9.2 Livability

9.2.1 What is livability?

The term ‘livability’ is used to describe the combination of factors that contribute to people’s quality of life and wellbeing. A city, town or region is more likely to be livable if there are high levels of health and welfare, safety, economic opportunities, access to transport, opportunities for recreation and attractiveness, and low levels of pollution.^2–5

Human wellbeing is central to the concept of livability. A livable town, city or region is one in which people are supported to enjoy good physical and mental health, fulfil social relationships, and have a high level of life satisfaction and happiness.⁶

There are also significant flow-on effects from achieving a high level of livability. For example, highly livable cities are more likely to attract visitors — for both business and leisure — which can further increase prosperity for local industries.^3,7

The State of Australian Cities 2013 report describes livability:⁸

The liveability of a city is judged by the health, wellbeing and the quality of life of people living within it. Although difficult to define precisely, urban liveability can be measured both subjectively for example, by asking people how they feel about their quality of life in their cities and objectively for example, by examining social and economic measures for urban populations such as income, wealth, education, health, economic and community infrastructure assets, opportunities and services.

For this State of the Environment Report, livability is defined to include those aspects of the quality of life determined mainly by the physical environment, including the natural and built environments. However, those aspects of livability that depend on economic and social conditions should not be excluded from consideration in the State of the Environment Report.

ACT state of the environment reporting requires specific attention on key aspects of the environment that are managed by the ACT Government: open space, the built environment (including housing), amenity and connectivity, waste management and health.

This section thus considers:

• overall indices of livability
• access to green infrastructure and open space
• the built environment, including housing
• connectivity, transport and congestion
• human health, as affected by the natural and built physical environment
• government management of livability (response).

9.2.2 Indices of livability

Canberra and some other Australian cities are generally regarded as among the world’s most livable. The 2011 ACT State of the Environment Report notes that:¹⁰

The city’s environment, liveability and amenity depend in considerable measure on accessible open space and green infrastructure that provides passive ecosystem benefits. (vol 1:xxvi)

and

We are a highly urbanised population residing in a city, ranked as one of the top 30 cities worldwide for its liveability, water quality and availability, waste removal, air pollution and congestion … where we enjoy extensive green space within and around the city. Further, we experience very little industrial pollution as we import most of our consumer goods and services from interstate and overseas. (vol 1:6)

Overall measures of livability are available from a number of sources.

Lake Burley Griffin from a kayakPhoto: ACT Government

Australian Cities Livability index

The Property Council of Australia’s Australian Cities Livability Index measures the livability of Australia’s capital cities from the point of view of people who live in them, using an annual survey conducted by Auspoll. This surveys residents in relation to 17 attributes:

• look and design of the city
• clean, well maintained and unpolluted
• wide range of recreational outdoor environments
• vibrant cultural entertainment scene
• good public transport service
• good road network and minimal traffic congestion
• safe place for people and their property
• attractive natural environment
• good approaches to environmental sustainability and climate change
• good health-care services
• good schools and other educational facilities
• good range of quality affordable housing
• good balance of different housing types
• good employment and economic opportunities
• affordable place to have a good standard of living
• good climate
• a diverse range of people who get along well.

The index was most recently calculated for 2013. The results showed that Canberra is the most liveable city in Australia of those in the survey, although the variation among livability scores was small. Canberra has ranked first or second in the livability score for the three most recent surveys (Figure 9.1).

Source: Property Council of Australia¹¹

Figure 9.1 Australian city livability scores, 2011–2013

Canberra rated very highly on cleanliness and maintenance, outdoor leisure opportunities, safety, environmental approaches, quality of education, and a diversity of people who get along well (all ranked 1; Figure 9.2). Canberra rated poorly for its public transport and affordable housing (both ranked 9) and climate (ranked 10).

Source: Property Council of Australia¹¹

Figure 9.2 Canberra and all Australian cities livability attributes, 2013

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development international comparison of livability

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has produced a range of studies that compare standards of living, quality of life, wellbeing and livability across OECD economies, cities and regions. One of the most recent and frequently updated of these is the OECD Regional Well-being Index.¹² Nine wellbeing dimensions have been identified (Table 9.1) and a set of indicators developed for the 362 OECD regions.

Table 9.1 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development wellbeing dimensions

Wellbeing dimension	Definition
Education	Percentage of labour force with at least secondary education
Jobs	Employment percentage of working age population; unemployment percentage of total labour force
Income	Household disposable income at constant prices in US$ adjusted for purchasing power parity
Safety	Number of homicides per 100 000 people
Health	Life expectancy at birth in years
Environment	Estimated average level of PM2.5 in μg/m3 experienced by the population
Civic engagement	Voter turnout at election as percentage of total voters
Accessibility to services	Percentage of households with access to broadband internet
Housing	Number of rooms per person

μg/m³ = micrograms per cubic metre; PM_2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns

The use of a common set of indicators across all regions has some disadvantages. In particular, it means that richness and complexity of each dimension is not captured. For example, the quality of the environment for each region is assessed by a single measure – estimated average level of particulate matter in the air experienced by the population – as this can be obtained for all regions using remote-sensing data collected by satellites.

In the OECD comparison, the ACT scored highest among the Australian states and territories, and had a higher livability score than any OECD economy (Table 9.2).

Table 9.2 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Regional Well-being Index, 2015

