Urban Qualities, Social Cohesion, and Community Resilience

Urban Qualities, Social Cohesion, and Community Resilience

Author: Supervisor: Date:

Janai Kim Lemar Jamie Mackee 02/11/2016

Word Count:

9 454

1

Table of Contents List of Figures ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 List of Tables......................................................................................................................................................... 7 Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 9 1.1

Background to the Research

9

1.2

Research Question, Research Aim and Research Objectives

10

1.2.1

Research Question

10

1.2.2

Research Aim

10

1.2.3

Research Objectives

10

1.3

Research Scope

11

1.3.1

Community Resilience, Social Capital and Social Cohesion

11

1.3.2

Social Problems

11

1.3.3

Urban Qualities

11

1.4

Significance/Justification of Research

12

1.5

Description of the contents of subsequent chapters

12

Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................................................ 14 2.1

Introduction

14

2.2

Definition of Community Resilience and its Relationship to Social Capital and Social Cohesion 15

2.3 The Relationship between Social Problems in Disadvantaged Neighbourhoods and Social Cohesion

17

2.3.1 Social Disadvantage, Social problems, Social Disorganisation and Social Cohesion in the Neighbourhood Setting 17 2.3.2

Self-perceived Disadvantage and Social Capital

18

2.3.3

Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime, Perceived Disadvantage and Social Cohesion

20

The Relationship between Social Cohesion and Urban Qualities of a Neighbourhood

23

2.4

2

2.4.1

Social Cohesion and Urban Qualities of a Neighbourhood

23

2.4.2

The Neighbourhood, Perceptions and Subjective Aesthetic Attractiveness

26

2.4.3

Walkability

27

2.4.3.1

Impact and Management of Vehicular Conditions

28

2.4.3.2

Footpath Infrastructure and Ease of Walking

30

2.4.4

Urban Qualities of Public Spaces to Facilitate Social Interaction

31

2.4

Conclusion

32

Chapter Three: Research Method..................................................................................................................... 33 3.1

Introduction

33

3.2

Research Design

34

3.2.1

Interpretative Framework: Transformative

34

3.2.2

Research Approach

34

3.2.3

Strategies of Inquiry: Grounded Theory and Case Study

35

3.2.3

Data Collection

35

3.2.4

Data Analysis

36

3.3

Limitations

37

3.4

Conclusion

37

Chapter Four: Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 38 4.1 Introduction

38

4.2 Conceptual Framework: The Relationship between Social Cohesion, Urban Qualities and Community Resilience

38

4.2.1

Checklist of Urban Qualities that Enhance Community Resilience

41

4.3 Validation of Conceptual Framework and Case Study of an Australian Disadvantaged Suburban Neighbourhood 43 4.3.1

Case Study: Davoren Park, South Australia

4.3.2 Analysis of Davoren Park’s Urban Qualities in Comparison with the checklist of Urban Qualities enhances Community Resilience 3

43

49

4.3.4

Discussion of results

57

4.3.3

Recommendations for City Council

57

4.4 Conclusion

58

Chapter Five: Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 59 5.1 Conclusion – Aim & Objectives

59

5.2 Conclusion – Research Question

60

5.3 Scope for Further Research

60

4

List of Figures Figure 1. Relationship between Social Interaction, Social Capital, Social Cohesion and Resilience 15 Figure 2. The Cyclical Relationship between Perceived Disadvantage, Lack of Participation, and Lack of Social Capital and Cohesion 18 Figure 3. Cyclical Relationship between Perceived Disadvantage, Social Cohesion and Social Problems 22 Figure 4. Contact Intensity 24 Figure 5. The Relationship between Urban Qualities of Walkability, Social Capital and Social Cohesion 27 Figure 6. Appleyard and Lintell Traffic and Social Activity Study. Source: Appleyard and Lintell, "The Environmental Quality of City Streets”, 86; Bjornstorm Ralston, “Neighbourhood Built Environment”, 718.

28 Figure 7. Research Method 33 Figure 8. Interdependencies between Topics 36 Figure 9. The relationship between topics 36 Figure 10. Conceptual Framework of the Relationship between Urban Qualities, Factors of Social Cohesion and Community Resilience 40 Figure 11. Davoren Park in Relation to Adelaide. Source: Google Maps 43 Figure 12. Employment Status of Davoren Park Residents compared to average of Greater Adelaide 44 Figure 13. Participation Rate of Davoren Park Residents compared to Greater Adelaide 45 Figure 14. Highest level of schooling completed in Davoren Park compared to Greater Adelaide 45 Figure 15. Weekly individual income in Davoren Park compared to average of Greater Adelaide 46 Figure 16. Elizabeth's Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour compared to Greater Metropolitan Adelaide for 2009-2013 46 Figure 17. Litter on vacant plot, Ferris St Davoren Park 46 Figure 18. Abandoned shopping trollies, Kilmington Rd, Davoren Park 46 Figure 19. Litter on alley off Charmouth Road, Davoren Park 46 Figure 20. Unauthorised Graffiti on Private Residence, Hambridge Road, Davoren Park 46 Figure 21. Skid marks on Kinsbury Road, Davoren Park 46 Figure 22. Skid marks on Dartmouth St, Davoren Park 46 Figure 23. Overgrown Garden, Crafter Street, Davoren Park 47 Figure 24. Litter in front of yard, Brimsdown Rd, Davoren Park 48 Figure 25. Curtains were drawn, Gores Rd, Davoren Park 48 Figure 26. Windows boarded up, Laverton St, Davoren Park 48 Figure 27. Curtains drawn, Laverton St, Davoren Park 48 Figure 28. Typical turning radius of Davoren Park's streets. Source: Google Earth 50 Figure 29. Bike lane on Peachy Road, Davoren Park 50 Figure 30. Typical Residential street width 50 Figure 31. Typical Arterial road width 50 Figure 32. Condition of footpath surface, Davoren Park 51 Figure 33. Pedestrian crossing unmarked on the road, Edgecombe Road, Davoren Park 51 Figure 34. Pedestrian Crossing on Peachy Road, Davoren Park 52 Figure 35. Plan view of Pedestrian crossing over Peachy Road, Davoren Park 52 Figure 36. Must push button to 52 Figure 37. Birdseye view of typical street in Davoren Park showing 5 houses/100m 53 Figure 38. Footpath on Edgecombe Road, Davoren Park 53 5

Figure 39. Footpath on Davoren Road, Davoren Park Figure 40. Street with no protection from traffic and weather Figure 41.Desolate Public Park with no amenities on Dimpton Street, Davoren Park Figure 42. Greenery with no public amenities on Woodcutts Road, Davoren Park Figure 43. Fenced Public Amenity, Davoren Park Figure 44. Overgrown median of Peach Road, Davoren Park Figure 45. Poorly maintained footpaths, showing weeds growing between paving Figure 46. Poorly maintained footpaths, showing weeds growing between paving Figure 47. Poorly maintained Public Parks, not watered or landscaped Figure 48. Poorly maintained Public Parks, not watered or landscaped

6

53 54 54 54 55 55 56 56 56 56

List of Tables Table 1: Characteristics of a Socially Cohesive Community Table 2: Range of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) Table 3. Types of Outdoor Activities Table 4. Relationship between Outdoor Activities and quality of physical Environment Table 5. Urban Factors that Influence Attractiveness Table 6. Principles of Footpath Infrastructure to Prioritise Pedestrians Table 7. Quality Criteria for Social Public Spaces Table 8. Stages of Grounded Theory Analysis Table 9. Urban Qualities that Enhance Community Resilience Table 10. Physical Indicators of Anti-Social Behaviour and Disadvantage Table 11. Analysis of Davoren Park's Urban Characteristics

7

16 20 24 25 26 30 31 35 41 47 49

Abstract This dissertation questions how community resilience in disadvantaged neighbourhoods can be enhanced by improvements in urban qualities. The aim is to establish a conceptual framework of how urban qualities can strengthen social cohesion to enhance community resilience in Australian disadvantaged suburban neighbourhoods. Firstly, this would provide political decision makers with an alternative approach to mitigating spatialized social disadvantage and social problems by addressing the experiences of the residents and the causes of the problems, rather than displacing them through the current strategy of urban renewal. Secondly, it would expand the scope of urban design practice to consider its potential social influences. The conceptual framework is developed by synthesising existing sociological, urban planning and urban design literature, within which there are established relationships between community resilience, social problems and social cohesion; and between social cohesion and urban qualities. It is inductively reasoned that urban qualities must have some influence on social problems, and community resilience. It is found that there is a complex relationship between urban qualities, self-perceived disadvantage, social cohesion, social problems, and community resilience. This due to the fact that urban qualities can physically and psychologically facilitate social interaction, a pre-requisite of social cohesion.

Social cohesion enhances community resilience as it reduces peoples’ initial motivation to commit crime and anti-social behaviour, and enables residents to proactively respond to social, economic, and environmental stressors.

The new conceptual framework’s validity is tested by developing a checklist of urban qualities that enhance community resilience. It is then applied it to Davoren Park, South Australia, a typical neighbourhood of spatialized disadvantage and social problems. The conceptual framework was supported as Davoren Park has a high rate of crime, visible indications of anti-social behaviour, and only scored 9 out of the 28 on the urban qualities checklist; thereby suggesting a correlation between urban qualities and social problems.

This analysis also provides recommendations for improvements in urban qualities that would strengthen community resilience of Davoren Park, and other similar disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Improvements suggested include: prioritising pedestrian experience; providing public amenities to give residents reasons to be and stay in the neighbourhood; and enhancing the aesthetic attractiveness of the street and public places. However, this conceptual framework remains theoretical and requires further longitudinal research to test it in the field. This could consist of retrofitting the urban qualities of a disadvantaged Australian neighbourhood to comply with the checklist, and evaluating if it has any impact on social cohesion and community resilience.

8

Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Background to the Research According to statistics, 1.7% of Australian postcodes experience seven times the national average of economic and social problems associated with entrenched disadvantage.1 These problems include low income, unemployment, non-completion of secondary education, high rates of anti-social behaviour and crime, drug and alcohol abuse, and confirmed child maltreatment.2 These problems impact individuals’ health, community safety, and neighbourhood resilience. 3 The spatial disadvantage is often due to the concentration of social housing.

Since the mid-1990s Australian social housing policy has focused on urban renewal to address the spatial concentration of economic disadvantage and its associated social problems. 4 Urban renewal occurs in neighbourhoods with concentrations of social housing in order to improve: the asset value of the housing and land; the quality of public space, infrastructure and community facilities; community safety and security; and reduce stigmatisation of the neighbourhood. This is achieved by redeveloping suburban neighbourhoods with high concentrations of social housing by demolishing aged property, subdividing the land, and selling it on the market. 5 However, this does not benefit the existing disadvantaged residents as they are often relocated. 6 Therefore, this strategy only displaces disadvantaged people, and social problems, failing to address the individual and community causes of them.

Community renewal is an alternative strategy that is yet to be fully embraced and implemented by Australian social housing policy.7 It focuses on social outcomes and the wider social objective of strengthening a neighbourhoods’ community resilience by enhancing social cohesion to address the causes of social problems on an individual level. 8 Unlike urban renewal, this strategy aims to improve community resilience and the residents’ life experiences, rather than the neighbourhoods’ superficial image in order to increase property values. The role of social cohesion in mitigating social issues is explored in existing sociological and urban planning literature. However, the literature focuses solely on how government policy can lead to social cohesion, despite its formation requiring social

1

Tony Vinson. “Dropping off the Edge: The Distribution of Disadvantage in Australia.” Jesuit Social Services/Catholic Social Services Australia (Australia, 2007), ix.

2 Ibid.

3 Rhys Price-Robertson. “What is Community Disadvantage? Understanding the Issue, Overcoming the Problem.” Australian Institute of Family Studies (Australia, 2011), 1.

4 Bruce, Judd and Bill Randolph, "Public Housing Urban Renewal in Australia," In Qualitative Urban Analysis: An International Perspective, edited by Paul J. Maginn, Susan M. Thompson, and Matthew Tonts (Oxford: Elsevier, 2008), 81.

5 Ibid., 82.

6 Gethin Davison, Nicole Curran, Ryan van den Nouwelant, Simon Pinnegar and Bill Randoplph, “Afforable housing, urban renewal and planning: emerging practice in Queensland, South Australia, and New South Wales,” Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (Australia, 2014), 15.

7 Judd and Randolph, "Public Housing Urban Renewal in Australia," 83.

8 Ibid.

9

interaction, which according to urban design literature can be facilitated by urban qualities.9 The relationship between urban qualities and social cohesion is overlooked by decision makers and sociological literature about community resilience, while the existing urban planning and design literature have yet to examine its potential in mitigating social issues and enhancing community resilience.

This dissertation aims to address the research gap of how urban qualities can facilitate social cohesion, to mitigate social problems and strengthen community resilience. It requires synthesising existing literature on resilience and social cohesion theory; the relationship between social cohesion and social conditions; and how certain urban qualities can affect social cohesion. Analysing existing urban qualities is especially relevant as the majority of the distinct spatial clusters of disadvantage are located in the outer and suburban neighbourhoods of the major Australian cities,10 and are characterised as car-orientated, segregated into zones, resulting in diminished walkability.11 These features reduce the chance of meeting, interacting and creating voluntary networks with other residents. Disadvantaged neighbourhoods also lack the economic capital to invest in the aesthetics of the neighbourhood, which influences residents’ sense of pride, identity, and place attachment that in turn affects social cohesion.12 Thus, this analysis aims to present a holistic approach to mitigating social problems in disadvantaged neighbourhoods by addressing the causes of the problems, rather than displacing people who are most affected by them.

