Developments in Urban Planning by Public Facilities Management Based on Regional Characteristics

Abstract

In the presented case study of Aichi Prefecture, the goal was to examine the challenges that local authorities must overcome in reorganizing public facilities based on an urban planning perspective and using information on location, floor space and current use. Differences in population trends, population density, regional characteristics, as well as the history of management policies, have resulted in wide variations in the provision and condition of public facilities in each municipality. Yet by viewing facilities in a complementary and integrated manner, we believe that public services can be performed more efficiently and effectively. We discuss differences in facility development based on density and population coverage as well as walking distance. An over-reliance on cars and public transportation to access public facilities is observed. Furthermore, differences can be discerned between municipalities and facility type. By making use of databases on public facilities and applying GIS techniques, we are able to illuminate the management of public facilities, thereby encouraging a multifaceted view of urban development.

1 Introduction

1.1 General Conditions of Public Facility Management

In recent years, Japan’s local authorities have shown increased activity and interest in public facilities. The three main issues related to public facilities can be summarized as follows:

• (1) The Rapid Aging of Facilities: A large number of public facilities such as schools, hospitals, libraries and city halls were built in the period of high economic growth from the 1960s to the 1970s. Fifty years later, these aging facilities have become a serious problem. Provoked by events such as the Great East Japan Earthquake of 2011 and the collapsed roof of the Sasago highway tunnel in 2012, critical voices have been raised across the country regarding poor infrastructural maintenance.

• (2) Population decrease, an aging society, and falling birthrates: As a result of Japan’s decreasing population, many local governments currently have surplus stock of public facilities that were built during a period of population growth. This problem has been exacerbated by changes in the structure of the population, specifically a declining birthrate and an aging society, which have undermined demand for these facilities. At the same time, it is proving difficult to accommodate these changes within the existing framework.

• (3) The financial burdens of local governments: Every local authority is facing the financial burden of increased costs for social security at the same time as tax revenues are declining. This has led to budget shortfalls for the proper maintenance or renewal of public facilities. Hence, it has become difficult to keep the facilities in a usable condition. For example, in the case of Nagoya city, even if the lifespan of existing facilities can be extended to 80 years, the local government only has the funds to cover half of the annual bill for repairs and reconstruction.

Reacting to these problems, in April 2014 the Ministry of Internal Affairs requested all local governments to develop a ‘Comprehensive Plan for the Management of Public Facilities’. This requires the restructuring of public facilities with the goal of introducing the idea of Facility Management (FM).

An ever-increasing number of local governments are starting to tackle these issues. However, these activities have just got underway, and the total number of local governments producing real results is still extremely small. Furthermore, the biggest problem facing all local governments is a limited budget. Therefore, the two core elements of the FM strategy are (1) a reduction in the number of public facilities and (2) an increase in the lifespan of facilities through planned conservation (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1

Two strategies for the restructuring of public facilities

In these efforts, public authorities face some basic challenges. Specifically, these are: (1) how best to plan for the future way of life and the future form of regional areas; (2) how best to select the public facilities which are necessary resources to safeguard a community; (3) how best to determine which services to offer and how to manage the facilities. Clearly, this range of planning problems requires the active management of local government in cooperative ventures over a wide area as well as the drawing up of urban master plans. However, these measures are hampered by various obstacles within local government as well as red tape imposed by government ministries and departments. In addition, the number of local governments currently involved in the kind of coordinated activity described above is practically zero.

1.2 Research Goals

In the presented case study of Aichi Prefecture’s local governments, the goal is to examine the challenge of reorganizing public facilities based on an urban planning perspective and using information on location, floor area, and current use.

There exists very little cross-sectional research on the large number of local government public facilities. A Report on the State of Public Facilities issued by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC 2014) provided data on the number of facilities as well as their total floor areas but did not allow for any further detailed comparisons between local governments. To remedy this lack of comparative data, this chapter presents a method to classify the different types of facility, allowing the creation of a database of public facilities across local governments. Using topographical information and facility location information from each municipality such as walking distance and population distribution (which cannot be derived from other data sources), we tried to understand the characteristics and challenges of each region with regards to urban planning and FM.

1.3 Investigation Method and Targets

Investigations were carried out regarding the current conditions of public facilities in all 54 municipalities of Aichi Prefecture. Requests were submitted for information relating to the names, locations and floor areas, etc. of each facility. From the 39 municipalities that replied, analysis was carried out on public facilities in 36 municipalities deemed suitable (covering around 87% of the population). The following analyses were undertaken:

• (1) Public facilities were classified in each target municipality, the correlation between population and the floor area of each facility was investigated and the current situation was analyzed from derived data.

• (2) Areas within Aichi Prefecture which showed disparate results were then selected for further comparison using GIS to examine the current conditions of each type of facility.

