 Padafun iaith, mae oma. Padafun iaith pwdei anghenia. Pidebari, pwdei pwdei pwdei. Lai tatawea, pwdei pwdei pwdei. Ngahainia tatawea mi gandai. Naseu a料u, Diw staffanga mickinga. Ngayainia tatawea. Pwdei pwdei pwdei a聊u. Ngayainia tatawea, Anganiau enti, New Zealand. Ate zau athai. New Zealand hau gandai over half Hong Kong's. It has a population density in our major cities of one hundredth Hong Kong. So the differences are extraordinary. So you can see from this picture it's a low density environment, recently settled in historical terms and people arrived there in 1840s, that Europeans arrived there in 1840s I should say. So what this provides for me is an opportunity to share some of the experiences in New Zealand very briefly with those that have been encountered by the last few speakers and I think the parallels are very interesting. I want to begin and I'll draw those parallels as I go through. I want to begin with the difference between the way we have analysed cities up to the last 10 years when we have used data from what I call on the ground, particularly census data. He's a data that are reported by individuals about their particular circumstances where they live, the number of rooms, their incomes and so on. This is the city of the ground. What we're now seeing and Professor Ho's presentation indicated an example of this was the growth of interest now in the city of the mind. Now we're beginning to ask people what they think about their life experience in cities as opposed to simply measuring their income, their rental status and so on and so forth. So this is quite a change in the way we begin to think about living in cities and I think the change is very insightful particularly in light of Richard Sennett's comments at the beginning. We sometimes call this subjective versus subjective or external versus internal and this other name is used as well. What I want to suggest and this is a challenge to all of us is what is the relationship between the city on the ground and the city of the mind? One of the interesting areas of research in the whole quality of life happiness studies is the disconnect between the objective and the subjective in some areas under some conditions. But we're also interested in the way the city of the mind can inform us about what we should do about the city on the ground and this if you like is a a challenge to the planners. How can you take subjective well-being responses and turn them into changes in the physical infrastructure and the way cities are spatially organised? So what is subjective well-being? Well we've had a brief introduction so I'll move forward relatively quickly. There are a range of measures but these are probably the most common ones. A measure of happiness, a measure of satisfaction and measure of quality of life. Now these do not measure the same things. If you correlate the two they're not perfectly correlated. There are some people who are highly satisfied but not happy. People who have low quality of life who are happy. So the choice of measure is actually particularly important. In a very similar question to Professor Hoes this is the way the satisfaction question is asked and the other questions are asked in a similar manner. So you have a like it scale of anywhere from three to ten observations and you model the responses to those questions as a function of a number of possible explanatory factors which I'll introduce now. My question to this literature comes as a geographer. I'm a human geographer and therefore I'm interested in the geography of subjective well-being or if you like the difference that place makes. There is a geography of subjective well-being for a number of reasons. Firstly places differ. Secondly people differ. Thirdly people in place interactions differ. And thirdly and fourthly people have a limited choice of place so they cannot necessarily move to places that might make them happier or more satisfied or improve their quality of life. So how do we estimate the effect of place and subjective well-being? We are I believe just at the beginning of this broad research agenda that is taking place around the world and with the British Survey arriving in 2012 with the British are going to be able to analyse subjective well-being at a regional level. I think simply because the number of researchers there we're going to see an explosion of interest in the geography of subjective well-being. I was able to get into into this a little bit earlier because we have a survey that goes back to 2002. So this really is the beginning of something we'll see a lot more of and so that our debate today is very timely. The paper the information I'm drawing from comes from a paper published last year in regional studies. Basically what we do is we take a measure of subjective well-being. It could be happiness, it could be satisfaction, it could be quality of life, it could be stress. And we ask the question what effect does location or the city of residence in my case have on satisfaction. Some people look at neighbourhoods, the British are going to look at regions. Those different scales are probably going to yield different answers so we have to be very sensitive to scale. There's no point in looking at the relationship between satisfaction and location alone. That's why surveys of quality of life in cities are without any controls that don't tell us a great deal. This is because the composition of people differs in cities and therefore we must control for that composition and when we control for composition we introduce terms measures like persons age, their sex, whether they have a partner or not, their health, often self-rated, their levels of education, whether they're employed or not, their income and their ethnicity. We can, if we have the right measures, introduce Professor Hoes measures of love, insight, fortitude and engagement. I've gone a little bit further than this by introducing another set of variables which I have called evaluations of accessibility and social capital because as you'll see in a minute I noticed that cities in New Zealand people did not yield the same subjective well-being even when we control for people's attributes. So the question is why and so I was interested in asking two questions. How important is accessibility to people and how important is social capital? I'll cover those in a minute. Let me just quickly show um what happens when we measure the probability of being very happy, the pvh here, post-estimated from an ordinal probate regression. What we find is that the and we arrange the cities on this dimension from those parts of New Zealand that are very that are apparently most happy and those right through to those least happy and what we see is that down at the bottom we have our most dense largest city where we see happiness levels lower lowest controlling for all those attributes I measured mentioned earlier. Now this is particularly interesting in light of Professor Charles comments on the Chinese situation because what he referred to would it be possible not to go into too much detail if you can just okay except that what this tells us is that agglomeration forces which are very important for raising productivity are inconsistent with increases or relative increases in quality of life. So I think this is one of the big challenges we have how to grow faster but also increase quality so very briefly um I'll skip over this so why are people happy in in some places and others what do I find well very high density matters negatively even when you control for those other things accessibility to services does matter inaccessibility to services has a huge effect on people's um well-being we expect because we come to cities to be closer to services if we're not we get very upset social capital and trust are enormously important and the the the love list that Professor Ho suggested is present in here your degree of interconnection right from your presence of a partner through to your friends and above all your degree of trust in people is phenomenally important in understanding happiness so contrary perhaps to Professor Sennett's initial distinction between ability to connect to strangers when we can connect to strangers when we have a strong network this does actually make us happier and increase our quality of life and there's a lot of unknowns I'll leave you with another picture of Wellington thank you thank you