sign in sign up
<<
Home , Adelaide, Transport in Adelaide

Measuring the liveability of the 21 largest cities in

Liveability Report for About this report

Acknowledgements Gunn LD, Davern M, Higgs C, Both A, This report is one of a series of 21 Liveability Reports presenting Roberts R, Rozek J, Giles-Corti B. (2020). This research has been funded by Measuring liveability for the 21 largest indicators and maps on the liveability of Australia’s 21 largest Prevention cities in Australia: Liveability Report Centre and the NHMRC Centre of cities. It builds on the Creating Liveable Cities in Australia Report for Adelaide. : RMIT University, Research Excellence in Healthy Liveable Centre for Urban Research. and Scorecards developed by researchers from the Healthy, Communities. It has also been supported Liveable Cities Group at RMIT University. This report includes by the Clean Air and Urban Landscapes Enquiries regarding this report Hub of the National Environmental may be directed to: two indicators - a Liveability Index and Social Infrastructure Science Programme. Index as well as liveability indicators for seven domains. Building 8, Level 11 This work is licenced under the RMIT University City campus Creative Commons Attribution- 124 La Trobe Street NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia Melbourne VIC, 3000 Licence. To view a copy of this licence, Australia visit: creativecommons.org/licences/ E [email protected] by-nc-nd/3.0/au/. Any maps reproduced P 03 9925 4577 as part of this project must include attribution and citation. Indicator data and maps can be accessed through the Australian Liveability Walkability Social Public Food ISBN: 978-0-6483390-9-0 Urban Observatory: Index Infrastructure Transport Environment

W auo.org.au

Alcohol Public Open Employment Housing Environment Space Affordability The Australian Urban Observatory The Australian Urban Observatory Liveability Report for Adelaide Liveability Report for Adelaide

Liveability Index Walkability

Rationale What we measured Rationale What we measured

The economic, social, environmental The Liveability Index is underpinned by Walkability measures the ease of walking Walkability is calculated as a composite and health co-benefits of urban seven years of research [3]. It combines in an area. Neighbourhoods with shops index that includes access to daily liveability are now recognised by all six domains of liveability found to be and services to walk to, small blocks living destinations (something to walk levels of government in Australia and associated with health and wellbeing and good street connectivity, and higher to), dwelling density (population needed globally. Liveable communities are outcomes: walkability and access to population density tend to be more to supply services and destinations) and safe, socially cohesive and inclusive, social infrastructure, , walkable [4]. Walkable neighborhoods street connectivity (a way to get there) and environmentally sustainable. They larger public open space, affordable discourage driving and increase walking, within a reasonable walking distance have affordable housing linked via housing and local employment. cycling and active transport use which of home [4, 9]. public transport, walking and cycling Higgs et al 2019 [3] found that people improves levels of physical activity and infrastructure, to employment; education; who live in more liveable communities reduces chronic disease outcomes [5-8]. shops and services; public open space; are more likely to walk, cycle and use and social, cultural and recreational public transport and less likely to drive. opportunities [1, 2]. Details for the included measures are contained in Higgs et al 2019 [3].

Results Results Analysis of liveability for Adelaide suburbs A closer analysis of walkability across the suburbs reveals wide variation over the city. of Adelaide reveals wide variation over the city.

Figure 1. Liveability Index for Adelaide. Figure 2. Walkability Index for Adelaide.

Legend Legend

Decile Decile

1 (Low) 1 (Low)

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

8 8

9 9

10 (High) 10 (High)

2019 CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 Data: Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2016 under CC by 4.0; OpenStreetMap, 2018 under ODbL; Australian Children’s 2019 CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 Education & Care Quality Authority, 2018; Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2018; Healthdirect Data: Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2016 under CC by 4.0; OpenStreetMap, 2018 under ODbL; Australia National Health Services Directory, 2017, via AURIN Portal, 2019; ActionBuses, Metro, MetroTas, NT Department ActionBuses, Canberra Metro, MetroTas, NT Department of Infrastructure, Planning & Logistics, of Infrastructure, Planning & Logistics, Public Transport , Transport for NSW, TransLink and Transperth, under CC by 4.0 Public Transport Victoria, Transport for NSW, TransLink and Transperth, under CC by 4.0 Map tiles: CartoDB, under CC BY 3.0, featuring data by OpenStreetMap, under ODbL. Map tiles: CartoDB, under CC BY 3.0, featuring data by OpenStreetMap, under ODbL. The Australian Urban Observatory The Australian Urban Observatory Liveability Report for Adelaide Liveability Report for Adelaide

