Australia in 2030: what is our path to health for all?

CHAPTER 1: HOW AUSTRALIA IMPROVED HEALTH EQUITY THROUGH ACTION ON THE SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH: Do not think that the social determinants of health equity are old hat. In reality, Australia is very far away from addressing the societal level drivers of health inequity. There is little progressive policy that touches on the conditions of daily life that matter for health, and action to redress inequities in power, money and resources is almost non-existent. In this chapter we ask you to pause this reality and come on a fantastic journey where we envisage how COVID-19 was a great disruptor and accelerator of positive progressive action. We offer glimmers of what life could be like if there was committed and real policy action on the social determinants of health equity. It is vital that the health sector assists in convening the multisectoral stakeholders necessary to turn this fantasy into reality. CHAPTER 2: ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER CONNECTION TO CULTURE: BUILDING STRONGER INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE WELLBEING: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have long maintained that culture (ie, practising, maintaining and reclaiming it) is vital to good health and wellbeing. However, this knowledge and understanding has been dismissed or described as anecdotal or intangible by Western research methods and science. As a result, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture is a poorly acknowledged determinant of health and wellbeing, despite its significant role in shaping individuals, communities and societies. By extension, the cultural determinants of health have been poorly defined until recently. However, an increasing amount of scientific evidence supports what Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have always said - that strong culture plays a significant and positive role in improved health and wellbeing. Owing to known gaps in knowledge, we aim to define the cultural determinants of health and describe their relationship with the social determinants of health, to provide a full understanding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander wellbeing. We provide examples of evidence on cultural determinants of health and links to improved Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and wellbeing. We also discuss future research directions that will enable a deeper understanding of the cultural determinants of health for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. CHAPTER 3: PHYSICAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH: HEALTHY, LIVEABLE AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES: Good city planning is essential for protecting and improving human and planetary health. Until recently, however, collaboration between city planners and the public health sector has languished. We review the evidence on the health benefits of good city planning and propose an agenda for public health advocacy relating to health-promoting city planning for all by 2030. Over the next 10 years, there is an urgent need for public health leaders to collaborate with city planners - to advocate for evidence-informed policy, and to evaluate the health effects of city planning efforts. Importantly, we need integrated planning across and between all levels of government and sectors, to create healthy, liveable and sustainable cities for all. CHAPTER 4: HEALTH PROMOTION IN THE ANTHROPOCENE: THE ECOLOGICAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH: Human health is inextricably linked to the health of the natural environment. In this chapter, we focus on ecological determinants of health, including the urgent and critical threats to the natural environment, and opportunities for health promotion arising from the human health co-benefits of actions to protect the health of the planet. We characterise ecological determinants in the Anthropocene and provide a sobering snapshot of planetary health science, particularly the momentous climate change health impacts in Australia. We highlight Australia's position as a major fossil fuel producer and exporter, and a country lacking cohesive and timely emissions reduction policy. We offer a roadmap for action, with four priority directions, and point to a scaffold of guiding approaches - planetary health, Indigenous people's knowledge systems, ecological economics, health co-benefits and climate-resilient development. Our situation requires a paradigm shift, and this demands a recalibration of health promotion education, research and practice in Australia over the coming decade. CHAPTER 5: DISRUPTING THE COMMERCIAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH: Our vision for 2030 is an Australian economy that promotes optimal human and planetary health for current and future generations. To achieve this, current patterns of corporate practice and consumption of harmful commodities and services need to change. In this chapter, we suggest ways forward for Australia, focusing on pragmatic actions that can be taken now to redress the power imbalances between corporations and Australian governments and citizens. We begin by exploring how the terms of health policy making must change to protect it from conflicted commercial interests. We also examine how marketing unhealthy products and services can be more effectively regulated, and how healthier business practices can be incentivised. Finally, we make recommendations on how various public health stakeholders can hold corporations to account, to ensure that people come before profits in a healthy and prosperous future Australia. CHAPTER 6: DIGITAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH: THE DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION: We live in an age of rapid and exponential technological change. Extraordinary digital advancements and the fusion of technologies, such as artificial intelligence, robotics, the Internet of Things and quantum computing constitute what is often referred to as the digital revolution or the Fourth Industrial Revolution (Industry 4.0). Reflections on the future of public health and health promotion require thorough consideration of the role of digital technologies and the systems they influence. Just how the digital revolution will unfold is unknown, but it is clear that advancements and integrations of technologies will fundamentally influence our health and wellbeing in the future. The public health response must be proactive, involving many stakeholders, and thoughtfully considered to ensure equitable and ethical applications and use. CHAPTER 7: GOVERNANCE FOR HEALTH AND EQUITY: A VISION FOR OUR FUTURE: Coronavirus disease 2019 has caused many people and communities to take stock on Australia's direction in relation to health, community, jobs, environmental sustainability, income and wealth. A desire for change is in the air. This chapter imagines how changes in the way we govern our lives and what we value as a society could solve many of the issues Australia is facing - most pressingly, the climate crisis and growing economic and health inequities. We present an imagined future for 2030 where governance structures are designed to ensure transparent and fair behaviour from those in power and to increase the involvement of citizens in these decisions, including a constitutional voice for Indigenous peoples. We imagine that these changes were made by measuring social progress in new ways, ensuring taxation for public good, enshrining human rights (including to health) in legislation, and protecting and encouraging an independent media. Measures to overcome the climate crisis were adopted and democratic processes introduced in the provision of housing, education and community development.