State or country	Education	Jobs	Income	Safety	Health	Environment	Civic engagement	Accessibility to services	Housing	Total
ACT	9.1	9.6	10.0	10.0	9.9	9.5	10.0	9.6	8.5	86.2
NSW	7.2	8.3	7.1	9.2	9.1	10.0	10.0	8.1	7.4	76.4
NT	6.4	8.7	8.1	1.4	4.1	9.1	8.5	8.4	5.8	60.5
Qld	6.9	8.5	6.9	9.3	8.7	10.0	10.0	8.4	8.2	76.9
SA	6.4	8.3	6.6	8.8	8.8	9.9	10.0	7.8	8.3	74.9
Tas	5.6	7.5	6.2	8.7	7.2	10.0	10.0	7.3	8.3	70.8
Vic	7.4	8.5	6.4	9.6	9.4	9.2	10.0	8.2	7.6	76.3
WA	7.0	9.3	7.7	9.0	9.4	9.9	10.0	8.6	8.8	79.7
Australia	6.6	8.4	7.3	9.8	9	9.5	10.0	7.2	8.7	76.6
Austria	8.1	8.4	6.3	9.9	7.5	3.3	6.3	7.4	5.3	62.5
Belgium	7.3	5.9	5.1	9.5	7.0	3.0	9.1	7.4	8.4	62.6
Canada	9.0	7.7	6.3	9.5	8.5	7.8	3.7	8.2	10.0	70.7
Chile	7.0	6.5	0.0	8.8	7.0	8.1	8.7	1.4	1.8	49.2
Czech Republic	10.0	6.9	2.4	9.6	3.8	3.1	3.3	5.8	3.0	47.9
Denmark	6.8	7.9	3.5	9.9	6.0	5.9	8.8	8.7	8.3	65.8
Estonia	9.3	6.4	1.0	8.3	2.3	7.5	4.1	7.0	1.9	47.7
Finland	8.4	7.1	4.0	9.9	7.0	8.3	5.1	8.6	6.1	64.6
France	6.9	5.4	5.5	9.7	8.9	5.3	7.4	7.2	5.6	62.0
Germany	8.5	8.3	6.0	9.9	7.3	4.1	5.7	8.2	8.2	66.1
Greece	5.7	0.7	3.8	9.6	6.6	3.8	5.5	3.7	1.6	41.0
Hungary	8.7	4.4	1.2	9.6	0.4	2.5	4.3	6.0	1.1	38.2
Iceland	5.1	9.0	3.8	10.0	8.8	10.0	5.2	9.7	4.0	65.7
Ireland	7.5	4.2	4.9	9.5	7.2	8.5	5.3	5.9	7.5	60.6
Israel	9.0	7.1	1.4	9.4	8.5	0.5	4.9	6.6	0.9	48.3
Italy	4.7	4.7	4.4	9.9	9.3	3.3	6.4	4.8	2.8	50.3
Japan	7.6	9.2	4.7	9.9	10.0	4.5	3.3	6.9	6.5	62.6
Korea	7.5	7.8	3.3	9.3	8.2	0.0	6.5	10.0	2.6	55.2
Luxembourg	7.6	6.9	8.8	9.8	7.6	4.4	9.4	6.3	6.9	67.5
Mexico	0.3	6.8	0.4	0.0	1.5	5.7	0.4	0.0	0.0	15.3
Netherlands	6.6	8.5	4.3	9.9	7.6	3.8	6.4	8.6	7.1	62.8
New Zealand	6.2	8.2	3.5	9.8	7.6	10.0	6.2	7.2	8.1	66.9
Norway	7.6	9.4	6.1	10.0	7.9	8.8	7.0	8.6	6.9	72.3
Poland	9.6	4.6	1.5	9.5	2.8	2.9	1.3	5.9	0.3	38.3
Portugal	0.5	5.0	3.1	9.8	6.8	7.3	3.0	5.0	6.4	46.9
Slovak Republic	9.9	4.1	1.9	9.5	1.3	3.0	3.2	5.9	1.4	40.3
Slovenia	8.8	6.1	3.3	9.3	6.4	3.4	0.0	6.5	3.3	47.2
Spain	3.6	0.9	4.3	9.9	9.0	6.4	5.1	5.9	6.3	51.5
Sweden	8.0	8.0	4.7	9.9	8.2	7.7	8.2	8.9	5.1	68.7
Switzerland	8.1	9.8	8.5	10.0	9.4	3.5	1.1	8.1	4.8	63.3
Turkey	0.0	3.7	2.5	9.2	1.7	2.6	8.8	3.0	0.1	31.6
United Kingdom	7.8	7.3	5.8	9.8	7.5	6.6	4.4	8.6	6.3	64.0
United States	8.5	6.7	10.0	8.1	5.7	7.2	5.0	6.8	9.7	67.7

ACT = Australian Capital Territory; NSW = New South Wales; NT = Northern Territory; Qld = Queensland; SA = South Australia; Tas = Tasmania; Vic = Victoria; WA = Western Australia

Other indices

Several other indices of livability are constructed internationally by various commercial organisations to inform the setting of remuneration for expatriate employees of international organisations and so do not necessarily reflect the livability of a city for residents.

Canberra achieves high scores in those indices in which it is included. One index that is calculated for Canberra is the Mercer Quality of Living Survey. In this survey for 2015, Canberra ranked 30th out of 230 cities. Other Australian cities ranked included Sydney (10th), Melbourne (16th), Perth (22nd), Adelaide (27th) and Brisbane (37th).¹³

9.2.3 Access to open space and green infrastructure

The ACT’s natural environment and access to open space and outdoor recreation opportunities are widely recognised as contributors to the livability of Canberra. The Canberra plan: towards our second century (2008) said in its vision for Canberra in 2020 that:¹⁴

Canberra will be recognised throughout the world as a truly sustainable and creative city as a community that is socially inclusive – acknowledging and supporting those who are vulnerable and in need and enabling all to reach their full potential; as a centre of economic growth and innovation; as the proud capital of the nation and home of its pre-eminent cultural institutions; and as a place of great natural beauty.

Also, the Canberra Social Plan 2011 states that:¹⁵

Canberra’s reputation as the ‘bush capital’ is central to the city’s character, identity and liveability. Access to shared open space and Canberra’s trees improve the amenity of urban life, as well as individual health and wellbeing.

The importance of maintaining a local natural environment is also recognised in discussions about the future growth of Canberra. For example, Catherine Carter, ACT Executive Director of the Property Council of Australia, has stated:¹⁶

Smart growth means increasing density in places that support it – such as along transport corridors, in our town centres and suburban shops – while also protecting the precious natural environment and the lifestyle that we so love.

Natural and seminatural ecosystems – such as nature reserves, river areas and parks – can boost local economies and enhance health, security and good social relations.^17–23 One of the ways in which people benefit directly from a city’s green infrastructure is through being able to access open spaces where they can exercise, relax, interact with their community and develop a strong sense of place. Green infrastructure not only includes a city’s natural environment, but also built components that enable people to interact in green spaces such as pathways, cycle paths, jogging tracks, town squares and urban spaces.^24,25 Studies have shown a clear positive link between access to green space, and wellbeing and health.^26,27

Green infrastructure is also recognised as a means of responding to some environmental pressures. Commonly cited environmental benefits of natural environments within cities include reducing air pollution, buffering noise pollution and regulating temperatures.^17,28,29 For example, constructed wetlands are a well-recognised way to address impacts on water quality caused by human settlements, and vegetation provides shade, cooling and protection from winds, and noise buffering.²⁴

In the ACT, we have a mix of human-built environments, nature reserves, remnant bush and grasslands, as well as parks and other forms of urban open space. Together these areas contribute a range of benefits to human wellbeing and are important components of our city’s livability.

Urban open space and reserves

The ACT’s urban open space and reserves (at the end of 2013–14) consist of Canberra Nature Park, 8 town parks, 21 district parks, 88 shopping centres and 6012 hectares (ha) of urban open space.³⁰ There is also a considerable amount of open space accessible to Canberrans in Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve, Birrigai, Murrumbidgee River Corridor and Namadgi National Park. Including land outside reserves, the open space managed by Territory and Municipal Services (TAMS) totals more than 70% percent of the ACT land area.³⁰

In 2011–2015, the amount of managed urban open space increased by 4.4% (Table 9.3). Of particular note is the establishment of the National Arboretum Canberra, which has added 250 ha of managed and accessible urban open space. Planting began in 2005 on land occupied by commercial pine forests before the bushfires of 2003, and the arboretum was officially opened in February 2013. The area of reserves, which includes Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve, Birrigai, the Murrumbidgee River Corridor, Namadgi National Park and Canberra Nature Park (33 separate reserves) has declined slightly since 2011.