Social Infrastructure Public Transport

Rationale What we measured Results Rationale Providing regular and proximate public stops based on a walkable road network transport also reduces inequities. It enables distance. The distance of 400m is Social infrastructure provides access The Social Infrastructure Index included Across Australia’s largest 21 cities, a wider Living close to public transport supports people who have restricted mobility consistent with access standards in to essential community services and access to 16 types of social infrastructure mix of social infrastructure is available in health and wellbeing in a number of ways: or can’t drive - such as young people, many Australian state transport policies. resources [10]. Access to a wide range at various recommended distances by encouraging walking and reducing older adults, and people with disabilities – of different types of social infrastructure from dwellings [10]. It included access to Rank 1 dependence on driving; and, providing and those without a private motor vehicle Results is therefore important for the creation childcare facilities, community centres, residents with access to employment to access services, education and jobs. Across Australia’s largest 21 cities, and ongoing development of healthy libraries, aged care facilities, pharmacies, and amenities. People who live close to Along with active transport, it also access to regular public transport communities. High levels of access to family and community healthcare, dentists Rank 2 public transport are more likely to use it [5], facilitates more sustainable mobility. is available to more residents living in social infrastructure is linked to increased and general practitioners, sporting Melbourne and in turn achieve daily recommended physical activity [11] and wellbeing [10], facilities, swimming pools, outside school physical activity. Having a public What we measured and increases satisfaction with the local hours childcare, primary and secondary Rank 3 transport stop near home and work, Rank 1 community [1] improving social interactions schools, museums or galleries, and Adelaide increases the likelihood of using public We measured access to bus, train and Canberra and mental health outcomes [12]. Social cinemas and theatres [3]. transport [18]. While living within 400m stops with an average service interval infrastructure is therefore a key component of a public transport stop with a service of no more than 30 minutes between the Rank 2 of liveability. every 30 minutes, is likely to encourage weekday hours of 7am and 7pm. Access Sydney more walking [19]. was measured as the percentage of dwellings within 400m of any of these Rank 3 Adelaide

The average number of social infrastructure destinations accessible within However, a closer analysis of the mix of The percentage of residences with proximate access A closer analysis of access to regular recommended distances from dwellings across all areas of Adelaide is social infrastructure across Adelaide to regular public is public transport across the suburbs reveals wide variation across the city. of Adelaide reveals wide variation over the city. 6 out of a total of 16 57%* *This figure is based on up-dated methods and data and is not comparable to previously reported figures. Up-dated figures for previous years can be accessed through the Australian Urban Observatory.

Figure 3. Social Infrastructure Index for Adelaide. Figure 4. Percentage of residences with proximate access to regular public transport for Adelaide.

Legend Legend

Decile Decile

1 (Low) 1 (Low)

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

8 8

9 9

10 (High) 10 (High)

2019 CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 Data: Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2016 under CC by 4.0; OpenStreetMap, 2018 under ODbL; Australian Children’s 2019 CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 Education & Care Quality Authority, 2018; Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2018; Healthdirect Data: Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2016 under CC by 4.0; OpenStreetMap, 2018 under ODbL; ActionBuses, Canberra Metro, Australia National Health Services Directory, 2017, via AURIN Portal, 2019 MetroTas, NT Department of Infrastructure, Planning & Logistics, Public Transport Victoria, Transport or NSW, TransLink and Map tiles: CartoDB, under CC BY 3.0, featuring data by OpenStreetMap, under ODbL. Transperth, under CC by 4.0. Map tiles: CartoDB, under CC BY 3.0, featuring data by OpenStreetMap, under ODbL. The Australian Urban Observatory The Australian Urban Observatory Liveability Report for Adelaide Liveability Report for Adelaide