City planning and population health: a global challenge.

Significant global health challenges are being confronted in the 21st century, prompting calls to rethink approaches to disease prevention. A key part of the solution is city planning that reduces non-communicable diseases and road trauma while also managing rapid urbanisation. This Series of papers considers the health impacts of city planning through transport mode choices. In this, the first paper, we identify eight integrated regional and local interventions that, when combined, encourage walking, cycling, and public transport use, while reducing private motor vehicle use. These interventions are destination accessibility, equitable distribution of employment across cities, managing demand by reducing the availability and increasing the cost of parking, designing pedestrian-friendly and cycling-friendly movement networks, achieving optimum levels of residential density, reducing distance to public transport, and enhancing the desirability of active travel modes (eg, creating safe attractive neighbourhoods and safe, affordable, and convenient public transport). Together, these interventions will create healthier and more sustainable compact cities that reduce the environmental, social, and behavioural risk factors that affect lifestyle choices, levels of traffic, environmental pollution, noise, and crime. The health sector, including health ministers, must lead in advocating for integrated multisector city planning that prioritises health, sustainability, and liveability outcomes, particularly in rapidly changing low-income and middle-income countries. We recommend establishing a set of indicators to benchmark and monitor progress towards achievement of more compact cities that promote health and reduce health inequities.

Urban design and health: progress to date and future challenges.

Over the last 15 years, a growing body of Australian and international evidence has demonstrated that urban design attributes are associated with a range of health outcomes. For example, the location of employment, shops and services, provision of public and active transport infrastructure and access to open space and recreational opportunities are associated with chronic disease risk factors such as physical activity levels, access to healthy food, social connectedness, and air quality. Despite the growing knowledge base, this evidence is not being consistently translated into urban planning policy and practice in Australia. Low-density neighbourhoods with poor access to public transport, shops and services continue to be developed at a rapid rate in the sprawling outer suburbs of Australian cities. This paper provides an overview of the evidence of the association between the built environment and chronic diseases, highlighting progress and future challenges for health promotion. It argues that health promotion practitioners and researchers need to more closely engage with urban planning practitioners, policymakers and researchers to encourage the creation of healthy urban environments through integrated transport, land use and infrastructure planning. There is also a need for innovative research to evaluate the effectiveness of policy options. This would help evidence to be more effectively translated into policy and practice, making Australia a leader in planning healthy communities.

Engaging under-represented oldest old in research: An approach for inclusive recruitment.

INTRODUCTION: Those aged 80 years and over are the fastest-growing sector of the Australian population but are often excluded from research. Oldest old people living alone, in disadvantaged neighbourhoods, and with ill health or dementia, face additional barriers that may hinder their participation in research. METHODS: This paper contributes timely critical commentary on methodological and ethical approaches to engaging under-represented people in research. We draw on our experiences and reflections from a study of social exclusion of people aged 80 years and older living alone in government housing in Melbourne, Australia. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We suggest key factors to facilitate representation of this population group in future research. These factors include using doorknocking to gain access, cultivating trust with participants and gatekeepers, and conducting face-to-face home interviews. We also interrogate ethical and safety issues for researchers and oldest old participants including the potential for informed consent protocols to exclude this population group. CONCLUSION: To avoid unintentionally excluding the oldest old, researchers need to consider older persons' self-determination and advocate for methods that ensure oldest old perspectives inform future healthy ageing planning and reduce possible health and well-being inequities.