Table 9.3 Urban open space and reserves assets managed by Territory and Municipal Services

Asset type	2010–11	2011–12	2012–13	2013–14	2014–15
Urban open space (ha)	5 783	5 862	5 889	6 038	6 134
National Arboretum Canberra, developed land (ha)	0	250	250	250	250
Forests (ha)	NA	11 393	11 337	11 323	10 982
Reserves (ha)	NA	146 382	146 381	146 312	146 611
Community paths (km)	NA	2 190	2 237	2 309	2 384

ha = hectare; km = kilometre; NA = not available
Source: Territory and Municipal Services^32–36

At present, the rate of increase in open space (4.4%) is slightly more than the rate of population growth (4.3%). Continuing population growth puts significant pressure on our green spaces, through the push to replace open space with residential and commercial development and through greater use by resident and visitors.

Through TAMS, the ACT Government currently owns and manages more than 7500 ha of pine forest planted with Pinus radiata trees up to 40 years of age. These commercial forests, mainly situated at Kowen (4658 ha), Pierces Creek (1552 ha) and Uriarra (1175 ha), produce timber and provide recreational opportunities, and have some environmental benefits including soil protection and carbon sequestration.³¹

TAMS measures customer satisfaction with TAMS management of urban open space through random telephone surveys of Canberrans, visitor surveys, and face-to-face interviews with visitors to parks and recreation areas. In 2010–2014, satisfaction levels were generally high for town and district parks and shopping centres (Table 9.4). However, satisfaction has declined for Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve and Namadgi, and children’s play equipment.

Table 9.4 Customer satisfaction with Territory and Municipal Services management of urban open space, 2010–2014

Element	2010–11	2011–12	2012–13	2013–14
Customer satisfaction with management of nature parks (Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve and Namadgi) (%)	99	99	98	99
Customer satisfaction with management of town and district parks (%)	96	97	91	92
Customer satisfaction with maintenance of children’s play equipment (%)	97	89	86.5	89
Customer satisfaction with the general look and feel of local suburban shopping centres (%)	84	65	82	81
The level of visitor satisfaction at the National Arboretum Canberra (%)	–	–	–	96

– = not applicable
Source: Territory and Municipal Services^37–40

Urban trees

Urban trees provide a range of benefits to humans and the environment. For example, they:

• remove air pollution
• provide shade and cooling in summer, and shelter in winter
• help reduce energy use by shading buildings
• contribute to carbon sequestration and storage
• help manage stormwater run-off
• provide aesthetic, social and health benefits
• provide habitat for wildlife.

Canberra’s urban forest consists of some 300 species, making it one of the largest and most diverse urban forests in Australia.³⁰ Urban tree management on public land in the ACT is a responsibility of TAMS and the National Capital Authority (NCA) (Table 9.5).

Table 9.5 Urban trees managed by Territory and Municipal Services and the National Capital Authority

Tree management	2010–11	2011–12	2012–13	2013–14	2014–15
Urban trees managed by TAMS	715 000	732 000	736 527	746 221	751 624
Urban trees managed by the NCA	20 000	20 000	20 000	20 000	20 000’
Total	735 000	752 000	756 527	766 221	771 624

NCA = National Capital Authority; TAMS = Territory and Municipal Services
Note: Estimate
Source: Territory and Municipal Services^32-35,41-43, National Capital Authority ^41–43

Although information on the number of trees on privately leased public land in Canberra is not available, such trees also provide public benefits and larger trees are subject to tree protection.

Customer satisfaction with TAMS management of trees, measured by a random telephone sample of 1200 Canberra residents over the age of 18 years, varies considerably over the years (Table 9.6).

Table 9.6 Customer satisfaction with Territory and Municipal Services tree management, 2010–2015

Tree management	2010–11	2011–12	2012–13	2013–14
Customer satisfaction with maintenance and pruning of street trees (%)	73	55a	55	85

a Includes ‘somewhat satisfied’ responses
Sources: Territory and Municipal Services^37–40

Urban lakes, ponds and wetlands

Urban wetlands in Canberra are almost entirely constructed wetlands aimed at improving the quality of run-off water before it enters creeks, rivers and lakes. Canberra’s large lakes – Lake Burley Griffin, Lake Tuggeranong and Lake Ginninderra – are constructed urban wetlands designed to improve downstream water quality in the Murray–Darling Basin.

Water quality issues are discussed in Chapter 6: Water, but the extent of urban wetlands and assets is reported here as an indicator of the state of green infrastructure (Table 9.7). The extent of TAMS-managed lakes, ponds and wetlands is increasing, as are stormwater management assets.

Table 9.7 ACT lakes and ponds, and related stormwater assets

Asset	2010–11	2011–12	2012–13	2013–14	2014–15
Lake Burley Griffin managed by NCA (ha)	664	664	664	664	664
Lakes and ponds managed by TAMS (ha)	NA	418	419	438	435
Stormwater managed by TAMS (km of pipe)	3529	3443	3480	3701	4176

NA = not available; ha = hectare; km = kilometre; NCA = National Capital Authority; TAMS = Territory and Municipal Services
Source: Territory and Municipal Services^32–36 , National Capital Authority ^41–43

Canberra’s lakes and ponds are mostly designed as settling ponds to trap nutrients, soil and debris, and improve downstream water quality. They also increase the biodiversity of an area by providing a sanctuary for plants and animals, improve visual amenity and create a leisure area for the community. For example, Lake Burley Griffin contributes substantially to the livability of Canberra. Its shoreline is fully accessible to people and has numerous recreational facilities. Lakes Ginninderra and Tuggeranong also contain major recreational facilities, including beaches, designated swimming areas, jetties, boat ramps for nonpetrol powered boats, barbecues and playgrounds.

The Jerrabomberra Wetlands combine the functions of nature and recreation, with water quality improvement as an adjunct benefit. The Jerrabomberra Wetlands are part of Canberra Nature Park and were created from the Molonglo River floodplain by the filling of Lake Burley Griffin in 1964. The wetlands extend across 201 ha. Management is shared between TAMS and a management committee of the Capital Woodlands and Wetlands Conservation Trust. A refuge for migrating birds from the Northern Hemisphere and inland Australia, sections of the Wetlands provide important habitat and sensitive riparian areas. The central location of the wetlands – only four kilometres from Canberra’s city centre – offers valuable recreational, experiential and educational opportunities. However, the combined effects of encroachment and isolation from other ACT reserves creates risks so that the existing ecological values of the wetlands may be diminished.⁴⁴

All lakes and wetlands clearly contribute positively, because they are considered to be green infrastructure that adds to livability. However, their primary functions – particularly water quality improvement – mean that other direct human uses such as swimming, boating and fishing need to be regulated. Such activities are prohibited in some ponds and wetlands, and may be subject to closures in the large lakes. Activity zones have been determined for each TAMS-managed water body, which are based on water quality and ecological criteria.⁴⁵ Therefore, to some extent, the contribution that urban lakes, ponds and wetlands make to the livability of Canberra is constrained by the need to control and restrict the use of these water bodies.