2 The Current Condition of Public Facilities in Each Municipality in Aichi Prefecture

2.1 Classification of Use of Public Facilities

The classification method used by each local authority was noted. These official forms of classification are shown in Table 1. Based on these classificatory systems, a standard classification was devised to permit analysis of the public facilities in the 36 target municipalities and thus allow for comparison between the local governments.

Table 1 Floor space of each class of public facility in the target municipalities

2.2 Overview of Public Facilities Within Towns and Cities in Aichi Prefecture

This investigation dealt with about 11,800 public facilities with a total floor space of about 22,500,000 m² (Table 1).

Figure 2 gives an overview of the total floor space per person of each class of facility for the investigated municipalities.

Fig. 2

Total floor space per person of public facilities in the target municipalities (excluding public housing and schools)

While the average value of floor space per person is around 3.6 m², this figure varies widely. When the population density is lower, the value tends to increase.

School facilities and public housing make up the largest proportions of total floor space of public facilities at 36 and 27% respectively. Furthermore, by looking at the floor space of each facility according to type, the disparity between local authorities becomes even more striking. For government buildings, floor area can vary by a factor of five between municipalities, for libraries and gyms by a factor of ten, and for welfare facilities, social education facilities and cultural facilities, the disparity can be even greater. These figures confirm the huge variation in the total floor space of classes of public facility across municipalities.

2.3 Correlations Between Population and Floor Space

Now we will analyze quantitatively the variations in the floor space of facilities and derive various correlations for each type of facility based on the indicators: population, age group distribution, age group distribution ratios, population density, population density of inhabitable area, population growth rate, target area size, and financial capability index.

Through this analysis, the strong correlation between population and area size became evident. Furthermore, various correlations were found for each type of facility. The most characteristic correlations are as follows:

• i. A strong correlation with population size: school, government buildings;

• ii. A strong correlation with target area size: adult learning facilities, community centers, etc.;

• iii. A comparatively weak correlation with target area size but a strong correlation with the ratio of working-age population: libraries, cultural facilities.

Furthermore, a correlation can be seen between the population density of inhabitable land and the total floor space per person (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3

The population density of inhabitable land and the total floor space of public facilities per person

However, several public facilities do not display any of these correlations. Two examples are tourist and cultural facilities, for which development greatly depends on regional and municipal policy and measures.

2.4 Discussion

While each municipality classifies, compares, and analyzes its public facilities by type, different forms of classification are applied in each case. Thus, facilities with similar functions may be classified differently, preventing any easy comparison between local governments. Furthermore, the name of the facility does not clearly reflect its purpose and use. Another problem is that the classification of facilities can depend on the specific departments given responsibility for their operation by the government ministries and offices.

For example, facilities used for public meetings, such as community halls and life-long learning facilities, can be designated as social education system facilities. Alternatively, similar facilities such as community centers and meeting places for the elderly can be designated as welfare facilities. Therefore, when considering the reorganization of facilities, we need to grasp their specific functions and likely capacities, trying to adapt these to the activities and needs of citizens.

Another important point is that differences in population trends and population density between municipalities as well as the specific characteristics of the region and the history of municipal policies all impact the state of public facilities under each local authority. Very few municipalities take a broader view of the situation by considering the range of private facilities that can be incorporated in their plans. Yet we believe that only such an integrated approach that makes use of complementary facilities will allow civil services to perform efficiently and effectively.

3 Analysis of the Provision of Facilities in the Four Areas in Aichi Prefecture

In the previous section we analyzed the relationship between the floor space of public facilities and population while ignoring topographical information. In the following, we consider residents’ accessibility and the density of public facilities, investigated using methods of GIS.

3.1 Selection of Areas Targeted for Analysis

The scope of analysis was determined by the following criteria:

• (i) Areas with different populations, population densities and/or area sizes,

• (ii) The scope of analysis covers an area that exceeds municipal boundaries.

Based on these criteria, we selected Nagoya Area, which is an officially designated city, Chiryu Area, which is a suburban inhabited area, Toyohashi Area, which is a core city, and Shinshiro Area, which is a sparsely populated area (Fig. 4). We studied these areas within a 6 km radius from Nagoya Tempaku Ward Office, Chiryu City Hall, Toyohashi City Hall, and Shinshiro City Hall, respectively.

Fig. 4

Target areas for analysis

3.2 Distribution of Facilities Based on Intended Use

Nine classes of facilities were chosen (excluding industrial development facilities, public housing and some other facilities) for analysis using GIS in order to grasp the current distribution in the four target areas (Fig. 5). There is a wide variation in population density in the four areas from about 7,000 people/km² in Nagoya, to 3,000 people/km² in Chiryu and Toyohashi, to only 300 people/km² in Shinshiro.

