Doctoral Thesis Re-examining the value of infrastructure to support urban growth and liveability Author: Jenny McArthur Supervisors: Professor Brian Collins Professor Francesca Medda A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of: Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Civil and Geomatic Engineering University College London July 4, 2017 iii Declaration of Authorship I, Jenny McArthur, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. Signed: Date: iv Publications and research outputs • J.M. McArthur, N. Badstuber, B. Collins, and J. Bentley (2015). “Conceptualising the value of urban infrastructure services”. In: Great Transformation: Recasting Regional Policy - Proceedings of the Regional Studies Winter Conference:. Ed. by L Reynolds. Regional Studies Association. London, United Kingdom, pp. 123–126 • J.M. McArthur. “Governing the growth of liveable and sustainable cities: what role for infrastructure?” In: Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space [under review] • J.M. McArthur (2017). “Auckland: Rescaling governance and post-suburban politics”. In: Cities 64, pp. 79–87 v UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON Abstract Faculty of Engineering Sciences Department of Civil and Geomatic Engineering Doctor of Philosophy Re-examining the value of infrastructure to support urban growth and liveability by Jenny McArthur Urban infrastructure systems form an essential component of the urban built environment to support flows of goods, people, information and resources, and diverse social and economic activities. Growing cities face an imperative to expand infrastructure service provision to accommodate greater populations, while also catering for liveability by providing for users’ needs and environmental sustainability. This thesis examines the ways in which infrastructure relates to growth and liveability, and the potential for infrastructure to be instrumentalised as a transformative means to support liveability while accommodating growth. An interdisciplinary approach is adopted, utilising qualitative content analysis, spatial econometrics and spatial growth analysis. These methods examine the ways in which infrastructure supports liveability and growth, testing existing agglomeration theory, planning paradigms and spatial strategies. Analysis of the instrumentalisation of infrastructure within spatial planning found that a more thorough consideration of how value is generated from infrastructure, and diverse types of value, can support transitions to improve liveability. Econometric analysis showed that infrastructure mediates socio-spatial relations, enabling agglomeration externalities to be generated across small spatial scales. Analysis of urban growth in Auckland, Melbourne and Vancouver revealed that the ‘compact city’ model for sustainable transitions does not consistently hold true, and supported alternative strategies which focus on flows generated, instead of the urban built environment. By examining urban infrastructure from multiple disciplinary perspectives, this thesis develops a more rigorous understanding of the value derived from infrastructure provision, to inform decision-making. Infrastructure planning can support growth and liveability by refocusing the frame of decision-making to the broader socio-technical system in which physical infrastructure systems are embedded. The uncertainty of urban growth implies that investment decisions may consider alternative interventions with lower requirements for physical capital expansion. vii Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge my supervisors, Professor Brian Collins and Professor Francesca Medda from University College London and Dr Jim Bentley from the University of Auckland. I am very thankful to have had the opportunity to work with supervisors of such high calibre in both academic and professional fields, with opportunities to participate in collaborative research and work with public sector practitioners. I would like to acknowledge the examiners for this degree, Professor Andrew Davies and Professor Paul Nightingale, for their invaluable feedback and critique. I was also fortunate to collaborate with researchers from the Liveable Cities programme and the International Centre for Infrastructure Futures, in particular Dr Ellie Cosgrave and Dr Tom Dolan. This PhD would not have been possible without the financial support of Auckland Council, and I am privileged to have been given the opportunity to pursue this degree, to inform policy and practice in Auckland. Additionally, I received support from Professor Bruce Melville at the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Auckland, to host me for the first year and assist in setting up this PhD project. Advice from Professor Arthur Grimes, Andrew McKenzie, Regan Solomon, Chris Parker, Peter Nunns and Geoff Cooper provided valuable perspectives to guide the early stages of this research. I am also deeply indebted to fellow students and staff at UCL STEaPP and CEGE, and colleagues at Synergine Group and LSE Cities for their encouragement and support. I have been fortunate to have patient and supportive friends throughout this degree, and greatly appreciated the tolerance and encouragement of Nicole, Fiona, Sarah, Jen, and Briony in London, Kyae in Ottawa and Cecelia, Victoria, Sarah, Zabin and Laura in Auckland. I am also very grateful for the generosity of the Coffee, Badstuber, and Donaldson families to include me in family celebrations for Christmas and Easter, while away from home. Lastly, I owe thanks to my family: Sue, Peter, Hilary, Jacob, Lilly and Tom, Grandad and extended family - your love, encouragement, sense of humour, and tenacity are a constant inspiration. viii Contents Declaration of Authorship iii Abstract v Acknowledgements vii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 State of the issue ..................................... 3 1.2 Thesis structure and objectives ............................. 6 2 Literature Review 9 2.1 Introduction ........................................ 9 2.2 Urban growth ....................................... 10 2.3 Liveability ......................................... 14 2.4 Infrastructure ....................................... 20 2.5 Synthesis ......................................... 33 3 Research design and methodology 41 3.1 Introduction ......................................... 41 3.2 Findings from literature review .............................. 41 3.3 Research purpose and question ............................. 44 3.4 Research design ...................................... 47 3.5 Methodology ....................................... 54 4 Value of urban infrastructure 61 4.1 Introduction ......................................... 61 4.2 Methodology ....................................... 70 4.3 Results ........................................... 74 4.4 Discussion ......................................... 85 4.5 Conclusion ........................................ 87 5 Infrastructure and the scale and sources of agglomeration 89 5.1 Introduction ........................................ 89 5.2 Sources of agglomeration ................................. 90 5.3 Methodology ....................................... 96 5.4 Data sources ....................................... 104 5.5 Results and Discussion .................................. 106 5.6 Conclusion ........................................ 114 6 Testing the compact city paradigm: Growth and liveability 115 6.1 Introduction ........................................ 115 6.2 Analytical approach ................................... 118 6.3 Results ........................................... 124 6.4 Discussion ......................................... 132 6.5 Conclusions ........................................ 133 ix 7 Synthesis and Discussion 135 7.1 Primary findings ..................................... 135 7.2 Integrative approach ................................... 138 7.3 Discussion ......................................... 144 8 Conclusions and Recommendations 149 8.1 Theoretical and empirical contributions . 150 8.2 Limitations .........................................151 8.3 Recommendations for practice .............................. 152 8.4 Future work ........................................ 155 A Auckland’s governance 157 A.1 Amalgamated governance model ............................ 157 A.2 Auckland’s growth .................................... 160 A.3 Policy and practice .................................... 164 B Urban growth theory 167 B.1 Theoretical models .................................... 167 C Urban liveability indicators 171 C.1 Introduction .........................................171 C.2 Quantification and urban governance: Why measure? . 171 D Econometric analysis 183 D.1 Descriptive statistics ................................... 183 D.2 Analysis .......................................... 183 D.3 R outputs ......................................... 186 Bibliography 195 x List of Figures 2.1 Auckland Plan - Strategic Vision (Auckland Council, 2013) . 19 2.2 Estimates of the elasticity of public infrastructure capital, θ using aggregate production function model (Bom et al., 2014) ..................... 26 2.3 Temporal scale of urban growth, infrastructure development, and liveability . 35 2.4 Spatial scale of urban growth, infrastructure development, and liveability . 36 3.1 Spatial scales of urban growth, infrastructure development, and liveability . 43 3.2 Temporal scales