Food Environment Alcohol Environment

Rationale What we measured Results Rationale What we measured Results Being close to a supermarket supports We measured the average distance to Of the 21 largest cities in Australia, Access to alcohol has been linked to Access to off-licence alcohol outlets Across Australia’s largest 21 cities, healthy eating and active living by any type of supermarket. Distances were the average distance to a harmful alcohol consumption and were included in this report. This includes the average distance to an off-licence providing easy access to fruit, vegetables calculated from individual dwellings using supermarket is lowest in alcohol-related violence [15, 16]. bottle-shops and supermarkets where alcohol outlet is furthest in and healthy food within a walkable a pedestrian accessible road network. Furthermore, alcohol outlets are more alcohol can be purchased and taken distance. People living within walking Rank 1 prevalent in more disadvantaged areas to another premise for consumption. Rank 1 distance of a supermarket are more Launceston [17]. For those living in disadvantage areas Distances were calculated from individual likely to walk or cycle instead of driving where there are fewer alcohol outlets, dwellings using a pedestrian accessible [5, 13]. Increases in physical activity from Rank 2 there appears to be a protective affect road network. Rank 2 active transportation, such as walking and Canberra with enhanced self-reported health [17]. cycling, reduces chronic disease risk and congestion issues. In disadvantaged areas, Rank 3 Rank 3 living within 800m of a supermarket reduces Sydney the risk of overweight and obesity [14].

The average distance to a supermarket for Adelaide is A closer analysis of average distances to The average distance to an off-licence alcohol outlet for Adelaide is A closer analysis of alcohol outlets supermarkets across the suburbs of Adelaide across the suburbs of Adelaide reveals reveals wide variation over the city. wide variation over the city. 1216m 1139m

Figure 5. Average distances in metres to supermarkets for Adelaide. Figure 6. Average distances in metres to an off-licence outlet for Adelaide.

Legend Legend

Decile Decile

1 (Large distance) 1 (Small distance)

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

8 8

9 9

10 (Small distance) 10 (Large distance)

2019 CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 2019 CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 Data: Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2016 under CC by 4.0; OpenStreetMap, 2018 under ODbL; Data: Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2016 under CC by 4.0; Healthy Liveable Cities group, 2017; OpenStreetMap, 2018 under ODbL. State liquor licencing authorities, 2017. Map tiles: CartoDB, under CC BY 3.0, featuring data by OpenStreetMap, under ODbL. Map tiles: CartoDB, under CC BY 3.0, featuring data by OpenStreetMap, under ODbL. The Australian Urban Observatory The Australian Urban Observatory Liveability Report for Adelaide Liveability Report for Adelaide

Public Open Space Local Employment

Rationale What we measured Results Rationale What we measured Results Pubic open space includes , open Public open space was defined as urban Across Australia’s largest 21 cities, Accessible employment is a social We measured access to local employment Across Australia’s largest 21 cities, areas and places where people can parks greater than or equal to 1.5 hectares, living within 400m of public open determinant of health, providing workers as the percentage of residents living in more local employment is available in congregate for active and passive since larger parks have been shown space of 1.5 hectares is available with financial resources to support Australian Bureau of Statistics Statistical recreation and enjoyment. Parks are one to support physical activity [22, 23]. to more residents living in themselves and their families. Access Area 1 (SA1), working within a larger Rank 1 form of public open space that usually Access was measured as the percentage to local employment reduces vehicle Australian Bureau of Statistics Statistical Townsville include grassed areas and gardens, and of dwellings within 400m based on Rank 1 kilometres travelled, travel time and traffic Area 3 (SA3). On average, SA1 areas some green recreational space. Parks a walkable road network distance. Canberra congestion on city roads. It also increases represent approximately 400 people Rank 2 support both the physical and mental The distance of 400m represents the likelihood of people using active while SA3 areas represent between Toowoomba health of people living nearby and are a 5-minute walk for most people. Rank 2 transport such as walking, cycling and 30,000 and 130,000 people. important for supporting the local public transport and has been associated Rank 3 ecology and biodiversity of an area [21]. This measure is also included in with improved self-reported health [24]. Mackay the National Cities Performance Rank 3 Access to local employment with shorter Framework under the liveability Newcastle travel times has the potential to support and sustainability domain [20]. work-life balance with shorter travel times found to be associated with a reduced risk of obesity [25].

