Journal of Urban Design and Mental Health 2018;4:10
FOCUS ON HONG KONG
High speed rail and planning for the wellbeing of newly connected communities
Graham Marshall
The Prosocial Place Programme: Institute of Psychology Health and Society and Heseltine Institute of Public Policy & Practice, University of Liverpool, UK
The Prosocial Place Programme: Institute of Psychology Health and Society and Heseltine Institute of Public Policy & Practice, University of Liverpool, UK
At a recent Hong Kong Institute of Planners event that focused on the links between urban design and mental health, there was a particular interest in the planning implications for mental health associated with an imminent high-speed rail service that will link Hong Kong with two mainland Chinese cities, Guangzhou and Shenzhen. This development is anticipated to rapidly lead to mass commuting into Hong Kong, potentially inflating its daytime population while shrinking it in the other cities. The overarching question was: how can planners go about mitigating any negative impacts and contribute to positive mental health and wellbeing outcomes?
Some potential trends and questions raised, which may be relevant to many similar projects, include:
The first thing to say is that this is not a unique situation, and perhaps a comparable example is Luxembourg in central Europe, which may warrant a study visit. However, it must be noted that each place and community is unique, which is implicit in each of the statements and questions posed above. That means that a generic ‘best practice’ is not the solution to these complex problems. ‘Right Practice’ is the ethos that needs to be developed in urban design for all communities. Practice that is grounded in the individual community that it serves. Thinking about ‘right practice’, Yangzhou, China, is a city worthy of appraisal for its approach to contemporary planning, design and development which is based on ‘health in all policies’.
To develop health in all policies though, it is important to understand the bond that exists between people and place. We are programmed to seek out optimal environments and started out with a preference for disturbed landscapes. These were often volcanic, shorelines or forest edges where the habitats were richest for foraging with good cover for defence, ambush and shelter. Not dissimilar to our better urban places in form, the important thing being that we ‘chose’ the best spots to survive in the wild landscape. When we became ‘cultured’, we changed the flora to create surpluses and thus ‘certainty’ which enabled us to change the geology and start building modern cities. We did all this following a cost benefit analysis, and on a day to day basis we known it as convenience, the driver of many of our behaviours. It provides the opportunity for humans to move from survival to thrival behaviours and outcomes.
‘Life History Theory’ shows how the qualities of an environment directly determine our life course strategies and our wellbeing, emphasising the importance of our places. Where resources are perceived to be unstable and unreliable, it drives unsustainable, short term survival choices not long term, planned thrival choices. These are known as ‘future discounting’ behaviours. Life-course choices that support thrival happen where resources are considered stable, reliable, accessible and predictable enough to allow people to plan for their futures and to cooperate with others towards community prosperity. This understanding of how place quality and opportunity determine life-course health and wellbeing should put place design and stewardship at front and centre of all strategy and implementation programmes – ‘Right Practice’.
This health conscious approach will require capacity-building among professionals and communities, together with co-production of ideas, their implementation and ongoing stewardship. Involving the community in future decision making will generate an optimistic outlook, initiate thrival behaviours and change perceptions. To achieve and maintain strong levels of community wellbeing, and sustain good places where communities thrive, people need an accessible mechanism to enable them to play a direct and active part in the ongoing stewardship of their places. An important element of community wellbeing is ‘having a say’ - the co-production of decisions and actions. In contrast to consultation, co-production can prevent ‘post-development stagnation’ or ‘regeneration relapse’ by actively immersing communities in decisions and actions about their futures. That includes the prospects of the existing community, their children, incomers and neighbouring communities. The concept of ‘community wellbeing’ is multi-faceted, incorporating:
Returning to the problem posed, it is important to understand that all people have the same basic needs from a health and mental wellbeing perspective, and that life chances, choices and behaviours will be largely determined by the habitual environments that they are exposed to. This delivers a degree of predictability around individual and community outcomes that could be measured and monitored by health impact assessments, and therefore improved. It will be important to keep at the forefront of the mind that we are designing, developing and managing human habitats, and to be successful and sustainable, this needs to be recognised as an ecology requiring an ecological approach. These ecologies are social, cultural, environmental and economic, each as important as the next, each important to the next.
