Higher density development in Sydney: public perceptions and policy awareness

Transcription

1 State of Australia Cities Coferece 2013 Higher desity developmet i Sydey: public perceptios ad policy awareess Kristia Rumig Departmet of Eviromet ad Geography, Macquarie Uiversity Abstract: Australia cities are facig a umber of challeges, icludig a sigificat growth i populatio, a growig housig affordability crisis, a greater cocer for evirometal issues (such as climate chage), ad shortfalls i trasport ad other urba ifrastructure. I respose to these challeges the promotio of a higher desity built form has come to represet a urba plaig orthodoxy promoted via metropolita strategies across the coutry. Despite the domiace of the higher desity ideal withi policy rhetoric, its virtues remai the subject of sigificat debate. To date this debate has bee played out i academic ad policy circles, with limited recogitio of the kowledge ad perceptios of such policies held by the geeral public. Debate aroud public perceptios of higher desity housig has bee costraied withi the ot-i-my-backyard (NIMBY) discourse which works to positio public oppositio to higher desity housig as either a illegitimate ad selfish form of localised protest or a valid example of urba citizeship ad democracy. This paper takes a step back from these localised debates aroud the value of higher desity housig to explore public opiios of higher desity housig at the metropolita scale, focusig o Sydey. Drawig o a survey admiistered across the Sydey metropolita area this paper explores the extet to which the public is aware of policies at state ad local levels which promote higher desity developmet, the extet to which the public supports some of the uderlyig priciples of higher desity housig (such as sustaiability, affordability ad reduced urba sprawl) ad the impact of higher desity developmets o their suburb. Itroductio: urba policy ad public oppositio Urba cosolidatio ad icreasig urba desities has become a cetral matra of strategic plaig over the past 30 years or so (Radolph, 2006; Forster, 2006). As a plaig paradigm icreasig desities has bee promoted as oe possible solutio to a suite of urba challeges, icludig urba sprawl ad Greefield developmet, climate chage, populatio growth ad icrease ifrastructure costs. Nevertheless, these supposed beefits of icrease urba desity have bee critiqued ad challeged by academics, practitioers ad the public at large (Rumig et al., 2012; Searle, 2010; Buker et al., 2005). For example, Radolph ad Troy (2008) questio the extet to which higher desity eviromet improve evirometal sustaiability. Further, Buys ad Miller (2012) ote that higher desity housig is ofte ot viewed as a log-term housig optio, especially for families with childre. Despite a push for icreased desity withi strategic plaig policy ad claims from some idustry groups that Australia s have embraced medium ad high desity housig (Urbis, 2013), Australia remais domiated by separate houses, with higher desity dwelligs 1 accoutig for oly 23.5% of dwelligs i A slightly higher rate is recorded for NSW with 29.5% i 2011, while across the Sydey Urba Cetre/Locality (UCL) 40.6% of dwelligs were of a higher desity form the largest proportio of ay city across Australia 2 (ABS, 2012, cat ). Betwee 2006 ad 2011 the umber of higher desity dwelligs icreased by 16,280, while the proportio of dwelligs remaied relatively costat (40.7% i 2006) (ABS, 2007, cat ). The urba cosolidatio ageda is a cetral premise of metropolita strategic plas coverig all Australia s capital cities (Rumig et al., 2013). At the time fieldwork was coducted, the Metropolita Pla for Sydey 2036 (NSWDOP, 2010) was the curret strategic plaig documet for Sydey. Uder the Metropolita Pla 770,000 ew homes were to be developed to 2036, with at least 70% beig located i existig suburbs, while 80% of all ew homes would be withi walkig distace to existig or plaed cetres (NSWDOP, 2010, p.6-7). Uder the Metropolita Pla subregioal strategies were developed which clearly stated dwellig (as well as employmet) targets. With a chage of State govermet followig the March 2011 electio a ew roud of plaig was iitiated with the developmet of the Draft Metropolita Strategy for Sydey to 2031(NSWDoPI, 2013a) ad broader plaig system reform (NSWDoPI, 2013b). Despite some efforts to distace curret plaig reforms ad strategic plaig policy from previous efforts, a umber of importat parallels remai. I terms of housig the Draft Metropolita Strategy established a ambitious target 1 Defied by joiig ABS categories of, row or terrace house, towhouse ad, row or terrace house, towhouse 2 Gold Coast SLA4: 37.5%; Melboure UCL: 28.4%; Adelaide UCL: 24.3%; Brisbae UCL: 21.8%; Perth SUA: 21.5%; Newcastle UCL: 19.7%; Hobart SUA: 17.9% (ABS, 2012, cat ). 1

