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.

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.

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.

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.

High Life Study protocol: a cross-sectional investigation of the influence of apartment building design policy on resident health and well-being.

INTRODUCTION: The rapid increase in apartment construction in Australia has raised concerns about the impacts of poorly designed and located buildings on resident health and well-being. While apartment design policies exist, their content varies across jurisdictions and evidence on their impact on health and well-being is lacking. This cross-sectional observational study (2017-2021) aims to generate empirical evidence to guide policy decisions on apartment development and help to create healthy, equitable higher-density communities. Objectives include to benchmark the implementation of health-promoting apartment design requirements and to identify associations between requirements and resident health and well-being outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Eligible buildings in three Australian cities with different apartment design guidelines will be stratified by area disadvantage and randomly selected (~n=99). Building architects, developers and local governments will be approached to provide endorsed development plans from which apartment and building design features will be extracted. Additional data collection includes a resident survey (~n=1000) to assess environmental stressors and health and well-being impacts and outcomes, and geographic information systems measures of the neighbourhood. The study has 85% power to detect a difference of 0.5 SD in the primary outcome of mental well-being (Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale) at a 5% level of significance. Analyses will compare policy compliance and health-promoting design features between cities and area disadvantage groups. Regression models will test whether higher policy compliance (overall and by design theme) is associated with better health and well-being, and the relative contribution of the neighbourhood context. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Human Research Ethics Committees of RMIT University (CHEAN B 21146-10/17) and the University of Western Australia (RA/4/1/8735) approved the study protocol. In addition to academic publications, the collaboration will develop specific health-promoting indicators to embed into the monitoring of apartment design policy implementation and impact, and co-design research dissemination materials to facilitate uptake by decision makers.