1.0 Executive Summary
The New Zealand Urban Design Protocol sets the platform for making our towns and cities more successful through quality urban design. The Protocol calls for a significant step up in the quality of urban design in New Zealand and a change in the way we think about our towns and cities.
Concerns regarding the level and extent of urban design skills and capacity have been repeatedly raised across various professions and sectors. More specifically, it is also believed that the presence of urban design skills is not consistent across local government authorities, and that urban design is not seen as a priority for many authorities.
The Protocol reinforces the importance of local government capacity in achieving an increase in the uptake and delivery of quality urban design. In the 'Making it Happen' section of the Protocol, capacity support for local government and addressing skills shortages, are both areas identified as requiring further investigation by government.
Introduction
A key part of the Ministry for the Environment's urban work programme is to support the development of better urban design skills and capacity amongst urban design signatories, as well as across the board. Against this background, the Ministry decided to commission research in order to determine the level and extent of urban design skills, experience and knowledge in local government. This report presents the results of this survey.
More specifically, the objectives of the research were:
- To establish current in-house capabilities.
- To determine what degree of outsourcing currently occurs.
- To identify key issues around capability building.
Interviewing for the baseline survey was completed online, hosted on Research New Zealand's website, between the 23rd of May and the 6th of June 2006. Respondents were recruited for the survey with the direct assistance of the local government authorities that were invited to participate in the survey. In other words, the survey respondents were those people considered by their own employing organisations to be the 'most qualified' to complete the interview.
A total of n=74 local government authorities provided contact details for a nominated staff member prior to the survey going live. By the final close-off date for the survey, an overall response rate of n=55, or 74% had been achieved. Given that this represents more than one-half of the potential sample, we can be confident that the results presented and discussed in this report are representative of the sector.
Main findings & conclusions
Current urban design capacity
1. Currently, the importance that local government authorities place on urban design is variable.
When considering current urban design capacity, as well as the ability or commitment to develop further capacity in the future, it is important to do so within the context of the importance that local government authorities place on urban design at present, given the investment to date in this area, and the competing issues that local government authorities face.
Based on the total sample of n=55 respondents, less than one-fifth (n=9) indicated that their organisation considered urban design to be "Extremely important". While another n=28 reported that their organisation considered urban design to be "Somewhat important", this represents an important reference point or baseline.
In fact, in contrast to the total n=37 respondents who believed their organisation considered urban design to be important, n=10 expressed the view that their organisation considered it to be unimportant.
2. Urban design is considered to be more important by Metropolitan and Provincial local government authorities than Regional and Rural local government authorities.
To an extent, the variability of the importance placed on urban design (Point 1 above) is a function of the type of local government authority.
While the n=10 who expressed the view that their organisation considered urban design to be unimportant included many respondents representing Rural local government authorities, it also included one respondent representing a Metropolitan authority.
3. The level of importance/unimportance placed on urban design is reflected at a strategic level.
Although approximately two-thirds of respondents (n=37 of n=55) considered their local government authority placed some degree of importance on urban design, smaller numbers, still believed that:
- Senior management in (their) council strongly supported urban design (n=29 agreed that this was currently the case).
- Urban design concepts influenced new policy development in their council (less than one-half or n=27 agreed that this was currently the case).
- The elected representatives strongly supported urban design (less than one-half or n=26 agreed that this was currently the case).
- Urban design principles were taken into account in most major council projects (less than one-half or n=25 agreed that this was the case).
Supporting these results, with the exception of 'District Plans', less than one-half of all respondents reported that urban design principles are recognised and incorporated in council policies and plans such as "Long Term Council Community Plans", "Structure plans", "Open space and recreational strategies", "Urban development plans" and "Codes of Practice".
4. Importantly, the level of importance/unimportance placed on urban design is also reflected in terms of capacity.
It is perhaps because of the overall level of importance/unimportance placed on urban design by local government authorities, that current urban design capacity is characterised by the following:
- Practitioners within local government authorities tend to be generalists rather than specialists. Given that survey respondents were recruited on the basis that they were in the best position to comment on urban design practice for their local government authorities, it is significant that over one-half (n=32 of n=55) held managerial rather than technical positions and only n=8 identified their background and experience as specifically urban design-based.