2 State of Australia Cities Coferece 2013 of at least 545,000 ew houses across Sydey by (p.7). The Draft Strategy also mobilises dwellig targets via subregioal strategies ad, for the first time, sets set miimum housig targets for Despite iitial statemets that the proportio of ew developmet cotais i existig urba areas would be reduced to aroud 50% (Nicholls ad Moore, SMH, 8/2/2011), the Discussio paper framig the Draft Strategy claims Most ew housig still eeds to be i existig urba areas to cotai the spread of the city s urba footprit (NSWDoPI, 2012a, p.13) The use of dwellig (ad by extesio desity) targets have become a cetral aspect of metropolita plaig i Sydey. The use of targets as strategic plaig tools has received cosiderable debate withi academic plaig circles. I their submissio to the Draft Metropolita Strategy for Sydey to 2031, Piegar ad Radolph (2013) frame targets as the atithesis of what citywide, city shapig strategic framework[s] [should] look like (p. 3). Despite seekig a provide certaity (to both the market ad local commuities), accordig to Searle ad Buker (2010), the use of targets are overly prescriptive strategic plaig tools which potetially costrai future developmet i defied locatios. While viewed as a cetral policy lever, little research exists to test the extet to which such targets are ackowledged or supported by the broader public. New high desity developmet has ofte acted as a trigger for local cocer ad the formatio of commuity oppositios groups (Searle, 2007). Cook et al. (2013, p. 130) claim that more compact forms has give rise to a ew, distictly suburba cotestatio over strategic plaig goals. Ofte idetified as ot-i-my-backyard (NIMBY) groups, such local oppositio seeks to resist icreased desity o the basis that ew developmet will icrease demad o local ifrastructure, icrease traffic ad reduce car parkig, potetially reduce house prices, itroduce ew groups ito established commuities ad chage the reputatio of a area (Dovey et al., 2009; Rumig et al., 2012). The scale of commuity resistace is ofte directly proportioal to the size of developmet (Cook et al., 2012). Such resistace has also bee opposed o the basis of plaig processes, where residets (ad some coucils) resist a plaig process which is see to remove or igore local provisios ad cocers, i favour of broad ad uresposive plaig strategies ad targets (Rumig, 2013). More uaced aalyses positio local oppositio as legitimate ad valuable expressios of local ad regioal democracy which are essetial i shapig the urba eviromet (Wolsik, 2006). Whether see as the expressio of ujustifiable self-iterest or the legitimate expressio of democracy, residet actio groups ofte come to represet the face of public debate over higher desity costructio, ofte i respose to idividual ad very cotroversial developmets. Rather tha respodig to the extreme ad high profile cases of local oppositio to high desity housig, the purpose of this paper is to explore the uderlyig opiios of higher desity housig across Sydey. I particular this paper: Explores Sydey residets opiio over the eed ad value of high desity housig; Upacks the level of policy kowledge surroudig higher desity developmet (particularly dwellig targets); Traces residet opiios over the supposed beefits of higher desity housig; ad, I drawig these elemets together, develops a typology of residets based o the policy kowledge ad opiios of higher desity housig at both metropolita ad suburb scales. The fidigs of this paper ot oly add to uderstadigs of commuity opiio ad oppositio to higher desity housig, but also provide isights for metropolita strategic plaig ad suggest ways i which commuity beliefs ad perceptios might be better egaged i the plaig process. Methods This paper is based o a radom olie survey of Sydey residets udertake i October Addresses were purchased from a commercial database compay. Ivitatio letters which directed residets to the olie survey were set to residets across Sydey. Addresses were selected via a radom umber geerator. I total 10,754 surveys were admiistered 3. I total 721 surveys were completed givig a respose rate of 6.7%. Although the respose rate was low, it was ot uexpected give that the survey was admiistered a radom fashio ad ot directly liked to ay particular developmet or policy. The survey was divided ito 4 sectios: perceptios of higher desity developmet across Sydey; higher desity developmet i your suburb; commuity resistace to higher desity developmet; ad, demographic iformatio. The remaider of the paper explores residet perceptio of higher desity developmet ad policy kowledge. 3 The purchased database proved highly ureliable. 15,000 ivitatios were iitially sed out of which 4,246 were retured to seder, primary due to icomplete addresses, givig a total sample of 10,754. 2

3 State of Australia Cities Coferece 2013 Higher desity housig across Sydey Residet perceptio of higher desity developmet across Sydey was mixed, with almost equal proportios of residets supportig higher desity developmet as those opposig it (Figure 1). Across the sample, 37.8% of residets surveyed felt as the curret desity of Sydey was too high, while 47.7% disagreed that the curret desity of Sydey was too low. I cotrast, 38.8% of residets surveyed disagreed that Sydey s desity was too high ad 28.1% agreed that the curret desity was too low. Whe it comes to perceptios over higher desity housig, residet opiios ad expectatios are polarised. Similar divisios are observed whe the sample residets were asked whether they supported higher desity housig ad whether they believed the desity eeded to icrease. At oe ed of the spectrum there is a group of residets who support higher desity housig (40.0%) ad who believe the desity of Sydey should be icreased (44.9%). This is was coutered by residets who did ot support higher desity across Sydey (49.8%) ad who disagreed that there was a eed to icrease the desity of Sydey (46.5%). Across the sample, there was a slightly higher proportio of residets who opposed icreased desity tha those who supported it. Both the level of oppositio to higher desity developmet ad the divisive ature of opiio over the eed for higher desity developmet represet sigificat policy challeges for strategic plaig ad housig provisio. Figure 1: Perceptio of Higher Desity Housig i Sydey Although opiio over the level ad eed for higher desity developmet was mixed, the survey revealed the fact that the majority of residets were uaware of the policy frameworks which were promotig higher desity developmet (Figure 2). Of the residets surveyed, 40.1% of residets claimed to have some kowledge of state govermet policies promotig higher desity developmet, while a similar proportio (39.4%) claim to be aware of similar policies operatig at the local govermet level. The fact that less tha half of residets were aware of policy frameworks promotig higher desity developmet represets a challege for urba policy. Icreased promotio of strategic plaig ad housig/developmet policy represets oe possible respose to residet oppositio to higher desity housig. This challege is most apparet whe residets were asked about their kowledge of the Metropolita Pla for Sydey. Less tha a quarter of residets surveyed were aware of the Metropolita Pla (23.9%). As the mai strategic documet directig the spatial growth of Sydey, the lack of public kowledge is a cocer, particularly as a cetral spatial visio promoted by the Metropolita Pla is oe of cosolidated higher desity developmet aroud a set of idetified cetres ad odes. What becomes clear is the fact that the majority of residets surveyed are uaware whether they live i locatios that have bee targeted for icreased desity. Thus, i most cases, oppositio or support of higher desity developmet (as outlied i Figure 1) does ot appear to rest o kowledge of policy frameworks that may or may ot promote desity i their eighbourhood. This fidig supports research which suggests that the commuity oly becomes ivolved i urba policy (be it pla creatio or developmet oppositio) at a very localised scale, where policy is played out o their turf (Gibso, 2005). 3

