Assessing cultural
sustainability
PAUL JAMES
23 April 2014
The Committee on culture of the world association of United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG) is the platform
of cities, organizations and networks that foster the relation between local cultural policies and sustainable
development. It uses the Agenda 21 for culture as its founding document. It promotes the exchange of experiences
and improves mutual learning. It conveys the messages of cities and local governments on global cultural issues.
The Committee on culture is chaired by Lille-Métropole, co-chaired by Buenos Aires, Montréal and México and vice-
chaired by Angers, Barcelona and Milano.
This article was commissioned in the framework of the revision of Agenda 21 for culture (2013-2015) and it also
contributes to the activities of the Global Taskforce of Local and Regional Governments for Post-2015 Development
Agenda towards Habitat III (2016).
This article is available on-line at www.new.agenda21culture.net in English, French and Spanish. It can be
reproduced for free as long as the “Agenda 21 for culture - Committee on culture of United Cities and Local
Governments (UCLG)” is cited as source. The author is responsible for the choice and the presentation of the facts
contained in this text and for the opinions expressed therein, which are not necessarily those of UCLG and do not
commit the organisation.
2
Assessing cultural
sustainability
PAUL JAMES
Paul James is Director of the United Nations Global Compact, Cities Programme (Melbourne and New
York) and Professor of Globalization and Cultural Diversity in the Institute for Culture and Society at
the University of Western Sydney. He is on the Council of the Institute of Postcolonial Studies, and a
Fellow of the Royal Society of the Arts (London).
1. Overview
Culture is a fundamental domain of social life. However, there are currently no developed guidelines for
assessing the cultural impact, sustainability or vibrancy of cultural development. While well-established
economic and environmental impact assessments exist, in the domain of culture there are no more
than a series of beginnings in the fields of heritage and indigenous studies. The overall goal of this
article is to develop the principles, protocols, indicators and tools for a cultural impact assessment
process. Within that goal we have a number of objectives:
• To ensure that the cultural assessment process works for urban-based projects and is applicable in
different towns and cities across the world, taking into account their very different forms;
• To ensure that the process meets the needs of local municipalities in respect of a number of basic
requirements such as being accessible, learning-based, graphically simple, built around participatory
engagement and so on (see the full list below in Section 3.2); and
• To provide a research base that underpins good practice in this area
3
In order to achieve those objectives, we need to answer the following questions:
• How can culture be defined in its full complexity, including definitions of its subdomains?
• How can activities in the subdomains of culture be assessed objectively by valuations that are
intrinsic to the cultural domain rather than always involving external (economic and political) proxies
such as ‘social capital’ or ‘return on investment’ (both economic valuations) or ‘risk minimization’ (a
political valuation)?
• How can these intrinsic valuations be measured?
• How can subjective assessments of cultural vibrancy, resilience, adaptability and sustainability be
brought into comparative analysis?
• How can patterns of subjectively based data (soft data) and patterns of statistical measurement
(hard data) be related to each other to support an impact assessment process?
Culture is a fundamental domain of social life. However,
there are currently no developed guidelines for assessing
the cultural impact, sustainability or vibrancy of cultural
development
Practical Outcomes
• A cultural assessment process that works for municipalities, cities and urban regions;
• An organizing framework, linked in to the data sets offered by different sets of statistics that can
guide municipalities through the process of linking data to cultural impact assessment;
• A series of forums with local government that both trial the process and lead to protocols for training;
• A learning pathway, supported by a software system, that both enhances the thoroughness of the
impact assessment process and collects information about how a municipality has enacted the
assessment; and
• A set of recommended cultural indicators linked to data sets—and annotated advice about the
strengths and weaknesses of particular indicators—from which municipalities can chose an
adequate group of indicators for their own purposes.
The overall goal of this article is to develop the
principles, protocols, indicators and tools for a cultural
impact assessment process
4
2. Summary of Recommendations
2.1. That culture should be treat as one of the primary domains of social life, including for the purpose
of urban policy-making and practice.
2.2. That a self-evaluation tool for cities should developed based on a four-domain model that treats
culture as a social domain equal to other social domains: ecology, economics and politics.
