Perceptions of Liveability

Overview

In this lesson (Lesson 7 of 20) students explore how different people and organisations perceive liveability, noticing that “good places to live” mean different things depending on needs, values, and experiences. Students will practise collecting information from short place scenarios and identifying perspectives.

Learning intentions

Students will:

• identify perspectives of people or organisations on a geographical issue related to liveability
• collect and record geographical information from short case studies and evidence statements
• use and apply geographical terminology (e.g. liveability, amenity, access, safety) to communicate findings
• explain how different viewpoints can lead to different ideas for improving human wellbeing in places

Success criteria

Students can:

• name at least two different perspectives about the liveability of a place and who holds them
• record evidence that supports each perspective (what people/organisations say and why)
• correctly use key geographical terms when describing liveability factors
• justify which liveability factors matter most to each perspective using clear reasons

Curriculum links

• GELS-PER-01 — identifying perspectives of people or organisations on a geographical issue (liveability)
• GELS-TAP-01 — collecting and recording geographical information to support claims
• GELS-COM-01 — communicating using geographical terminology
• GELS-SAF-01 — identifying ways to stay safe when interacting with people and places (safety as a liveability factor)

Lesson structure (60 minutes)

1. 0–6 min · Hook (Quickwrite). Teacher displays two contrasting mini-scenarios (e.g. “busy town centre” vs “quiet out-of-town suburb”); students quickwrite: “Which would you call more liveable and why?”

• Students share one reason with a partner, focusing on what they value most (safety, access, services, environment, cost, belonging).

2. 6–14 min · Direct teach (Perspectives). Teacher models the idea that liveability is not one fixed view, using a simple sentence frame: “For (group), the place is liveable because…”.

• Students underline perspective words in a short example handout (e.g. residents, commuters, students, local council, health service, disability advocates).

3. 14–30 min · Case study investigation (Collect & record). Students work in groups of 3–4 with two liveability “cards” for different places. Each card includes evidence statements from different groups.

• Students complete a Perspective Table: Column A = “Who has the perspective?” Column B = “Liveability viewpoint” Column C = “Evidence statement” Column D = “Liveability factor(s)” (amenity, access, safety, housing, environment, health services, transport, employment).
• Teacher circulates, checking that students record evidence, not just opinions.

4. 30–41 min · Class discussion (Compare perspectives). Teacher prompts: “What factors are valued by most people, and which factors differ?” and draws a Venn diagram on the board.

• Students contribute one entry per group, using geographical terms and referencing the evidence statement from their card.

5. 41–51 min · Safety focus mini-synthesis. Teacher asks students to select one liveability factor linked to safety (e.g. lighting, crossings, public transport safety, safe housing conditions, walking/cycling routes).

• Students write a 4–5 sentence response: “This perspective thinks safety affects liveability because… The evidence shows… Another group might disagree because…” (using at least 2 geographical terms).

6. 51–60 min · Exit ticket (Formative assessment). Students answer:

• “Name two different perspectives on the liveability of a place.”
• “What evidence supports each perspective?”
• “Which liveability factor do you think matters most and why?”
• Teacher collects and uses responses to plan next lesson.

Resources

• Liveability scenario cards (2 per group), each with multiple evidence statements from different groups/organisations
• Perspective Table printable (4 columns)
• Venn diagram template (board or handout)
• Liveability terminology word bank (amenity, access, safety, transport, services, wellbeing, environment, housing, affordability)
• Highlighters/colour pencils for coding perspectives vs liveability factors
• Exit ticket slips or an online form (teacher choice)
• Projector/board for modelling sentence frames

Assessment

• Teacher observation during Perspective Table completion: are students identifying perspectives and recording evidence?
• Discussion monitoring: do students use geographical terminology accurately and reference specific evidence statements?
• Exit ticket: checks understanding of perspectives, evidence, and at least one liveability factor linked to human wellbeing.

Differentiation

• Provide sentence starters and a completed example for students needing support (e.g. “For council, liveability means… Evidence: …”).
• Offer an alternate recording format: students can create a “podcast script” or short dialogue version of the Perspective Table for students with writing difficulties.
• Allow EAL learners to use key vocabulary from the word bank and include a visual code (colour labels for groups and liveability factors).
• Extend advanced learners by requiring a “counter-perspective” in the mini-synthesis: explain what evidence might change the viewpoint and propose one realistic improvement that balances competing needs.
• For students requiring challenge, ask them to connect perspectives to human wellbeing outcomes (e.g. stress, health access, social connection) using at least one additional term from the word bank.

Extension (optional)

• Create an “instant liveability rating” for each place using two criteria sets (e.g. “student wellbeing” vs “older adults’ wellbeing”), then justify why ratings differ and predict one policy/initiative that addresses safety and access together.