Energy as a Social and Commercial Determinant of Health: A Qualitative Study of Australian Policy.

BACKGROUND: This paper considers energy as a social and commercial determinant of health. Stable access to clean and sustainable energy is integral for human wellbeing yet public health rarely considers its importance. METHODS: Using NVivo qualitative analysis software we analysed all Australian federal, state and territory strategic energy policies covering varying periods between 2016-2030. We defined strategic policy as including the goals, objectives and strategies of the department regarding a specific area of policy responsibility. This criterion excluded documents such as operational guidelines. 36 energy-related policies were analyzed. RESULTS: While the nature of energy supply is crucial to determining the impact of human and environmental health, our analysis showed that health and wellbeing are only rarely considered in policy. We developed a conceptual framework to guide our work linking energy policy with health. Australia's continued reliance on fossil fuels evident in the policies poses health risks, especially as climate change threatens physical and mental health. Yet health considerations were mainly absent from the policies. However, some jurisdictions (South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory [ACT]) had policies encouraging a fast move to renewables. Energy pricing was a key focus in each jurisdiction and had become highly politicalized in the past decade. Little attention was paid to equity considerations in the policies. CONCLUSION: Energy policy would be more health promoting if public health perspectives were considered during its development. On the basis of our policy analysis and literature review we conclude with recommendations for healthy energy policy.

Australian policies on water management and climate change: are they supporting the sustainable development goals and improved health and well-being?

BACKGROUND: Sustainable management of the natural environment is essential. Continued environmental degradation will lead to worsened health outcomes in countries and across generations. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide a framework for viewing the preservation of natural environments and the promotion of health, well-being and health equity as interconnected pursuits. Within the SDG framework the goals of promoting environmental sustainability and human health are unified through attention to the social determinants of health and health equity (SDH/HE). This paper presents findings from a document analysis of all Australian environment sector policies and selected legislation to examine whether and how current approaches support progress toward achieving SDG goals on water, climate change, and marine ecosystems (Goals 6, 13 and 14), and to consider implications for health and health equity. RESULTS: Consideration of a broad range of SDH/HE was evident in the analysed documents. Related collaborations between environment and health sectors were identified, but the bulk of proposed actions on SDH/HE were initiated by the environment sector as part of its core business. Strengths of Australian policy in regard to SDGs 6, 13 and 14 are reflected in recognition of the effects of climate change, a strong cohesive approach to marine park protection, and recognition of the need to protect existing water and sanitation systems from future threats. However, climate change strategies focus predominately on resilience, adaptation and heat related health effects, rather than on more comprehensive mitigation policies. The findings emphasise the importance of strengthened cross-sectoral action to address both the drivers and effects of environmental degradation. A lack of policy coherence between jurisdictions was also evident in several areas, compounded by inadequate national guidance, where vague strategies and non-specific devolution of responsibilities are likely to compromise coordination and accountability. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on planetary health recognises the interconnectedness of environmental and human health and, as such, suggests that ineffective management of climate change and water pose serious risks to both the natural environment and human well-being. To address these risks more effectively, and to achieve the SDGs, our findings indicate that cross-jurisdiction policy coherence and national coordination must be improved. In addition, more action to address global inequities is required, along with more comprehensive approaches to climate change mitigation.

Can health and health equity be advanced by urban planning strategies designed to advance global competitiveness? Lessons from two Australian case studies.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this article is to investigate whether the neo-liberal goal of global economic competitiveness when included alongside image-inspired social goals such as liveability and environmental goals such as sustainability can lead to policies that impact positively on health and health equity. The paper presents an analysis of the content and intent of strategic planning and transport plans from two Australian state governments. METHODS: The analysis was undertaken using a thematic document analysis of each plan and interviews with agents (n = 21) directly involved in the preparation of each document. FINDINGS: Key strategic documents formulated under a neo-liberal hegemony simultaneously provided and reduced opportunities to promote and advance health. The policies viewed goals like liveability and sustainability as means of enhancing their cities' image in global competition for exogenous capital flows. Although liveability has many definitions, one definition was able to be used in one jurisdiction as an avenue to include a broad array of social determinants of health into urban planning policy. However, a productivity or a narrowly focussed image narrative can undermine the social determinants of health credentials of liveability. Overemphasising immediate city problems like road congestion as mechanisms to enhance global competitiveness can undermine necessary long-term strategies for city planning that are known to improve liveability and human health. Even where liveability is at the fore, there is a high risk of exacerbating spatial inequities through liveability investments for competitive advantage because they tend to flow to parts of cities with the greatest connections to the global economy, not those with the greatest social need. CONCLUSIONS: A neo-liberal-inspired competitive city paradigm provides opportunities for the advancement of health in urban development. However, when driven by the goals of productivity and/or liveability as image enhancement it can potentially exacerbate health inequities.