Balancing the various contributions of our water bodies with livability – particularly when the balance is in competition – is challenging given that a local catchment can spread across Australian, ACT and New South Wales (NSW) government jurisdictions. For example, the Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment reported on water quality in Lake Burley Griffin and the state of its catchments in 2012. Currently, the recommendations made by the Commissioner are being progressed across the three jurisdictions, largely in the context of the implementation of broader ACT water policy (see Chapter 6).

For the future, maintaining the contribution of urban lakes, ponds and wetlands to the livability of Canberra will depend on implementation of best-practice water quality infrastructure, and management in the face of growing population and increasingly dense urban development.

Community gardens

Community gardens are a form of open space that is increasingly popular, according to ACT Government studies.^46,47 (See Community case study 5.1). In common with other initiatives by volunteer groups, maintaining viability over time is a challenge. However, the studies showed that having community gardens within walking distance of people’s place of residence, access to good information and effective cross-sectoral partnerships can increase the chances of long-term success of these enterprises.

Sharing knowledge and work collectively in healthy and social environments around common interests are the main reasons people give for being involved. However, the studies also found some evidence that community gardeners are motivated by a desire to live more sustainably, take action to address climate change, promote food security and reduce food miles.

The potential of community gardens to strengthen and extend environmental awareness, especially for urban populations, should not be underestimated. For many people, gardens are the main location for engaging with the ‘natural’ world. With the global shift towards urbanisation, small residential blocks and apartment dwelling, private and public gardens are increasingly important as safe and inviting places where individuals and groups can experience and learn about aspects of the natural world. Community gardens can serve as learning and information hubs that offer connection with more explicitly ecological networks and, in turn, build and extend community action towards environmental protection and more sustainable living.

9.2.4 Built environment

The state of the built environment for the ACT, where 98% of the population lives within the city of Canberra, is a key determinant of livability for the residents.

Urban density

Although Canberra has a lower population density than other Australian capital cities, its population density is increasing (see Chapter 3).

The Canberra spatial plan, published in 2004, aimed to keep 50% of growth within 7.5 km of Civic and 50% within 15 km of Civic.⁴⁸ The ACT Planning Strategy: Planning for a sustainable city, published in 2012, now encourages residential construction in ‘urban intensification localities’, and aims for the proportion of new housing delivered through urban intensification to be 50% or more.⁴⁹

Data on infill development and greenfield development has been provided for this report by the ACT Land Development Agency (LDA). The LDA has the following definitions:

• Greenfield land – land that is located outside the existing urban boundary of the ACT. The land is generally located on the outer edge of the existing urban area and requires subdivision, road construction, connection to services and new retail, educational and community facilities. It includes land in Gungahlin and Molonglo.
• Urban infill – any redevelopment of serviced land within the urban boundary. Generally, the land has previously been used for an urban use, including car parking. Examples include development in Civic, local and town centres, dual occupancies and any redevelopment on leased land.
• Urban consolidation – the development of unserviced land within the existing urban boundary. Generally, the land requires servicing; however, the residents can rely on existing retail, educational and community facilities. For example, Lawson and East Lake.

The LDA included urban consolidation within urban infill in the data that it provided for this report.

Infill development was particularly high in 2012–2014, and still represents 59.7% of development in 2014–15 (Figure 9.3).

The land release program of the ACT Economic Development Directorate for 2014–15⁵⁰ indicates that, of the 13 500 proposed dwelling sites, 55% will be in infill areas and 45% in greenfield areas.

Source: Data provided by the ACT Land Development Agency, February 2015

Figure 9.3 New infill and new greenfield residential development in Canberra, 2006–2015

Housing

Housing standards and affordability are the result of many aspects of society, including the economy, individuals’ lifestyle choices, the environment, planning systems and the state of housing markets. Housing is included in this report because it reflects key aspects of the government management of the natural and built environments. The impact of the ACT Government’s policies on these are of great interest to the ACT community.

On the OECD regional wellbeing measure for housing, the ACT index number at 8.5 is higher than any other Australian state or territory except WA, and higher than any OECD economy except Canada and the United States (see Table 9.2).

Housing quantity

The Australian Census measures housing quantity in terms of dwelling type and number of rooms. In 2011, Canberra had 129 103 dwellings; 71.7% were separate houses, 14.6% were semidetached houses, and 13.4% were flats, units or apartments. From 2001 to 2011, the percentage of dwellings that are separate houses has declined and the percentages of semidetached dwellings, flats, units and apartments have increased (Table 9.8).

Table 9.8 Composition of dwelling types in the ACT (%), 2001–2011

Type of dwelling	2001	2006	2011
Separate house	76.4	75.0	71.7
Semidetached, row or terrace house, townhouse, etc
One storey	8.8	8.3	9.1
Two or more storeys	4.2	5.2	5.4
Total semidetached row or terrace house, townhouse, etc	13.0	13.5	14.6
Flat, unit or apartment
In a one- or two-storey block	4.0	4.2	4.3
In a three-storey block	3.6	4.1	4.8
In a four- or more storey block	1.4	2.6	4.0
Attached to a house	0.6	0.3	0.3
Total flat, unit or apartment	9.6	11.2	13.4
Other dwelling
Caravan, cabin, houseboat	0.2	0.1	0.2
Improvised home, tent, sleepers out	0.0	0.0	0.0
House or flat attached to a shop, office, etc	0.0	0.0	0.0
Total other dwelling	0.3	0.2	0.3
Dwelling structure not stated	0.7	0.0	0.0

Source: Percentages calculated from Australian Bureau of Statistics data, http://stat.abs.gov.au/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ABS_CENSUS2011_T14_LGA

The quantity of housing in Canberra as indicated by persons per private dwelling or persons per bedroom is similar to the greater city areas for other Australian capitals (Table 9.9).

Table 9.9 Persons per private dwelling and bedroom, Australian cities, 2011

City	Persons per private dwelling	Persons per bedroom
Canberra	2.54	1.25
Greater Sydney	2.69	1.09
Greater Melbourne	2.62	1.14
Greater Brisbane	2.64	1.20
Greater Darwin	2.69	1.05

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics⁵¹

Housing affordability

Housing affordability is calculated based on the incomes of residents, home purchase prices and rent. Some indicators are constructed to indicate affordability for purchasers of housing on average income levels. Other are constructed to indicate the level of unaffordability of home rental or purchase for low-income and disadvantaged groups. The rate of homelessness reflects the proportion of residents for whom housing is completely unaffordable.

