Social and natural capital are fundamental to people’s wellbeing, often within the context of local community. Developing communities and linking people together provide benefits in terms of mental well-being, physical activity and other associated health outcomes. The research presented here was carried out in Christchurch - Ōtautahi, New Zealand, a city currently re-building, after a series of devastating earthquakes in 2010 and 2011. Poor mental health has been shown to be a significant post-earthquake problem, and social connection has been postulated as part of a solution. By curating a disparate set of community services, activities and facilities, organised into a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database, we created i) an accessibility analysis of 11 health and well-being services, ii) a mobility scenario analysis focusing on 4 general well-being services and iii) a location-allocation model focusing on 3 primary health care and welfare location optimisation. Our results demonstrate that overall, the majority of neighbourhoods in Christchurch benefit from a high level of accessibility to almost all the services; but with an urban-rural gradient (the further away from the centre, the less services are available, as is expected). The noticeable exception to this trend, is that the more deprived eastern suburbs have poorer accessibility, suggesting social inequity in accessibility. The findings presented here show the potential of optimisation modelling and database curation for urban and community facility planning purposes.
This research attempts to understand how the Christchurch rebuild is promoting urban liveability in the Central City, focussing on the influence of communities and neighbourhoods in this area. To do this, gathering the perceptions of Christchurch residents through surveys, a focus group and semi-structured interviews was carried out to see what aspects they believe contribute to creating more liveable places. These methods revealed that there are pockets of neighbourhoods and communities in the inner-city, but no overall sense of community. Results from the semi-structured interviews reinforced this; the current buyers of inner-city property are in the financial position to be able to do this, and they seem to be purchasing in this area due to convenience and investment rather than to join the existing communities in the area. Analysing the survey responses from Central City residents revealed contrasting results. Those currently living in the area felt there is a sense of community in the inner-city, but these are found in pockets of neighbourhoods around the Central City rather than in the overall area. The focus group revealed that community is further prioritised later in life, and that many of the community groups in the inner-city predominantly consist of those who have lived there since before the Christchurch Earthquake Series. However, participants of all three methods believed that the Central City is slowly becoming a lively and vibrant place. To improve urban liveability in the inner-city, it seems that prioritisation of the needs of current inner-city residents is required. Improving these neighbourhoods, whether it be through the implementation of services or providing more communal spaces, is needed to create stronger communities. The feelings of place, connectedness, and belonging that arise from being part of a community or well-connected neighbourhood can improve mental health and wellbeing, ultimately enhancing the overall health of the population as well as the perceived urban liveability of the area.