1.2 Research Question, Research Aim and Research Objectives 1.2.1

Research Question

How can community resilience in disadvantaged neighbourhoods be enhanced by improvements in urban qualities?

1.2.2

Research Aim

The aim of this dissertation is to establish a conceptual framework of how urban qualities can enhance social cohesion to improve community resilience in Australian disadvantaged suburban neighbourhoods, in order to provide an alternative perspective to be considered by political decision makers and expand the scope of urban design practice.

1.2.3

Research Objectives

1. Determine the relationships between economic disadvantage, social problems and social cohesion.

2. Demonstrate the relationship between social cohesion and urban qualities.

9

Matthew Carmona, Tim Heath, Taner Oc, Steve Tiesdell, Public Places Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design, (Oxford; Architectural Press, 2003), 107; Nicola Dempsey. “Are Good-Quality Environments Socially Cohesive?” The Town Planning Review, vol. 80, no. 3 (2009), 318; Gehl, Life Between Buildings.

10 Kath Hulse, Hal Pawson, Margaret Reynold, and Shanaka Heart. “Disadvantaged Places in Urban Australia: Analysing SocioEconomic Diversity and Housing Market Performance.” Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (Australia, 2014), 2.

11 Ibid.

12 Dempsey, “Are Good-Quality Environments Socially Cohesive?”,322.

10

3. Establish a conceptual framework of how urban qualities can enhance community resilience.

4. Develop a checklist of urban qualities that have been shown to foster social cohesion, and compare them with the existing urban characteristics of an Australian disadvantaged neighbourhood.

5. Compare the checklist with the existing urban characteristics of a case study of an Australian disadvantaged neighbourhood and use the results to recommend improvements in urban qualities that enhance the community resilience.

1.3 Research Scope 1.3.1

Community Resilience, Social Capital and Social Cohesion

This dissertation examines community resilience as it can improve the well-being of residents, independent of changes in their economic situations. The formation of social capital and social cohesion are explored as they contribute to community resilience and can be influenced by the neighbourhood urban qualities.13 Other contributing factors of community resilience such as leadership, community-wide planning, and strengthening the local economy,14 are not considered as they are more affected by local government and economic policy than the built environment.

1.3.2

Social Problems

Social problems are defined by Chambers as social conditions that raise “concerns about the quality of life for large groups of people that are held as a broad consensus among a population.” 15 This study examines social problems that are directly influenced by social cohesion and affect the whole community, such as anti-social behaviour, and self-perceived disadvantage. This dissertation will not discuss economic factors of disadvantage, as they are more effectively influenced by changes in government policies and the economy. Individual problems that result from peoples’ circumstances and personalities such as education, health, substance abuse, and cultural and racial tensions between residents will not be addressed.

1.3.3

Urban Qualities

This dissertation is concerned with urban qualities which are tangible, physical, and can be implemented through council masterplans, rather than individual stakeholders. On a societal scale, urban qualities and planning can influence human behaviour and the ways in which cities operate.16 On an individual level, urban qualities and architecture can foster a sense of belonging, dignity, respect

13

Australian Social Inclusion Board, “Building Inclusive and Resilient Communities”, 4.

Ibid, 8.

15 Donald E Chambers. Social Policy and Social Progams: A Method for the Practical Public Policy Analyst, (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2000), 15.

16 Gehl, Life between Buildings, 9.

14

11

and collective identity.17 Urban qualities that influence social cohesion include; aesthetic attractiveness, walkability, and the human comfortability of public spaces, such as streets and parks.

This dissertation does not discuss urban design and planning principles that require the displacement of existing residents, or the addition of new ones. This is because the focus is on addressing the causes of the problems, and improving the existing residents’ lived experiences.

1.4 Significance/Justification of Research Current approaches to social problems associated with spatial concentrations of disadvantage have resulted in entire suburban neighbourhoods being demolished and rebuilt, displacing existing residents. Although this improves the statistics, it does not consider the lived experience of the disadvantaged residents, or the causes of the social problems, as they are merely displaced and dispersed. Consequently, this dissertation aims to contribute to the holistic understanding of the complex relationship between a neighbourhood’s real and perceived disadvantage, social problems, social cohesion, urban qualities and community resilience, in order to address the causes of social problems and improve the life satisfaction of the residents. An alternative approach to mitigating social problems and strengthening community resilience is presented by bridging the research gap through the synthesis of existing sociological, urban planning and urban design literature, to develop a conceptual framework of how urban qualities influence community resilience. Firstly, this highlights the importance of urban qualities and how the current practice of urban design could be expanded to address social cohesion, social problems, and community resilience. Secondly, the result of this dissertation could influence state governments, local councils, and urban planners to apply a holistic approach when addressing social problems associated with spatial concentrations of disadvantage, by focusing more on the cause of the problems, and the lived experiences of residents, instead of aiming to improve politically favourable statistics.

1.5 Description of the contents of subsequent chapters Chapter 2: Literature Review The literature review consists of three sections: 2.2 Definition of Community Resilience and its Relationship to Social Capital and Social Cohesion

2.3 The Relationship between Social Problems in Disadvantaged Neighbourhoods and Social Cohesion

2.4 The Relationship between Social Cohesion and Urban Qualities of a Neighbourhood The literature review forms the basis of the discussion. This is achieved through the analysis of academic and practice literature from the disciplines of sociology and urban design.

17

John Cary and Public Architecture. The Power of Pro Bono: 40 Stories About Design for the Public Good by Architects and Their Clients (New York: Metropolis Books, 2010), 9.

12

Chapter 3: Research Method This chapter explains the research method, approach, and design. It outlines how a qualitative approach with grounded theory and case study strategies are applied through the literature review, and analysis, in order to achieve the objectives. It also discusses the limitations involved and how they are being addressed.

Chapter 4: Discussion The discussion consists of two parts: 4.2 Conceptual Framework: The Relationship between Social Cohesion, Urban Qualities and Community Resilience This section establishes the conceptual framework of how urban qualities influence community resilience achieving Objective 3. The analysis also identifies urban qualities that enhance social cohesion and therefore resilience.

4.3 Validation of Conceptual Framework and Case Study of an Australian Disadvantaged Suburban Neighbourhood The urban characteristics identified in 4.2 are compared to existing urban characteristics of the disadvantaged neighbourhood of Davoren Park, South Australia (Objective 4). The results are then used to form recommendations that can be retrofitted to existing disadvantaged neighbourhoods, to improve social cohesion and resilience (Objective 4).

Chapter 5: Conclusion This chapter concludes the dissertation by outlining how the research has achieved the objectives and aims and answered the research question. It also provides suggestions for further research to test the conceptual framework developed in the field, through a longitudinal study.

13

Chapter 2: Literature Review 2.1 Introduction The relationships between social cohesion and social conditions in disadvantaged neighbourhoods and the influence of social cohesion on community resilience has been established in previous qualitative and quantitative literature, including research by Kassarda and Janowitz,18 and Sampson and Groves.19 As these studies are from the disciplines of sociology and urban planning they typically recommend government policies to create social cohesion within neighbourhoods in order to mitigate social problems. However, social cohesion requires social interaction (Figure 1), and in the traditionally unrelated discipline of urban design there is academic and practice literature, notably by Jan Gehl,20 that investigates how urban qualities can facilitate social interactions and the development of relationships. Despite this, urban design literature has yet to further examine the potential of urban qualities to mitigate social problems and strengthen community resilience. This dissertation aims to bridge this research gap, and this literature review forms the basis of the inductive argument that if social cohesion is related to both social problems and urban qualities, urban qualities must, therefore, have some effect on social problems.

This review is divided into three sections: 2.2 The underlying concepts of social cohesion and resilience are defined and explained.

2.3 Literature regarding the influence of social cohesion on the social problems of self-perceived disadvantage and anti-social behaviour is examined 2.4 The urban design literature that promotes the relationship between urban qualities and social interaction is discussed (2.4).

This focuses on perceived aesthetic attractiveness of neighbourhoods, and footpath infrastructure and design which involves walkability, traffic conditions, and the design of streets as social spaces, as well as transport infrastructure.

18

John Kasarda, and Morris Janowitz. “Community Attachment in Mass Society”. American Sociological Review 39: (1974), 328.

19

Sampson and Groves, “Community Structure and Crime,”774 .

Jan Gehl: Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. 5th ed. (Copenhagen: The Danish Architecture Press, 2001);; and Lars Gemzøe, New City Spaces (Copenhagen: Danish Architectural Press, 2003); and Lars Gemzøe, Public Spaces, Public Life, Spaces (Copenhagen: Danish Architectural Press, 2004); et al., New City Life, (Copenhagen: Danish Architectural Press, 2006); Cities for People, (Washington: Island Press, 2010); and Birgitte Svarre, How to Study Public Life (Washington: Island Press, 2013).

20

14

2.2 Definition of Community Resilience and its Relationship to Social Capital and Social Cohesion The concept of ‘resilience’ in relation to communities was introduced in the 1980s, by sociologists, policy makers and urban planners.21 It can be defined as the ability of a community to independently respond and adapt to political, economic, environmental or internal stressors in ways that are proactive, build local capability and ensure essential needs. 22 An example of a stressor that is affecting already disadvantaged neighbourhoods is the decline in employment in the Australian manufacturing industry. Resilience requires economic capital, good information and communication systems, and high levels of social cohesion. 23 Figure 1 shows how social capital is a prerequisite of social cohesion, which is a condition of a resilient community: Effective communication sysems Social Participation

Individual Social Capital

Social Cohesion

Community Resilience

Economic Capital Figure 1. Relationship between Social Interaction, Social Capital, Social Cohesion and Resilience

Social capital is a condition of individual residents, whereas social cohesion is a characteristic of the community as a whole and can be seen as the result of the accumulated social capital of its members.24 Social capital is a sociological term first defined by Pierre Bourdieu in his seminal book, The Forms of Capital (1986), as “the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalised relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition.”25 Bourdieu’s definition refers to how social capital can be exchanged and converted into other forms of capital such as economic.26 However, this definition and focus on conversion of capital is of little relevance to this dissertation. A more relevant definition is presented by James Coleman, who proposes that social capital facilitates individual or collective action for the greater good, generated by networks of relationships, reciprocity, trust and social norms.27

21

Plan H. “Strengthening Neighbourhood Resilience: Opportunities for Communities and Local Government.” Canadian Centre for Community Renewal (Canada, 2013), 2 22 Ibid. 3, Australian Social Inclusion Board, “Building Inclusive and Resilient Communities”, 4.

23 Australian Social Inclusion Board, “Building Inclusive and Resilient Communities”, 4.

24 Ibid.

25 Pierre Bourdieu. The Forms of Capital. (New York: Greenwood Press, 1986), 248.

26 Ibid.

27 James S. Coleman. “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.” American Journal of Sociology (1988), 95.

15

Social cohesion is a sociological concept, generally defined as multi-dimensional inclusion and participation by all community members in economic, cultural and political life. 28 Forster and Kearns’ outlined the following characteristics of a spatially socially cohesive community:

Domain

Table 1: Characteristics of a Socially Cohesive Community Description

Empowerment Participation Associational activity and common purpose Supporting networks and Reciprocity Collective norms and values Trust Safety Belonging

People feel they have a voice which is listened to; are involved in processes that affect them; can themselves take action to initiate change People take part in social and community activities; local events occur and are well attended People co-operate with one another through the formation of formal and informal groups to further their interests Individuals and organisations co-operate to support one another for either mutual or one-sided gain; an expectation that helps would be given to or received from others when needed People share common values and norms of behaviour People feel they can trust their co-residents and local organisations responsibility governing or serving their area That people feel safe in their neighbourhood and not restricted in their use of public space by fear People feel connected to co-residents, their home area, have a sense of belonging to the place and its people

Source: Ray Forrest, and Ade Kearns. "Social Cohesion, Social Capital and the Neighbourhood." CURS Urban Stud. Urban Studies 38, no. 12 (2001): 2140.

These characteristics can reinforce social identity, support, reciprocity and solidarity, contributing to community resilience and residents’ life satisfaction.29 On the other hand, there is also the potential for socially cohesive communities to exclude outsiders, negatively affecting the greater city-wide community.30 Nevertheless, most of the literature concurs that the effect of social cohesion is generally positive. Other studies have found that there are also barriers to social cohesion, such as perceived disadvantage, high levels of transience, racism, language barriers, and lack of opportunities to interact and participate in social life. 31

28

Council of Europe. “Report of High-Level Task Force on Social Cohesion: Towards an Active, Fair and Socially Cohesive Europe.”

Council of Europe, (Strasbourg, 2008), 8.

29 Coleman, “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.” 100.

30 Ibid.

31 Marcello Bertotti, Faye Adams-Eaton, Kevin Sheridan, and Adrian Renton. “Key Barriers to Community Cohesion: Views from Residents of 20 London Deprived Neighbourhoods.” GeoJournal vol. 77, no.2 (2012), 10.

16

2.3 The Relationship between Social Problems in Disadvantaged Neighbourhoods and Social Cohesion The relationship between the characteristics of a neighbourhoods’ social cohesion and social problems has been a topic of sociological study since the 1970s.32 The studies include qualitative phenomenological, grounded theory, and narrative research, as well as quantitative survey research.

However, it must be noted that the literature is mostly cross-sectional; meaning that only correlation, not causation has to be determined. Nevertheless, the number of studies and range in methodologies compensate for this, as they still establish a strong consensus about the inverse relationship between social cohesion and social problems. These social problems include self-perceived disadvantage and anti-social behaviour. However, most of the literature focuses on the promotion of social cohesion through governance, ignoring other potential influences such as the built environment.