That is, all the domains are social domains. This avoids the reductive nature of three-pillar and
Triple Bottom Line approaches that either relegate culture to an already externalized category of
‘the social’ or, in the four-pillar approach, retrieve the cultural domain while leaving the economic
domain as implicitly central and outside the social.
2.3. That ‘culture’ should be defined as broadly and precisely as possible, avoiding the usual tendency
to reduce culture to the arts or to frame it by the ‘high culture’ and ‘low culture’ distinction.
The cultural is defined as a social domain that emphasizes the practices, discourses, and material
expressions, which, over time, express the continuities and discontinuities of social meaning
of a life held-in-common. In other words, culture is ‘how and why we do things around here’.
The ‘how’ is how we practice materially, the ‘why’ emphasizes the meanings, the ‘we’ refers
to the specificity of a life held-in-common, and ‘around here’ specifies the spatial, and also by
implication the temporal particularity of culture.
How can activities in the subdomains of culture be
assessed objectively by valuations that are intrinsic to
the cultural domain rather than always involving external
(economic and political) proxies?
2.4. That the method using by the new Agenda 21 for Culture be derived from the Circles of Social
Life approach used by such organizations as Metropolis and the UN Global Compact Cities
Programme—to be called ‘Circles of Cultural Life’. (See the various Appendices below for an
elaboration of a possible way forward.)
2.5. That the programs of action relate directly to the method rather than being developed on an ad
hoc basis.
For example, if the Circles of Social Life method was chosen as the framework for assessment
and action then the sets of actions would centre around the seven subdomains of culture in this
approach:
1. Identity and Engagement
2. Creativity and Recreation
3. Memory and Projection
4. Beliefs and Ideas
5. Gender and Generations
6. Enquiry and Learning
7. Wellbeing and Health
5
We need a self-evaluation tool for cities, based on
a four-domain model, that treats culture as a social
domain equal to other social domains: ecology,
economics and politics
Figure 1. Culture: the Fourth Domain
ECONOMICS ECOLOGY Vibrant
Production and Resourcing Materials and Energy
Good
Exchange and Transfer Water and Air
Highly Satisfactory
Accounting and Regulation Flora and Fauna
Satisfactory +
Consumption and Use Habitat and Space
Satisfactory
Labour and Welfare Built form and Transport
Satisfactory -
Technology and Infrastructure Embodiment and Sustenance
Highly Unsatisfactory
Wealth and Distribution Emission and Waste
Bad
Critical
POLITICS CULTURE
Organization and Governance Identity and Engagement
Law and Justice Creativity and Recreation
Communication and Critique Memory and Projection
Representation and Negotiation Beliefs and Ideas
Security and Accord Gender and Generations
Dialogue and Reconciliation Enquiry and Learning
Ethics and Accountability Health and Wellbeing
The cultural is defined as a social domain that emphasizes
the practices, discourses, and material expressions, which,
over time, express the continuities and discontinuities of social
meaning of a life held-in-common
3. Basic Questions to which this Document Responds
3.1 What progress has been made in this field of activity?
The International Association for Impact Assessment defines impact assessment as ‘the process
of identifying the future consequences of a current or proposed action’. At its most recent Annual
Conference the 33rd such conference, in May 2013, cultural impact assessment was broached through
discussions of cultural heritage impact assessment. This has been one of a number of beginnings in the
field that have not yet been able to account for the wider domain of culture in general.
6
For too long, planning and development methods, such as those developed through the ‘triple bottom line’
and ‘social capital’ approaches, have subordinated the domain of culture to economic considerations.
The ‘social capital’ metaphor treats cultural issues as if they are centred on the accrual of value, akin
to accumulating money in the economic domain. In the ‘triple bottom line’ understanding cultural
questions are relegated to a grab-bag of extra considerations lumped under their third generic heading
of the ‘social’. The triple-bottom-line approach problematically presents three domains—economics,
environment and the social—and incorporates the domain of culture as an extra consideration inside
the social. Economics is treated problematically as the master category, and it stands as the originating
line against which others are judged.