The percentage of residences living within 400m of public A closer analysis of access to public open space of at least 1.5 hectares in Adelaide is open space across the suburbs of Adelaide reveals wide variation over A closer analysis of Local Employment the city. The percentage living with local employment * access at SA3 level for Adelaide is across the suburbs of Adelaide reveals 47% wide variation over the city. *This figure is based on up-dated methods and data and is not comparable to previously reported figures. 27%

Figure 7. Percentage of residences living within Figure 8. Percentage living at SA1 with local employment 400m of large public open space for Adelaide. access at SA3 for Adelaide.

Legend Legend

Decile Decile

1 (Low) 1 (Low)

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

8 8

9 9

10 (High) 10 (High)

2019 CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 2019 CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 Data: Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2016 under CC by 4.0; OpenStreetMap, 2018 under ODbL. Data: Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2016 under CC by 4.0 Map tiles: CartoDB, under CC BY 3.0, featuring data by OpenStreetMap, under ODbL. Map tiles: CartoDB, under CC BY 3.0, featuring data by OpenStreetMap, under ODbL. The Australian Urban Observatory The Australian Urban Observatory Liveability Report for Adelaide Liveability Report for Adelaide

Summary Housing Affordability for Adelaide

Rationale What we measured Results Indicator Brief Description Value Decent and affordable housing supports We measured housing affordability Across Australia’s largest 21 cities, families by providing safe, stable and according to a refined indicator of housing housing stress is least common in healthy shelter. Affordable housing frees stress (10) where households in the bottom Liveability Liveability Index See map up family finances for use on health care 40 percent of income spend more than Rank 1 and food, and supports physical and 30 percent of their household income on Launceston mental health and wellbeing [26]. The housing costs [28]. 30/40 affordable housing measure [27] Rank 2 Walkability Walkability Index See map is associated with poorer self-reported health, higher community dissatisfaction, and residents feeling unsafe [28]. Rank 3 Social Social Infrastructure Index 6 destinations Infrastructure

Public Percentage living within 400m 57% Transport to regular public transport

Food Average distance In Adelaide, the percentage of households in the bottom A closer analysis of housing stress 1216 m Environment to closest supermarket 40 percent of the income distribution spending more than across the suburbs of Adelaide 30 percent of household income on housing costs is reveals wide variation over the city.

Alcohol Average distance to an 1139 m 34% Environment off-licence alcohol outlet

Percentage living within Public Open 400m of public open 47% Space space of 1.5 hectares

Figure 9. Percentage of households under housing stress for Adelaide. Percentage living with Local Legend employment access 27% Employment at SA3 level Decile

1 (High) Percentage of households in 2 Housing the lowest 40% of household 34% 3 Affordability incomes spending more than 4 30% of income on housing

5

6

7

8

9

10 (Low)

2019 CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 Please visit the Australian Urban Observatory at auo.org.au for Data: Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2016 under CC by 4.0. Map tiles: CartoDB, under CC BY 3.0, featuring data by OpenStreetMap, under ODbL. more reports covering the liveability of Australia’s 21 largest cities. The Australian Urban Observatory The Australian Urban Observatory Liveability Report for Adelaide Liveability Report for Adelaide