The available indicators are:

• housing stress estimates made by Rahman and Harding (National Centre for Social and Economic Policy) for statistical subdivisions of Australia for 2011, covering owners, buyers, public renters and private renters separately
• Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Consumer Price Index components for home purchase and rental
• price estimates for established houses compiled by the ABS, up to 2015
• assessments by the community welfare organisation Anglicare of the numbers of dwellings that are affordable for low-income households, up to 2014
• the rate of homelessness, measured five-yearly in the ABS Census of Population and Housing.

Housing stress estimates

Households in housing stress are defined as those with equivalised household gross income in the bottom 40% of all household incomes in Australia that are spending more than 30% of their gross household income on either renting costs or mortgage repayments.

In 2011, housing stress was lower in the ACT than in all other state and territories (Table 9.10).

Table 9.10 Housing stress estimates by tenure types, 2011

Jurisdiction	Percentage of households in housing stress
	Overall total	Owners	Buyers	Public renters	Private renters	Other tenure
ACT	6.6	0.0	4.5	20.0	15.4	0.0
NSW	11.6	0.1	11.0	17.8	29.9	0.1
NT	9.4	0.4	7.1	19.3	15.7	0.0
Qld	11.3	0.1	9.8	15.7	27.9	0.1
SA	10.5	0.1	9.9	15.2	32.7	0.1
Tas	10.1	0.1	10.3	14.0	32.0	0.1
Vic	10.4	0.1	11.0	17.2	28.6	0.1
WA	9.9	0.1	8.9	14.9	26.9	0.2
Australia	10.9	0.1	10.3	16.7	28.7	0.1

ACT = Australian Capital Territory; NSW = New South Wales; NT = Northern Territory; Qld = Queensland; SA = South Australia; Tas = Tasmania; Vic = Victoria; WA = Western Australia
Note: Figures have been rounded to one decimal place. Rahman and Harding⁵² provided figures up to three decimal places.
Source: Rahman & Harding⁵²

Australian Bureau of Statistics Consumer Price Index

The ABS Consumer Price Index contains components for housing cost as a whole, housing rents and new house purchases (excluding land). In 2003–2012, all these measures increased at a similar rate to those for all of Australia, but in the ACT in 2012–2014, these have slowed to fall below the rest of Australia (Figure 9.4).

Note: Calculations were rebased to 2003–04 = 100 by the Office of the Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment.
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics Consumer Price Index Australia, cat no 6401.0, components

Figure 9.4 Australian Bureau of Statistics Consumer Price Index components for housing, rentals and new purchases, 2003–2015

Canberra has a mixture of housing types, as well as a mix of infill and Greenfield development. Photo shows Greenfield development at MolongloPhoto: Office of the Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment

Price of established housing

ABS data show that Canberra house prices, including land, have increased from 2007, but have maintained their relativity with prices in other capital cities (Figure 9.5). The average 2013–14 median price of an established house in Canberra was $520 950 compared with $719 700 in Sydney and around $544 000 in Melbourne and Perth.

However, it should be noted that these data are based on prices recorded in the housing market and make no allowance for changes in the composition of housing types or quality of dwelling that appear on the market.

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics⁵³

Figure 9.5 Median price of established houses, Australia capital cities, 2007–2014

Affordable dwellings for low-income households

The community welfare organisation Anglicare surveys rental markets across Australia to determine the number of private properties that are affordable for low-income households within those advertised as vacant in local newspapers and real estate websites (Table 9.11). Low-income households are defined in terms of payment types received (eg Newstart allowance, age pension, minimum wage; and family structure). An affordable rental is defined by Anglicare as one that takes up less than 30% of the household’s income.

Table 9.11 Affordable housing in Canberra and Queanbeyan for low-income households, 2015

Household type	Payment type	Number affordable and appropriate	Percentage affordable and appropriate
Couple, two children (one aged less than 5, one aged less than 10)	Newstart allowance (both adults)	0	0.0
Single, two children (one aged less than 5, one aged less than 10)	Parenting payment single	0	0.0
Couple, no children	Age pension	57	2.7
Single, one child (aged less than 5)	Parenting payment single	1	<0.1
Single, one child (aged over 8)	Newstart allowance	0	0.0
Single	Age pension	70	3.3
Single, aged over 21	Disability support pension	0	0.0
Single	Newstart allowance	1	<0.1
Single, aged over 18	Youth allowance	0	0.0
Single in share house	Youth allowance	0	0.0
Couple, two children (one aged less than 5 one aged less than 10 )	Minimum wage plus Family Tax Benefit A (both adults)	153	7.2
Single, two children (one aged less than 5 one aged less than 10 )	Minimum wage plus Family Tax Benefits A and B	1	<0.1
Single	Minimum wage	160	7.5
Couple, two children (one aged less than 5 one aged less than 10 )	Minimum wage plus parenting payment (partnered), plus Family Tax Benefits A and B	3	0.1

Note: The total number of properties was 2125.
Source: Anglicare Australia,⁵⁴ p 43

Anglicare concludes that:⁵⁴

The private rental market in Canberra and Queanbeyan is extremely unaffordable for persons on a low income such as minimum wage or government benefits. (p 44)

Homelessness

In 2011, the rate of homelessness in the ACT was 50 people per 10 000 in the population, or 0.5%,⁵⁵ substantially higher than the rate measured in the 2006 Census (0.29%) and the 2001 Census (0.30%).

The rate of homelessness in the ACT in 2011 was similar to that for other states and territories, with the exceptions of the Northern Territory, which experiences very high homelessness rates of 7–9%, and Tasmania, where homelessness rates are low. However, there is more uncertainty in the level of homelessness measured for the ACT than in larger states because the ABS Census covers fewer people in the ACT. As measured in the 2001 and 2006 censuses, homelessness in the ACT was below that of other states and territories except Tasmania (Table 9.12).

Table 9.12 Australian homelessness, by jurisdiction, 2001, 2006 and 2011

	2001		2006		2011
State or territory	Number	Percentage of population	Number	Percentage of population	Number	Percentage of population
ACT	943	0.304	949	0.293	1 785	0.500
NSW	23 041	0.364	22 219	0.339	28 190	0.408
NT	16 948	9.040	15 265	7.917	15 479	7.307
Qld	19 316	0.548	18 856	0.483	19 838	0.458
SA	5 844	0.398	5 607	0.370	5 985	0.375
Tas	1 264	0.275	1 145	0.240	1 579	0.319
Vic	18 154	0.389	17 410	0.353	22 789	0.426
WA	9 799	0.536	8 277	0.423	9 592	0.428
Total	95 314	0.508	89 728	0.452	105 237	0.489

ACT = Australian Capital Territory; NSW = New South Wales; NT = Northern Territory; Qld = Queensland; SA = South Australia; Tas = Tasmania; Vic = Victoria; WA = Western Australia
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics⁵⁶

9.2.5 Connectivity, transport and congestion

Transport is an essential part of modern living – it supports our work, education, industry, social connection and recreation.