2.3.1

Social Disadvantage, Social problems, Social Disorganisation and Social Cohesion in the Neighbourhood Setting

As outlined in 1.1, a disadvantage in Australia is highly concentrated in suburban neighbourhoods located on the periphery of major metropolitan areas.33 According to Sampson and Groves, concentrations of disadvantage, its associated social conditions of residential instability and economic vulnerability, leads to social disorganisation34. Social disorganisation is a sociological theory that explains the ecological differences in crime rates based on structural and cultural factors that shape a community.35 A key principle is that residential location and the social and cultural environment are strong indicators of future participation in anti-social behaviour.36 Characteristics of social disorganisation include: -

the neighbourhood’s lack of ability to supervise and control anti-social behaviour lack of mutual trust between neighbours low density and limited range of social networks unwillingness to intervene on behalf of common good lack of participation in voluntary associations and activities absence of institutional resources in neighbourhood prevalence of crime 37

By comparing these characteristics with Table 1 it is evident that social disorganisation is the antithesis of social cohesion. Therefore, social cohesion has the potential to positively influence the behaviour of residents’ of disadvantaged neighbourhoods, social problems, and community resilience.

32

Kath Hulse et al. “Disadvantaged Places in Urban Australia”, 2.

Vinson, “Dropping off the Edge”, ix.

34 Robert J. Sampson, and W. B Groves. “Community Structure and Crime: Testing Social-Disorganization Theory.” American Journal of Sociology 94(1989): 772.

35 Mario Luis Small. Villa Victoria: The Transformation of Social Capital in a Boston Barrio. (Chicago: University Of Chicago Press 2004), 3.

36 Ibid.

37 Ibid.

33

17

2.3.2

Self-perceived Disadvantage and Social Capital

Economic disadvantage contributes to the residents’ self-perception of disadvantage, which can alternatively influence, and be influenced by, social capital and social cohesion. Self-perceived disadvantage is detrimental to residents’ well-being and is a subjective indicator that measures how people feel about their personal health, education, income, personal fulfilment, safety, environment and social conditions.38 Although it is strongly influenced by objective economic circumstances, studies have found that living in a society with strong social capital and cohesion has a systematically positive effect on individuals’ perceptions of disadvantage.39 Various studies have also found that social capital can help residents to deal with risk and avoid crisis. 40 This supports Putnam’s theory that social capital and cohesion are disproportionately important to disadvantaged people due to their lack of economic capital. 41 However, Vergolini challenges this as her study found that economic vulnerability is a barrier to the initial formation of social cohesion.42 This is further supported by Van Ejik’s study that found that the lack of social capital and social networks in disadvantaged communities is a result of a lack of formal participation in study, work, or leisure institutions. 43 Matthews and Besemer attribute the lack of participation in leisure activities to the shame associated with economic disadvantage.44 This cyclical relationship between self-perceived disadvantage, participation, and social capital and social cohesion is illustrated bellow: Objective Economic Disadvantage Unemployment Lack of resources Perceived Disadvantage Poor self-esteem Shame Poor sense of belonging

Characteristics of disadvantage

Sociological concepts

Lack of Participation No social interaction

Lack of Social Capital and Social Cohesion Lack social control Lack sense of belonging Lack trust and social norms

Figure 2. The Relationship between Perceived Disadvantage, Lack of Participation, and Lack of Social Capital and Cohesion

38

Mark Tomlinson , Robert Walker, and Glenn Williams. "Measuring Poverty in Britain as a Multi-dimensional Concept, 1991 to 2003." J. Soc. Pol. Journal of Social Policy 37, no. 04 (2008), 23; Vergolini, “Does the Economic Vulnerability Affect Social Cohesion”, 1.

39 Giuseppina Guagnano, Elisabetta Santarelli, and Isabella Santini. “Can Social Capital Affect Subjective Poverty in Europe? An Empirical Analysis Based on a Generalised Ordered Logit Model.” Social Indicators Research (2015), 882; John Helliwell. “Social Capital, the economy, and well-being.” The review of economic performance and social progress (2001), Institute for Research on Public Policy and Centre for the Study of Living Standards, 59.

40 Ibid.

41 Robert Putnam. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000), 318.

42 Loris Vergolini. “Does Economic Vulnerability Affect Social Cohesion? Evidence from a Comparative Analysis.” Canadian Journal of Sociology vol.36, no.1 (2001), 1.

43 Gwen van Eijk. “Does Living in a Poor Neighbourhood Result in Network Poverty? A Study on Local Networks, Locality-Based Relationships and Neighbourhood Settings.” Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, vol. 25, no. 4 (2010), 467.

44 Peter Matthews, and Kirsten Besemer. “Social Networks, Social Capital and Poverty: Panacea or Placebo?” Journal of Poverty & Social Justice, vol. 23, no.3 (2015), 190.

18

This diagram demonstrates that economic disadvantage contributes to self-perceived disadvantage, which psychologically prevents people from participating in the community, resulting in a lack of social capital and social cohesion, which further contributes the residents’ perceived disadvantage.

The burden of reciprocity involved with social capital and cohesion (Table. 1) can also prevent their development, especially with relatively more advantaged people as residents may feel like they lack useful resources.45 Hence, the neighbourhood can be seen as an important setting in facilitating connections between neighbours, as social interaction can informally occur in neutral public spaces and develop over time into social capital. The informality of these interactions would encourage greater participation and social interaction as they are relatively free of pressure and commitment compared to formal social interactions, through employment, education, clubs and institutions.

45

Ibid.

19

2.3.3

Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime, Perceived Disadvantage and Social Cohesion

Anti-social behaviour (ASB) and crime are social problems often associated with disadvantaged neighbourhoods, and their presence influences self-perceived disadvantage. Anti-social behaviour and crime can be mitigated with ‘situational’ approaches, which displace the problem, or with a ‘disposition’ strategy such as enhancing social cohesion in order to address its causes.46 However, the problems must be defined first. A widely used definition of anti-social behaviour (ASB) is “behaviour which causes, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to one or more people who are not in the same household as the perpetrator.”47 Examples of ASB are outlined in the table below: Table 2: Range of Anti-Social Behaviour Misuse of public space Vehicle-related nuisance and inappropriate vehicle use (eg. Illegal parking) Teenagers loitering and obstructing others from using space Drug use or dealing

People sleeping in areas such as park benches, under trees or in alleyways Fighting or acts of physical violence Consuming alcohol in the street Prostitution

Disregard for Community Safety Hooning and dangerous driving

Disregard for Personal Wellbeing Drug abuse

Acts Directed at People Bullying

Environmental Damage Graffiti in public places

Noisy or rowdy behaviour and intimidation (shouting, swearing, fights etc) Drunk or disorderly behaviour, house parties

Binge drinking and disorderly behaviour

People being insulted, pestered or intimidated

Property damage and vandalism

Skipping or truanting from school

Aggressive, threatening or obscene language and behaviour Aggression or hostility toward minority group

Rubbish, litter, and failure to maintain property

Disputes between neighbours

Visible signs of dangerous driving

Noisy neighbours

Loud noise and music

Abandoned cars

Urinating in public Uncontrolled animals

Source: Amanda McAtamney, and Anthony Morgan. Key Issues in Antisocial Behaviour. Report no. 5. Australian Institute of Criminology, (Canberra: Australian Government, December 2009), 2.

46

Carmona et al., Public Places Urban Spaces, 120.

Mackenzie, Simon, Jon Bannister, John Flint, Sadie Parr, Andrew Millie, and Jennifer Fleetwood. The Drivers of Perceptions of Anti-Social Behaviour. Report no. 34. (London: UK Home Office, 9 March 2010), 1.

47

20

From this table, it is evident that ASB can range from non-criminal and occasional environment disturbances such as litter and rowdy behaviour that trigger feelings of unease, to criminal violence and ongoing harassment. However, regardless of the severity, all levels of ASB negatively affects residents’ life-satisfaction, the perceptions of safety, and disadvantage.48 ASB and crime can be prevented through ‘situational’ approaches that make committing the offence harder, riskier, or not as rewarding.49 This can be achieved through urban qualities such as additional lighting in order to increase natural surveillance opportunities,50 to deter: -

drug abuse and/or dealing in public space fighting in public space consuming alcohol on the street prostitution graffiti property damage and vandalism51

The Projects for Public Space also advocate for the use of traffic calming devices in order to prevent speeding and dangerous driving to make the neighbourhood physically safer.52 However, these approaches are not substitutes for addressing the underlying motives of the offenders, as they merely displace the problem, to a different place, time, target, method, or crime type.53 Another approach is ‘dispositional’ and aims to reduce the perpetrators’ motives to offend.54 An example of this is Mackenzie’s recommendation that policies to reduce perceived and objective ASB and crime should focus on promoting empathy and mutual respect amongst residents by encouraging them to engage with each other in meaningful ways.55 This is because it was found that long periods of unemployment and non-participation in society may lead to involvement in “violent or criminal activity to compensate for the low self-esteem and sense of belonging that a job might otherwise provide.”56 However, the presence of ASB can also be seen as a barrier to the development of social cohesion because unlike other social problems ASB often occurs in public spaces where it is highly visible, affecting residents’ self-perceptions of disadvantage and safety. ASB can limit residents’ access to public spaces, due to the fear caused by its misuse or the presence of environmental ASB. 57 The Australian Institute of Sociology found that this publicness contributes to residents often 48

Ibid., 3.

Carmona et al., Public Places Urban Spaces, 120.

50 Ibid.

51 Mackenzie et al., The Drivers of Perceptions of Anti-Social Behaviour, 14 52 Project for Public Space, "Traffic Calming 101 - Project for Public Spaces," Project for Public Spaces, accessed September 21, 2016. http://www.pps.org/reference/livememtraffic/.

53 Carmona et al., Public Places Urban Spaces,123.

54 Ibid., 120.

55 Mackenzie et al., The Drivers of Perceptions of Anti-social Behaviour, 8.

56 The World Bank, World Development Report: Jobs, (Washington, 2013), 85.

57 Amanda McAtamney, and Anthony Morgan. Key Issues in Antisocial Behaviour. Report no. 5. Australian Institute of Criminology, (Canberra: Australian Government, December 2009), 3.

49

21

overestimating the levels of ASB and criminal activity, therefore reducing participation within the neighbourhood.58 It was also found that residents who perceived the most ASB were those who lived in disadvantaged neighbourhoods and/or neighbourhoods with low social cohesion.59 Perceptions of ASB and crime can also contribute to a neighbourhoods’ reputation as undesirable, and have a detrimental effect on residents’ place attachment and self-perceived disadvantage (Figure 2).60 This, in turn, affects their social participation in the neighbourhood and causes those with the means to relocate, lowering the property values, so the people that live there do so because they have to, further contributing to their self-perceived disadvantage.61 This complex and cyclical relationship between economic disadvantage, perceived disadvantage, participation, social cohesion, and social problems in demonstrated in the diagram below: Characteristics of disadvantage

Objective Economic Disadvantage Unemployment Lack of resources

Perceived Disadvantage Poor self-esteem Shame Poor sense of belonging

Sociological concepts

Lack of Participation No social interaction

Lack of Social Capital and Social Cohesion Lack social control Lack sense of belonging Lack trust and social norms

Social Problems Participation in ASB and crime to compensate for lack of belonging

Figure 3. Relationship between Perceived Disadvantage, Social Cohesion and Social Problems

Consequently, it has been theorised that positive interactions that develop social cohesion can alternatively compensate for the negative psychological influences of unemployment.62 This is because social cohesion fosters personal empowerment, trust, communal obligation and attachment to the neighbourhood and residents (Table 1), removing the motivation to partake in crime and ASB. On a community level, the role of social cohesion as a form of social control was examined in Kassarda and Janowitz’s ‘Community Attachment Model’ that predicted high levels of social cohesion would produce a community with common goals and values, such as keeping the neighbourhood safe and free from crime.63 These shared values and norms act as a form of social control as residents must abide by them

58

Ibid.

Mackenzie et al., The Drivers of Perceptions of Anti-social Behaviour, 3.

60 Ibid, 7.

61 Ibid.

62 The World Bank, World Development Report: Jobs, 85.

63 John Kasarda, and Morris Janowitz, “Community Attachment in Mass Society”, 328.

59

22

if they want to stay in the community. 64 Therefore, social cohesion addresses the individual and community causes of ASB and crime, and its perception strengthens community resilience. 65 This theory is supported by studies that investigate the inverse relationship between social cohesion and crime. However, a limitation of these studies is their reliance on crime statistics but not all forms of ASB are criminal offences and reported. The Sampson and Groves 1989 study used 1982 and 1984 British Crime Surveys to determine a direct inverse correlation between social cohesion and the prevalence of muggings, street crime, and stranger crime.66 This is further supported by another study

by Hirschfield and Bowers that found lower than expected crime levels in disadvantaged areas with high social cohesion.67 This is an example of how social cohesion can transcend traditional predictors of crime such as economic disadvantage,68 supporting this dissertation’s focus on social cohesion to enhance community resilience, as a holistic approach to the mitigation of spatially concentrated social problems.

2.4 The Relationship between Social Cohesion and Urban Qualities of a Neighbourhood Academic and practice urban design literature recognises the urban environment’s influence in facilitating or obstructing human activity,69 and its influence in the development of social cohesion.

However, they do not further relate the development of social cohesion to mitigating social problems or enhancing community resilience. The academic studies are cross-sectional and identify urban qualities that contribute to social cohesion but do not analyse the reasons how and why. This is addressed in the practice literature, which has developed urban qualities which encourage social interaction, a prerequisite for social cohesion (Figure 1). Jan Gehl’s research addresses how urban qualities can facilitate social interactions and is regarded as seminal as his principles have been developed since the 1960s through empirical observation, documentation and research of worldwide cities. Although Gehl’s work focuses on cities with densely populated neighbourhoods, the general principles of how to make public spaces comfortable for human habitation are still applicable. These qualities include elements that enhance subjective aesthetic attractiveness and qualities that affect a neighbourhood’s walkability.