What are the lessons from COVID-19 for creating healthy, sustainable, resilient future cities?

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted lives and the economy, reminding the global community of the devastating health and economic impacts of uncontrolled infectious disease. It has affected how and where people live, work, shop, and play, and exposed our cities' vulnerabilities, leading to calls for a health lens to be applied in designing, approving, and evaluating city plans. Socioeconomic, spatial and health inequities have been amplified, particularly for those living in inadequate or poorly designed housing, neighbourhoods, and cities. Hence, city mayors have committed to 'build back better' with all daily living amenities within a 15-min walking or cycling trip. Designed well, these cities have the potential to be healthier, more sustainable, equitable, and resilient. Yet their delivery requires a rethink of city planning. Drawing on lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic, we argue that to reduce the risk of future pandemics, we must mitigate climate change, limit urban expansion, and use nature-based solutions to protect natural habitats and biodiversity. We then explore how healthy, sustainable, and resilient 15-minute cities could be planned to reduce emissions and ensure our cities are more resilient in the event of future crises. Given that higher density housing underpins the success of 15-minute cities, we also examine how to create more resilient housing stock, through well-implemented health-supportive apartment design standards. Finally, we argue that to achieve all this, cross-sector leadership and investment will be vital.

Policy relevant health related liveability indicator datasets for addresses in Australia's 21 largest cities.

Measuring and monitoring the spatial distribution of liveability is crucial to ensure that implemented urban and transport planning decisions support health and wellbeing. Spatial liveability indicators can be used to ensure these decisions are effective, equitable and tracked across time. The 2018 Australian National Liveability Study datasets comprise a suite of policy-relevant health-related spatial indicators of local neighbourhood liveability and amenity access estimated for residential address points and administrative areas across Australia's 21 most populous cities. The indicators and measures encompass access to community and health services, social infrastructure, employment, food, housing, public open space, transportation, walkability and overall liveability. This national 'baseline' liveability indicators dataset for residential address points and areas can be further linked with surveys containing geocoded participant locations, as well as Census data for areas from the Australian Statistical Geography Standard. The datasets will be of interest to planners, policy makers and researchers interested in modelling and mapping the spatial distribution of urban environmental exposures and their relationship with health and other outcomes.

"I'm definitely not socially excluded!"- Perceptions of social exclusion among Australian government housing residents aged 80 and older who live alone.

The oldest old - those aged 80 years and over - are the fastest growing sector of the Australian population and are generally assumed to be at risk of social exclusion which impedes healthy aging. The voices of those thought to be vulnerable to social exclusion are seldom heard. Informed by a critical gerontology framework, socio-ecological model of health and life-course perspectives, this research involved semi-structured in-depth interviews with a purposive sample of 13 people aged 80 and older living alone in government housing, in a socio-economically disadvantaged neighborhood in Melbourne, Australia. Interview transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. The findings reveal a positive picture of survival despite hardship, supportive relationships, a sense of autonomy from living independently, and contributing to society. These findings challenge ageist assumptions, which equate advanced age with social exclusion.

Spatial and socioeconomic inequities in liveability in Australia's 21 largest cities: Does city size matter?

Spatial and area-level socioeconomic variation in urban liveability (access to social infrastructure, public transport, open space, healthy food choices, local employment, street connectivity, dwelling density, and housing affordability) was examined and mapped across 39,967 residential statistical areas in Australia's metropolitan (n = 7) and largest regional cities (n = 14). Urban liveability varied spatially, with inner-city areas more liveable than outer suburbs. Disadvantaged areas in larger metropolitan cities were less liveable than advantaged areas, but this pattern was reversed in smaller cities. Local data could inform policies to redress inequities, including those designed to avoid disadvantage being suburbanised as cities grow and gentrify.

What next? Expanding our view of city planning and global health, and implementing and monitoring evidence-informed policy.

This Series on urban design, transport, and health aimed to facilitate development of a global system of health-related policy and spatial indicators to assess achievements and deficiencies in urban and transport policies and features. This final paper in the Series summarises key findings, considers what to do next, and outlines urgent key actions. Our study of 25 cities in 19 countries found that, despite many well intentioned policies, few cities had measurable standards and policy targets to achieve healthy and sustainable cities. Available standards and targets were often insufficient to promote health and wellbeing, and health-supportive urban design and transport features were often inadequate or inequitably distributed. City planning decisions affect human and planetary health and amplify city vulnerabilities, as the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted. Hence, we offer an expanded framework of pathways through which city planning affects health, incorporating 11 integrated urban system policies and 11 integrated urban and transport interventions addressing current and emerging issues. Our call to action recommends widespread uptake and further development of our methods and open-source tools to create upstream policy and spatial indicators to benchmark and track progress; unmask spatial inequities; inform interventions and investments; and accelerate transitions to net zero, healthy, and sustainable cities.