4 State of Australia Cities Coferece 2013 Figure 2: Policy Awareess Although most residets were uaware of the Metropolita Pla, the survey revealed a level of support for oe of its cetral compoets housig targets. While a umber of authors have critiqued the use of dwellig targets as simplistic policy leavers which fail to recogise ad respod to local coditios, plaig frameworks ad broader ecoomic coditios (Piegar ad Radolph, 2013; Searle ad Buker 2010), their presece remais a cetral aspect of strategic plaig. I the case of Sydey dwellig targets are published at the sub-regioal level, the allocated to idividual local govermet areas. I short, the dwellig targets embedded with i metropolita plaig are operatioalised by local plaig istrumets. At the metropolita level 60.5% of residets supported the implemetatio dwellig targets (oly 24.9% opposed metropolita level targets). At the suburb scale support for targets was also high with 51.8% (33.2% opposed suburb level targets) (Figure 3). At this level, residets appear to support dwellig targets as a cetral compoet of metropolita plaig i Sydey as a tool for directig future developmet. While residets appear to support the use of dwellig targets as a tool for directig developmet across Sydey, a importat disjucture is observed betwee the figures (the targets) used withi strategic plaig policy ad those idetified as appropriate by residets. Whe asked to idetify the proportio of dwelligs that should be costructed as higher desity developmets, the majority of residets idetified levels well below targets outlied with strategic plaig policy. The Metropolita Pla idetifies that 70% of ew dwelligs should be costructed i existig residetial locatios (NSWDoPI, 2010), while more recet strategic plaig policy itroduced by the curret Coalitio State Govermet have suggested a iitial revised the target of aroud 50% (Nicholls ad Moore, SMH, 8/2/2011). While it is recogised that ot all developmet occurrig i existig areas eed be i the form of higher desity developmet, i order to meet dwellig targets established by the state govermet, a sigificat proportio of this ew developmet eeds to icrease dwellig desity. Almost oe-i-three (29.3%) residets surveyed idicated that the percetage of dwelligs developed i the form of higher desity housig should be less tha 10%. Compared to the 70% target promoted uder the Metropolita Pla, oly 8.9% of residets believe 70% or more of developmet should be i the form of higher desity developmet. Support icreases oly slightly whe compared to the iitial coservative targets put forward by the curret govermet, with oly 17.9% of residets believig that 50% or more of ew dwelligs should be of higher desity. This disjucture is ot surprisig give the lack of policy kowledge discussed above. Residet support for higher desity developmet targets appear to rest o the assumptio that such targets limit rather tha promote higher desities. 4

5 State of Australia Cities Coferece 2013 Figure 3: Support for higher desity dwellig targets Figure 4: Per cet of ew dwelligs that should be higher desity There is a strog correlatio betwee support ad oppositio of higher desity dwellig targets at metropolita ad suburb scales 4. Whe examiig the support or oppositio for higher desity dwellig targets across scales, three groupigs of residets become apparet: residets who support higher desity targets at both metropolita ad suburb levels (303 respodets, 44.8%), residets who oppose targets at both metropolita ad suburb levels (118 respodets, 17.5%) ad residets who support metropolita targets but oppose suburb level targets (72 resposes, 10.7%) (Figure 5). I terms of policy kowledge, some differeces are observed betwee these groups. Overall, residets who opposed targets at both the metropolita ad suburb scales claimed to be more aware of relevat policies at all scales compared to those supported targes at both scales (Table 1). For example, 50.0% of residets who opposed targets at both scales were aware of relevat state govermet policies compared 42.5% of residets who supported targets at both scales. The differece is eve greater at the local scale 47.5% of those oppose both sets of targets beig aware of local coucil policies, compared to 36.9% of those who support targets at both scales. For each type of policy, residets who support metropolita targets but oppose suburb level targets, sit betwee these positios. These fidigs suggest that residets who oppose targets for higher desity developmets are more egaged with ad aware of policy frameworks tha those who support the use of targets. It is also possible that this group has had more experiece of localised higher desity developmet. Nevertheless, support for targets does ot, i itself, equate to support for high-desity developmet. 4 Pearso Correlatio = 0.556, sigificat at level [2-tailed] 5

