An analysis of the legal framework influencing walking in Australia
Tracy Nau A B * , Adrian Bauman A B , William Bellew A B , Billie Giles-Corti B C and Ben Smith B DA
B
C
D
E
Abstract
Aim:Although walking is a priority in many strategic plans in Australian cities, there is limited understanding of the statutory components for delivering this. Confusion still exists despite substantial evidence about the built environment elements that promote walking and the availability of tools to assess walkability outcomes. This paper examines the characteristics and components of the legal framework that influence the walkability of built environments in Australian states and territories. Methods: We audited the form and nature of statutory components regulating the design of the built environment and used framework analysis to identify and compare the main statutory instrument/s that address walkability design considerations in each state and territory. Results: Lawmaking for planning may involve the state/territory parliament, executive, ministers, government departments and/or statutory authorities. The state/territory planning Act is the primary legislation that sets out the framework for the prevailing planning systems. Its relevance to walkability arises from its planning objectives, the legal effect it confers to statutory instruments that support the Act’s implementation, and any processes or mechanisms to promote high-quality design outcomes. Most states and territories have developed jurisdiction-wide statutory tools that contain relevant design considerations for walking. These instruments influence walkability through objectives set for planning zones and aspects of development, and through criteria established to achieve the goals. Many jurisdictions use a combination of outcome and rules-based standards to achieve desired design objectives. Conclusions: The variability in jurisdictional approaches poses challenges, and raises uncertainty, about the scope and strength of legal support for creating walkable environments at the national level. Future policy surveillance and epidemiological analysis are needed to refine the specifications of laws that influence walking in Australia.References
3 Australian Institute of Health Welfare. Physical activity across the life stages. Canberra: AIHW; 2018 Jul [cited 2021 Sep 15]. Available from: www.aihw.gov.au/reports/physical-activity/physical-activity-across-the-life-stages
5 Sport Australia. AusPlay results – national participation – top sports and activities in Australia. Melbourne: Sport Australia; 2015 [cited 2021 Sep 15]. Available from: www.clearinghouseforsport.gov.au/research/ausplay/results
6 Sport Australia. Walking (recreational) state of play report. Melbourne: Sport Australia; 2019 [cited 2021 Sep 15]. Available from: www.clearinghouseforsport.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/843066/State_of_Play_Report_-_Walking.pdf
10 World Health Organization. Global action plan on physical activity 2018–2030: more active people for a healthier world. Geneva: WHO; 2018 [cited 2021 Sep 15]. Available from: apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/272722
14 Arundel J, Lowe M, Hooper P, Roberts R, Rozek J, Higgs C, et al. Creating liveable cities in Australia. Mapping urban policy implementation and evidence-based national liveability indicators. RMIT University Centre for Urban Research; 2017 [cited 2019 Sep 15]. Available from: cur.org.au/project/national-liveability-report/
15 Morrison N, Barns S, Dunshea A, Paine G, Pry J, Sajan J, et al. Making healthy places: NSW built environment practitioners’ perspectives on place-making opportunities that help deliver health and wellbeing outcomes. Sydney: Maridulu Budyari Gumal; 2021 [cited 2021 Sep 15]. Available from: doi.org/10.52708/LCWA1416
17 World Health Organization. Time to deliver: report of the WHO Independent high-level commission on noncommunicable diseases. Geneva: WHO; 2018 [cited 2021 Sep 15]. Available from: apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/272710
18 Springer JF, Haas PJ, Porowski A. Applied policy research: concepts and cases. 2 ed. New York: Routledge; 2017. pp20–60. Crossref
19 National Heart Foundation of Australia. Healthy Active by Design. Victoria: Heart Foundation; 2022 [cited 2021 Sept 15]. Available from: www.healthyactivebydesign.com.au/
20 Srivastava A, Thomson S. Framework analysis: a qualitative methodology for applied policy research. Journal of Administration and Governance. 2009;4(2). Article
21 Alfonzo MA. To walk or not to walk? The hierarchy of walking needs. Environ Behav. 2005;37(6):808–36. Crossref
22 Forsyth A. What is a walkable place? The walkability debate in urban design. Urban Design International. 2015;20(4):274–92. Crossref
24 Institute for Transportation and Development Policy. Pedestrians first tools for a walkable city. New York: ITDP; 2020 [cited 2021 Feb 18]. Available from: pedestriansfirst.itdp.org
25 ACT Government. ACT planning system review and reform. Canberra: ACT Government; 2020 [cited 2021 Feb 18]. Available from: s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/hdp.au.prod.app.act-yoursay.files/8716/0644/3403/Planning_System_Review_overview.pdf
28 Australian Urban Observatory. Australian Urban Observatory – what we measure – walkability. Melbourne: Australian Urban Observatory; 2020 [cited 2021 Feb 18]. Available from: auo.org.au/portal/metadata/walkability/