Where a community is not successful, its survival behaviours will have unsustainable impacts on the environment also. Therefore, we need to plan in the right order. It is important to design for (and with) people first to establish places of perceived and accessible resources. This will support thrival behaviours which will translate into environmentally sustainable ones. Design for places first with a ‘smart city’ approach to sustainability, may create ‘future discounting’ communities, undermining the well-meaning but flawed primary goal.
The quality of homes and other aspects of the built environment are important, but the quality of the public realm is paramount. This is where people connect and negotiate with each other to create communities of interest. Being merely ‘social’ as in a vibrant city centre is not good enough. The European philosopher Albert Camus notes that “…as a remedy to life in society I would suggest the big city. Nowadays, it is the only desert within our means.” We need to be producing ‘prosocial places’ that bring people together in cooperation and equality. There should be appropriate space in the public realm for everybody, not just those that can pay. That means delivering more than café culture, and suppressing the threat from private vehicle dominance. In Yangzhou, for instance, every resident is within a ten-minute walk of a public park and garden, and has access to 20,000 cycles at 2,000 stations. These are ‘the commons’ and their quality, quantity, consistency and accessibility are the foundations of wellbeing in communities.
This ‘Theory of Change’ diagram expresses these ideas as a virtuous cycle to which every city can aspire.
Some potential trends and questions raised, which may be relevant to many similar projects, include:
- Suburbs for the 'new urban poor' will likely be created - What should planners consider when planning and designing these suburbs and their connections to richer enclaves and gentrified city centres?
- Investment will likely focus on city centres, less in the suburbs, and with a potential rise in flexible working practices, home working is likely to increase. How to transform a commuter suburb into a livable place for good mental wellbeing?
- Change is anticipated to create stress with the interchange in scenery, cultures and community across the three cities. Key concerns are the impact of rapid change in communities, workplaces and homes with the potential for many to be stigmatised for their different culture and language. How can planning mitigate these issues and the potential resulting stress?
- Rapid change is likely to be entropic, leaving many ‘behind’ in places perceived as undesirable and containing stagnating communities. This will impact on self-worth, sense of belonging and place identity for those communities. How can planners help avoid these outcomes?
- The public realm and its power to connect can reduce the anticipated inequalities from this population growth disparity. How can planners optimise the design of open space and physical connections to maximise mental health?
The first thing to say is that this is not a unique situation, and perhaps a comparable example is Luxembourg in central Europe, which may warrant a study visit. However, it must be noted that each place and community is unique, which is implicit in each of the statements and questions posed above. That means that a generic ‘best practice’ is not the solution to these complex problems. ‘Right Practice’ is the ethos that needs to be developed in urban design for all communities. Practice that is grounded in the individual community that it serves. Thinking about ‘right practice’, Yangzhou, China, is a city worthy of appraisal for its approach to contemporary planning, design and development which is based on ‘health in all policies’.
To develop health in all policies though, it is important to understand the bond that exists between people and place. We are programmed to seek out optimal environments and started out with a preference for disturbed landscapes. These were often volcanic, shorelines or forest edges where the habitats were richest for foraging with good cover for defence, ambush and shelter. Not dissimilar to our better urban places in form, the important thing being that we ‘chose’ the best spots to survive in the wild landscape. When we became ‘cultured’, we changed the flora to create surpluses and thus ‘certainty’ which enabled us to change the geology and start building modern cities. We did all this following a cost benefit analysis, and on a day to day basis we known it as convenience, the driver of many of our behaviours. It provides the opportunity for humans to move from survival to thrival behaviours and outcomes.
‘Life History Theory’ shows how the qualities of an environment directly determine our life course strategies and our wellbeing, emphasising the importance of our places. Where resources are perceived to be unstable and unreliable, it drives unsustainable, short term survival choices not long term, planned thrival choices. These are known as ‘future discounting’ behaviours. Life-course choices that support thrival happen where resources are considered stable, reliable, accessible and predictable enough to allow people to plan for their futures and to cooperate with others towards community prosperity. This understanding of how place quality and opportunity determine life-course health and wellbeing should put place design and stewardship at front and centre of all strategy and implementation programmes – ‘Right Practice’.