Viv Straw, President, Planning Institute Australia (ACT Division), said that the livability of cities depends on interconnection:

No place exists in isolation; every place is connected to its hinterland, other urban areas, food sources, water supplies, to other people and information. How these connections function is fundamental to the liveability and efficiency of the city. The most liveable cities are ones that facilitate freedom of movement and access for everyone. Trobe⁵⁷

Transport assets

ACT transport assets consist of the road and path networks for vehicular and pedestrian traffic, vehicles, and supporting facilities such as bus stations, parking facilities and bike racks.

Roads and paths

The growth rate of roads and paths has exceeded population growth during the reporting period. Lane length of roads grew by 5.6% between 2010–11 and 2014–15, while on-road and off-road cycle path length combined grew by 25.4%, Community paths grew in length by 8.8% between 2011–12 and 2014–15 (Table 9.13).

Table 9.13 Publicly owned and managed transport assets in the ACT, 2010–2015

Year	Road length (lane km)	On-road cycle lane length (km)	Off-road cycle lane length (km)	Community paths (km)
2010–11	6394	377	342	NA
2011–12	6580	403	343	2190
2012–13	6623	402	396	2237
2013–14	6680	416	420	2309
2014–15	6751	466	436	2384

km = kilometre; NA = not available
Source: Territory and Municipal Services Directorate

On 28 May 2015, the ACT Government foreshadowed new funding initiatives to be announced in the budget to improve cycling and walking infrastructure:

• $250 000 to fund the design of an upgrade for new and existing shared paths and cycle infrastructure in and around the Woden Town Centre
• $600 000 to construct a new shared walking and cycling path through Bowen Park, connecting it to the Kingston Foreshore and making it easier to ride a loop around Lake Burley Griffin
• $1.5 million to facilitate the final design and construction of new road crossings on the busy Sullivan’s Creek cycle path
• $200 000 to design stage 1 of the Molonglo Cycle Highway from the city centre to Acacia Inlet
• $150 000 to design improvements to increase ease of cycling and walking to and from the Kingston Group Centre
• $100 000 for Belconnen, West Belconnen and Tuggeranong feasibility studies to identify local walking and cycling path connections.

Buses

The ACT Internal Omnibus Network (ACTION) is responsible for public transport services in the ACT. ACTION is a branch in the Roads and Public Transport Division of TAMS.

The number of public buses in service in the ACT has declined since 2010–11, but the number of wheelchair-accessible buses has grown by around 40% (Table 9.14).

Table 9.14 ACT buses in service, 2010–2015

Year	Total buses in service	Wheelchair-accessible buses in service	Buses with bike racks
2010–11	458	200	NA
2011–12	403	221	326
2012–13	411	242	335
2013–14	408	251	335
2014–15	416	281	394

NA = not available
Source: Territory and Municipal Services Directorate

In 2013–14, ACTION continued a bus replacement program, with 13 articulated buses entering service. The delivery of 77 low-emissions buses is scheduled between 2014 and 2017.

Taxis

There are 288 standard taxis operating in the ACT, and there is a Government-imposed cap on the number of taxi licences (currently set at 332). There are 19 wheelchair-accessible taxis operating and there is a cap of 26 on the number of licences. In addition, there are 20 taxi licences issued in NSW that allow cross-border operation into the ACT. There are 72 000 to 105 000 hirings of standard taxis in the ACT per month,⁵⁸ and 2000 to 2700 hirings of wheelchair-accessible taxis.⁵⁹

In 2014 and 2015, the ACT Government looked at ways to expand the range of, and access to, reliable and convenient on-demand public transport options through new digital technologies and emerging alternative business models.⁶⁰ Public consultation on the Taxi Industry Innovation Review was completed at the end of June 2015⁶¹ and reforms were announced after the end of the reporting period, on 30 September 2015. As a result, Uber and other ridesharing businesses were to legally enter the Canberra market from 30 October 2015.

Private vehicles

The ACT has fewer motor vehicle registrations per person than the Australian average, but a higher number of registered passenger motor vehicles per person, and our vehicle registrations per person are rising (Table 9.15).

Table 9.15 Private vehicle registrations, 2010, 2014 and 2015

Registrations	2010	2014	2015
ACT registrations per head	0.704	0.728	0.733
Australia registrations per head	0.731	0.756	0.764
ACT passenger vehicles registrations per head	0.592	0.608	0.612
Australia passenger vehicles registrations per head	0.559	0.570	0.575

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics⁶²

In addition, motor vehicle use is increasing more in the ACT than in the rest of Australia (Table 9.16).

Table 9.16 Increase in vehicle use, ACT and Australia, 2010–2014

Vehicle-use indicator	ACT increase (%)	Australia increase (%)
Total km travelled	4.8	7.8
Number of vehicles	7.6	10.2
Average kilometres per vehicle	–2.9	–2.1

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics⁶³

Parking

In 2014, a survey of ACT parking areas⁶⁴ showed that, at peak times, long-stay parking was in very high demand in the city centre, inner south, Belconnen and Tuggeranong (the percentage of parks filled ranged from 80% to 85%), and was almost at capacity in Woden (93%) (Table 9.17). Demand for short-stay parking was also high, with the percentage of filled parks ranging from 79% to 87% across all centres.

Parking is recognised by the ACT Government as a crucial component of an integrated transport network, particularly given Canberra’s dependence on car-based passenger travel and the need for delivering goods and services by motor vehicle.

Table 9.17 Preliminary 2014 parking survey results

Survey	Long-stay parking supply	Weekday long-stay parking filled at demand peak (%)	Short-stay parking supply	Weekday short-stay parking filled at demand peak (%)
City centre	10 380	85	2608	75
Inner south4	4 204	84	3636	72
Belconnen Town Centre5	6 098	82	1943	87
Gungahlin Town Centre6,7	2 456	65	1019	79
Tuggeranong Town Centre	3 390	80	1030	77
Woden Town Centre5	6 120	93	1946	82

Source: ACT Government⁶⁴

The ACT Government’s parking action plan, Building an integrated transport network: parking,⁶⁴ released in June 2015, is designed to make parking more accessible by:

• reducing free surface parking in the city and town centres, and replacing it with pay parking
• prioritising short-stay parking, and providing mobility, taxi, loading and other priority parking requirements
• moving long-stay and commuter parking to the periphery of the city centre and town centres
• replacing surface car parks with car park structures
• using technology to better manage the supply of parking and to better inform and guide motorists to fit-for-purpose parking – for example, by informing motorists of vacancies in car parks via a smart phone app
• using pricing, time and capacity limits to ration demand in high-demand areas, to encourage using public transport and active travel
• not providing any form of preferential access to on-street parking for residents of high-density residential developments
• considering opportunities for additional ‘park-and-ride’ facilities in the context of existing transport and land uses at centres, and establishing such facilities, particularly for people who are not able to access the frequent bus network by walking, cycling or using the feeder bus service
• implementing parking options at ACT schools that support safe school environments and increased active travel to school.