Determining thresholds for spatial urban design and transport features that support walking to create healthy and sustainable cities: findings from the IPEN Adult study.

An essential characteristic of a healthy and sustainable city is a physically active population. Effective policies for healthy and sustainable cities require evidence-informed quantitative targets. We aimed to identify the minimum thresholds for urban design and transport features associated with two physical activity criteria: at least 80% probability of engaging in any walking for transport and WHO's target of at least 15% relative reduction in insufficient physical activity through walking. The International Physical Activity and the Environment Network Adult (known as IPEN) study (N=11 615; 14 cities across ten countries) provided data on local urban design and transport features linked to walking. Associations of these features with the probability of engaging in any walking for transport and sufficient physical activity (≥150 min/week) by walking were estimated, and thresholds associated with the physical activity criteria were determined. Curvilinear associations of population, street intersection, and public transport densities with walking were found. Neighbourhoods exceeding around 5700 people per km2, 100 intersections per km2, and 25 public transport stops per km2 were associated with meeting one or both physical activity criteria. Shorter distances to the nearest park were associated with more physical activity. We use the results to suggest specific target values for each feature as benchmarks for progression towards creating healthy and sustainable cities.

City planning policies to support health and sustainability: an international comparison of policy indicators for 25 cities.

City planning policies influence urban lifestyles, health, and sustainability. We assessed policy frameworks for city planning for 25 cities across 19 lower-middle-income countries, upper-middle-income countries, and high-income countries to identify whether these policies supported the creation of healthy and sustainable cities. We systematically collected policy data for evidence-informed indicators related to integrated city planning, air pollution, destination accessibility, distribution of employment, demand management, design, density, distance to public transport, and transport infrastructure investment. Content analysis identified strengths, limitations, and gaps in policies, allowing us to draw comparisons between cities. We found that despite common policy rhetoric endorsing healthy and sustainable cities, there was a paucity of measurable policy targets in place to achieve these aspirations. Some policies were inconsistent with public health evidence, which sets up barriers to achieving healthy and sustainable urban environments. There is an urgent need to build capacity for health-enhancing city planning policy and governance, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries.

Using open data and open-source software to develop spatial indicators of urban design and transport features for achieving healthy and sustainable cities.

Benchmarking and monitoring of urban design and transport features is crucial to achieving local and international health and sustainability goals. However, most urban indicator frameworks use coarse spatial scales that either only allow between-city comparisons, or require expensive, technical, local spatial analyses for within-city comparisons. This study developed a reusable, open-source urban indicator computational framework using open data to enable consistent local and global comparative analyses. We show this framework by calculating spatial indicators-for 25 diverse cities in 19 countries-of urban design and transport features that support health and sustainability. We link these indicators to cities' policy contexts, and identify populations living above and below critical thresholds for physical activity through walking. Efforts to broaden participation in crowdsourcing data and to calculate globally consistent indicators are essential for planning evidence-informed urban interventions, monitoring policy effects, and learning lessons from peer cities to achieve health, equity, and sustainability goals.

Achieving the SDGs: Evaluating indicators to be used to benchmark and monitor progress towards creating healthy and sustainable cities.

In 2016, the World Health Organization declared that 'Health is one of the most effective markers of any city's successful sustainable development' (World Health Organisation, 2016). With estimates that around 6.7 billion people will live in cities by 2050, 21st century city planning decisions will play a critical role in achieving the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). They will determine the city structure and access to health-enhancing (or health-damaging) urban environments, and ultimately lifestyle choices that impact both individual and planetary health. Benchmarking, monitoring and evaluating city planning policies and interventions is therefore critical to optimise urban outcomes. In 2017, the UN adopted a global SDG indicator framework, calling for complementary national and regional indicators to be collected by member countries. UN Habitat has also developed an indicator action framework specifically for cities. This paper examined the extent to which the UN indicators will help cities evaluate their efforts to deliver sustainability and health outcomes. It identified inconsistencies between the two UN indicator frameworks. Many of the SDG indicators assess outcomes, rather than the comprehensive and integrated 'upstream' policies and interventions required to deliver outcomes on-the-ground. Conversely, the UN Habitat framework incorporates intervention indicators, but excludes health outcome indicators. A more comprehensive approach to benchmarking, monitoring and evaluating policies designed to achieve healthy and sustainable cities and assessing spatial inequities is proposed.

