TY - JOUR
T1 - How well do Australian government urban planning policies respond to the social determinants of health and health equity?
AU - McGreevy, Michael
AU - Harris, Patrick
AU - Delaney-Crowe, Toni
AU - Fisher, Matt
AU - Sainsbury, Peter
AU - Riley, Emily
AU - Baum, Fran
PY - 2020/12
Y1 - 2020/12
N2 - There is now wide recognition and evidence that the built environment affects population health and health equity. This research provides a thematic analysis of 108 urban planning policy documents from Australian state, territory, and federal governments to address the question: How well do Australian government urban planning policies respond to the social determinants of health and health equity? Health and health equity were discussed explicitly in several policies, most often as a secondary or co-benefit to environmental, social, and economic concerns. The most significant themes in the documents associated with health were visions for urban development that is compact, mixed use, walkable and transit oriented. These attributes are summed up in the term’ liveable’. However, strategies to improve liveability were largely confined to areas targeted for residential infill and redevelopment, leaving car dependent and generally lower income, outer metropolitan areas potentially untouched. In addition, there were strategies that potentially conflicted with liveability, walkability, and transit orientation; the most notable being major road projects. This thematic analysis of Australian urban planning policies shows that some social determinants of health and health equity are being acted upon. However, policy conflicts and contradictions mean the policies are unlikely to deliver more healthy and equitable cities without further consideration of some of the structural issues likely to undermine healthy and equitable urban development.
AB - There is now wide recognition and evidence that the built environment affects population health and health equity. This research provides a thematic analysis of 108 urban planning policy documents from Australian state, territory, and federal governments to address the question: How well do Australian government urban planning policies respond to the social determinants of health and health equity? Health and health equity were discussed explicitly in several policies, most often as a secondary or co-benefit to environmental, social, and economic concerns. The most significant themes in the documents associated with health were visions for urban development that is compact, mixed use, walkable and transit oriented. These attributes are summed up in the term’ liveable’. However, strategies to improve liveability were largely confined to areas targeted for residential infill and redevelopment, leaving car dependent and generally lower income, outer metropolitan areas potentially untouched. In addition, there were strategies that potentially conflicted with liveability, walkability, and transit orientation; the most notable being major road projects. This thematic analysis of Australian urban planning policies shows that some social determinants of health and health equity are being acted upon. However, policy conflicts and contradictions mean the policies are unlikely to deliver more healthy and equitable cities without further consideration of some of the structural issues likely to undermine healthy and equitable urban development.
KW - Australia
KW - Government policy
KW - Housing
KW - Liveability
KW - Planning policy
KW - Social determinants of health
KW - Transport
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85091245888&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105053
DO - 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105053
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85091245888
VL - 99
JO - LAND USE POLICY
JF - LAND USE POLICY
SN - 0264-8377
M1 - 105053
ER -