Transport modes and use

Comparisons of the modes of transport to work used in Australian capital cities confirms that the ACT is highly dependent on cars, as are most other cities (Figure 9.6). In most cities, more than 60% of trips to work are made in cars. The ACT has the third-lowest use of public transport among Australian capital cities. However, the ACT also has one of the highest rates of bicycle use and walking in Australian capital cities, based on data collected in the 2011 Census.

Note: ‘Other’ comprises commuters who used multiple modes of transport.
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics⁶⁵

Figure 9.6 Modes of transport to work, Australian capital cities, 2011

Buses

Bus use in the ACT sharply declined from the 1980s to the 2000s (Table 9.18), probably in response to an increase in car affordability. Since then, bus use has remained stable at 40–50 boardings per person each year.

Table 9.18 ACT bus use, 1983–2015

Year	Annual ACTION bus boardings (million)	ACT population (30 June)	Per capita ACTION bus boardings
1983–84	23.2	245 000	95
1989–90	25.1	273 000	92
2002–03	16.3	327 357	50
2003–04	16.3	328 940	50
2004–05	16.8	331 399	52
2005–06	17.1	335 170	51
2006–07	16.8	342 644	49
2007–08	16.9	348 368	49
2008–09	17.6	354 785	50
2009–10	16.9	361 766	47
2010–11	16.7	367 985	45
2011–12	18.2	375 183	49
2012–13	18.1	381 488	48
2013–14	17.8	385 996	46
2014–15	17.6	388 000a	45

ACTION = ACT Internal Omnibus
a Estimate
Source: Data provided by Territory and Municipal Services Directorate

Data on ACTION expenses, revenue and kilometres travelled shows that fare revenue is only around 15% of total expenses, and the gap between revenue and expenses has been increasing until the final year of the reporting period (Figure 9.7).

ACTION = ACT Internal Omnibus
Source: Data provided by Territory and Municipal Services Directorate

Figure 9.7 ACTION expenditure and fare revenue, 2002–2014

The in-service kilometres travelled by ACTION buses, which generates revenue, and total kilometres travelled, which includes distances travelled by buses that are out of service (known as ‘dead running’), are shown in Figure 9.8. The amount of ‘dead running’ has been reduced in the final year of the reporting period following a long-term increase.

ACTION = ACT Internal Omnibus; km = kilometre
Source: Data provided by Territory and Municipal Services Directorate

Figure 9.8 In-service and total kilometres travelled by ACTION buses

Cycling

The 2015 National Cycling Participation Survey found that:⁶⁶

• 81 900 people in the ACT ride their bike at least once a week
• absolute cycling numbers in the ACT have increased by 3.7% since 2011
• the overall participation rate of riders in the ACT is 23% higher than the national average.

Pedal Power ACT surveys show that bicycle use has increased most in Civic and Belconnen, but has declined in Woden (Figure 9.9). ⁶⁷

Source: Pedal Power ACT⁶⁶

Figure 9.9 Bicycle use in Canberra areas, 2012–2014

The Strategic Active Travel Network sets out the preferred strategy for the development of the walking and cycling network for the next 10–15 years.⁸³ The network links with future land development and urban growth, and identifies infrastructure projects and non-infrastructure initiatives to increase active travel in the ACT.

Walking

In 2011, Canberra had the third-highest mode share of walking to work (when not combined with other modes) within Australian capital cities at 4.2%, behind Darwin and Hobart.⁶⁵ Data on the ACT’s frequency of walking in the reporting period are not available.

Congestion

The amount of time that urban residents spend on travel between daily activities, and the level of convenience and stress experienced in travel, are major factors affecting the livability of a city.⁶⁸ As well as affecting livability, congestion also has an economic cost because of lost work time.

Two indicators of congestion are the international TomTom Traffic Index, and Infrastructure Australia estimates of time lost through congestion and valuation of the time lost.

TomTom Traffic Index

The TomTom Traffic Index indicates that Canberra is among the least-congested cities internationally. In this index for 2015, Canberra ranked as the 185th most congested out of 218 cities, and the 59th most congested out of 72 small cities (those with a population under 800 000). Canberra has the lowest congestion ranking of any Australian city (Table 9.19).

Table 9.19 TomTom Traffic Index for Australian cities, 2015

City	World ranking as most congested city out of 218	Average all day congestion level (%)	Morning peak congestion level (%)	Evening peak congestion level (%)	Highways congestion level (%)	Non-highways congestion level (%)
Sydney	27	35	66	64	31	37
Melbourne	75	28	52	51	21	35
Perth	92	27	46	46	20	29
Adelaide	104	25	45	41	25	26
Brisbane	115	25	43	46	18	28
Canberra	185	17	33	28	18	17

Notes:
1. The TomTom Traffic Index measures travel times during the whole day and during peak periods, and compares these with measured travel times during noncongested periods. The congestion level is the average percentage increase in travel time in congested periods compared with noncongested periods.
2. The 2015 index is based on data for all of 2014.
Source: TomTom traffic index, https://www.tomtom.com/en_au/trafficindex/#

Infrastructure Australia data on congestion and costs

The 2015 Australian Infrastructure Audit Report⁶⁹ estimates the costs of road congestion for 2011 and projected for 2031. The cost of congestion is projected to increase substantially by 2031 in Canberra and other Australian cities. As shown with the TomTom data, Canberra has the lowest cost of congestion of any Australian city (Table 9.20).

Table 9.20 Cost of road congestion, 2011 and projected 2031 ($ million, 2011 prices)

Year	Sydney, Newcastle, Wollongong	Melbourne, Geelong	Brisbane, Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast	Greater Perth	Greater Adelaide	Greater Canberra
2011	5 555	2 837	1 914	1 784	1 442	208
2031	14 790	9 006	9 206	15 865	3 747	703

Note: The methodology does not account for new investments in infrastructure that will happen between 2015 and 2031, apart from infrastructure that is already under construction and for which a firm funding commitment has been made. For Canberra, the estimates do not assume that the Gungahlin to Civic light rail will proceed.
Source: Infrastructure Australia,⁶⁹ p 32, using data from ACIL Allen Consulting⁷⁰

More useful is the audit’s comparison of Canberra’s top 10 road corridors by delay cost. The high delay cost in the Barton Highway – Northbourne Avenue corridor confirms the importance of the ACT Government’s focus on that corridor (Table 9.21),⁷¹ and its plans for the Capital Metro project to construct a light trail connection between Gungahlin and Civic to increase the mode share of public transport.