For too long, planning and development methods,
such as the “triple bottom line” and “social capital”
approaches, have subordinated culture to economic
considerations
Early attempts to bring the cultural into mainstream consideration used the term ‘fourth pillar’ rather
than ‘fourth domain’ (Hawkes 2001). The building metaphor is however an increasingly uncomfortable
one. Pillars stand alone. They are fixed and only relate to each other by lintels and beams. Three pillars
can hold up a building without the fourth.
The alternative approach recommended here is called Circles of Social Life or in its better-known more
focussed version Circles of Sustainability. In terms of this approach, all social life, including economics,
is considered social. It works with four domains: economics, ecology, politics and culture. They are all
social domains, and culture is as important as any of the other three domains. It is designated as the
‘fourth’ domain not because it is the fourth most important domain, but because it is the fourth domain
to be brought into contention. The culture of economics is as fundamental as the economics of culture,
and so on. The culture of economics, ecology or politics is critical to the sustainability and vibrancy
of those other domains of social life. While still in development approach has been extensive piloted
and could be wonderfully developed as the basis for a related approach called ‘Circles of Cultural Life’.
3.2. What should be the criteria for the model of cultural assessment?
Any methodology needs criteria for judging whether not the method is good. The following list is a set
of criteria that would be suitable for judging any methodology that is possibly chosen to enact the new
Agenda 21 for culture, including the recommended alternative approach Circles of Cultural Life.
• Accessible At one level, the approach should be readily interpretable to
non-experts, but at deeper levels it needs to be methodologically
sophisticated enough to stand up against the scrutiny of experts in
assessment, monitoring and evaluation and project management
tools;
7
• Graphic The approach needs to be simple in its graphic presentation and
top-level description, but simultaneously have consistent principles
carrying through to its lower, more complex, and detailed levels;
• Cross-locale The approach needs on the one hand to be sufficiently general and
high-level to work across a diverse range of cities and localities, big
and small, but at the same time sufficiently flexible to be used to
capture the detailed specificity of each of those different places;
• Learning-based The approach should allow cities to learn from other cities, and
provide support and principles for exchange of knowledge and
learning from practice;
• Comparable The approach should allow comparison between cities, but not locate
them in a league table or hierarchy;
• Tool-generating The approach needs to provide the basis for developing a series of
tools—including web-based electronic tools (compatible with various
information and communications technology platforms). These
range from very simple learning tools to more complex planning,
assessment, and monitoring tools;
• Indicator-generating The approach needs to provide guidance for selecting indicators as
well as methods for assessing their outcomes;
• Relational The approach needs to focus not only on identification of critical
issues, indicators that relate to those critical issues, but also the
relationships between them;
• Cross-domain The approach needs to be compatible with new developments that bring
‘culture’ in serious contention in sustainability analysis—such as the
United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG) four pillars of sustainability.
The approach therefore uses a domain-based model which emphasizes
interconnectivity of economic, ecological, political, and cultural
dimensions, each of which are treated as social domains;
• Participatory Even if it is framed by a set of global protocols, the approach needs to
be driven by stakeholders and communities of practice;
• Cross-supported The approach needs to straddle the qualitative/quantitative divide,
and uses just enough quantification to allow for identification of
conflicts.
• Standards-oriented The approach (and its methods) should connect to current and
emerging reporting and modelling standards.
• Curriculum-oriented The approach needs to be broad enough to provide guidance for
curriculum development, and therefore useful for training.
8
3.3 What are the pros and cons of self-evaluation tools?
Self-evaluation tools have many strengths. They are participatory. They engage local people in the
practice of thinking about their cultural worlds. They are much less expensive to manage, and so on. It
is therefore a self-assessment process that we recommend, albeit with the possibility of being linked to
a formal accreditation process (See Table 1 below.)
However self-assessment processes have their own distinct set of problems. Firstly, there is the issue
of non-comparability. Without a global protocol for self-assessment it is difficult to compare different
cities or community locales.
Secondly, there is a tendency for the concepts of ‘community’ or ‘stakeholder’ to be concretized within
a bounded geographical frame or reified as a singular group of integrated individuals. Many changes in
the contemporary world, including the rapid adoption and penetration of communication technologies,
suggest however that communities need to be understood along less contiguous and singular lines.