This health conscious approach will require capacity-building among professionals and communities, together with co-production of ideas, their implementation and ongoing stewardship. Involving the community in future decision making will generate an optimistic outlook, initiate thrival behaviours and change perceptions. To achieve and maintain strong levels of community wellbeing, and sustain good places where communities thrive, people need an accessible mechanism to enable them to play a direct and active part in the ongoing stewardship of their places. An important element of community wellbeing is ‘having a say’ - the co-production of decisions and actions. In contrast to consultation, co-production can prevent ‘post-development stagnation’ or ‘regeneration relapse’ by actively immersing communities in decisions and actions about their futures. That includes the prospects of the existing community, their children, incomers and neighbouring communities. The concept of ‘community wellbeing’ is multi-faceted, incorporating:
- Power - when people can act to improve things in, and influence decisions about, their community.
- People - strong networks of relationships and support between those in a community, including close relationships, friendships, neighbours and acquaintances.
- Place - It is facilitated by physical surroundings that support flourishing.
- Social Capital - a strong sense of trust in, belonging to and feeling of safety in an inclusive and just community.
Returning to the problem posed, it is important to understand that all people have the same basic needs from a health and mental wellbeing perspective, and that life chances, choices and behaviours will be largely determined by the habitual environments that they are exposed to. This delivers a degree of predictability around individual and community outcomes that could be measured and monitored by health impact assessments, and therefore improved. It will be important to keep at the forefront of the mind that we are designing, developing and managing human habitats, and to be successful and sustainable, this needs to be recognised as an ecology requiring an ecological approach. These ecologies are social, cultural, environmental and economic, each as important as the next, each important to the next.
Where a community is not successful, its survival behaviours will have unsustainable impacts on the environment also. Therefore, we need to plan in the right order. It is important to design for (and with) people first to establish places of perceived and accessible resources. This will support thrival behaviours which will translate into environmentally sustainable ones. Design for places first with a ‘smart city’ approach to sustainability, may create ‘future discounting’ communities, undermining the well-meaning but flawed primary goal.
The quality of homes and other aspects of the built environment are important, but the quality of the public realm is paramount. This is where people connect and negotiate with each other to create communities of interest. Being merely ‘social’ as in a vibrant city centre is not good enough. The European philosopher Albert Camus notes that “…as a remedy to life in society I would suggest the big city. Nowadays, it is the only desert within our means.” We need to be producing ‘prosocial places’ that bring people together in cooperation and equality. There should be appropriate space in the public realm for everybody, not just those that can pay. That means delivering more than café culture, and suppressing the threat from private vehicle dominance. In Yangzhou, for instance, every resident is within a ten-minute walk of a public park and garden, and has access to 20,000 cycles at 2,000 stations. These are ‘the commons’ and their quality, quantity, consistency and accessibility are the foundations of wellbeing in communities.
This ‘Theory of Change’ diagram expresses these ideas as a virtuous cycle to which every city can aspire.
About the Author
|
Graham Marshall studied landscape architecture and urban design. He worked with several leading design firms in London, UK, before joining Liverpool Vision as Founding Director in 1999. He was responsible for the creation and successful delivery of the Liverpool City Centre Strategic Regeneration Framework, winning many awards for this work. Establishing Maxim Urban Design in 2004, Graham returned his focus to towns and communities, acting primarily as a design advisor to public clients. At the same time, he was an Urban Design Advisor to the London Development Agency, and an active member of several regional Design Review Panels. He continues his pro bono enabling work as a Built Environment Expert with Design Council CABE. In 2013, Graham established the Prosocial Place Programme, partnering with researchers in Liverpool and Middlesex Universities to develop an integrated evidence base approach to urban planning, design, development and stewardship. He has transformed Maxim into a social enterprise, Prosocial Place, to implement this knowledge-based approach to urban design. He is a Visiting Senior Research Fellow at the University of Liverpool Institute of Psychology Health and Society and a Fellow at the Centre for Urban Design and Mental Health.
@prosocialplace |