2.4.1

Social Cohesion and Urban Qualities of a Neighbourhood

The urban qualities of a neighbourhood are important as it has been found that good urban qualities can lead to social inclusion and citizenship,70 while poor urban qualities can facilitate ASB and crime.71 However, according to Dempsey, this is not a direct relationship as urban qualities cannot in themselves

64

Ibid.

Mackenzie et al., The Drivers of Perceptions of Anti-social Behaviour, 14.

66 Sampson and Groves, “Community Structure and Crime,”774 .

67 Alex F. G. Hirschfield, and Kate J. Bowers. “The Effect of Social Cohesion on Levels of Recorded Crime in Disadvantaged Areas.”

Urban Studies. 34 (1997): 1275.

68 Ibid.

69 Carmona et al., Public Places Urban Spaces,107; Dempsey, “Are Good-Quality Environments Socially Cohesive?”, 315.

70Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR), Green Spaces, Better Places: Final Report of the Urban Green Spaces Taskforce. (London; DTLR, 2002), 7.

71 Brook Lyndhurst, Research Report 11: Environmental Exclusion Review, (London; Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2004), 2.

65

23

create social cohesion, but rather facilitate it.72 Thus urban design can be seen as a enhancing the probability of certain activities or behaviours occurring, rather than the direct cause.73 Urban qualities can psychologically and physically facilitate participation and social interaction. Firstly, it is suggested that subjective perceptions of urban qualities influence behaviour more than the objective conditions, and by improving perceptions of the neighbourhood residents are more likely to be outside, participating and interact (Figure 2).74 Secondly, good urban qualities have the potential to physically facilitate social contact between residents, allowing social interaction between residents to develop from low to high intensity and into social capital over time (Figure 4). 75 High intensity

Social Capital Close friendships Friends Acquaintances Chance contact Passive contacts (see/hear)

Low intensity

Figure 4 Contact Intensity

Gehl explains the relationship between social interaction and the quality of the urban environment by categorising types of outdoor activities and determining their relationship to the urban qualities, as outlined in the table below: Type of Activity Necessary

Optional

Social (resultant)

Table 3. Types of Outdoor Activities Description Compulsory activities and take place throughout the year, under all conditions, and are independent of exterior environments.

Activities that are performed only if people want to do so and if time and place make it possible. These activities are only done when the exterior conditions are favourable.

Spontaneous activities that depend on the presence of other in public space. Although social activities occur in many places such as private dwellings and workplaces, the public social activities are usually linked to the other two categories of activities as being in the same space where people stop, meet, or pass by each other.

Source: Gehl, Life Between Buildings, 10.

72

Dempsey, “Are Good-Quality Environments Socially Cohesive?� 318.

Carmona et al., Public Places Urban Spaces,107.

74 Ibid.

75 Gehl, Life Between Building, 15.

73

24

Example Going to school, work, shopping, waiting for the bus, running errands etc.

Taking a walk to get fresh air, sitting, sunbathing, loitering etc.

Children paying, greetings, conversations, communal activities, passive contact.

His research found that optional and social activities only occur if the urban qualities of the neighbourhood are favourable, otherwise only necessary activities will occur.76 This relationship is visually represented in the table below: Table 4. Relationship between Outdoor Activities and quality of physical Environment Quality of the physical environment Poor Good

Necessary Activities

Optional Activities

Social (resultant) Activities

Source: Source: Gehl, Life Between Buildings, 11.

Therefore, there is a consensus that although the urban qualities do not directly create social cohesion, they can indirectly affect residents’ perceptions of the neighbourhood and encourage participation and social interaction, thus psychologically and physically facilitating the development of social cohesion.77 This is most noticeably achieved by increasing the neighbourhood’s attractiveness, promoting walkability and improving the urban qualities of public social spaces, such as streets and parks.

76

Ibid, 11.

Nicola Dempsey. "Does Quality of the Built Environment Affect Social Cohesion?" Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Urban Design and Planning, vol. 161, no. 3 (2008), 105; Dempsey, “Are Good-Quality Environments Socially Cohesive?” 315; Lisa Wood, Tya Shannon, Max Bulsara, Terri Pikora, Gavin Mccormack, and Billie Giles-Corti. "The Anatomy of the Safe and Social Suburb: An Exploratory Study of the Built Environment, Social Capital and Residents’ Perceptions of Safety." Health & Place vol. 14, no. 1 (2008), 16.

77

25

2.4.2

The Neighbourhood, Perceptions and Subjective Aesthetic Attractiveness

The physical appearance and aesthetics of a neighbourhood affect residents’ perceptions of their circumstances, as they can be seen as an extension of their personal identity.78 For instance, the appearance of individual dwellings and neighbourhood can lead people to make inferences about themselves, their neighbours, and their neighbourhoods.79 If unattractive it can contribute to residents’ self-perceived disadvantage, which influences social interactions, participation and social cohesion.80 The UK Home Office, for example, suggests improving the quality of the urban environment by reducing the signs of physical decline associated with ASB (Table 2) in order to reduce perceived crime and ASB.81 This involves enhancing a neighbourhood’s attractiveness by decreasing the negative and increasing the positive aspects outlined in the table below: Table 5. Urban Factors that Influence Attractiveness Positive Negative Landscaping (paving, street, trees, benches) Litter Greenery Unsolicited graffiti Decoration Property damage and vandalism Ornamentation Abandoned cars Public Art Low maintenance Personalisation of Property High maintenance Source: adapted from Dempsey. “Are GoodQuality Environments Socially Cohesive?”, 324.

Source: McAtamney and Morgan, Key Issues in Antisocial Behaviour, 3.

Improving the aesthetic attractiveness of the urban environment can also be seen as an investment into the neighbourhood and a positive trajectory for neighbourhood change,82 further contributing to the positive perceptions.

78

Carijn Beumer. “Social Cohesion in a Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood”, Sustainable Urban Neighbourhoods vol.2, no. 6 (2010), 4; Carmona et al., Public Places, Urban Spaces, 115; Ray Forrest, and Ade Kearns. "Social Cohesion, Social Capital and the Neighbourhood." CURS Urban Stud. Urban Studies 38, no. 12 (2001): 2130.

79 Sarah Foster, "Understanding the Pieces of the Neighborhood Puzzle." Environment and Behavior, vol. 46, no.6, (2014), 675.

80 Ibid.

81 McAtamney and Morgan, Key Issues in Antisocial Behaviour, 3.

82 Mackenzie et al., The Drivers of Perceptions of Anti-social Behaviour, 14.

26

2.4.3

Walkability

Throughout the academic and practice literature there is a strong consensus that there is a positive relationship between walkability, social interaction, and social cohesion.83 Leyden defines a walkable neighbourhood as one that allows residents to perform daily activities like shopping, going to the park, and taking children to school, without the use of a car.84 This encourages residents to spend time in the neighbourhood, enabling them to form and maintain informal relationships by “bumping into each other”.85 Although this level of interaction seems trivial it helps to establish a sense of connection between residents and places. Leyden also found that residents of a walkable neighbourhood were more likely to know their neighbours, trust others, and participate politically.86 There is a consensus that walking can be encouraged by influencing residents’ perceptions of safety and comfort by addressing the vehicular conditions, and footpath design and infrastructure.87 This relationship between urban qualities that promote walkability, social interaction, capital, and cohesion is diagrammatically represented below: Balanced Traffic Conditions Footpath Infrastructure

Social Interaction

Walkability

Social Capital

Social Cohesion

Qualities for comfort

Urban design principles Sociological concepts Figure 5. The Relationship between Urban Qualities of Walkability, Social Capital and Social Cohesion

83

Kevin M Leyden, "Social Capital and the Built Environment: The Importance of Walkable Neighborhoods," Am J Public Health American Journal of Public Health, vol. 93, no. 9 (2003): 1546.

84 Ibid; Donald Appleyard and Mark Lintell. "The Environmental Quality of City Streets: The Residents' Viewpoint." Transport Sociology, (1986), 86; Nicola Dempsey, "Does Quality of the Built Environment Affect Social Cohesion?", 108.

85 Ibid.; Amy Wilkerson, Nicole E. Carlson, Irene H. Yen, and Yvonne L. Michael. "Neighborhood Physical Features and Relationships With Neighbors: Does Positive Physical Environment Increase Neighborliness?" Environment and Behavior, vol. 44, no. 5 (2011), 606.

86 Leyden, "Social Capital and the Built Environment”, 1546.

87 Gehl, Life Between Building, 11.

27

2.4.3.1

Impact and Management of Vehicular Conditions

Vehicular traffic is a hazard and produces stress, noise and pollution.88 It can discourage people from walking, being out on the street, therefore limiting informal socialising.89 The academic literature studies the effects of traffic on social cohesion and suggests recommendations to mitigate its negative impact, but fails to implement and test these strategies. 90 The practice literature studies the problem conditions of case studies, implements the strategies, assesses their impact, and identifies potential improvements.91 Results of these case studies are then used in order to propagate the strategies in other locations, although responding to the context and vision of the local community.

A seminal academic study by Appleyard and Lintell of three neighbouring streets in San Francisco determined the traffic volume had a dramatic impact on the environmental urban quality and levels of social interaction.92 They compared three streets with different traffic volumes. It was observed that the heavily trafficked street had little outdoor activity and social interactions between neighbours.93 Whereas the light traffic street had a higher level of social activity, and residents’ contacts with their neighbours was extensive.94 This is diagrammatically represented below, with the lines showing movement and interaction between residents while the dots show people staying outside:

Figure 6. Appleyard and Lintell Traffic and Social Activity Study. Source: Appleyard and Lintell, "The Environmental Quality of City Streets”, 86; Bjornstorm Ralston, “Neighbourhood Built Environment”, 718.

88

Appleyard and Lintell, "The Environmental Quality of City Streets”, 86; Bjornstorm Ralston, “Neighbourhood Built Environment”, 718.

89 Ibid.

90 Appleyard and Lintell, "The Environmental Quality of City Streets” 91 Seth Ullman, PPS Placemaking, "Rightsizing Streets - Project for Public Spaces," Project for Public Spaces, accessed September 20, 2016. http://www.pps.org/reference/rightsizing/.

92 Appleyard and Lintell, "The Environmental Quality of City Streets”, 86.

93 Ibid.

94 Ibid.

28

Appleyard and Lintell concluded that traffic influences perceptions of privacy and territory and is seen as intrusive, resulting in people withdrawing into their homes.95 This corresponds with the findings of Jan Gehl and the Project for Public Space (PPS) that propose that balancing vehicular traffic with other uses such as walking, strolling, looking, meeting, playing and shopping is a prerequisite to making streets public spaces that can encourage people to spend more time outside.96 Accordingly, Appleyard and Lintell recommended concentrating traffic on a city’s main arterial roads by increasing their capacity through selective widening, grade separation, and parking controls; and blocking through traffic by using rough paving surfaces, “necking down entrances” and landscaping, in order to create “Protected Residential Areas”.97 These ideas are further elaborated by PPS’s concept of “rightsizing” streets, defined as “reallocating street space to better serve the full range of uses” in order to: -

increase safety encourage walking, biking and transit use support businesses and the local economy create places that foster community liveability98

The typical strategies of “rightsizing” include using traffic calming devices and improving pedestrian infrastructure to make it more comfortable and pleasant to walk.99 Traffic calming devices are design and management strategies that aim to balance vehicular traffic with other street users, by making traffic slower and crossing the streets safer.100 These devices include; neckdowns, wielding footpaths, roundabouts, chicanes, raised medians, diverters, speed bumps, and rumble strips. Furthermore, walkability, social interaction, and therefore social cohesion can also be influenced by the ease of walking, which is determined by the quality of the footpath infrastructure.

95

Ibid. 96.

Gehl, Cities for People,118. ; Ullman, "Rightsizing Streets - Project for Public Spaces."

97 Appleyard and Lintell, "The Environmental Quality of City Streets”, 87.

98 Ullman, "Rightsizing Streets - Project for Public Spaces."

99 Ibid.

100 Project for Public Space, "Traffic Calming 101 - Project for Public Spaces."

96

29

2.4.3.2

Footpath Infrastructure and Ease of Walking

Footpath infrastructure can encourage walking by making it easy and pleasant. Through empirical observation of cities around the world, Gehl has developed simple, achievable principles of footpath infrastructure that prioritise pedestrians and maximise walking ease. These findings are summarised in the table below: Table 6. Principles of Footpath Infrastructure to Prioritise Pedestrians Principle Examples Dignified pedestrian experience - No parked cars, bus stops, poles etc with no barriers and interruptions in footpath Reduce level changes - If the level changes necessary, ramps are better than stairs.