Self-evaluation tools have many strengths. They are
participatory. They engage local people in the practice
of thinking about their cultural worlds. They are much
less expensive to manage
Thirdly, the literature currently provides insufficient guidance for communities and localities looking
to bridge the gulf between specific feedback elicitation techniques, and deeper social learning and
change. Any comprehensive approach, we suggest, should encourage reflection and engagement
within a community or organization, beyond the mere collation of information or monitoring of policy.
Fourthly, while there are many examples in the literature of studies devoted towards bottom-up
approaches that aim to capitalize on the merits of community engagement, there continue to be major
concerns about the nature of that engagement. In this regard, a number of studies highlight the need
for systematic constituency feedback on policy. Emerging from in these findings is a clear need for
methodological guidance over the process of people’s engagement. All of this echoes the concerns of
recent efforts to apply structured and systemic approaches to the facilitation of indicator projects in the
public sphere. This broader outlook, which views sustainability challenges as arising from conflictual
elements within interconnecting domains, heavily informs the approach adopted here.
It is our conclusion that the Circles of Social Life method provides a way around these problems.
9
3.4 How would this tool be used by cities?
Firstly, the method needs to have the possibility of different levels of assessment. See Table 1 below.
Table 1. The Level of the Assessment Process
Please indicate which profile exercise
you intend to complete by ticking the
The profile mapping process can be done at five levels: box or boxes below.
1. Rapid Assessment Profile
By responding to the single ‘general question’ under each ‘perspective’
by marking the 9-point scale.
and/or
2. Aggregate Assessment Profile
By responding to the ‘particular questions’ under each ‘perspective’ by
marking the 9-point scale).
and/or
3. Annotated Assessment Profile
By completing the exercise at Level 2 and writing detailed annotations
about how the points on the scale were derived.
and/or
4. Comprehensive Assessment Profile, I
By completing the exercise at Level 3 and writing a major essay on the
urban area using the questions to guide the writing.
and/or and/or
Comprehensive Assessment Profile, II
By completing the exercise at Level 3 and assigning metrics-based
indicators to each point on the scale.
and/or
5. A Certified Assessment
By completing an Assessment Profile at one of the previous levels, and
then negotiating with the Cities Programme Secretariat to have their
Global Advisors critical respond and certify that assessment.
Secondly, the method should allow for different kinds of expertise. The quality and standing of the
assessment depends upon the expertise of the persons who are conducting the assessment. Optimally,
we suggest that the Assessment Panel should comprise three to ten people with different and
complementary expertise about the cultural area in question. Table 2 below is intended for recording
the names and expertise of the persons on the Assessment Panel.
10
Table 2. Urban Profile Assessors on the Assessment Panel
The profile mapping process can be done by different Please indicate which kind of respondent(s) you
kinds of respondents. Different people have different are by adding names in the boxes below.
knowledge sets, all of which can be valuable in
making an urban assessment. In order to understand Add more lines or more space to the list if
the nature of the assessment, we just need to know necessary.
what kind of knowledge held by each respondent in
the Assessment Panel.
1. Internal Expert Assessors Name Position and/or Training
Individuals who live in the urban region in
question and have expert knowledge of that
region or a significant cultural aspect of that
region. Here ‘expert knowledge’ is defined as
either being trained in some aspect of urban
planning/administration, or working in that
capacity for some time.
Name Position and/or Training
2. External Expert Assessors
Individuals who do not live in the urban
region in question, but have expert
knowledge of that region or a significant
cultural aspect of that region.
Name Length of time having lived in
3. Lay Assessors the urban region
Individuals who live in the urban region
in question, and who have extensive local
knowledge of the region or a cultural
aspect of the region, (without necessarily
either being trained in urban planning,
administration, or working in the field).
The Assessment Panel should either meet for a sustained period to conduct the assessment or respond
individually to the assessment questions and then bring those individual responses together for
collation and synthesis. The amount of time taken depends upon the nature of the assessment. Ideally,
individuals on the panel should read through the questions before meeting as a panel and where
necessary seek information about issues with which they are not familiar.
For a possible tool of assessment see Appendix 2 below.
3.5 What should be the content of the practical emphases for the new
Agenda 21 for culture?