This was, in turn, reflected in their range of duties and responsibilities that tended to be either leadership oriented, mentoring and/or providing policy advice. - Overall, the numbers of people who are encouraged to have an understanding of urban design in local government authorities is small. This is, in turn, reflected in an even smaller number providing urban design advice.
- Relatively few people, including practitioners, have formal urban design qualifications. Only n=11 of n=55 respondents reported that either they or others within their local government authorities had specific urban design qualifications. A similar number (n=14) reported that either they or others had related qualifications.
5. Current capacity is, in turn, reflected in current urban design operational practice.
Because most urban design practitioners are generalists rather than specialists, current operational practice is characterised by the following:
- Most local government authorities (n=43 of n=55) do not have a specific urban design team or section.
- There is a tendency for local government authorities to take a multi-disciplinary approach to the delivery of urban design advice.
- There is a significant use of external consultants. A significant number of respondents (n=43 of n=55) indicated that their council had employed consultants or contractors to provide urban design advice in the last 12 months, with n=23 of these reporting they had done so at least twice, or more frequently, during this period.
Many respondents (n=28) specifically indicated that their local government authorities had employed external consultants because of capacity issues.
Building urban design capacity
First of all, many local government authorities (n=37 of n=55) recognise there is currently an issue in terms of urban design capacity. In this regard, locality and an ability to attract specialists to New Zealand are believed to be major problems.
However, as indicated above, building urban design capacity needs to be considered in the light of the importance that local government authorities currently place on urban design (relative to competing issues) and how this manifests itself at a strategic and operational level. Currently, this importance is most apparent amongst Metropolitan and Provincial local government authorities and less so amongst Regional and Rural local government authorities.
Also of significance, is the current base or platform from which such a capacity-building exercise would be based. At present, there are relatively few practitioners, most practitioners are generalists rather than specialists, few have specific urban design qualifications and there is a major use of external consultants and contractors.
Against this background, building urban design capability needs to occur at a number of different, but related levels:
- First of all, it would appear that there is a need to raise the awareness and understanding of the importance of urban design amongst elected representatives and senior management within local government authorities. This implies an education strategy of some type that does more than simply raise awareness and knowledge, but focuses in particular on the practical or real value of urban design to local government authorities.
- Second, consideration will need to be given in terms of focusing strategy on Regional and Rural local government authorities, as well as Metropolitan and Provincial local government authorities. That is, different strategies may be required for different types of local government authorities.
- Should the strategy of raising the value that local government authorities place on urban design be successful, we would expect to see natural flow-on effects at an operational level, including possibly a commitment to invest in internal capacity-building. However, in this regard, we note the following:
a. Currently, keeping up to date with urban design principles is usually undertaken by practitioners at a passive rather than an active level, by reading "Books and periodicals", using the "Internet", and/or by "Attending conferences, seminars, and workshops".
b. A significant number of respondents claimed that their organisation was not currently investing in developing capacity. At best, n=22 of n=55 respondents reported that their organisation sponsored staff and elected members to attend urban design training courses.
c. Fewer respondents reported that their local government authorities were advertising for staff with urban design knowledge and experience (n=11 of n=55), although this might be a function of the fact that generalists are preferred, and/or that they were receiving job training or peer mentoring to develop their own understanding of urban design principles (n=12).
d. Relatively few practitioners were satisfied with their continuing education opportunities. In fact, as many were more or less satisfied (n=16 of n=55) as were dissatisfied (n=11), while another n=14 did not participate in continuing education.
e. While support for a web-based information source (as promoted by the Ministry) was relatively high (n=33 of n=55), this is again a passive methodology.
f. Relatively few respondents (n=9 of n=55) indicated that external consultants and contractors were employed to "Assist developing internal capability".
