A Comparative Study of the Barriers and Opportunities for Urban Development in Wellington and Melbourne

Abstract

<p>This thesis has come about as a result of witnessing limited growth in Wellington over the past ten years, considered problematic due to a perceived misalignment of desired urban outcomes, desired by the multiple stakeholders, political will, complicated by a complex resource management process (Elias, 2019). This research examines the impact of the resulting urban and governance culture on the built environment affecting development opportunities. It examines the changing role of stakeholders, specifically with regard to Wellington professionals and citizens, recognising a need to change how participation is viewed and facilitated in practice. The methodology followed by this thesis is predominantly qualitative to further the researcher’s knowledge and understanding of urban issues facing Wellington. The study also uses a comparative analysis of Wellington and Melbourne within a theoretical framework alongside the semi-structured interviews to understand the increasing gap between theory, policy, and the actuality of the governance models in practice in New Zealand. Respondents discussed their understanding of governance structure within the global context and then situated this within their knowledge of Wellington. This study then reports on the predominant issues that emerged as a result of collating data, the subsequent analysis, and theoretical positions combined. As part of the qualitative process, respondents were asked to describe their experiences. The interview process looked to engender a wider discussion through more informal conversations to understand the social and cultural implications considered by the interviewees relative to the challenges facing urban development. The format also allowed respondents to comment on areas that could be improved upon in developing urban strategies in Wellington. The research revealed that the professionals interviewed are evidencing less citizen, developer, and designer investment in the process whereby barriers are generated by inconsistent governance practices making the building of progressive urban design difficult. This study goes on to conclude that Wellington’s built environment is suffering from the constraints of a broken system. The structure is reflective of a culture that has developed as a result of inflexible urban policy and governance structure that facilitates a litigious, risk-averse governance model, immobilising both consenting within Council and the private sectors’ will to develop more innovative urban solutions. Comparing Melbourne’s city vision and participatory governance models, it is identified that moving to promote, educate and gain urban political currency from citizens is key to effective governance, alongside agile policies and processes. This thesis suggests Melbourne's governance models and can be explored further to provide examples for the facilitation of better urban development strategies in Wellington.</p>

Economic Evaluation of Novel Models of Care for Patients With Acute Medical Problems

“…12,[15][16][17][18][19] TDABC shows who (personnel completing the task) does what (specific activities performed) when (timing) and for how long (duration of activity). 20 We hypothesize that the economic advantage in HaH and ACT is the reduction of person-hours required for safe and effective clinical care outside conventional clinical settings. The unknown personnel cost of these services represents an important knowledge gap because this is expected to be the biggest driver of cost savings and a determinant of their scalability and sustainability, especially amid a global shortage of health care personnel.…”

“…It has been applied to various medical conditions and settings by describing a “typical” patient and includes costs related to time spent delivering care to a patient . TDABC shows who (personnel completing the task) does what (specific activities performed) when (timing) and for how long (duration of activity) …”

“… 12 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 TDABC shows who (personnel completing the task) does what (specific activities performed) when (timing) and for how long (duration of activity). 20 …”