As summarized above we recommend that the programs of action relate directly to the method rather
than being developed on an ad hoc basis. (See Appendix 3 for the full matrix.) This would mean four
very simple top-level domains of action—the propositions listed here are only examples.
11
1. Cultural flourishing
For example: Cities should positively negotiate relations of identity and difference between
different communities in the urban area and beyond.
2. Political engagement
For example: Cities should provide the political conditions for vibrant cultural engagement
between people in the urban area and beyond.
3. Economic vitality
For example: Cities should support the economic vitality and sustainability of various cultural
practices in the urban area.
4. Ecological resilience
For example: Cities should aim to achieve urban ecological resilience with and through its
various cultural practices.
Then, with the domain of culture itself it would be divided into seven subdomains:
Culture:
1.1. Identity and Engagement
1.2. Creativity and Recreation
1.3. Memory and Projection
1.4. Beliefs and Ideas
1.5. Gender and Generations
1.6. Enquiry and Learning
1.7. Wellbeing and Health
Using the “cultural flourishing” domain of the matrix for setting out the practical actions would give the
following seven actions (they are only examples):
Second-Level Cultural Propositions
1. Cities should recognize and positively celebrate the complex layers of community-based identity that
have made cultural life the urban region across its history;
2. Cities should develop consolidated cultural activity zones, with an emphasis on active street-frontage
and public spaces for face-to-face engagement, festivals and events;
3. Cities should develop museums, cultural centres and other public spaces dedicated to their own
cross-cutting cultural histories, spaces which at the same time actively seek to represent visually
alternative trajectories of urban development from the present into the future;
4. Cities should weave locally relevant fundamental beliefs and cultural expressions from across the
globe (except those that vilify and degrade) into the fabric of the built environment and in cultural
programmes —symbolically, artistically and practically;
12
5. Cities should pursue the conditions for gender equality in all aspects of social life, while negotiating
relations of cultural inclusion and exclusion that allow for gendered differences;
6. Cities should facilitate processes of enquiry and learning and make them available to all from birth
to old age across people’s lives; and not just through formal education structures, but also through
well-supported libraries and community learning centres; and
7. Cities should facilitate the design and active curation of locales, public spaces, and public buildings
to enhance the emotional wellbeing of people, including by involving local people in that curation.
And the same could happen with the other domains if you wanted to develop an even for comprehensive
model for culture. See Table 3 below.
Table 3. Social Domains and Perspectives
Economics Ecology
1. Production and Resourcing 1. Materials and Energy
2. Exchange and Transfer 2. Water and Air
3. Accounting and Regulation 3. Flora and Fauna
4. Consumption and Use 4. Habitat and Space
5. Labour and Welfare 5. Built form and Transport
6. Technology and Infrastructure 6. Embodiment and Sustenance
7. Wealth and Distribution 7. Emission and Waste
Politics Culture
1. Organization and Governance 1. Identity and Engagement
2. Law and Justice 2. Creativity and Recreation
3. Communication and Critique 3. Memory and Projection
4. Representation and Negotiation 4. Beliefs and Ideas
5. Security and Accord 5. Gender and Generations
6. Dialogue and Reconciliation 6. Enquiry and Learning
7. Ethics and Accountability 7. Health and Wellbeing
Culture. Defined as the practices, discourses, and material expressions, which, over time, express
continuities and discontinuities of social meaning.
Politics. Defined as the practices, discourses, and material expressions associated with basic issues of
social power, such as organization, authorization and, legitimation.
Ecology. Defined as the practices, discourses, and material expressions that occur across the
intersection between the social and the natural realms, focussing on the important dimension of
human engagement with and within nature, ranging from the built-environment to the ‘wilderness’.
Economics. Defined as the practices, discourses, and material expressions associated with the
production, use, and management of resources.
13
Appendix 1. Background to Circles of Social Life
This article is based on an approach called ‘Circles of Sustainability’ that was developed by a global
team of researchers through an extensive consulting period across the past five years.
The Circles of Social Life approach offers an integrated method for practically responding to complex
issues of sustainability, resilience, adaptation, liveability and vibrancy. The approach, which includes
Circles of Sustainability, takes an urban area, city, community or organization through the difficult
process of responding to complex or seemingly intractable problems and challenges.