6 State of Australia Cities Coferece 2013 Figure 5: Relatioship betwee support for metropolita ad suburba targets Importat differeces are also observed explorig the profiles residets i each group (Appedix 1). Residets who support targets at both metropolita ad suburb levels are more likely to support higher desity developmet compered those who oppose the use of targets at both scales. For example, residets who support both sets of targets: are more like to agree that we eed to icrease the desity of Sydey (63.4% vs. 13.6%); support higher desity across Sydey (58.1% vs. 12.7%); more likely to support higher desity developmet i their suburb (45.9% vs. 6.8%); less likely to joi a commuity groups opposig higher desity developmets (27.4% vs. 63.5%); less likely to suggest that higher desity developmet decreases the value of surroudig properties (32.8% vs. 68.7%); ad, more likely to support higher desity targets (53.4% believe higher desity housig should accout for more tha 30% of ew developmet vs. 12.1%). These residets are also more likely to live i a flat (25.7% vs. 17.0%). Support Sydey / Support Suburb Yes No Do't kow Aware of State govermet policies (42.5%) 130 (43.5%) 42 (14.0%) Aware of Metropolita Strategy (24.3%) 191 (63.6%) 36 (12.0%) Aware of local govermet policies (36.9%) 145 (48.7%) 43 (14.4%) Support Sydey / Oppose Suburb Yes No Do't kow Aware of State govermet policies (47.9%) 25 (35.2%) 12 (16.9%) Aware of Metropolita Strategy (27.8%) 40 (55.6%) 12 (16.7%) Aware of local govermet policies (43.1%) 25 (34.7%) 16 (22.2%) Oppose Sydey / Oppose Suburb Yes No Do't kow Aware of State govermet policies (50%) 45 (38.1%) 14 (11.8%) Aware of Metropolita Strategy (28.8%) 67 (56.8%) 17 (14.4%) Aware of local govermet policies (47.5%) 53 (44.9%) 9 (7.6%) Table 1: Support for targets ad policy kowledge Beyod the relatioship betwee support for targets at a metropolita ad suburba scale, the relatioship betwee support for dwellig targets ad residet support for higher desity housig at differet scales provides some importat isights to residets support ad oppositio to higher desity developmet across Sydey. Whe comparig support for higher desity targets at the metropolita level ad support for higher desity developmet across Sydey, three mai groups of residets are observed: stauch oppoets (residets who oppose both higher desity targets ad higher desity developmets [140 resposes, 20.4%]); supporters (residets who support both metropolita level targets ad icreased desity across Sydey [223 resposes, 32.5%]); ad those i betwee these extremes, ambivalet oppoets (a relatively large proportio of residets [153 resposes, 22.3%] support metropolita level targets but oppose higher desity developmets) (Figure 6). 6

7 State of Australia Cities Coferece 2013 Figure 6: Relatioship betwee support for higher housig ad targets across Sydey I terms of policy kowledge surroudig metropolita plaig ad related developmet policy, supporters teded to have the greatest kowledge, especially at the higher levels of policy (state policies or the Metropolita Strategy) (Table 2). I cotrast, stauch oppoets were more aware of local govermet policies directig higher desity housig compared to residet who supported higher desity. The positio of these two groups is relatively clear support targets as meas providig higher desity dwelligs or oppose targets as tools for providig higher desity housig. The profiles of supporters ad stauch oppoets (Appedix 2) highlight a series of importat differece betwee these groups. Compared to supporters, stauch oppoets were much less likely to agree that we eed to icrease the desity of Sydey (2.9% vs. 96.4%); much more likely to joi a local commuity group opposig higher desity developmet (72.1% vs. 14.8%); more likely to suggest that higher desity housig reduces the price of surroudig dwelligs (65.2% vs. 24.5%); more likely to idetify desired higher desity dwellig targets of below 30% (89.1% vs. 28.0%); more likely to live i separate houses (60.7% vs. 49.3%); more likely to be aged over 55 years (64.7% vs 58.5%); ad have a lower household icome (35.2% vs 26.1% with household icomes of less tha $50,000 p.a. ad 17.1% vs. 23.4% with household icomes of more tha $150,000 p.a.). Support metro targets / Support higher desity developmet across Sydey Yes No Do't kow Aware of State govermet policies (48.4%) 85 (39.2%) 27(12.4%) Aware of Metropolita Strategy (28.9%) 122 (56.0%) 33 (15.1%) Aware of local govermet policies (39.2%) 97 (44.7%) 35 (16.1%) Support metro targets / Oppose higher desity developmet across Sydey Yes No Do't kow Aware of State govermet policies (36.9%) 67 (45.0%) 27 (18.1%) Aware of Metropolita Strategy (17.3%) 107 (71.3%) 17 (11.3%) Aware of local govermet policies (37.2%) 69 (46.6%) 24 (16.2%) Oppose metro targets / Oppose higher desity developmet across Sydey Yes No Do't kow Aware of State govermet policies (38.4%) 60 (43.5%) 25 (18.1%) Aware of Metropolita Strategy (23.7%) 85 (61.2%) 21 (15.1%) Aware of local govermet policies (42.0%) 67 (48.6%) 13 (9.4%) Table 2: Support for targets/higher desity developmet ad policy kowledge at metropolita level Ambivalet oppoets are most likely to idetify dwellig targets at the metropolita level as a meas of limitig higher desity developmet rather tha promotig it. This positio is cotrasted to stauch oppoets who are more likely to be aware that the targets are tools for promotig rather tha limitig desity. This positio is supported by the fact that ambivalet oppoets are least aware of policies framig higher desity developmet at all scales. While the proportio of ambivalet oppoets aware of state ad local govermet policies is oly slight lower tha that of stauch oppoets ad supporters, the major differece relates to kowledge of the Metropolita Pla. Oly 17.3% of 7