Fig. 5

Location of the public facilities in the four target areas

As for the density of public facilities, differences can be seen depending on population. Whereas in Nagoya facilities are uniformly distributed, in Chiryu, Toyohashi and neighboring cities there is non-uniform distribution of facilities. In Shinshiro area, where the facility floor space per person is largest, the public facilities are mainly located in populated areas.

3.3 Arrangement Analysis Based on Walking Distance

Although the transport infrastructure is different in each of the four areas, this factor is irrelevant here. Our chosen perspective is the walking distance, allowing for a comparison between the target areas. We specified an acceptable walking distance of 800 m as the cut-off value (Fig. 6). Hence, people living within 800 m of the facilities are regarded as being within walking distance. From this we can determine the coverage rate (population within walking distance/population in the area), giving results shown in Fig. 7. These numbers indicate the percentage of the population within walking distance of the selected class of facility in the target area. Five classes, namely welfare facilities for the elderly, child welfare facilities, kindergartens and nursery schools, community centers, and schools were determined as the target facilities for this analysis.

Fig. 6

The location of child welfare facilities in the four target areas

Fig. 7

The walking area population coverage rate in the four areas

Schools and community centers in all areas have high population coverage. Public facilities have the highest coverage rate in the Shinshiro area, where it can be stated that local residents have the most immediate access.

The community centers in the Chiryu area have the lowest coverage rate in the four areas. Therefore, it is likely that local people depend on cars or public transportation to make use of these facilities. On the other hand, the coverage rate of kindergartens, nursery schools, and child welfare facilities is higher than in other areas. From this we can say that child-rearing facilities are within walking distances.

In the Toyohashi area, the facilities can be divided into two types: those with high population coverage and those with low population coverage. Alternatively, we can say that there are facilities which can be reached on foot and facilities which are reached by car.

In the Nagoya area, the construction of child welfare facilities and elderly welfare facilities follows the rule ‘one facility in one district’. Consequently, the population coverage is low, meaning that such facilities are not within walking distance by children and elderly people.

3.4 Discussion

We have illustrated the differences in facility development in terms of area-based distribution, density and walking distance. Clearly, there is an over-reliance on cars and public transportation to utilize public facilities. We have also noted a range of differences across municipalities and facility types. It can be inferred that the situation regarding location and usage in disparate areas, even those in neighboring municipalities with relatively similar densities, differs more than the variation in public facility area per person (discussed in the previous chapter). This also applies to the municipal policies regarding facility placement.

Moreover, we have determined that depending on their needs, users not only make use of nearby facilities but also facilities located beyond the municipal borders. Therefore, it is necessary to consider complementary relationships with surrounding municipalities.

4 Conclusion and Future Challenges

Our analysis has been limited to the floor space of facilities per person and the location of facilities within walking distance of the local population. By comparing facilities with similar classifications in different municipalities beyond the city precincts, we were able to objectively specify the characteristics of regions that can capitalize on FM and urban planning.

Regarding the restructuring of public facilities, tight municipal budgets and the constraints of aging facilities encourage an intensification of use and consolidation of current facilities. We were able to get a general idea of the way in which objections concerning specific facilities have arisen. In many cases, such objections hinder the implementation of new developments. Hence, it is imperative that citizens, the national parliament, and all administrative departments develop a common notion of restructuring and urban planning in order to move towards building communities. We must transform the negative image of restructuring into a positive image of building new towns. Without this philosophy, it will be difficult to find agreement on reducing the number of facilities in order to make much needed financial savings.

White papers for public facilities have been drawn up in many municipalities. Other importance questions such as performance, usage, and expenditure of the public facilities have already been settled. However, essential data is still lacking in order to solve various regional problems related to public facilities such as disaster prevention, environmental issues, and how the community will be affected as a whole.

On the other hand, urban planning departments are responsible for optimizing the siting of new facilities. Here the favored urban design is the networked compact city. To this end, development plans will be drawn up to regulate the siting of facilities in the base areas (including private facilities). Here it is important to paint an accurate picture of intended activities, the kind of services and facilities that will be needed for said activities, and whether the services/facilities can be offered while keeping to a tight budget.

Additionally, in order to manage public facilities and to make the shift to compact cities, local governments are themselves undertaking their own investigations. However, isolated small- to medium-scale cities cannot provide all the requisite city functions; instead, it is necessary to investigate the wider metropolitan area outside the city limits. In the present study, we have made use of databases on public facilities and GIS techniques to illuminate one aspect of public facility management and thus to encourage a multifaceted view of urban development.

In further research, we intend to evaluate the accessibility of facilities that are outside easy walking distance, and will continue to perform deep comparative analyses between municipalities, taking into consideration differences in time distance as well as actual use.

In addition, we aim to capture the scale and performance of each facility as well as the capacity based on location, and will look at the range of activities for which said facilities are used. With such investigations, we aim to construct techniques for the management of public facility restructuring that takes a broader view, extending beyond municipal borders and departmental borders, as well as the border between the public and private sectors.