Search

Background Designing healthy, liveable cities is a global priority. Current liveability indices are aggregated at the city-level, do not reflect spatial variation within cities, and are often not aligned to policy or health. Objectives To combine policy-relevant liveability indicators associated with health into a spatial Urban Liveability Index (ULI) and examine its association with adult travel behaviours. Methods We developed methods to calculate spatial liveability indicators and the ULI for all residential addresses in Melbourne, Australia. Associations between the address-level ULI and adult travel behaviours from the 2012–2014 Victorian Integrated Survey of Travel and Activity (VISTA) (n = 12,323) were analysed using multilevel logistic regression. Sensitivity analyses to evaluate impact of methodological choices on distribution of liveability as assessed by the ULI and associations with travel mode choice were also conducted. Results Liveability estimates were calculated for 1,550,641 residential addresses. ULI scores were positively associated with active transport behaviour: for each unit increase in the ULI score the estimated adjusted odds ratio (OR) for: walking increased by 12% (95% Credible Interval: 9%, 15%); cycling increased by 10% (4%, 17%); public transport increased by 15% (11%, 19%); and private vehicle transport decreased by 12% (− 9%, − 15%). Conclusions The ULI provides an evidence-informed and policy-relevant measure of urban liveability, that is significantly and approximately linearly associated with adult travel behaviours in the Melbourne context. The ULI can be used to evaluate progress towards implementing policies designed to achieve more liveable cities, identify spatial inequities, and examine relationships with health and wellbeing. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12942-019-0178-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cities are widely recognised as important settings for promoting health. Nonetheless, making cities more liveable and supportive of health and wellbeing remains a challenge. Decision-makers’ capacity to use urban health evidence to create more liveable cities is fundamental to achieving these goals. This paper describes an international partnership designed to build capacity in using liveability indicators aligned with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and social determinants of health, in Bangkok, Thailand. The aim of this paper is to reflect on this partnership and outline factors critical to its success. Partners included the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, the UN Global Compact—Cities Programme, the Victorian Government Department of Health and Human Services, the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, and urban scholars based at an Australian university. Numerous critical success factors were identified, including having a bilingual liaison and champion, establishment of two active working groups in the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, and incorporating a six-month hand-over period. Other successful outcomes included contextualising liveability for diverse contexts, providing opportunities for reciprocal learning and knowledge exchange, and informing a major Bangkok strategic urban planning initiative. Future partnerships should consider the strategies identified here to maximise the success and longevity of capacity-building partnerships.

Social infrastructure requires a consistent and measurable definition and more evidence is needed to demonstrate why it is important to health, wellbeing and the liveability of a community. In this paper, social infrastructure is defined as life-long social service needs related to health, education, early childhood, community support, community development, culture, sport and recreation, parks and emergency services. These services are needed to promote health and wellbeing and underinvestment and poor planning of social infrastructure has been linked to area-based health inequities. Current methods used to plan infrastructure delivery in communities were analysed and a new conceptual framework of social infrastructure developed and empirically tested using geocoded health survey data linked to spatial social infrastructure measures. Both accessibility and mix of social infrastructure were associated with higher Subjective Wellbeing. Residents were most likely to have close access to childcare services, dentists, doctors and sport facilities and least likely to have access to services of culture and leisure including cinemas, theatres, libraries, museums and art galleries. Results provide evidence of direct associations between social infrastructure planning and public health, the need for alternative social infrastructure urban planning methods and policies, and areas for future research.