8 State of Australia Cities Coferece 2013 ambivalet oppoets were aware of the Metropolita Pla, compared to 23.7% of stauch oppoets ad 28.9% of supporters. This fidig is importat as the Metropolita Pla is the policy that most clearly articulates future dwellig projects ad targets. The fact that ambivalet oppoets are less aware of the Metropolita Pla supports the claim that they are more likely to see targets ad a meas of limitig developmet (hece their support for targets). I terms of the profile of ambivalet oppoets (Appedix 2), for most of the variables they are located betwee supporters ad stauch oppoets, all be it much closer to the characteristics of the later (little support for high desity housig [10.5%]; likely to joi local commuity groups [54.9%]; belief higher desity decreases property values [45.6%]; high preferece for proportio of ew high desity developmet to be below 30% [80.7%]; high rate of separate houses [59.5%]). These fidigs ted to support existig research that suggests that oppositio to uwated lad uses is highly localised, with oppoets more likely to be aware of local policies framig plaig ad developmet of higher desity dwelligs. At the suburb level, a similar tred is observed to that preset at the metropolita scale with three mai groups of residets idetifiable. At the suburb level support for higher desity developmet is less tha that observed at the metropolita scale (30.7% compared to 40.0% [Figure 1]). This fidig is cosistet with much of the literature o commuity oppositio that idetifies the propesity for residets to icrease their oppositio as developmets have a greater potetial to impact o their daily life. Thus, while there might be broad support for the eed to icrease desity, there is a lower level of acceptace that this icrease i desity should occur i oe s ow suburb. The decreased support for desity at the suburb level also leads to a shift i the size ad make-up of each of the three mai residet groups, agai referred to as supporters, ambivalet oppoets ad stauch oppoets. At the suburb scale 150 supporters who supported both dwellig targets ad higher desity developmet were idetified (22.0% of resposes). This represets a fall i the proportio of supporters from 32.5% at the metropolita scale (or 73 fewer respodets). I cotrast, the proportio of both ambivalet (support targets but oppose developmet) ad stauch oppoets (oppose both targets ad developmet) icreased at the suburb level compared to the metropolita scale, with 165 (24.2% of respodets a icrease of 1.9%) ad 181 (26.5% of respodets a icrease of 6.1%) respectively (Figure 7). Figure 7: Relatioship betwee support for higher housig ad targets at suburb level I terms of policy kowledge, at the suburb scale a iterestig reversal of policy kowledge is observed. While at the metropolita scale supporters have the highest proportio of respodets who claim to be aware of state govermet policies promotig higher desity developmet ad the Metropolita Pla (Table 2), at the suburb scale this reversed with more stauch oppoets claimig to be aware of state govermet policies (46.1% vs. 44.3%), the Metropolita Pla (26.5% vs. 25.5%) ad local govermet policies (44.8% vs. 30.9%) compared to supporters (Table 3). While the level of differece betwee the groups is mior i some cases, these fidigs suggest that as targets ad developmet move from the metropolita scale to the suburb scale, a umber of residets who have some kowledge of policy framig plaig ad developmet i Sydey have moved from beig supporters at the metropolita scale to stauch oppoets at the suburb scale. I terms of policy awareess, ambivalet oppoets at the suburb level have lower levels of kowledge of state 8

9 State of Australia Cities Coferece 2013 plaig policy ad the Metropolita Pla compared to the other groups, while kowledge of local govermet policies sits i betwee (Table 3). Nevertheless, each of these levels has icreased compared to the metropolita scale suggestig that some supporters at the metropolita scale have also become ambivalet oppoets at the suburb scale. Support suburb targets / Support higher Yes No Do't kow Aware of State govermet policies (44.3%) 62 (41.6%) 21 (14.1%) Aware of Metropolita Strategy (25.5%) 89 (59.7%) 22 (14.8%) Aware of local govermet policies (30.9%) 80 (53.7%) 23 (15.4%) Support suburb targets / Oppose higher Yes No Do't kow Aware of State govermet policies (37.6%) 76 (46.9%) 25 (15.4%) Aware of Metropolita Strategy (19.6%) 111 (68.1%) 20 (12.3%) Aware of local govermet policies (41.9%) 72 (45.0%) 21 (13.1%) Oppose suburb targets / Oppose higher Yes No Do't kow Aware of State govermet policies (46.1%) 72 (40.0%) 25 (13.9%) Aware of Metropolita Strategy (26.5%) 103 (56.9%) 30 (16.6%) Aware of local govermet policies (44.8%) 78 (43.1%) 22 (12.2%) Table 3: Support for targets/higher desity developmet ad policy kowledge at suburb level I terms of profiles, a umber of importat differeces are observed betwee these groups of residets (Appedix 3). However, i support of the claim that there has bee a movemet from supporter at the metropolita level to oppoets at the suburb scale, for most variables the differeces betwee groups has reduced (although some are still quite large). Some importat observatios iclude: The proportio of supporters at the suburb scale likely to joi a local commuity group has decreased (from 14.8% to 9.3%). Suggestig, usurprisigly, that supporters at the local scale are the least likely to egage i more formalised commuity oppositio. While, alteratively, residets who support targets ad desity at a metropolita area but ot at the suburba level are more likely to egage i local commuity groups opposed to costructio. Iterestigly, more ambivalet oppoets ad stauch oppoets at the suburba scale agree that the desity of Sydey eeds to icrease compared to the same groupigs at the metropolita level (9.9% vs. 2.9% for stauch oppoets ad 27.9% vs. 10.5% for ambivalet oppoets). This is agai due to the movemet of supporters of targets ad desity at the metropolita scale to oppoets at the local scale. The umber of ambivalet ad stauch oppoets icreased by 12 ad 41 respodets respectively. Further, ad somewhat couter to expectatios, as a group both ambivalet ad stauch oppoets at the suburb level are less likely to joi a local commuity group to oppose higher desity compared to similar groups at a metropolita level (ambivalet: 50.9% vs. 54.9%; stauch: 66.9% vs 72.1%). While the proportios are still high, these figures have reduced as oppoets willig to joi commuity groups have bee diluted by supporters at a metropolita level who are much less likely to egage i commuity oppositio to desity. I terms of NIMBY literature, this suggests that those most likely to egage i local activism are those who oppose higher desity developmet at both a metropolita ad suburba level. Coclusio Dwellig targets ad higher desity developmet remai a cetral plaig istrumets ad objectives i strategic plaig i NSW (NSWDoPI, 2013a), ad this paper has traced public awareess of urba policy promotig higher desity developmet, the support for policy levels used to facilitate higher desities dwellig targets ad support for the supposed beefits of higher urba desities. Overall, residets surveyed illustrated a relatively low level of policy awareess. This represets a ogoig challege to urba policy which icreasigly cetres o commuity cosultatio. This has cotemporary relevace i the case of strategic plaig i NSW, which has a ew emphasis o upfrot commuity cosultatio as a meas of iformig local plaig visios (NSWDoPI, 2013b). Beyod this low level of policy kowledge, awareess of policy ad support for higher desity was extremely mixed, with fairly eve proportios of residets who support higher desity housig, support the use of targets ad who agree with the claims made about the beefits of higher desity housig although slightly more did oppose higher desity housig tha support it. A further importat observatio, is that eve for residets who claim to support the use of dwellig targets, idetified preferred targets were well below curret policy settigs of aroud 70% of dwelligs i existig areas. This suggests (alog with the low level of kowledge of plaig policy, particularly the Metropolita 9