Suitable surface for walking - Even surfaces Footpath is wide enough for expected use Pedestrian crossings are at street - No over/underpasses level and uninterrupted - No pedestrian islands that make people wait in the middle of the road Simple intersections and crossings Be politely informed to cross the - No buttons to press and no flashing red man street - Decrease waiting time Protection from traffic and - Eliminate fear, use of landscaping as buffer zone accidents Protection against unpleasant - Man-made or natural shading to protect from the wind, sensory experiences rain/snow, heat/cold, pollution, dust, noise and glare Decrease experienced distance - Divide distance into manageable segments using public spaces - Have interesting things at eye level to look at Source: Gehl, Cities for People, 242-245

30

2.4.4

Urban Qualities of Public Spaces to Facilitate Social Interaction

Delight

Comfort

Protection

Although walkability encourages people to be out in the neighbourhood, social interaction also requires them to stay out in public spaces, such as streets and parks.101 This requires certain urban qualities that make public spaces comfortable for human habitation. 102 Gehl has identified 12 such quality criteria, summarised in the table below: which Gehl has identified, summarised in the table below: Table 7. Quality Criteria for Social Public Spaces Protection against traffic and Protection against crime and Protection against unpleasant accidents – feeling safe violence – feeling secure sensory experiences - Protection for pedestrians - Lively public realm - Wind - Eliminating fear of traffic - Eyes on the street - Rain/snow - Overlapping functions day and - Cold/heat night - Pollution - Good lighting - Dust, noise, glare Opportunities to Walk Opportunities to stand/stay Opportunities to sit - Room for walking - Edge effect/attractive zones for - Zones for sitting - Interesting facades standing/staying - Utilising advantages: views, sun, - No obstacles - Supports for standing people - Good surfaces - Facades with good details that - Good places to sit - Accessibility for everyone invite staying - Benches for resting Opportunities for Play and Opportunities to See Opportunities to Talk and Listen Exercise - Reasonable viewing - Low noise level - Physical activity, exercise distances - Public furniture that provides - Play and street entertainment - Unhindered views ‘talkscapes’ by day and night - Interesting views - During summer and winter - Lighting Opportunities to Enjoy the Positive Scale Positive Sensory Experience Aspects of Climate - Buildings and spaces - Sun/shade - Good design and detailing designed to human scale - Heat/coolness - Good materials - Shelter from wind/breeze - Fine views of trees, plants and water Source: Gehl, Cities for People, 239

Therefore, these urban qualities of public spaces that encourage people to be and stay in public spaces in order to facilitate social interaction, can encourage the development of social capital and social cohesion.

101

Dempsey., “Are Good-Quality Environments Socially Cohesive?”, 335.

M. Ljla. "Does Public Space Create Social Capital?" Int. J. Sociology Anthropology International Journal of Sociology and Anthropology, vol. 4, no. 2 (2012), 52.

102Akram

31

2.4

Conclusion This literature review has outlined the extensive established research in the fields of sociology, urban planning and urban design. It has addressed the three themes of: -

the definition of social cohesion and its relationship to social capital and community resilience the influence of social cohesion on neighbourhood social problems the relationship between social cohesion and urban qualities

The examination of the sociological and urban planning literature found that social cohesion can influence and be influenced by social problems such as self-perceived disadvantage, ASB and crime.

However, it also identified that residents’ perceptions of themselves, their neighbourhood’s safety and its social problems, are as important as the objective conditions. However, this literature focuses solely on the role of policies in creating social cohesion, disregarding other potential factors such as urban design. This is a deficiency as academic and practice urban design literature explores how urban qualities can facilitate social interactions, the development of social capital, and the enhancement of social cohesion. However, this urban design literature does further investigate the potential of urban qualities to mitigate social problems and enhance community resilience. Therefore, it is evident that there is a gap in the research due to a lack of synthesis between the three disciplines. This provides justification for the research and forms the basis of the discussion.

32

Chapter Three: Research Method 3.1 Introduction This section explains the research’s framework and choice of approach, strategies, analysis, and its associated limitations. To achieve the transformative aims and objectives, the research is approached qualitatively. Consequently, the data is collected and analysed using grounded theory and case study strategies. This requires an initial data collection that enables the conceptualisation of issues involved in each objective. Information about these issues is then collated and presented in the literature review. The analysis of this data forms the foundation for the new conceptual framework, which is then validated through its application to a case study. This research method and its relationship to the dissertation’s objectives is outlined in the following diagram: Conceptualisation

Interconnected issues and their interdependencies

Literature Review

Objective 1. Demonstrate the relationship economic disadvantage social issues and social cohesion

Objective 2. Demonstrate the relationship between social cohesion and urban qualities.

Data Analysis

Objective 4. Develop a check list of urban qualities that have been shown to foster social cohesion

Objective 3. Establish a conceptual framework of how

urban qualities can enhance community resilience

Case Study

Objective 5. Compare the checklist with the existing urban characteristics of a case study of an Australian disadvantaged neighbourhood and use the results to recommend improvements in urban qualities that enhance the community resilience.

Figure 7. Research Method

33

3.2 Research Design 3.2.1

Interpretative Framework: Transformative

In order to identify the most appropriate research approach and strategy, the study’s interpretive framework is firstly outlined. A transformative framework is used in social studies that address issues affecting under-represented groups in order to advocate for change. 103 As this dissertation examines how urban qualities can enhance community resilience in neighbourhoods and improve residents’ lives, in order to expand the urban design discipline and inform political decision making, a transformative framework is appropriate.

3.2.2

Research Approach

This dissertation focuses on the lived experiences of residents of disadvantaged neighbourhoods, which cannot be numerically quantified. Therefore a qualitative research approach is appropriate as it aims to explore the meaning of social and human problems for individuals and groups.104 However, since the qualitative outcomes are not measurable or quantifiable, it relies on the researcher’s skills of interpreting and evaluating the data, making the results less amenable to be generalised.105 Further, relevant differences are outlined in the table below: Table 4: Features of Qualitative and Quantitative Research Qualitative Research Quantitative Research Open ended questions Closed-ended questions Emerging approaches Predetermined approaches Uses text or image data Uses numerical data Collects participant meanings Tests or verifies theories or explanations Studies context or setting of participants Relates variables in question to hypothesis Validates accuracy of findings Observes and measures information numerically Makes interpretations of the data Creates an agenda for change and reform

Unbiased approach Employs statistical procedures

Adapted from: John W. Creswell. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches. 3rd Ed (California: Sage Publications, 20014), 18.

103

Donna M. Mertens, Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity with Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods, (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2010), 125.

104 John W. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches, 3rd Ed (California: Sage Publications, 20014), 4.

105 Ibid.

34

3.2.3

Strategies of Inquiry: Grounded Theory and Case Study

This research requires the synthesis of sociological, urban planning, and urban design literature, in order to form a new conceptual framework. Therefore, the qualitative research strategy of grounded theory is appropriate. This conceptual framework is then applied to a case study to evaluate its validity.

3.2.3.1

Grounded Theory

Grounded theory is a research strategy that originates from sociology and involves the accumulation and analysis of primary or secondary data to identify reoccurring ideas and concepts, which may become the basis of a new theory.106 It is used in this dissertation in order to address the research gap and establish the interrelationship between urban qualities, social problems, social cohesion and community resilience.

Grounded theory is applied in this dissertation by the collection of secondary data in the form qualitative literature. This data is repeatedly analysed and tagged with codes which can then be grouped into concepts, and then into categories, to become the basis of the new conceptual framework.107 The stages of grounded theory are summarised in the table below:

Stage Codes Concepts Categories Theory

Table 8. Stages of Grounded Theory Analysis Purpose Identifying key points of the data Collection of codes of similar content that allows the data to be grouped Broad groups of similar concepts that are used to generate a theory A collection of categories that detail the subject of research

Source: Anselm L. Strauss, and Juliet M. Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990), 61.

3.2.3.2

Case Study

This dissertation uses a case study to empirically investigate the conceptual framework established through the grounded theory strategy, in its real-life context. A case study involves an in-depth analysis of a program, event, activity, people, building, or place.108 This relies on multiple sources of evidence that may be qualitative and quantitative.

3.2.3

Data Collection

The data collected is comprised of existing qualitative literature on the definition of community resilience and social cohesion; relationships between social cohesion and social problems; and social cohesion and urban characteristics. Using grounded theory the data collection consists of different stages, as the initial literature gathered allows the topics’ interdependencies to be conceptualised,

106

Creswell, Research Design, 14.

Anselm L. Strauss, and Juliet M. Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990), 61.

108 Creswell, Research Design, 14.

107

35

which then become the foundation of further data collection and analysis. The result of the analysis of interdependencies of categories and concepts is diagrammatically represented below: Unemployment

Teen Pregnancy

Disadvantaged Neighbourhoods

Substance Abuse

Anti-Social Behaviour Crime Educational Outcomes Health Low Income

Walkability Street Design Traffic Conditions Aesthetics

Trust Shared Values/norms Cooperation

Perceived Disadvantage

Social Cohesion

Social Capital

Social Interaction

Participation

Urban Qualities

Neutral Public Space

Figure 8. Interdependencies between Topics

This data collected, analysed and presented in Chapter Two: Literature Review.

3.2.4

Data Analysis

The collected data is analysed to identify codes, concepts and categories (see 3.3.3.1), in order to establish a new conceptual framework about the relationship between social problems and urban qualities. This is reasoned inductively as if a relationship exists between social problems and social cohesion, and between social cohesion and urban qualities; there must be a relationship between social problems and urban qualities, as illustrated in the diagram below: Community Resilience &Social Cohesion

Social problems in disadvantaged neighbourhoods

Urban Qualities

Figure 9. The relationship between topics

36

This forms the basis of a conceptual framework about the relationship between urban qualities, social cohesion, the mitigation of social problems and community resilience. The validity of this framework is then tested by developing a checklist of urban qualities that promote social cohesion and using it to analyse the existing urban characteristics of an Australian disadvantaged suburban neighbourhood.

This enables recommendations of improvements in urban qualities of existing disadvantaged neighbourhoods to be made in order to improve their social cohesion, mitigate social problems, and enhance community resilience.

3.3 Limitations This dissertation has a number of limitations. Firstly, the literature analysed is cross-sectional, meaning that only correlation, not causation can be determined. However, the literature reviewed was sourced from a broad range of sociological, urban planning and urban design studies, of various geographical and demographical contexts. Another limitation is the lack of data that measures the improvements in social problems after an existing neighbourhood has been retrofitted to facilitate social cohesion.

This would present an ideal case study. This leads to the conceptual framework being validated through the comparison of the case study’s urban qualities to a checklist of ideal characteristics that promote social cohesion. Due to time constraints, only one case study is analysed, making the results less amenable to be generalised. This is mitigated by the appropriate choice of Davoren Park in South Australia, as it is acutely affected by the socio-economic problems and urban factors characteristic of Australian disadvantaged neighbourhoods. The time constraints also mean the conceptual framework cannot be implemented to test its effectiveness in a real-life context. However, this does provide scope for further development and field research.

3.4 Conclusion This dissertation is approached with a transformative framework, as it focuses on the lived experiences of residents of disadvantaged neighbourhoods, and aims to expand the urban design discipline and inform political decision making. Consequently, it is approached qualitatively as it measures the subjective, unquantifiable aspects of community resilience and social cohesion. Grounded theory strategy is used in order to synthesise the sociological, urban planning and urban design literature, to establish a conceptual framework about the relationship between social problems and urban qualities.

This is then investigated in its real-life context by comparing a checklist of urban qualities that enhance social cohesion, with existing urban characteristics of a case study of a disadvantaged neighbourhood.

37

Chapter Four: Discussion 4.1 Introduction The first part of this chapter synthesises sociological, urban design and urban planning literature to establish the conceptual framework of the influence urban qualities can have in mitigating social problems and strengthening community resilience through the enhancement of social capital. This allows for the development of a checklist of urban qualities that promote social cohesion. The second part of this chapter compares this checklist against the existing urban qualities of Davoren Park, South Australia, in order assess the conceptual framework and identify urban qualities that could be improved in existing disadvantaged neighbourhoods in order to comply with the framework. Thereby, this conceptual framework can expand the scope urban design practice and provide an alternate holistic perspective to be considered in political decision making.

4.2 Conceptual Framework: The Relationship between Social Cohesion, Urban Qualities and Community Resilience As evident in the literature review existing sociological, urban planning and urban design literature have established the relationships between a neighbourhoods’ social problems and social cohesion, and social cohesion and urban qualities. However, it has not been adequately addressed the influence of urban qualities on mitigating social problems and strengthening community resilience. Consequently, this section synthesises the existing literature to inductively form a conceptual framework about the relationship between community resilience, social problems, and urban qualities in a neighbourhood.

This is a complex, indirect, and cyclical relationship that encompasses self-perceived disadvantage, social problems, social participation, social capital, and social cohesion.

This complexity arises because community resilience and social cohesion can influence, and be influenced by, social problems, as social cohesion consists of trust, empowerment, collective norms and values, a common purpose, supportive networks, and belonging (Table 1). Firstly, these characteristics can contribute to community resilience as they allow residents to collectively respond and adapt to stressors such as ASB, and crime.109 Secondly, social cohesion can act as a form of social control by reducing the motivation to commit crime and anti-social behaviour.110 Strong social cohesion provides a sense of belonging and social networks that can compensate for the negative psychological effects associated with long-term unemployment, which can otherwise lead to involvement in ASB and crime. 111 Furthermore, this sense of belonging encourages residents to abide by the community’s shared norms and values in order to remain part of it.112

109

Australian Social Inclusion Board, “Building Inclusive and Resilient Communities”, 4; Plan H. “Strengthening Neighbourhood Resilience, 3.

110 James S. Coleman. “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.” American Journal of Sociology (1988), 95.

111 Mackenzie et al., The Drivers of Perceptions of Anti-social Behaviour, 14.

112 Ibid.

38

However, it was found that the development of social cohesion can also be hindered by the objective and perceived presence of the social problems of ASB and crime. 113 This is because, in addition to objective economic disadvantage, the presence of ASB and crime detrimentally affect residents’ selfperceived disadvantage, and can prevent residents from formally participating in employment, education, recreation, and public organisations.114 In turn, this lack of participation hinders the development of social capital and consequently social cohesion. However, it was found that residents often overestimate the levels of ASB in their own neighbourhood, especially if it is disadvantaged and/or has low levels of social cohesion.115 This overestimation is due to the fact that ASB often occurs in public places and is highly visible. Therefore, it can be argued that improving a neighbourhood’s urban qualities to reduce the objective and perceived presence of ASB and crime can, directly and indirectly, decrease self-perceived disadvantage and encourage residents to be out in the neighbourhood and participate (Figure 8).