Liveability aspirations and realities: Implementation of urban policies designed to create healthy cities in Australia.

Creating healthy, liveable cities is a common policy aspiration globally. However, little research has explored the capacity of urban policies to deliver this aspiration, or levels of policy implementation. This study aimed to develop policy-relevant indicators, to detect within- and between-city inequities in the implementation of Australian state government policy targets related to urban liveability. Seventy-three government policies were reviewed across Australia's four largest cities to identify measurable spatial policies that contribute to creating healthy, liveable neighbourhoods. Spatial indicators based on these policies were developed to assess and map levels of policy implementation at the metropolitan and sub-metropolitan level. Measurable spatial policies were identified for only three out of seven policy domains: walkability, transit access, and public open space. While there was significant variation between cities, policies were often inconsistent with evidence about how to achieve liveability. No Australian city performed well on all liveability domains. Even modest policy targets were often not achieved, and there were significant spatial inequities in policy implementation. With few exceptions, people living in outer suburbs had poorer access to amenities than inner-city residents. This study demonstrates the benefits and challenges of measuring urban policy implementation. Evidence-informed targets are needed in urban, transport and infrastructure policies designed to create healthy, liveable cities, to enable levels of (and inequities in) policy implementation to be assessed. Consistent standards for government spatial data would enable development of comparable indicators and cities to be directly compared.

Evidence-Informed Planning for Healthy Liveable Cities: How Can Policy Frameworks Be Used to Strengthen Research Translation?

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: A compelling body of research demonstrates associations between urban design and health, but this research is often not reflected in urban policies. This article reviews the literature on the science and practice of translating health research into urban policy and planning. Two Australian case studies demonstrate how policy frameworks can help guide evidence-based planning for healthy urban environments. RECENT FINDINGS: To influence city planning, health researchers need to undertake policy-relevant research and understand policymaking processes. Policy frameworks can assist researchers to tailor research evidence and research translation strategies to the political and policymaking context. Strong links between urban policymakers and health researchers can help bridge the knowledge-policy divide. Policy frameworks can help researchers to identify and capitalise on windows of opportunity for evidence-based policy change. Doing so increases the likelihood of public health evidence informing urban policies that will create healthy liveable cities.

Translating active living research into policy and practice: one important pathway to chronic disease prevention.

Global concerns about rising levels of chronic disease make timely translation of research into policy and practice a priority. There is a need to tackle common risk factors: tobacco use, unhealthy diets, physical inactivity, and harmful alcohol use. Using evidence to inform policy and practice is challenging, often hampered by a poor fit between academic research and the needs of policymakers and practitioners--notably for active living researchers whose objective is to increase population physical activity by changing the ways cities are designed and built. We propose 10 strategies that may facilitate translation of research into health-enhancing urban planning policy. Strategies include interdisciplinary research teams of policymakers and practitioners; undertaking explicitly policy-relevant research; adopting appropriate study designs and methodologies (evaluation of policy initiatives as 'natural experiments'); and adopting dissemination strategies that include knowledge brokers, advocates, and lobbyists. Conducting more policy-relevant research will require training for researchers as well as different rewards in academia.

Obesity and climate change mitigation in Australia: overview and analysis of policies with co-benefits.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of the shared structural causes of obesity and climate change, and analyse policies that could be implemented in Australia to both equitably reduce obesity rates and contribute to mitigating climate change. METHODS: Informed by the political economy of health theoretical framework, a review was conducted of the literature on the shared causes of, and solutions to, obesity and climate change. Policies with potential co-benefits for climate change and obesity were then analysed based upon their feasibility and capacity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and equitably reduce obesity rates in Australia. RESULTS: Policies with potential co-benefits fit within three broad categories: those to replace car use with low-emissions, active modes of transport; those to improve diets and reduce emissions from the food system; and macro-level economic policies to reduce the over-consumption of food and fossil fuel energy. CONCLUSION: Given the complex causes of both problems, it is argued that a full spectrum of complementary strategies across different sectors should be utilised. IMPLICATIONS: Such an approach would have significant public health, social and environmental benefits.