10 State of Australia Cities Coferece 2013 Pla) that support for targets across the sample rests o the assumptio that target work to limit rather tha promote higher desities. However, a series of importat divisios were apparet whe comparig support for higher desity housig ad support for housig targets. At both the metropolita ad suburb levels three mai groups of residets were idetified: Supporters those who support both higher desity targets ad dwelligs targets Ambivalet oppoets those who oppose higher desity housig but support dwellig targets Stauch oppoets those who oppose both higher desities ad dwellig targets Overall, supporters are those most likely to support higher desity housig, least likely to joi commuity groups opposig higher desity developmet, ad have lower levels of policy kowledge. For the most part stauch oppoets represet the opposite characteristics they are aware that dwelligs targets are used to promote higher desity developmets ad oppose them. Two further importat observatios are apparet. The first relates to ambivalet supporters who geerally oppose higher desity developmet, but more explicitly idetify targets ad a meas for limitig such developmet. This is the expressio of a clear lack of kowledge or misuderstadig of prevailig plaig policy. The secod importat observatio is the tedecy of supporters at the metropolita level to become ambivalet ad stauch oppoets at the suburb level. This fidig supports existig literature o commuity oppositio or NIMBY movemets which suggest that oppositio icreases at the local level. However, this equally complicates simplistic NIMBY assumptios that simply resist local costructio. From this survey those most likely to oppose higher desity developmet are those who oppose its developmet at both metropolita ad suburb levels ad who oppose the policy levels used to implemet it. Refereces Buker, R., Holloway, D. & Radolph, B. (2005) The expasio of urba cosolidatio i Sydey: Social impacts ad implicatios, Australia Plaer, 42(3), pp Buys, L. & Miller, E. (2012) Residetial satisfactio i ier urba higher-desity Brisbae, Australia: role of dwellig desig, eighbourhood ad eighbours, Joural of Evirometal Plaig ad Maagemet, 55(3), pp Cook, N., Taylor, E. & Hurley, J. (2013) At home with strategic plaig: recocilig residet attachmets to home with policies of residetial desificatio, Australia Plaer, 50(2), pp Cook, N., Taylor, E., Hurley, J. ad Colic-Peisker. V. (2012) Residet Third Party Objectios ad Appeals Agaist Plaig Applicatios: Implicatios for Higher Desity ad Social Housig (Melboure: AHURI). Dovey, K., Woodcock, I. & Wood, S. (2009) Uderstadig eighbourhood character the case of Camberwell, Australia Plaer, 46 (3), Forster C. (2006) The Challege of Chage: Australia Cities ad Urba Plaig i the New Milleium, Geographical Research, 44 (2), pp Gibso, T.A. (2005) NIMBY ad the civic good, City ad Commuity 4 (4), pp NSW Departmet of Plaig (2010) Sydey Towards 2036: Metropolita Strategy Review (Sydey: DoP). New South Wales Departmet of Plaig ad Ifrastructure (2012a) Sydey over the ext 20 years (Sydey: NSW DoPI). New South Wales Departmet of Plaig ad Ifrastructure (2013a) Draft Metropolita Strategy for Sydey to 2031(Sydey: NSW DoPI). New South Wales Departmet of Plaig ad Ifrastructure (2013b) A New Plaig System for NSW: White Paper (Sydey: NSW DoPI). Nicholls, S. ad Moore, M. (2011) Gree light for urba sprawl, Sydey Morig Herald, 8 February, accessed 23 August Piegar, S. & Radolph. B. (2013) Submissio o Draft Metropolita Strategy for Sydey to 2031 (Sydey: City Future Research Cetre). Radolph, B. (2006) Deliverig the Compact City i Australia, Urba Policy ad Research, 24(4), pp Radolph, B. & Troy, P. (2008) Attitudes to coservatio ad water cosumptio, Evirometal Sciece ad Policy, 11, pp