Objective ASB and crime can be directly mitigated through increasing lighting and use of traffic calming devices to make ASB and crime more difficult or less rewarding.116 This also influences the perception of ASB and crime as increased investment in the urban qualities of the neighbourhood is an example of positive attention from the council and can be seen as an indication of positive change.117 However, these improvements only displace ASB and crime and do not consider their causes. Urban qualities can address these causes by facilitating the development of social cohesion by providing physical opportunities that foster informal interaction. This requires urban qualities that are compatible with, and comfortable for, human habitation. These include aesthetic attractiveness and qualities that encourage walkability such as footpath infrastructure and the design of the social public spaces, including streets. The resulting increased presence of people in the neighbourhood can also act as natural surveillance, further deterring ASB and crime, which again improves residents’ perceptions of the neighbourhood and community. The diagram below is a representation of the conceptual framework, illustrating the complex and cyclical relationship between urban qualities, social cohesion, and community resilience.

113

Mackenzie et al., The Drivers of Perceptions of Anti-social Behaviour, 7.

Matthews and Besemer, “Social Networks, Social Capital and Poverty”, 190.

115 McAtamney and Morgan, Key Issues in Antisocial Behaviour, 3.

116 Carmona et al., Public Places Urban Spaces,107.

117 Mackenzie et al., The Drivers of Perceptions of Anti-social Behaviour, 14.

114

39

Decreased Objective Economic Disadvantage Unemployment Lack of resources Improvements Urban Qualities (Dispositional) Aesthetic attractiveness Walkability

Decreased Perceived Disadvantage Poor self-esteem Shame Poor sense of belonging

Social Participation Social interaction

Improvements Urban Qualities (Situational) Increased Lighting Traffic Calming Natural Surveillance devices Social Capital and Social Cohesion Social control Sense of belonging Trust and social norms

Decreased Social Problems

Community Resilience

Characteristics of disadvantage Sociological concepts Urban Design Principles Figure 10. Conceptual Framework of the Relationship between Urban Qualities, Factors of Social Cohesion and Community Resilience

This conceptual framework illustrates how urban qualities can influence perceived disadvantage and facilitate the development of social cohesion to mitigate social problems and enhance community resilience. It is evident that urban qualities can compensate for economic disadvantage- the conventional predictor of neighbourhood ASB and crime. Accordingly, this conceptual framework has the potential to expand the traditional scope of the urban design discipline and influence political decision making by providing a holistic perspective that addresses the causes of social problems and considers the lived experiences of disadvantaged residents.

40

4.2.1

Checklist of Urban Qualities that Enhance Community Resilience

Urban qualities that directly influence ASB and crime are ‘situational’ and physically deter the misuse of public space, environmental ASB and dangerous driving.118 These qualities include enhanced lighting and the use of traffic calming devices. However, this can merely displace the problem, as it does not influence perpetrators’ intent and motivations to participate in ASB and crime.119 Despite Carmona et al. stating that ‘dispositional’ approaches are outside the scope of urban design, 120 synthesising existing literature has found that urban qualities can have an indirect influence. This is because urban qualities can lessen residents’ perceived disadvantage, encourage residents to spend time out in the neighbourhood and provide physical opportunities for residents to interact by enhancing the aesthetics of its built environment, providing street and footpath infrastructure that encourages pedestrian safety and walkability, and making the urban qualities of public space welcoming to human habitation. These relevant urban qualities outlined in Table 5, Table 6, and Table 7 in Chapter 2, are collated into a singular checklist of urban qualities that enhance community resilience: Table 9. Urban Qualities that Enhance Community Resilience Directly  Good lighting that makes public spaces usable at night and those activities visible  Traffic calming devices (narrow lanes, neckdowns, wielding footpaths, roundabouts, chicanes, raised medians, diverters, speed bumps rumble strips) Indirectly Walkability Traffic Condition  Vehicular traffic balanced with other street users (walkers, cyclists etc)  Narrow traffic lane widths- 2.7m still safe for driving, but decrease car speed and distance pedestrians have to cross121 - Traffic calming devices, see “Directly” Footpath Infrastructure  Dignified pedestrian experience with no barriers and interruptions in footpath  Adequate footpath width  No level changes  Suitable surfaces for walking ie. even, dry, not slippery  Pedestrian crossings are at street level and uninterrupted - no over/underpasses and refuge islands in middle of street  Simple intersections and crossings  Be politely informed to cross the street - No buttons to press and no flashing red man, minimal waiting time to cross road - Reduce perceived walking distance with activity  Active street: 15-20 doors/100m122 118

Carmona et al., Public Places Urban Spaces,107.

Ibid., 123.

120 Ibid.

121 Project for Public Space, "Traffic Calming 101 - Project for Public Spaces."

122 Gehl, Cities for People, 241.

119

41

Urban Qualities of Public Space Protection - Protection against traffic and accidents (see footpath infrastructure) - Protection against crime and violence (see “directly”)  Protection against traffic and accidents  Protection against unpleasant sensory experiences- shading, vegetation screening, reflective qualities of materials Comfort - Opportunities to walk (see footpath infrastructure)  Buildings no higher than 4 storeys  Streets <25m wide to allow people to recognise each other and their moods from the opposite side123  Footpath <3m to facilitate normal conversation124  Public spaces <20m wide/long look and feel active125  Attractive zones to stay and stand at edges  Benches with location taking advantage of views, sun and people  Furniture configured to encourage social interaction  Unhindered sightlines  Interesting view Aesthetic Attractiveness  Good quality materials and landscaping  Maintained greenery  Decoration/ Ornamentation  Public Art  High maintenance

123

Gehl, Life Between Buildings, 65.

Ibid.

125 Christopher Alexander, Sara Ishikawa, and Murray Silverstein, A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977), 313.

124

42

4.3 Validation of Conceptual Framework and Case Study of an Australian Disadvantaged Suburban Neighbourhood This section uses the checklist developed in 4.2.1 to assess a case study of an Australian suburban disadvantaged neighbourhood in order to evaluate the validity of the conceptual framework in a real life setting. This analysis will also identify opportunities for retrofitting disadvantaged neighbourhoods to improve opportunities for social cohesion and community resilience.

4.3.1

Case Study: Davoren Park, South Australia

Davoren Park, South Australia was chosen as the case study as the extent of economic issues, social problems and undesirable urban qualities make it ideal as these factors are typical of other suburban Australian disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Davoren Park is located 24km North from Adelaide’s CBD and is a neighbourhood of the city of Elizabeth, a satellite city master planned in the 1950s, which due to the horizontal expansion of Adelaide it has become a periphery area.

4.3.1.1 Demographics and Social Problems of Davoren Park Elizabeth has a notorious reputation as “South Australia’s most dangerous” area,126 as it experiences high levels of economic disadvantage and associated social problems. Within the city of Elizabeth, Davoren Park (previously known as Elizabeth West), is considered the most affected with high rates of unemployment, non-participation, crime and ASB. 127

24km

Figure 11. Davoren Park in Relation to Adelaide. Source: Google Maps 126

Lisa Cornish, "South Australia's Most Dangerous Suburbs," The Sunday Mail, January 12, 2014, accessed August 23, 2016. www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/south-australias-most-dangerous-suburbs/story-fni6uo1m-1226799849382.

127 Michael Milnes, and Ben Hyde, "Davoren Park's Streets of Fear and Loathing," The Advertiser, July 31, 2009, accessed August 23, 2016, http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/davoren-parks-streets-of-fear-and-loathing/story-e6freo8c-1225756945310.

43

According to the 2011 Australian Census data, Davoren Park, has an unemployment rate of 23.9%, over four times the average of Greater Adelaide, 5.2%.128

Figure 12. Employment Status of Davoren Park Residents compared to average of Greater Adelaide

This 2011 statistics were measured before the 2013 announcement of the planned closure of the Elizabeth Holden plant by 2017, in which many of Elizabeth’s residents are employed. This closure will result in a direct and indirect loss of 13 200 jobs,129 further adding to the high unemployment rate.

Furthermore, this high level of unemployment cannot be fully attributed to the decline of Holden and the Australian manufacturing industry, as data shows that since 1990 unemployment in Elizabeth has not been below 15%, and this multi-generational unemployment is endemic.130 As the unemployment rate only accounts for those who are actively looking for work, it is useful to examine the participation rate- which measures the number of people who are interested in participating in the workforce. The participation rate accounts for everyone who is able to work above the age of 16, including the employed, unemployed, and those not participating. It was found that Davoren Park has a participation rate of 42.4%, 20% less than the average of Greater Adelaide (62%) as shown in the following graph:131

128

Profile.Id, “Community Profile: Elizabeth Employment Status”, 2011, accessed August 25, 2016, http://profile.id.com.au/playford/employment-status?DataType=EN&BMID=50&WebID=150 129 Alex Mann, “Holden closure could cost South Australian economy $1.24 billion: report”, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, November 6 2013, accessed 24 August 2016, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-05/holden-closure-cost-southaustralia/5071704.

130 Department of Employment, “Smaller Area Labour Markets” (Australian Government, Canberra, December Quarter 2010), 25.

131 Profile.Id, “Community Profile: Elizabeth Employment Status”, 2011, accessed August 25, 2016, http://profile.id.com.au/playford/employment-status?DataType=EN&BMID=50&WebID=150

44

Participation Rate in Labour Market 70.00%

60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Davoren ParkGreater Adelaide Figure 13. Participation Rate of Davoren Park Residents compared to Greater Adelaide

High unemployment and low participation rates are also related to the non-completion of secondary school.132 In 2011, 23.4% of residents in Davoren Park completed year 12, half the average of Greater Adelaide, 47.1%, as shown in the graph below:133

Figure 14. Highest level of schooling completed in Davoren Park compared to Greater Adelaide

Non-completion of secondary education is financially detrimental as it limits employment opportunities.134 The graph below illustrates that 52% of the adult population in Davoren Park have individual incomes below the poverty line for 2011 of $400 per week:135

132

Stephen Lamb, Peter Dwyer, and Johanna Wyn, Non-completion of School in Australia: The Changing Patterns of Participation and Outcomes, (Camberwell, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research, 2000), 46.

133 Profile.Id, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Community Profile: Highest Level of Schoolingâ&#x20AC;?, 2011, accessed August 25, 2016, http://profile.id.com.au/playford/employment-status?DataType=EN&BMID=50&WebID=150 134 Lamb et al., Non-completion of School in Australia, 52.

135 Gilly, Emma, "Poverty," Australian Council of Social Service, accessed September 07, 2016. http://www.acoss.org.au/poverty/.

45

Figure 15. Weekly individual income in Davoren Park compared to average of Greater Adelaide

According to the sociological theory outlined in 0, unemployment, the lack of participation in the labour market, and low individual income has a detrimental effect on peoples’ self-esteem and sense of belonging, which contributes to their self-perceived disadvantage. The theory outlined in 2.2.3 suggests that these negative psychological issues are often compensated for by participating in ASB and crime.

Although there are no crime statistics available for Davoren Park specifically, due to many reports of crime in the media, it is perceived as Elizabeth’s most dangerous neighbourhood.136 Therefore following graph that compares offences recorded in Elizabeth to the average of Greater Metropolitan Adelaide is still indicative of Davoren Park’s social problems. 137

Figure 16. Elizabeth's Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour compared to Greater Metropolitan Adelaide for 2009-2013

136 137

Lisa Cornish, "South Australia's Most Dangerous Suburbs”.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, Regional Population Growth, Australia, 2012-13.

46

Furthermore, environmental ASB which is unlikely to be reported to the police, is highly visible in Davoren Park, evident by the photos below: Table 10. Physical Indicators of Anti-Social Behaviour and Disadvantage 



Litter

Figure 17. Litter on vacant plot, Ferris St Figure 17. Abandoned shopping trollies, Figure 19. Litter on alley off Davoren Park Kilmington Rd, Davoren Park Charmouth Road, Davoren Park Kilmington Rd, Davoren Park

Unsolicited graffiti

Tagging present on the side of a private property adjacent to an alleyway.

Figure 20. Unauthorised Graffiti on Private House, Hambridge Road, Davoren Park



Visible signs of dangerous driving Visible skid marks in multiple locations.

Figure 22. Skid marks on Dartmouth St, Davoren Park

Figure 21. Skid marks on Kinsbury Road, Davoren Park

47



Poorly maintained private property Gardens not maintained and presence on litter in the front of the house.

Rubbish in front gardens Overgrown gardens

Figure 23. Overgrown Garden, Crafter Street, Davoren Park

Figure 24. Litter in front of yard, Brimsdown Rd, Davoren Park

 Vandalism  Abandoned cars  Withdrawal from the street It was observed that there was no pedestrian activity and that the majority of the houses had their front curtains drawn. (Note these photos were taken on a sunny Saturday afternoon)

Figure 25. Curtains drawn, Gores Rd, Davoren Park

Figure 26. Window boarded up, Laverton St, Davoren Park

Figure 27. Curtains drawn, Laverton St, Davoren Park

According to the conceptual framework, this presence of ASB and crime can further contribute to residents’ perception of disadvantage, restricting their participation in the neighbourhood, and preventing the development of social cohesion. These social problems are also an indicator of poor social cohesion as they can compensate for the negative psychological effects of unemployment.

