Improving Cultural outcomes
I have previously outlined the compelling case to build a community and disaster resilient Wellington and save $100m per annum (here,) how to improve economic outcomes (here) environmental outcomes (here) and social outcomes (here).
This thought piece outlines how to improve cultural outcomes.
The objective is to lift all cultural outcome scores to 80% by 2030.
The 5-year trends for cultural outcomes [1]show:
Capabilities (greater than 80%) are the ability of peoples first language and their sense of belonging in New Zealand.
Capabilities (between 60% and 80%) are people sharing their cultural knowledge.
Vulnerabilities (less than 60%) are a lack of people engaged in cultural activities.
[1].The trends from survey data within a Wellington suburb have been gathered each October since 2019 through a community survey which asks questions of residents based on the wellbeing indicators in the Governments Living Standards Framework here, which have been aligned to the Governments resilience areas here. Here is the Wellington suburb survey results https://newlandrg.weebly.com/result-2019-2024.html
If the objective to lift all cultural outcome scores to 80% is achieved the benefit[1] is that people will be more culturally capable with a high sense of belonging in New Zealand.
My aspiration is for a city where people find fulfilment in community relationships, understand their role within society, and are free to help others. Where there is healthy competition and sustainable cooperation, and the focus is on community wellbeing rather than simply material wealth.
The Royal commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attack On Christchurch Mosques[2] recommended the sharing knowledge to improve understanding the value that cultural (ethnic and religious) diversity can contribute to a well-functioning society.
To achieve the objective for all scores to be 80% by 2030 a phased solution needs to be delivered by public and private sector leaders with community leaders with less regulation and more enabling cultural infrastructure. The options are to:
Survive: Awareness: Community workshops and training to build respect and understanding with storytelling to showcase cultures with music, dance, food, and customs.
Revive: Knowledge: Open conversations where people from different backgrounds can share story’s, beliefs, values, address misunderstandings, and build community to speak into decision making.
Thrive: Application: Working together to build unity through action on joint projects.
Each of these options would transparently show the costs and benefits from an economic, social, and environmental perspective for decision makers to identify the preferred option and way forward. It is likely the preferred “public value” option is Thrive. To be affordable and achievable this will need to be phased starting with Survive for the first three years, then Revive for 3 years and then Thrive.
This requires the Government to reprioritise its existing investment programme to initiatives that deliver, in the words of the Minister of Finance, “better bang for buck” and better public value.
In addition, the cultural costs and benefits need to be considered in the options in the economic, social, environment, transport, water, housing and energy programmes so the trade-offs are clear before the decision is made.
Next steps
In my next thought piece, I will outline the choices we have to improve transport infrastructure outcomes and how the choices could be phased over 10 years to Survive, then Revive and then Thrive.
I would love to collaborate with others who are working in this space, trying to solve similar problems, please leave a comment.
[1] Using the wellbeing indicators in the Governments Living Standards Framework and attaching monetary values to the indicators/benefits from The Treasury’s CBAx data set.
[2] Refer recommendation 37 in part 10 https://christchurchattack.royalcommission.nz/the-report