11 State of Australia Cities Coferece 2013 Rumig, K.J. (2011) Cuttig red tape or cuttig local capacity? Resposes by local govermet plaers to NSW plaig chages, Australia Plaer, 48 (1), pp Rumig, K.J., Amati, M. & Housto, D. (2012) Multiple Suburba Publics: Rethikig Commuity Oppositio to Cosolidatio i Sydey, Geographical Research, 50(4), pp Rumig, K.J. (2013) It was't about public housig, it was about the way it was doe : challegig plaig ot people i resistig the Natio Buildig Ecoomic Stimulus Pla, Australia, Joural of Housig ad the Built Eviromet, DOI /s Rumig, K.J., Magi, P.J. & Gurra, N. (2013) Old Wie i ew Bottles? New Wie i old bottles? Covergece/divergece i Australia metropolita plaig, Proceedigs of the Plaig Istitute of Australia s 2013 Natioal Cogress, Caberra, March. Searle, G. (2007) Sydey s Urba Cosolidatio Experiece: Power, Politics ad Commuity (Brisbae: Griffith Uiversity, Urba Research Program). Searle, G. (2010) Too cocetrated? The plaed distributio of residetial desities i South East Queeslad, Australia Plaer, 47(3), pp Searle, G., & Buker, R. (2010a) Metropolita Strategic Plaig: A Australia Paradigm? Plaig Theory, 9, pp Searle, G. & Buker, R. (2010b) New Cetury Australia Spatial Plaig: Recetralizatio uder Labor, Plaig Practice & Research, 25(4), pp Urbis (2013) Australia s Embrace of Medium ad High Desity Housig (Sydey: Urbis). Wolsik, M. (2006) Ivalid theory impedes our uderstadig: a critique o the persistece of the laguage of NIMBY, Trasactios of the Istitute of British Geographers, 31, pp

12 State of Australia Cities Coferece 2013 Appedix 1: Profiles Support/oppositio of targets at metropolita ad suburb levels We eed to icrease the desity of Sydey 301 I support a higher desity across Sydey 299 I support a higher desity i my suburb 298 I joi a local commuity group to oppose higher desity housig 295 Impact of higher desity dwellig o house price 298 Percet of ew dwelligs as high desity Dwellig Type Household Icome We eed to icrease the desity of Sydey 70 I support a higher desity across Sydey 71 I support a higher desity i my suburb 71 I joi a local commuity group to oppose higher desity housig 70 Impact of higher desity dwellig o house price Percet of ew dwelligs as high desity Dwellig Type Household Icome 0-30% (46.6%) Towhouse) Flat i (53.5%) 53 (17.5%) 47 (15.5%) 34 or youger (6.9%) 98 (33.7%) 71 We eed to icrease the desity of Sydey 118 I support a higher desity across Sydey 118 I support a higher desity i my suburb 118 I joi a local commuity group to oppose higher desity housig 115 Impact of higher desity dwellig o house price 115 Percet of ew dwelligs as high desity Dwellig Type Household Icome 0-30% (69.6%) 0-30% (87.8%) Support Sydey / Support Suburb 192 (63.4%) 94 (31.0%) 176 (58.1% 97 (32.0%) 139 (45.9%) 126 (41.6%) 83 (27.4%) Icrease 99 (32.2%) 37 (51.4%) Icrease 15 (21.1%) 16 (13.6%) 15 (12.7%) 8 (6.8%) 77 (65.3%) Icrease 17 (14.8%) 30-60% 99 (33.7%) 30-60% 14 (20.3%) 30-60% 12 (10.4%) 145 (47.9%) 98 (32.8%) % 58 (19.7%) Flat i 4 or more block 31 (10.2%) 55 or older 173 (59.5%) 14 (19.4%) 30 (42.3%) % 7 (10.1%) 94 (79.9%) 96 (81.4%) 106 (89.8%) 13 (11.0%) 79 (68.7%) % 2 (1.7%) Less tha $50000 $50001-$ More tha (26.4%) 94 (36.4%) 43 (16.7%) 27 (10.5%) 26 (10.1%) Support Sydey / Oppose Suburb 29 (40.3%) 37 (51.4%) 24 (33.3%) 43 (59.7%) 18 (25.0%) 43 (59.7%) Towhouse) Flat i 1-3 Flat i 4 or more block (61.1%) 13 (18.1%) 10 (13.9%) 3 (4.2%) 34 or youger or older 70 1 (1.4%) 28 (40%) 41 (58.6%) Less tha $50000 $50001-$ More tha (20.7%) 22 (37.9%) 11 (19.0%) 5 (8.6%) 8 (13.7%) Oppose Sydey / Oppose Suburb Towhouse) Flat i 1-3 Flat i 4 or more block (62.7%) 18 (15.3%) 16 (13.6%) 4 (3.4%) 34 or youger or older (4.4%) 38 (33.6%) 70 (60.9%) Less tha $50000 $50001-$ More tha (27.8%) 29 (32.2%) 16 (17.8%) 14 (15.5%) 6 (6.7%) 12