However, social cohesion requires social interaction and considering the residents’ lack of participation in employment and education the public spaces within the neighbourhood are an ideal setting for informal social participation. However, like many Australian disadvantaged suburban neighbourhoods, Davoren Park’s urban qualities do not facilitate this.

48

4.3.1.2 History of Elizabeth’s Settlement and Urban Planning Elizabeth was developed in the 1950s by the South Australian Housing Trust to be a satellite city, independent of metropolitan Adelaide.138 It was to provide 26,000 new homes over the 10 years to meet a housing demand from post-war immigrants and encourage economic development in the manufacturing industry.139 The chief architect-planner Henry Smith, based Elizabeth upon a neighbourhood unit concept. This meant that each unit of 800-1000 homes would have their own primary school, central shopping area, and local institutions. At that time cars were becoming more prevalent and owning a detached house with a car was seen as a sign of success.140 Elizabeth was designed to prioritise vehicular movement over pedestrian experience. This is evident in planning details based pm the belief that improving the quality of life for residents could be achieved by the “the shopping centres [and] their capacious car parks”.141 This accounts for the absence of pedestrian networks that leads to the commercial and retail centres.

4.3.2

Analysis of Davoren Park’s Urban Qualities in Comparison with the checklist of Urban Qualities enhances Community Resilience

Table 11. Analysis of Davoren Park's Urban Characteristics Directly  Good lighting that makes public spaces usable at night and those activities visible Street lights spaced 50m apart are present.

No lighting in public open spaces does not deter anti-social behaviour or make it possible to legitimately use the space at night.  Traffic calming devices (narrow lanes, neckdowns, wielding footpaths, roundabouts, chicanes, diverters, tight corner, speed bumps, rumble strips etc.)

Davoren Park does not feature any traffic calming devices. Furthermore, the streets have a corner radius of 11m, reducing pedestrian safety as it enables cars to turn at speed. According to PPS the corner radius on streets should only be 0.3-6m to reduce the speed of turning vehicles and give pedestrians more opportunity to see and be seen by approaching traffic.142

138

Margaret Galbreath, and Gillian Pearson, Elizabeth, the Garden City, (Elizabeth, South Australia: Corporation of the City of Elizabeth, 1982), 19.

139 Ibid.

140 Ibid. 19.

141 Ibid, 21.

142 Project for Public Space, "Traffic Calming 101 - Project for Public Spaces."

49

Figure 28. Typical turning radius of Davoren Park's streets. Source: Google Earth

0/2 Indirectly Walkability Traffic Condition ď&#x192;ž Vehicular traffic balanced with other street users (walkers, cyclists etc) There is the provision of bike lanes on the arterial roads, but they are not protected or differentiated from the vehicular lanes.

Figure 29. Bike lane on Peachy Road, Davoren Park

ď&#x192;˝ Narrow traffic lane widths- 2.7m still safe for driving, but decrease car speed and distance pedestrians have to cross Lanes on residential streets are 3m and 3.6m on arterial roads, allowing for higher vehicular speeds.

3.0m m

3.6m m

Figure 30. Typical Residential street width

50

Figure 31. Typical arterial road width

-

Traffic calming devices, see “Directly” 1/2

Footpath Infrastructure  Dignified pedestrian experience with no barriers and interruptions in footpath  Adequate footpath width  No level changes  Suitable surfaces for walking ie. even, dry, not slippery Even concrete based surface.

Figure 32. Condition of footpath surface, Davoren Park

 Pedestrian crossings are at street level and uninterrupted - no over/underpasses and refuge islands in middle of street Crossings on light traffic roads are uninterrupted but are not marked on the road, therefore prioritising vehicular traffic. Those on arterial roads are interrupted with medians (see Simple intersections and crossings).

Crossing not marked on the road Figure 33. Pedestrian crossing unmarked on the road, Edgecombe Road, Davoren Park

51

ď&#x192;˝ Simple intersections and crossings The crossing on Peachy Road, the main arterial road of Davoren Park, does not provide a straight path.

The road has two parking lanes, two bicycle lanes, two wide driving lanes, and an exceptionally wide median making it difficult for a pedestrian to cross without stopping, therefore they must stop on the median, press another button, and wait again before crossing. This illustrates the prioritisation of vehicles over pedestrians. This extra effort discourages people from using the crossing properly, or at all, potentially putting themselves at risk.

Vehicular Bike Parking

Figure 34. Pedestrian crossing on Peachy Road, Davoren Park

Figure 35. Plan view of pedestrian crossing, Peachy Road, Davoren Park

ď&#x192;˝ Be politely informed to cross the street - No buttons to press, no flashing red man, minimal waiting time to cross road Crossings used the standard Australian system that requires pedestrians to press a button and wait, with a red flashing figure to encourage pedestrians to speed up, making crossing a hurried and unpleasant experience.

Figure 36. Must push button to cross

-

Reduce perceived walking distance with activity

52

 Active street: 15-20 doors/100m The streets in Davoren Park only have approximately 5 houses per 100m, this makes the street inactive and uninteresting, increasing the experienced walking distance.

Figure 37. Birdseye view of a typical residential street in Davoren Park showing 5 houses per 100m. Source: Google Earth

4/8 Urban Qualities of Public Space Protection - Protection against traffic and accidents (see footpath infrastructure) - Protection against crime and violence (see “directly”)  Protection against traffic and accidents Footpath on the arterial road less than 1.5m away from moving traffic at 60km/h, overall no or minimal protection from the fast moving traffic.

Figure 38. Footpath on Edgecombe Road, Davoren Park

Figure 39. Footpath on Davoren Road, Davoren Park

53

 Protection against unpleasant sensory experiences- shading, vegetation screening, reflective qualities of materials Some provision of trees, but insufficient shading due to the distance between trees.

Figure 40. Street with no protection from traffic or weather

0/2 Comfort - Opportunities to walk (see footpath infrastructure)  Buildings no higher than 4 storeys All residences are one storey.  Streets <25m wide to allow people to recognise each other and their moods from the opposite side Davoren Park’s main arterial road, Peachy Road, is 23m wide (see plan diagram in Simple intersections and crossings).  Footpath <3m to facilitate normal conversation  Public open spaces <20m wide/long look and feel active Davoren Park has access to numerous open areas, although these areas are expansive they are not well maintained, and devoid of public amenities such as playgrounds and picnic areas, making them look like uninviting vacant blocks of land. These unused spaces also increase the distance between residents, and how far people have to walk to reach their destination.

Figure 41. Desolate Public Park with no amenities on Dimpton St, Davoren Park

Figure 42. Greenery with no amenities on Woodcotts Road, Davoren Park

The public spaces that had sporting facilities, were fenced off, controlling and restricting access.

54

Figure 43. Fenced public amenity, Davoren Park

 Benches with location taking advantage of views, sun and people There is no provision of any public furniture including tables, benches and picnic areas in the public spaces, giving the residents no opportunity/reason to use the space.  Public furniture configured to encourage social interaction  Attractive zones to stay and stand at edges Public spaces directly adjacent to streets or residents front/back fences, with no provision of furniture.  Unhindered sightlines  Interesting views No activity on the streets or in the public spaces, and no interesting vistas.

4/9 Aesthetic Attractiveness  Good quality materials and landscaping The medians and public spaces in Davoren Park are not landscaped and maintained.

Figure 44. Overgrown Median of Peachy Road, Davoren Park

 High maintenance 55

As evident in Table 11, there is a presence of litter and the footpaths are not maintained, illustrated by the presence of weeds and grass growing between the paving.

Figure 45 & 46. Poorly Maintained footpaths showing weeds growing between paving

 Maintained greenery It should be noted that the photos that show green grass were taken directly after a significant rainfall, as the normal condition of the greenery in Davoren Park are better indicated by the photos below:

Figure 47 &48. Poorly maintained Public Parks, not watered or landscaped

This demonstrates the lack of maintenance of Davoren Park’s greenery as the vegetation is not watered by the council, but rely on rain.  Decoration/ Ornamentation  Public Art 0/5 9/28

56

4.3.4

Discussion of results

As evident in Table 11 Davoren Park has only 9/28 urban characteristics that enhance community resilience. Firstly, there are no qualities that discourage ASB as public spaces, excluding streets, are not lit at night and there are no traffic calming devices to prevent dangerous driving. In addition, the corner radius of the streets are large, allowing vehicles to turn at high speeds and drive dangerously, detrimentally affecting pedestriansâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; safety. Secondly, there is also a lack of physical opportunities for participation and social interaction, therefore restricting the creation of social cohesion and dispositional prevention of social problems. This is evident as the walkability of Davoren Park is diminished by streets designed to maximise vehicular efficiency and speed; unprotected footpaths; crossings that require effort and waiting; and inactive and uninteresting streets due to large plots of land for detached houses and underutilised public space. Residents are not encouraged to be out and stay in the neighbourhood as there are no accessible public amenities and furniture, and the vegetation in the public spaces and parks are not maintained and watered. This lack of maintenance and provision of public amenity and furniture also indicates a lack of investment by the council and would further contribute to residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; negative perceptions of their neighbourhood, and their circumstances; thereby psychologically limiting social interaction and the development of social cohesion. Thus, Davoren Parkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s low score on the checklist of urban qualities that enhance community resilience, and the prevalence of social problems in Davoren Park suggest a correlation between urban qualities and social problems. This correlation supports the conceptual framework as it suggests that improving the urban qualities of Davoren Park could contribute to the mitigation social problems and enhance community, by encouraging residents to socially interact.

4.3.3

Recommendations for City Council

This analysis illustrates that there is significant potential to improve the urban qualities and maintenance of Davoren Park in order to increase the physical opportunities for interaction. This could be achieved by improving the urban qualities to comply to the checklist, by: 1.

-

Prioritising pedestrian experiences Install traffic calming devices to slow drivers down and make it safer for pedestrians Landscape for protection from traffic and the weather Make pedestrians crossings simpler to prioritise the pedestrians

2.

-

Giving reasons for residents to be out in the neighbourhood Give the public spaces a function that is accessible at all times Provide public furniture on streets and in public places Install lighting in public spaces so it can be used at night and to discourage its misuse

3. Increasing aesthetic attractiveness of the street and public spaces - Provide quality, consistent maintenance of street and public spaces - Invest in landscaping and maintenance

57

These improvements would also be seen as indicators of positive neighbourhood change and enhance residents’ perceptions of their neighbourhood and themselves, as they are indicators of positive neighbourhood change. This would further encourage residents to be out in the neighbourhood and participate, improving the possibility of the development of social capital, cohesion and community resilience. Although these recommendations were developed through an analysis of Davoren Park, they can also be applied to other disadvantaged Australian neighbourhoods that have similar urban qualities.

4.4 Conclusion The first part of this chapter established a conceptual framework of how urban qualities can influence the strengthening of community resilience through enhancing social cohesion. Although increased lighting and use of traffic calming devices can directly discourage ASB and crime they do not address its individual causes. It was found that this could be addressed by urban qualities that facilitate social interaction, enabling the development of social capital and social cohesion, as it acts as a form of social control allowing residents to collectively react to stressors, such as ASB and crime. It also compensates for economic disadvantage that could otherwise lead to participation in crime and ASB, therefore reducing the perpetrators’ initial motivations. Secondly, improving urban qualities could also enhance residents’ perceptions of themselves, and their neighbourhood, encouraging them to participate and develop social cohesion. Therefore, urban qualities can physically and psychologically contribute to a neighbourhood’s community resilience.

This new conceptual framework allowed for the development of a checklist of urban qualities that promote community resilience. This checklist was used to evaluate the validity of the conceptual framework in a real-life situation, by assessing the urban qualities of the disadvantaged suburb of Davoren Park, South Australia. It was found that Davoren Park scored only 9 out of the 28 ideal urban qualities. This low score and the high presence of social problems suggests a correlation between urban qualities and community resilience, thus supporting the conceptual framework. The checklist also identified urban qualities that could be improved in Davoren Park to comply with the checklist, in order to enhance community resilience. It is recommended that there be a focus on prioritising pedestrian experiences, giving reasons for residents to be out in the neighbourhood, and improving its aesthetic attractiveness through more maintenance. These recommendations can also be applied to other suburbs with similar urban qualities. Therefore, this conceptual framework can expand the scope of urban design practice to consider its potential social influences, as well as provide political decisionmakers with a new perspective on the mitigation of spatially concentrated social problems.

58

Chapter Five: Conclusion 5.1 Conclusion – Aim & Objectives Spatial concentrations of disadvantage and social problems in Australia are currently being addressed through urban renewal. This consists of demolishing and rebuilding entire neighbourhoods, and selling properties on the open market, resulting in the displacement of existing disadvantaged residents.

Urban renewal does not consider or aim to improve the lives of the existing disadvantaged residents and does not address the causes of the social problems on an individual and community level. This dissertation provides an alternative approach for political decision makers that is holistic as it is centred on the residents’ experiences and expands the scope of the urban design discipline to consider its potential influence on social problems. The aim of this dissertation was to develop a conceptual framework of how urban qualities can strengthen community resilience by mitigation of social problems and enhancing social cohesion.

This aim was achieved using five objectives. The first objective was to determine the relationship between economic disadvantage, social problems, and social cohesion. It was found that social cohesion can influence and be influenced by social problems. This is because long-term unemployment can lead to negative psychological effects which if not addressed by the positive characteristics of social cohesion, can be compensated for by involvement in crime and anti-social behaviour. However, selfperceived disadvantage, which is further exacerbated by social problems can restrict participation in the neighbourhood, preventing social interaction and the development of social cohesion. Therefore it can be seen that there is an inverse cyclical relationship between social cohesion and social problems.

