Children

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Research shows public playgrounds don’t have the negative effect on property prices that some residents apparently fear. 
If you live near a public playground it can be a convenient outdoor destination for short excursions and a life-saving source of pressure relief when the kids are too surly to bear inside the house. But in <a href="https://crawford.anu.edu.au/files/uploads/crawford01_cap_anu_edu_au/2018-04/playgrounds_wp_march2018.pdf" target="_blank">research</a>, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204618301294" target="_blank">published in the Journal of Urban Landscape and Planning</a>, we found having a playground nearby can also add value to your property.
The presence of a playground added about A$20,000 (4.6%) to the average property price of A$439,000.
Importantly, we can reject the idea that a playground has no effect or a negative effect on property prices.
That’s something residents should consider if they fear a new playground to be built in their neighbourhood could lower property prices, as <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/no-screaming-kids-mount-eliza-residents-rise-up-against-new-playground-20180702-p4zp24" target="_blank">they did at Mount Eliza</a>, Victoria, last year.
What planners need to know
Local councils need to know the costs and benefits of building a playground when making decisions about investment in local infrastructure. If playgrounds are undesirable, they might avoid them altogether or place them far from where people live.
We wanted to know what value local residents might place on playgrounds using data from Moreland City Council in the north Melbourne metropolitan area.
One way to assess the value of playgrounds is simply to ask people. But we didn’t do that. We know people often over- or understate the value or cost of things in surveys because there is no real cost to pay.
We used ten years of every property price transaction in Moreland to try to measure the value people place on playgrounds. Property prices reflect the value people place on the attributes of a place they are buying.
These attributes include location (location, location) and things about the property such as the number of bedrooms and bathrooms. Prices also include the value people place on local amenities such as shops nearby or a train station within walking distance.
So how could we possibly work out the little bit of all that that’s about the distance to a playground?
Let’s build a model
First, we estimate a very detailed model of the determinants of property prices. This includes the type of dwelling, size, bedrooms, bathrooms, the presence of 19 different features such as balconies or spas, year and quarter of sale, and suburb.
We control for distance to a wide range of amenities including shops, schools and golf courses. Finally, we control for the distance to 14 different types of open space, including shared trails and community horticulture.
Moreland City Council provided us with the data on amenities and open spaces. With this model, we are able to explain about 70% of the variation in house prices.
With the help of Melbourne Water, we identified two empty green spaces (in Coburg North and Pascoe Vale) that were suitable for building a small local playground. These are the smallest of the five categories of playgrounds in Moreland City Council. They generally consist of a swing set, a slippery dip (slide) and small rocking animals. They are targeted at young children, ages three to six.
The second step is to match properties that are near the empty green spaces with properties that are similarly close to a playground.
After matching properties in this way and accounting for all of the determinants of property price in our model, we attribute any unexplained difference in the prices of the matched properties to the presence of the playground.
We found a consistently positive effect of local playgrounds on property prices. The benefit of a playground is larger when properties are closer, as the effect falls with distance from the playground.
For example, the presence of a playground within 300 metres adds about A$20,000 (4.6%) to the average property price. But our estimate is somewhat imprecise with the calculations showing it could be as low as A$10,000 or as high as A$30,000.
If we look at houses only the increase is A$32,000 (6.4% of the median house price of A$499,000), but again within a plausible range of A$8,000 to A$46,000.
A note of caution
Given the potential variation, are these price increase effects realistic?
My personal feeling is that A$20,000 seems on the large side. We may be picking up other unpriced attributes of properties that differ in the matched samples.
But we are dealing with a very rich set of characteristics and property attributes. We took several walks around the area to see whether anything was affecting our results. We could not identify anything.
Councils should see the need to consider the value of playgrounds in property prices as an important input into any cost-benefit analysis of investing in playground infrastructure.
Likewise, homeowners should not be worried (and object) to the construction of new playgrounds as they do not lower housing prices, rather they add to home value.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/127910/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/robert-breunig-167291">Robert Breunig</a>, Professor of Economics and Director, Tax and Transfer Policy Institute, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/crawford-school-of-public-policy-australian-national-university-3292">Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University</a>
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/that-public-playground-is-good-for-your-kids-and-your-wallet-127910">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Public playgrounds are good for your kids and your wallet: Robert Breunig