Background Creating ‘liveable’ cities has become a priority for various sectors, including those tasked with improving population health and reducing inequities. Two-thirds of the world’s population will live in cities by 2050, with the most rapid urbanisation in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). However, there is limited guidance about what constitutes a liveable city from a LMIC perspective, with most of the evidence relating to high-income countries, such as Australia. Existing liveability frameworks include features such as public transport, affordable housing, and public open space; however, these frameworks may not capture all of the liveability considerations for cities in LMIC contexts. Objectives This case study formed a multi-sectoral partnership between academics, policymakers (Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, Victorian (Australia) Department of Health and Human Services), and a non-government organisation (UN Global Compact – Cities Programme). This study aimed to: 1) conceptualise and prioritise components of urban liveability within the Bangkok, Thailand context; 2) identify alignment to or divergence from other existing liveability tools; and 3) identify potential indicators and data sources for use within a Pilot Bangkok Liveability Framework. Methods The Urban Liveability Workshop involving technical leaders from the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration and a rapid review of liveability literature informed the conceptualisation of liveability for Bangkok. The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration Working Group and key informants in Bangkok provided input into the liveability framework. Indicators identified for Bangkok were mapped onto existing liveability tools, including the UN Global Compact CityScan. Results Findings revealed commonalities with the Australian liveability definition, as well as new potential indicators for Bangkok. The resulting Pilot Bangkok Liveability Framework provides a structure for measuring liveability in Bangkok that can be implemented by the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration immediately, pending appropriate data acquisition and licensing. The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration Working Group and key informants identified core issues for implementation, including limited spatial data available at the district-level or lower. Conclusions This study conceptualised urban liveability for Bangkok, a city in a LMIC context, with potential for adjustment to other cities. Future work should leverage opportunities for using open source data, building local capacity in spatial data expertise, and knowledge sharing between cities. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12992-019-0484-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction Planning policies support the development of healthy, liveable cities. Yet, recent research suggests they may not offer enough detail to provide on-the-ground delivery of social and transport infrastructure that supports and impacts healthy, active behaviours and the subjective wellbeing of residents in new developments and growth areas. Methods Three analyses were conducted. First, planning policies were reviewed using a content analysis to identify environmental features known to support healthy and active behaviours. Then, for two growth area estates located in Melbourne, Australia (Allura and Selandra Rise), the on-the-ground delivery of these planning policies were evaluated using spatial data of key destinations (e.g., shops, schools, and transport) and geographic information systems analysis. Finally, the health and subjective wellbeing of adult residents from these two estates combined (n = 352) was assessed using survey methodology. This included asking residents about the importance and satisfaction with access to transport and key destinations. Results We found that many built environment features were mentioned in the policy documents; however policy standards for dwelling density remain low at 15 dph and distances for accessing activity centres too long at 1 km to adequately support the walkability of new growth areas. We found generally, that average distances to key destinations were longer and more variable in growth areas in comparison to inner city areas and Greater Melbourne overall. For residents, satisfaction with access to destinations differed between the two case study areas. Residents in Allura, where destination and transport access was generally poorer were less satisfied, whilst those in the more walkable and established Selandra Rise area were more satisfied. Conclusions Although planning policies support the development of active transport and healthy, liveable cities they are insufficient for influencing healthy behaviours when not well implemented. Early delivery of social and transport infrastructure and services must occur early in the development cycle of new growth areas to support healthier and more sustainable behaviours.

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.

Adequate and affordable housing is a major social determinant of health; yet no work has attempted to conceptually map and spatially test area-level measures of housing with selected health and wellbeing outcomes. Sourcing data from 7,753 adults from Melbourne, Australia, we tested associations between area-level measures of housing density, tenure, and affordability with individual-level measures of neighbourhood safety, community satisfaction, and self-rated health. Compared with the reference groups, the odds of: feeling unsafe was higher for residents living in areas with less affordable housing; community dissatisfaction was ~30% higher in those living in areas with >36% residential properties assigned as rentals, and was significantly higher in the least affordable areas (OR =1.57). Compared with the reference groups, as dwelling density, proportion of rental properties, and housing unaffordability increased, the odds of reporting poorer self-rated health increased; however these associations did not always reach statistical significance. This work highlights the benefits of evidenced-based planning spatial measures to support health and wellbeing.