Circles of Social Life treats all complex problems as necessarily affecting all domains of social life—
economics, ecology, politics, and culture.
The graphic to the right represents a modelling of the sustainability for a few of the many cities that
we have been working with.
The representations are the outcome of partnerships through the United Nations Cities Programme and
Metropolis. In any project we treat partnership as fundamental to making the outcomes successful.
The Process Pathway provides a map to
guide urban-change groups through the
practice of making a significant impact upon
a designated locale, such as a city, a town or
an urban region. Linked to guidelines for each
of the stages, the Pathway provides a broad
management overview that can be used for
small or big projects. It can be used to guide
a focussed and discrete project or to frame a
general sustainability plan that includes many
sub-projects.
14
Appendix 2. Draft Questionnaire for Circles of Cultural Life
The following template of questions (or a redrafted version) would become the basis for a cultural
assessment process. It is based firstly on an argument that culture can be defined as a social domain
that emphasizes the practices, discourses, and material expressions, which, over time, express the
continuities and discontinuities of social meaning of a life held-in-common.
Secondly, the template is based on the idea that culture is much broader than just the arts or high
culture. Culture is foundational to social life.
Thirdly, culture should be seen in relation to and impacting upon the three other domains of social
life: ecology, economics, and politics. For example, this method could be extended to examine the
culture of economics and the economics of culture.
15
1. Identity and Engagement
General Question: Does the urban area have a positive cultural identity that brings people together
over and above the various differences in their individual identities?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Critical Bad Highly Unsatisfactory Basic Satisfactory Highly Good Vibrant
Unsatisfactory Satisfactory
Particular Questions Number
How sustainable are the following aspects of the urban area? 1–9
1. The active cultural diversity of different local communities and groups.
2. The sense of belonging and identification with the local area as a whole in a way that connects across
community and group differences.
3. The tolerance and respect for different language groups and ethnic groups in the urban area.
4. The tolerance and respect for different religions and communities of faith in the urban area.
5. The possibility of strangers to the urban area establishing and maintaining personal networks or affinity
groups with current residents.
6. The sense of home and place.
7. The translation of the monitoring of community relations into strategies for enhancing identity and
engagement.
• Optional alternative question:
2. Creativity and Recreation
General Question: How sustainable are creative pursuits in the urban area—including sporting activities
and creative leisure activities?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Critical Bad Highly Unsatisfactory Basic Satisfactory Highly Good Vibrant
Unsatisfactory Satisfactory
Particular Questions Number
How sustainable are the following aspects of the urban area? 1–9
1. The level of participation in and appreciation of the arts—from painting to story-telling.
2. The level of involvement in performance activities such as music, dance and theatre as participants
and spectators.
3. The level of cultural creativity and innovation.
4. The level of support for cultural events—for example, public festivals and public celebrations.
5. The level of involvement in sport and physical activity as participants and spectators.
6. The affordance of time and energy for creative leisure.
7. The translation of the monitoring of creative pursuits into strategies for enhancing creative engagement.
• Optional alternative question:
16
3. Memory and Projection
General Question: How well does the urban area deal with its past history in relation to projecting
visions of possible alternative futures?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Critical Bad Highly Unsatisfactory Basic Satisfactory Highly Good Vibrant
Unsatisfactory Satisfactory
Particular Questions Number
How sustainable are the following aspects of the urban area? 1–9
1. The level of respect for past traditions and understanding of their differences.
2. The protection of heritage sites and sacred places.
3. The maintenance of monuments, museums and historical records.
4. The active recognition of indigenous customs and histories.
5. The sense of hope for a positive future for the urban area as a whole.
6. The level of public discussion that actively explores possible futures.
7. The translation of the monitoring of themes of past and future into strategies for enhancing positive
engagement.
• Optional alternative question:
4. Belief and Ideas
General Question: Do residents of the urban area have a strong sense of purpose and meaning?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Critical Bad Highly Unsatisfactory Basic Satisfactory Highly Good Vibrant
Unsatisfactory Satisfactory
Particular Questions Number
How sustainable are the following aspects of the urban area? 1–9
1. The level of knowledgeable engagement in cultural pursuits in the urban area.
2. The possibilities for counter-ideologies being discussed and debated publicly.
3. The level of thoughtful consideration that lies behind decisions made on behalf of the people of the urban area.
4. The sense of meaning that local people have in their lives?
5. The extent to which people of different faiths or spiritualities feel comfortable practicing their various rituals,
even when their beliefs are not part of the dominant culture.