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The international research is clear. Stimulating and positive environments early in life provide optimal foundations for children’s ongoing development into adulthood. This in turn makes a difference to the productivity of society at large.
Communities are important environments in which young children grow and develop. There is limited research, however, on how communities can best influence early childhood development.
To address this evidence gap, the <a href="https://www.mcri.edu.au/kics" target="_blank">Kids in Communities Study</a> (KiCS) set out to investigate the influence of community-level factors on young children’s development. This <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11205-014-0578-x" target="_blank">research</a> has identified a promising set of factors (listed in table 1) that lay the foundations of a good community for early childhood development.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/241545/original/file-20181021-105757-gwxo5j.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/241545/original/file-20181021-105757-gwxo5j.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
What we currently know is that by the time Australian children start school, those in more disadvantaged communities have three times the level of developmental vulnerability compared with those who are most advantaged (<a href="https://www.aedc.gov.au/resources/detail/2015-aedc-national-report" target="_blank">18.4% vs 6.7%</a>). In simple terms, young children living in Australia’s poorer areas are already on a more disadvantaged trajectory. The evidence suggests these trajectories are challenging to change once established.
What is it about where you live that makes a difference?
The design of communities can impact the healthy development of children. In particular this involves family access to resources to promote good development.
International research shows that disadvantaged communities with limited resources and opportunities can generate poor child development outcomes. And these can then persist from one generation to the next.
Conversely, there are also many factors that can promote healthy child development, even in low-income communities. These factors include parents and families who actively participate in the community, active community organisations, and neighbourhoods that are safe to walk in and have good places to play.
As Australia faces increasing pressure to accommodate population growth, well-designed communities offer real potential as a platform for impact. Indeed, there is interest globally – e.g. “<a href="https://childfriendlycities.org/" target="_blank">child-friendly cities</a>” – and in Australia – e.g. “<a href="https://www.rch.org.au/uploadedFiles/Main/Content/ccch/CCCH_Collaborate_for_Children_Report_The_Evidence_Nov2014.pdf" target="_blank">collective impact</a>” – in <a href="https://ssir.org/articles/entry/collective_impact" target="_blank">place-based approaches</a>. This is stimulating the policy agenda at all levels of government.
This policy agenda recognises “communities” as central for delivering better and more equitable early childhood development. However, this enthusiasm is hampered by the limited available evidence about the most effective ways communities can support good early childhood development.
The Kids in Communities Study
The Kids in Communities Study investigated the potential influence of community-level factors in five domains on early childhood development. These domains are:
<ul>
<li>physical environment</li>
<li>social environment</li>
<li>socio-economic factors</li>
<li>access to services</li>
<li>governance.</li>
</ul>
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/241759/original/file-20181023-169828-byrc0p.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/241759/original/file-20181023-169828-byrc0p.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
The Kids in Communities Study (KICS) conceptual framework. Author provided
A mix of surveys, focus groups and interviews were conducted with community members (families, service providers, stakeholders). The results were combined with data from 25 Australian urban and regional communities. This mixed methods approach was essential to better understand local context and make sense of the data.
We were particularly interested in understanding why some communities, when matched by disadvantage, showed <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11205-016-1333-2" target="_blank">better (“off-diagonal”) or as expected (“on-diagonal”) child development outcomes relative to their socio-economic profile</a>. This is measured by the Australian Early Development Census. Teachers complete this census every three years for all children starting school.
Foundational community factors: using data to drive action
From this work, KiCS identified the set of foundational community factors associated with early childhood development. These are the factors that lay the foundations of a good community for early childhood development.
Foundational community factors can help better understand what helps or hinders early childhood development at the community level. They provide a source of local information that can contribute to developing interventions that move beyond the individual level, which have shown limited sustained success, to the broader community level (e.g. place-based initiatives), which has the potential to benefit many children and families in the long term.
They are a combination of factors that showed a difference in disadvantaged communities that had “good” versus “poor” early childhood development outcomes (differentiating factors), as well as those that most KiCS communities perceived as important for families with young children (important factors). Table 1 shows which foundational community factors were related to these outcomes.
Foundational community factors are important; they allow us to move beyond anecdotal information to a discussion grounded in evidence about how the community is tracking to inform place-based initiatives.
These factors help communities strengthen stakeholder engagement and can inform policy recommendations using the best local data. Examples include informing and involving local residents and organisations, discussing key “shared” issues, identifying priorities, planning and implementing community interventions, and monitoring change over time.
This can empower communities to better understand and recognise their resources and opportunities to improve early childhood development. That in turn helps to direct effort into areas that make the most sense.
The full technical report on Foundational Community Factors for Early Childhood Development: A report on the Kids in Communities Study is available <a href="https://www.mcri.edu.au/kics" target="_blank">here</a>.
For the manual of data collection please email: kics.study@mcri.edu.au.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/104933/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Sharon Goldfeld, Deputy Director, Center for Community Child Health Royal Children's Hospital; Co-Group Leader, Policy and Equity, Murdoch Children's Research Institute; and Professor, Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne 
Billie Giles-Corti, Director, Urban Futures Enabling Capability Platform and Director, Healthy Liveable Cities Group, RMIT University 
Geoffrey Woolcock, Senior Research Fellow (Regional Community Development), Strategic Research Projects, University of Southern Queensland 
Hannah Badland, Principal Research Fellow, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University 
Ilan Katz, Professor of Social Policy, UNSW; Karen Villanueva, Research Fellow, Healthy Liveable Cities Group, RMIT University, and Researcher, Community Child Health, Murdoch Children's Research Institute 
Robert Tanton, Professor, National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM), University of Canberra 
Sally Brinkman, Associate Professor, University of Adelaide; Co-Director, Fraser Mustard Centre, Telethon Kids Institute
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/working-out-what-makes-a-good-community-where-young-children-can-thrive-104933" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Children

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Children

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News