighborhood design and residential self-selection on active travel: a methodological assessment
J. Urban Geogr.
Australian unity wellbeing index: report 35.0
Effects of built environments on vehicle miles traveled: evidence from 370 US urbanized areas
Environ. Plann.
A Longitudinal Analysis of the Influence of the Neighborhood Environment on Recreational Walking within the Neighborhood: Results from RESIDE
Developing a national index of subjective wellbeing: the Australian unity wellbeing index
Soc. Indicat. Res.
Mobility vs. Affordability as Motivations for Car-Ownership Choice in Urban Fringe, Low-Income Australia
Exploring forced car ownership in metropolitan Melbourne
The Subjective Wellbeing Evaluation Toolkit: A Resource to Support the Use of Subjective Wellbeing to Measure the Impact of Community Programs and Public Policy Initiatives
Using spatial measures to test a conceptual model of social infrastructure that supports health and wellbeing
Cities Health
Social transit as mass transit in Australian suburban greenfield development
Transport. Res. Rec.
The impact of a new bus route on a new suburban development in Melbourne
Victorian Planning Provisions
20-Minute neighborhoods: creating a more liveable Melbourne
Victoria in the Future 2019: Population and Household Projections to 2056
Transit use at transit-oriented developments in Portland, Oregon, area
Transport. Res. Rec.
ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10.5
Travel and the built environment: a meta-analysis
J. Am. Plann. Assoc.
Costs of Sprawl (Routledge: Routledge)
Measuring sprawl and its transportation impacts
Transport. Res. Rec.
Enduring features of the north American suburb: built form, automobile orientation, suburban culture and political mobilization
Urban Plann.
The development of a walkability index: application to the neighborhood quality of life study
Br. J. Sports Med.
Cited by (11)
Measuring the timing between public transport provision and residential development in greenfield estates
2023, Journal of Public TransportationPublic transport and subjective well-being in the just city: A scoping review
2022, Journal of Transport and HealthCitation Excerpt :In fact, the transport challenges perceived by participants were multifaceted and often interrelated (Tennakoon et al., 2020). In this regard, Boisjoly and Yengoh (2017) identified barriers and opportunities to local participation in transportation planning and Gunn et al. (2020) suggested early delivery of social and transport infrastructure and services in new development areas. Moreover, several studies have attempted to provide insight into promoting active mobility and overcoming transport disadvantage from a local community perspective.
Exploring changes in the frequency of public transport use among residents who move to outer suburban greenfield estates
2022, Case Studies on Transport PolicyCitation Excerpt :In Australia, residential relocation to outer suburban greenfield estates is commonly associated with a lack of public transport options, resulting in high levels of car dependency among residents. In many cases, residential housing in new suburbs precedes the provision of public transport services and other key infrastructure and services (Gunn et al. 2020). This can have negative implications for liveability, health and well-being among new residents (Davern et al. 2017; Kent et al. 2019).
Transportation, the pathogen vector to rule them all: Evidence from the recent coronavirus pandemic
2021, Journal of Transport and HealthCitation Excerpt :Still, as manifested from the latest pandemic, common-sensical pillars of transportation safety and resilience are absent, and in their nonattendance, mobility has been transformed from a catalyst of life to a practical instance of chaos theory, where a pneumonia cluster linked to a wholesale market can lead the global economy to a halt (not to mention the loss of human lives). Research results, such as the ones that are relinquished herein, can provide the direction for more robust systems of mobility, through effective strategy and policy initiatives (cf. Gunn et al., 2020). The paper is organized as follows; after the present section, a literature review is conducted validating the objectives and rationale of the research.
Travel, health and well-being: A focus on past studies, a special issue, and future research
2020, Journal of Transport and HealthPersistence of Mobility Changes in Post-COVID Times: Evidence from Poland
2023, 2023 Smart Cities Symposium Prague, SCSP 2023