6. The possibility that passions can be publicly expressed in the urban area without descending into
negative conflict.
7. The translation of the monitoring of ideas and debates into strategies for enhancing positive engagement.
• Optional alternative question:
5. Gender and Generations
General Question: To what extent is there gender and generational wellbeing across different groups?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Critical Bad Highly Unsatisfactory Basic Satisfactory Highly Good Vibrant
Unsatisfactory Satisfactory
Particular Questions Number
How sustainable are the following aspects of the urban area? 1–9
1. The equality of men and women in public and private life.
2. The positive expression of sexuality in ways that do not lead to intrusion or violation.
3. The contribution of both men and women to bringing up children.
4. The availability of child-care in the urban area—whether formal or informal, public or private.
5. The positive engagement of youth in the life of the urban area.
6. The availability of aged-care in the urban area—whether formal or informal, public or private.
7. The translation of the monitoring of gender and generational relations into strategies for enhancing positive
engagement.
• Optional alternative question:
6. Enquiry and Learning
General Question: How sustainable is formal and informal learning in the urban region?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Critical Bad Highly Unsatisfactory Basic Satisfactory Highly Good Vibrant
Unsatisfactory Satisfactory
Particular Questions Number
How sustainable are the following aspects of the urban region? 1–9
1. The accessibility of active centres of discovery—ranging formal scientific research institutes to places of
playful discovery for children.
2. The active participation of people in the urban area in deliberation and debate over ideas.
3. The accessibility of active centres of social enquiry—both formal and informal—ranging in focus from
scientific research to interpretative and spiritual enquiry.
4. The active participation of people in formal and informal education, across gender, generation, ethnicity, and
class differences.
5. The existence of local cultures of writing—from philosophical and scientific to literary and personal.
6. The setting aside of time in the various education processes—both formal and informal—for considered
reflection.
7. The translation of the monitoring of education practices into quality-improvement strategies.
• Optional alternative question:
7. Wellbeing and Health
General Question: What is the general level of wellbeing across different groups of residents?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Critical Bad Highly Unsatisfactory Basic Satisfactory Highly Good Vibrant
Unsatisfactory Satisfactory
Particular Questions Number
How sustainable are the following aspects of the urban area? 1–9
1. The sense of control that people have in the urban area over questions of bodily integrity and wellbeing.
2. The level of knowledge that people in the urban area have in relation to basic health issues.
3. The availability of consulting professionals or respected community elders to support people in time of
hardship, stress or grief.
4. The capacity of the urban area to meet reasonable expectations that people in the urban area hold about
health care or counselling.
5. The participation of people in practices that promote wellbeing.
6. The cultural richness of cuisine and good food.
7. The translation of the monitoring of health and wellbeing practices into quality-improvement strategies.
• Optional alternative question:
i
There were numerous consultants involved in setting up this method. For Metropolis, the Framework Taskforce comprised Paul James (Melbourne),
Barbara Berninger and Michael Abraham (Berlin); Tim Campbell (San Francisco), Emile Daho (Abidjan), Sunil Dubey (Sydney), Jan Erasmus
(Johannesburg), Jane McCrae (Vancouver), and Om Prakesh Mathur and Usha Raghupathi (New Delhi). In Australia, we would particularly need to
acknowledge Peter Christoff, Robin Eckersley, Mary Lewin, Howard Nielsen, Christine Oakley, and Stephanie Trigg. In Brazil helpful responses came
from Eduardo Manoel Araujo (UN Cities Programme Advisor), Luiz Berlim, Marcia Maina, Luciano Planco and Paulo Cesar Rink. In the United States
important suggestions for reworking came from Jyoti Hosagrahar (New York) and Giovanni Circella (Davis, California). The Cities Programme Working
Group which worked to develop the matrix comprised Paul James, Liam Magee, Martin Mulligan, Andy Scerri, John Smithies and Manfred Steger with
others.
agenda21culture.net