References

1. Lowe, M., et al., Planning healthy, liveable 11. Giles-Corti, B., et al., The influence 22. Sugiyama, T., et al., Associations between and sustainable cities: How can of urban design on neighbourhood recreational walking and attractiveness, indicators inform policy. Urban Policy walking following residential relocation: size, and proximity of neighborhood and Research. 2015. 33(2): p. 131-144. Longitudinal results from the RESIDE study. open spaces. American Journal of Social Science & Medicine, 2013. 77: p. 20. Public Health, 2014. 100(9): p. 1752. 2. Badland, H., et al., Urban liveability: Emerging lessons from Australia for 12. Evans, G., The built environment and 23. Francis, J., et al., Quality or quantity? exploring the potential for indicators mental health. Bulletin of the New York Exploring the relationship between to measure the social determinants Academy of Medicine, 2003. 80(4): Public Open Space attributes and of health. Social Science & Medicine, p. 536-555. mental health in , Western 2014. 111: p. 64-73. Australia. Social Science & Medicine, 13. Gunn, L., et al., Designing healthy 2012. 74(10): p. 1570-1577. 3. Higgs, C., et al., The Urban Liveability communities: creating evidence on Index: developing a policy-relevant metrics for built environment features 24. Badland, H., et al., Are Area-Level urban liveability composite measure associated with walkable neighbourhood Measures of Employment Associated with and evaluating associations with activity centres. The International Journal Health Behaviours and Outcomes? An transport mode choice. Int J Health of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical International and Interdisciplinary Journal Geogr, 2019. 18(1): p. 14. Activity, 2017. 14(1): p. 164. for Quality-of-Life Measurement, 2017. 134(1): p. 237-251. 4. Hooper, P., et al., The building blocks of 14. Murphy, M., et al., Supermarket access, a ‘Liveable Neighbourhood’: Identifying transport mode and BMI: the potential 25. Frank, L.D., M.A. Andresen, and T.L. Schmid, the key performance indicators for for urban design and planning policy Obesity relationships with community walking of an operational planning across socio-economic areas. Public design, physical activity, and time spent policy in Perth, . Health Nutrition, 2017. 20(18): p. 3304. in cars. American Journal of Preventive Health and Place, 2015. 36: p. 173-183. Medicine, 2004. 27(2): p. 87-96. 15. Foster, S., et al., Liquor landscapes: 5. Boulange, C., et al., Examining Does access to alcohol outlets influence 26. Brackertz, N., J. Davidson, and A. Wilkinson, associations between urban design alcohol consumption in young adults? Trajectories: the interplay between attributes and transport mode choice Health & Place, 2017: p. 17. mental health and housing pathways, for walking, cycling, public transport a short summary of the evidence, report and private motor vehicle trips. 16. Livingston, M., Alcohol outlet density prepared by AHURI Professional Services Journal of Transport & Health, 2017. and harm: Comparing the impacts on for Mind Australia, Australian Housing and 6: p. 155-166. violence and chronic harms. Drug and Urban Research Institute. 2019: Melbourne. Alcohol Review, 2011. 30(5): p. 515-523. 6. Zapata-Diomedi, B., et al., Physical 27. Yates J and Gabriel M, Australian Housing activity-related health and economic 17. Badland, H., et al., Testing spatial and Urban Research Institute. Housing benefits of building walkable measures of alcohol outlet density affordability in Australia: Collaborative neighbourhoods: a modelled comparison with self-rated health in the Australian research venture 3: Housing affordability between brownfield and greenfield context: Implications for policy and for lower income Australians: Background developments. International Journal practice. Drug and Alcohol Review, report. 2005. of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical 2016. 35(3): p. 298-306. Activity, 2019. 16(1): p. 11. 28. Badland, H., et al., Examining associations 18. Badland, H., et al., Public transport access between area-level spatial measures 7. Chandrabose, M., et al., Built environment and availability in the RESIDE study: Is it of housing with selected health and and cardio-metabolic health: systematic taking us where we want to go? Journal wellbeing behaviours and outcomes in an review and meta-analysis of longitudinal of Transport & Health, 2014. 1(1): p. 45-49. urban context. Health & Place, 2017: p. 17. studies. Obesity Reviews, 2019. 20(1): p. 41-54. 19. Rachele, J.N., et al., Are Measures Derived From Land Use and Transport Policies 8. World Health Organization, Global action Associated With Walking for Transport? plan on physical activity 2018-2030. 2018: Journal of Physical Activity & Health, Geneva: Switzerland. 2018. 15(1): p. 13-21.

9. Arundel, J., et al., Creating liveable cities 20. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, in Australia: Mapping urban policy Cities and Regional Infrastructure. implementation and evidence-based National Cities Performance Framework. national liveability indicators. Melbourne: Available from: https://smart-cities. Centre for Urban Research, RMIT dashboard.gov.au/all-cities/overview. University, 2017. 21. Davern, M., et al., Quality Green Space 10. Davern, M., et al., Using spatial measures Supporting Health, Wellbeing and to test a conceptual model of social Biodiversity: A Literature Review. 2016, infrastructure that supports health University of Melbourne (Melbourne, and wellbeing. Cities & Health, 2017. 1(2): Australia). p. 194-209. Centre for Urban Research

Building 8, Level 11 RMIT University City campus 124 La Trobe Street Melbourne VIC, 3000 Australia

T: +61 3 9925 0917 E: [email protected] cur.org.au

Your pathway to liveable cities auo.org.au