Table 9.21 Top 10 road corridors in greater Canberra, by delay cost, 2011 and projected for 2031 (2011 prices)

	Delay cost per lane km 2011 ($ million)		Direct economic contribution per lane km 2011 value ($ million)		Volume capacity 2011 7–9 am peak (%)
Road corridor	2011	2031 projected	2011	2031 projected	2011	2031 projected
Barton Highway – Northbourne Avenue	0.43	1.22	2.16	3.69	54	68
Canberra Avenue	0.38	1.18	1.85	3.82	57	72
Belconnen Way – Barry Drive	0.35	1.15	1.82	3.54	52	67
Canberra Airport to Civic	0.32	1.11	1.62	3.32	60	79
Tuggeranong Parkway	0.28	0.76	1.58	2.98	58	64
Macarthur Avenue – Limestone Avenue – Fairbairn Avenue	0.20	0.68	1.37	2.55	52	68
William Slim Drive – Coulter Drive	0.20	0.63	1.04	1.96	61	72
Erindale Drive – Yamba Drive	0.18	0.60	1.03	2.53	52	NA
Ginninderra Drive	0.18	0.59	1.16	2.98	55	NA
East–West corridors	0.16	0.58	1.12	2.06	56	NA

km = kilometre; NA = not available
Source: Infrastructure Australia⁷¹

Road accidents

The safety of ACT roads is another measure of livability.

The total number of vehicle crashes in the ACT peaked in 2011 and has declined since then (Figure 9.10).

Source: ACT Justice and Community Safety Directorate⁷²

Figure 9.10 ACT road crash trends, 2004–2014

The number of fatal crashes has also declined (Figure 9.11). In particular, lower numbers of drivers and motorcycle riders have been killed on ACT roads since 2011.

Source: Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics

Figure 9.11 ACT road crash fatalities, 2003–2014

A decline in road crash fatalities is also seen in national data (Table 9.22). Comparison with other states and the Northern Territory also shows that the ACT has a relatively low rate of fatalities; however, the data do not account for deaths of ACT citizens in the adjoining regions of NSW.

Table 9.22 Annual road crash fatalities, by jurisdiction, per 100 000 population, 2005–2014

Year	ACT	NSW	NT	Qld	SA	Tas	Vic	WA	Australia
2005	7.8	7.6	26.7	8.4	9.6	10.5	6.9	8.1	8.1
2006	3.9	7.4	21.5	8.4	7.5	11.2	6.7	9.8	7.8
2007	4.1	6.4	27.1	8.8	7.9	9.1	6.4	11.2	7.7
2008	4.0	5.4	34.1	7.8	6.2	7.8	5.8	9.4	6.8
2009	3.4	6.4	13.7	7.6	7.4	12.5	5.4	8.5	6.9
2010	5.3	5.7	21.8	5.7	7.3	6.1	5.3	8.4	6.1
2011	1.6	5.0	19.5	6.0	6.3	4.7	5.2	7.6	5.7
2012	3.2	5.0	20.8	6.1	5.7	6.1	5.0	7.5	5.7
2013	1.8	4.5	15.3	5.8	5.9	7.0	4.2	6.4	5.1
2014	2.6	4.1	15.9	4.7	6.3	6.8	4.3	7.0	4.9

ACT = Australian Capital Territory; NSW = New South Wales; NT = Northern Territory; Qld = Queensland; SA = South Australia; Tas = Tasmania; Vic = Victoria; WA = Western Australia
Source: Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics,⁷³ Table 5.4

9.2.6 Human health

Individual human health and the health levels of populations are the result of many environmental, behavioural, cultural, genetic, social and economic influences. Many of the environmental factors do not noticeably affect health levels in the ACT, because they are effectively managed to prevent any impacts on human health. For example, drinking water quality, air quality, sewage and solid waste are managed using large physical infrastructure, labour and financial resources. Assessment of these is presented in the relevant chapters of this report.

Human health impacts are also a result of our broader management of the environment and choices about the form of human settlements.⁷⁴ As stated in the 2011 State of the Environment Report:⁷⁵

Increasingly, connections are being made between the design and layout of urban areas and aspects of human health such as obesity, mental health and respiratory problems such as asthma.

State and trend

In the ACT, human health is monitored by the ACT Chief Health Officer who publishes the Chief Health Officer’s report every two years. The 2014 report, which covers 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2012, states that:⁷⁶

I am pleased to report a continuing trend of good health in the ACT. Our Territory enjoys a relatively clean climate, good employment, affluence of income, education and housing, has excellent social, community and health services and has the highest life expectancy of all states and territories in Australia.

However, some data from the Chief Health Officer’s Report indicate negative health impacts (Table 9.23). Although physical activity and vegetable consumption are increasing, the prevalence of overweight and obesity is not decreasing. The occurrence of asthma (which may be related to air quality) has increased slightly since 2007–08. The rate of mental health and behavioural problems is increasing.

Table 9.23 ACT human health indicators, 2007–2012

Indicator	2007–08	2009–10	2011–12
Overweight or obese (%)	57.8	52.9	52.3a
Sufficient physical activity (%)	57.0	56.9	59.6
Sufficient daily vegetable consumption (%)	7.2	9.9	11.0
Adults reporting asthma (%)	9.6	NA	10.2
Mental health or behavioural problems (%)	11.8	NA	15.5

NA = not available
a From the Australian Health Survey. The ACT Government Health Service survey reports this as higher, at 63.0%.
Sources: ACT Health^77–79

Similar findings were reported in the 2011 State of the Environment Report. For example:⁷⁵

While Canberra’s liveability and health indicators compare favourably with other jurisdictions, reliance on car travel is likely to contribute to overweight and obesity.

According to the Chief Health Officer’s Report, the main health issues in 2010–12 included:

• improving health status is challenging in the areas of severe poverty in our community
• living in an ageing society, and already noticing the increase in age-associated chronic disease
• the continuing rise of obesity, its determinants (including suboptimal physical activity and high-energy, nutrient-poor diets) and consequences (including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, arthritis and some types of cancer) are of concern
• an encouraging reversal in a previous trend for lower physical activity in adults, but not in children; urgent, sustained, intersectoral action is required to address this problem at the societal level
• living with a mental illness; there is a mixed picture for mental health, with prevalence higher than elsewhere in Australia, but with higher-than-average access to specialist services and to out-of-hospital follow-up care.

9.2.7 Response

‘Livability’ has become a core orienting principle in national and international government policy and initiatives.^3,7

In the ACT, the Government has recently articulated four strategic themes to which all ACT Government directorates contribute: livability and opportunity, growing the economy, healthy and smart, and urban renewal.⁸⁰

These themes are implemented under the overarching framework of The Canberra plan: towards our second century (2008). This built on the original Canberra Plan launched in 2004, which established a vision for Canberra as a sustainable and creative city.¹⁴ The plan includes a range of policies and strategies across social, economic and environmental matters.