13 State of Australia Cities Coferece 2013 Appedix 2: Profiles Support/Oppositio of targets ad higher desity developmet across Sydey Support metro targets / Support higher desity housig across Sydey We eed to icrease the desity of Sydey (96.4%) 3 (1.3%) I joi a local commuity group to oppose higher desity housig mpact of higher desity dwellig o house pric (14.8%) Icrease 81 (36.8%) 141 (63.5%) 54 (24.5%) 0-30% 30-60% % Percet of ew dwelligs as high desity (28.0%) 89 (42.2%) 63 (29.9%) Towhouse) Flat i 1-3 Flat i 4 or more block Dwellig Type (49.3%) 42 (18.8%) 34 (15.2%) 27 (12.1%) 34 or youger (7.1%) or older 73 (34.4%) 124 (58.5%) Dwellig Type Towhouse) Flat i (59.5%) 21 (13.7%) 25 (16.3%) Flat i 4 or more block 10 (6.5%) 34 or youger (4.1%) or older 54 (36.3%) 87 (59.6%) Dwellig Type Towhouse) Flat i (60.7%) 25 (17.9%) 20 (14.3%) Flat i 4 or more block 5 (3.6%) 34 or youger (7.4%) or older 38 (27.9%) 88 (64.7%) Household Icome Less tha $50000 $50001-$ More tha Household Icome (26.1%) 65 (35.3%) 34 (18.5%) 20 (10.9%) 23 (12.5%) Support metro targets / Oppose higher desity housig across Sydey We eed to icrease the desity of Sydey (10.5%) 132 (86.3%) I joi a local commuity group to oppose higher desity housig mpact of higher desity dwellig o house pric (54.9%) Icrease 32 (21.5%) 20 (13.1%) 68 (45.6%) 0-30% 30-60% % Percet of ew dwelligs as high desity (80.7%) 26 (17.3%) 3 (2.0%) Less tha $50000 $50001-$ More tha Household Icome (24.6%) 49 (41.5%) 18 (15.3%) 11 (9.3%) 11 (9.3%) Oppose metro targets / Oppose higher desity housig across Sydey We eed to icrease the desity of Sydey (2.9%) 132 (94.3%) I joi a local commuity group to oppose higher desity housig mpact of higher desity dwellig o house pric (72.1%) Icrease 23 (17.0%) 12 (8.6%) 90 (65.2%) 0-30% 30-60% % Percet of ew dwelligs as high desity (89.1%) 13 (9.4%) 2 (1.4%) Less tha More tha $50000 $50001-$ (35.2%) 30 (28.6%) 20 (19.0%) 12 (11.4%) 6 (5.7%) 13

14 State of Australia Cities Coferece 2013 Appedix 3: Profiles Support/Oppositio of targets ad higher desity developmet at suburb level We eed to icrease the desity of Sydey 147 I support a higher desity across Sydey 149 I joi a local commuity group to oppose higher desity housig 148 Impact of higher desity dwellig o house price Percet of ew dwelligs as high desity Dwellig Type Household Icome We eed to icrease the desity of Sydey 163 I support a higher desity across Sydey 162 I joi a local commuity group to oppose higher desity housig 161 Impact of higher desity dwellig o house price Percet of ew dwelligs as high desity Dwellig Type Support Suburb Target / Support Higher Desity i Suburb 132 (88.0%) 9 (6.0%) 130 (86.7%) 12 (8.0%) 14 (9.3%) 110 (73.3%) 46 (27.9%) 109 (66.1%) 36 (21.8%) 109 (66.1%) 84 (50.9%) 33 (20.0%) 163 Icrease 39 (23.9%) 78 (47.9%) 0-30% 30-60% % (70.6%) 38 (23.3%) 10 (6.1%) Towhouse) Flat i 1-3 Flat i 4 or more block (53.3%) 31 (18.8%) 34 (20.6%) 8 (4.8%) 34 or youger (9.4%) or older 58 (36.5%) 86 (54.1%) Household Icome We eed to icrease the desity of Sydey 177 I support a higher desity across Sydey 179 I joi a local commuity group to oppose higher desity housig 175 Impact of higher desity dwellig o house price Percet of ew dwelligs as high desity Dwellig Type 18 (9.9%) 145 (80.1%) 14 (7.7%) 153 (84.5%) 121 (66.9%) 15 (8.3%) 177 Icrease 31 (17.5%) 109 (61.6%) 0-30% 30-60% % (88.6%) 17 (9.7%) 3 (1.7%) Towhouse) Flat i 1-3 Flat i 4 or more block (61.3%) 29 (16.0%) 25 (13.8%) 7 (3.9%) Household Icome 147 Icrease 53 (36.1%) 35 (23.8%) 0-30% 30-60% % (27.8%) 61 (42.4%) 43 (29.9%) Towhouse) Flat i 1-3 Flat i 4 or more block (49.3%) 29 (19.3%) 19 (12.7%) 22 (14.7%) 34 or youger or older (8.3%) 43 (29.9%) 89 (61.8%) Less tha $50000 $50001-$ More tha (23.0%) 54 (40.0%) 23 (17.0%) 12 (8.9%) 15 (11.1%) Support Suburb Target / Oppose Higher Desity i Suburb Less tha $50000 $50001-$ More tha (28.4%) 44 (32.8%) 26 (19.4%) 13 (9.7%) 13 (9.7%) Oppose Suburb Target / Oppose Higher Desity i Suburb 34 or youger or older (4.0%) 60 (34.5%) 107 (61.5%) Less tha $50000 $50001-$ More tha (25.4%) 49 (35.5%) 32 (23.2%) 14 (10.1%) 8 (5.8%) 14