The second objective was to demonstrate the relationship between social cohesion and urban qualities.

Social cohesion is a characteristic of a community or group and can be seen as an accumulation of its members’ social capital. The development of social capital requires social interaction, which can be physically and psychologically facilitated by urban qualities. Firstly, improvements in neighbourhood aesthetics through landscaping, maintenance, and retrofitting can mitigate residents’ self-perceived disadvantage as the neighbourhood can be seen as an extension of their identities. Secondly, specific urban qualities that enhance walkability, and the opportunities to be and stay out in the neighbourhood’s public spaces physically facilitates social interactions and therefore social cohesion.

The third objective was to establish a new conceptual framework of how urban qualities can enhance community resilience. This was achieved by synthesising the sociological, urban planning, and urban design literature to demonstrate that improving urban qualities can physically and psychologically facilitate social interaction, and therefore the development of social capital and social cohesion, which can mitigate social problems, and strengthen community resilience.

The fourth objective was to use this conceptual framework to establish a checklist of urban qualities that foster social cohesion and compare them with the existing urban characteristics of an Australian disadvantaged neighbourhood. Davoren Park in South Australia was chosen as the case study and scored 9/28 on the urban qualities checklist. This low score, along with visible signs of anti-social

59

behaviour, and high crime statistics, suggests some correlation between urban qualities and social problems, thereby validating the conceptual framework. This analysis was limited as it could not be compared to an existing disadvantage neighbourhood with ideal urban qualities, as no example have been found.

The fifth objective was to use the results of objective four to recommend improvements in urban qualities of Davoren Park, and other similar disadvantaged neighbourhoods in order to improve social cohesion, mitigate social problems, and enhance the resilience of the current community. These recommendations should be implemented by the city council and include prioritising pedestrian experience over vehicles, giving residents reasons to be, and stay out, in the neighbourhood, and increasing aesthetic attractiveness of the streets and public places.

5.2 Conclusion – Research Question This dissertation questioned how community resilience in disadvantaged neighbourhoods can be enhanced by improvements in urban qualities. Through the analysis and synthesis of the existing literature regarding the relationship between social problems and social cohesion, and social cohesion and urban qualities, the new conceptual framework was developed. This conceptual framework demonstrates that there is a complex relationship between urban qualities, self-perceived disadvantage, social cohesion, social problems, and community resilience. It is evident that urban qualities can physically and psychologically facilitate social interaction, a pre-requisite for social cohesion. This can mitigate social problems by reducing the initial motivation to perpetrate anti-social behaviour or crime. Social cohesion can also enable residents to respond to social problems more proactively. It can also improve residents’ perceptions of themselves and their neighbourhoods, further encouraging social participation, interaction and the development of social cohesion. Therefore, it is evident that improving a neighbourhood’s urban qualities to enhance social cohesion and strengthen community resilience is a holistic approach to spatialized concentrations of social problems that addresses the causes of the problems and improves the lived experience of the residents.

Consequently, this conceptual framework could be used to influence political decision making and expand the scope of the urban design discipline to consider its impact on social conditions.

5.3 Scope for Further Research There is scope for further research to test the conceptual framework in the field through a longitudinal study. This could consist of retrofitting urban qualities in a disadvantaged Australian suburban neighbourhood to comply with the checklist (4.2.1), and evaluate the resulting impact on social cohesion and community resilience by monitoring: -

the extent of social participation and interaction in the neighbourhood the residents’ perceptions of their circumstances, their neighbourhood, and their neighbours the neighbourhood’s objective rates of crime and ASB

60

Reference List Alexander, Christopher, Sara Ishikawa, and Murray Silverstein. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.

Appleyard, Donald, and Mark Lintell. "The Environmental Quality of City Streets: The Residents' Viewpoint." Transport Sociology, (1986); 84-101.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, Regional Population Growth, Australia, 2012-13.

Australian Social Inclusion Board. “Building Inclusive and Resilient Communities.” Australian Government. Australia, 2009.

Bertotti, Marcello, Faye Adams-Eaton, Kevin Sheridan, and Adrian Renton. “Key Barriers to Community Cohesion: Views from Residents of 20 London Deprived Neighbourhoods.” GeoJournal vol. 77, no.2 (2012): 223-234.

Beumer, Carijn. “Social Cohesion in a Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood”, Sustainable Urban Neighbourhoods vol.2, no. 6 (2010).

Bjornstorm, Eileen S, and Magarer L.Ralston. “Neighbourhood Built Environment, Perceived Danger, and Perceived Social Cohesion.” Environment and Behaviour vol. 46, no. 6 (2014); 718-744.

Bourdieu, Pierre. The Forms of Capital. New York: Greenwood Press, 1986.

Brook Lyndhurst. Research Report 11: Environmental Exclusion Review. London; Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

Carmona Matthew, Tim Heath, Taner Oc, Steve Tiesdell. Public Places Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design. Oxford; Architectural Press, 2003.

Cary, John and Public Architecture. The Power of Pro Bono: 40 Stories About Design for the Public Good

by Architects and Their Clients. New York: Metropolis Books, 2010.

Chambers, Donald E. Social Policy and Social Progams: A Method for the Practical Public Policy Analyst.

Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2000.

Coleman, James S. “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.” American Journal of Sociology (1988): 95-120.

Cornish, Lisa. "South Australia's Most Dangerous Suburbs." South Australia's Most Dangerous Suburbs, January 12, 2014. Accessed August 23, 2016. www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/southaustralias-most-dangerous-suburbs/story-fni6uo1m-1226799849382.

Council of Europe. “Report of High-Level Task Force on Social Cohesion: Towards an Active, Fair and Socially Cohesive Europe.” Council of Europe. Strasbourg, 2008.

61

Creswell, John W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches. 3rd Ed California: Sage Publications, 20014.

Davison, Gethin, Nicole Curran, Ryan van den Nouwelant, Simon Pinnegar and Bill Randoplph.

“Afforable housing, urban renewal and planning: emerging practice in Queensland, South Australia, and New South Wales.” Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute. Australia, 2014.

Dempsey, Nicola. “Are Good-Quality Environments Socially Cohesive?” The Town Planning Review, vol.

80, no. 3 (2009): 315-345.

Dempsey, Nicola. "Does Quality of the Built Environment Affect Social Cohesion?" Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Urban Design and Planning, vol. 161, no. 3 (2008), 108 Department of Employment, “Smaller Area Labour Markets”, Australian Government, Canberra, December Quarter 2010.

Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR). Green Spaces, Better Places: Final Report of the Urban Green Spaces Taskforce. London; DTLR, 2002.

Fergusson, R. "Risk, Responsibilities and Rights: Reassessing the 'economic Causes of Crime' Thesis in a Recession." Youth Justice 13, no. 1 (2013): 31-56.

Forrest, Ray and Ade Kearns. “Social Cohesion, Social Capital and the Neighbourhood.” Urban Studies vol. 38, no.12 (2001); 2125-2143.

Foster Sarah. "Understanding the Pieces of the Neighborhood Puzzle." Environment and Behavior, vol.

46, no.6, (2014), 673-676.

Galbreath, Margaret, and Gillian Pearson. Elizabeth, the Garden City. Elizabeth, South Australia: Corporation of the City of Elizabeth, 1982.

Gehl, Jan. Cities for People. Washington: Island Press, 2010.

Gehl, Jan. Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. 5th ed. Copenhagen: The Danish Architecture Press, 2001.

Gilly, Emma. "Poverty." Australian Council of Social Service. Accessed September 07, 2016. http://www.acoss.org.au/poverty/.

Guagnano, Giuseppina, Elisabetta Santarelli, and Isabella Santini. “Can Social Capital Affect Subjective Poverty in Europe? An Empirical Analysis Based on a Generalised Ordered Logit Model.” Social Indicators Research (2015), 881-907.

Helliwell, John. “Social Capital, the economy, and well-being.” The review of economic performance and social progress (2001), Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy and Centre for the Study of Living Standards, 55-60.

62

Hirschfield, Alex F. G., and Kate J. Bowers. “The Effect of Social Cohesion on Levels of Recorded Crime in Disadvantaged Areas.” Urban Studies. 34 (1997): 1275 – 1295.

Hulse, Kath, Hal Pawson, Margaret Reynold, and Shanaka Heart. “Disadvantaged Places in Urban Australia: Analysing Socio-Economic Diversity and Housing Market Performance.” Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute. Australia, 2014.

Judd, Bruce, and Bill Randolph. "Public Housing Urban Renewal in Australia." In Qualitative Urban Analysis: An International Perspective, edited by Paul J. Maginn, Susan M. Thompson, and Matthew Tonts. Oxford: Elsevier, 2008.

Kasarda, John, and Morris Janowitz. “Community Attachment in Mass Society”. American Sociological Review 39: (1974), 328- 39.

Lamb, Stephen, Peter Dwyer, and Johanna Wyn. Non-completion of School in Australia: The Changing Patterns of Participation and Outcomes. Camberwell, Vic.: Australian Council for Educational Research, 2000.

Leyden, Kevin M. "Social Capital and the Built Environment: The Importance of Walkable Neighborhoods." Am J Public Health American Journal of Public Health, vol. 93, no. 9 (2003): 1546-1551.

Ljla, Akram M. "Does Public Space Create Social Capital?" Int. J. Sociol. Anthropol. International Journal of Sociology and Anthropology 4, no. 2 (2012): 48-53.

Mackenzie, Simon, Jon Bannister, John Flint, Sadle Parr, Andrew Millie, and Jennifer Fleetwood. The Drivers of Perceptions of Anti-social Behaviour. Report no. 34. London: UK Home Office, 9 March 2010.

Matthews, Peter, and Kirsten Besemer. “Social Networks, Social Capital and Poverty: Panacea or Placebo?” Journal of Poverty & Social Justice, vol. 23, no.3 (2015); 189-201.

McAtamney, Amanda, and Anthony Morgan. Key Issues in Antisocial Behaviour. Report no. 5. Australian Institute of Criminology. Canberra: Australian Government, December 2009.

Mertens, Donna M. Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity with Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2010.

Miles, Matthew B., and A.M. Huberman. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. 2nd ed.

Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1994.

Milnes, Michael and Ben Hyde. "Davoren Park's Streets of Fear and Loathing." The Advertiser, July 31, 2009. Accessed August 23, 2016. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/davoren-parks-streets-offear-and-loathing/story-e6freo8c-1225756945310.

Oxoby, Robert. "Understanding Social Inclusion, Social Cohesion, and Social Capital." International Journal of Social Economics Int J of Social Economics 36, no. 12 (2009): 1133-152. doi:10.1108/03068290910996963.

63

Plan H. “Strengthening Neighbourhood Resilience: Opportunities for Communities and Local Government.” Canadian Centre for Community Renewal. Canada, 2013.

Price-Robertson, Rhys. “What is Community Disadvantage? Understanding the Issue, Overcoming the Problem.” Australian Institute of Family Studies. Australia, 2011.

Profile.Id, “Community Profile: Elizabeth Employment Status”, 2011, accessed August 25, 2016, http://profile.id.com.au/playford/employment-status?DataType=EN&BMID=50&WebID=150 Alex Mann, “Holden closure could cost South Australian economy $1.24 billion: report”, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, November 6 2013, accessed 24 August 2016, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-05/holden-closure-cost-south-australia/5071704 Project for Public Space. "Traffic Calming 101 - Project for Public Spaces." Project for Public Spaces.

Accessed September 21, 2016. http://www.pps.org/reference/livememtraffic/.

Putnam, Robert. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000.

Sampson, Robert J., W. B and Groves. Community Structure and Crime: Testing SocialDisorganization Theory. American Journal of Sociology 94(1989): 774 – 802.

Small, Mario Luis. Villa Victoria: The Transformation of Social Capital in a Boston Barrio. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press (2004).

Strauss, Anselm L., and Juliet M. Corbin. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990.

Tomlinson, Mark, Robert Walker, and Glenn Williams. "Measuring Poverty in Britain as a Multidimensional Concept, 1991 to 2003." J. Soc. Pol. Journal of Social Policy 37, no. 04 (2008).

Ullman, Seth Ullman. PPS Placemaking, "Rightsizing Streets - Project for Public Spaces." Project for Public Spaces. Accessed September 20, 2016. http://www.pps.org/reference/rightsizing/.

Wedlock, Elaine. "Crime and Cohesive Communities." In Research, Development and Statistics Communities Group, London: Home Office. 2006.

Wilkerson, Amy, Nichole E. Carlson, Irene H. Yen, and Yvonne L. Michael. "Neighborhood Physical Features and Relationships With Neighbors: Does Positive Physical Environment Increase Neighborliness?" Environment and Behavior 44, no. 5 (2011): 595-615.

Wood, Lisa, Tya Shannon, Max Bulsara, Terri Pikora, Gavin Mccormack, and Billie Giles-Corti. "The Anatomy of the Safe and Social Neighbourhood: An Exploratory Study of the Built Environment, Social Capital and Residents’ Perceptions of Safety." Health & Place vol. 14, no. 1 (2008); 15-31.

The World Bank. World Development Report: Jobs. Washington, 2013.

64

van Eijk, Gwen. “Does Living in a Poor Neighbourhood Result in Network Poverty? A Study on Local Networks, Locality-Based Relationships and Neighbourhood Settings.” Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, vol. 25, no. 4 (2010); 467-480.

Vergolini, Loris. “Does Economic Vulnerability Affect Social Cohesion? Evidence from a Comparative Analysis.” Canadian Journal of Sociology vol.36, no.1 (2001); 1-23.

Vinson, Tony. “Dropping off the Edge: The Distribution of Disadvantage in Australia.” Jesuit Social Services/Catholic Social Services Australia. Australia, 2007.

65