Register      Login
Public Health Research and Practice Public Health Research and Practice Society
The peer-reviewed journal of the Sax Institute
RESEARCH ARTICLE (Open Access)

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 D
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A Prevention Research Collaboration, Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia

B The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, Sydney, NSW, Australia

C Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

D Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia

E School of Population and Global Health, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia

* Correspondence to: tracy.nau@sydney.edu.au

Public Health Research and Practice 33, e32122205 https://doi.org/10.17061/phrp32122205
Published: 13 March 2023

2023 © Nau et al. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence, which allows others to redistribute, adapt and share this work non-commercially provided they attribute the work and any adapted version of it is distributed under the same Creative Commons licence terms.

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

Guthold R, Stevens GA, Riley LM, Bull FC. Worldwide trends in insufficient physical activity from 2001 to 2016: a pooled analysis of 358 population-based surveys with 1.9 million participants. Lancet Glob Health. 2018;6(10):e1077–86. Crossref | PubMed

Chau J, Chey T, Burks-Young S, Engelen L, Bauman A. Trends in prevalence of leisure time physical activity and inactivity: results from Australian National Health Surveys 1989 to 2011. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2017;41(6):617–24. Crossref | PubMed

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

Cole R, Leslie E, Bauman A, Donald M, Owen N. Socio-demographic variations in walking for transport and for recreation or exercise among adult Australians. J Phys Act Health. 2006;3(2):164–78. Crossref | PubMed

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

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

Ogilvie D, Bull F, Powell J, Cooper AR, Brand C, Mutrie N, et al. An applied ecological framework for evaluating infrastructure to promote walking and cycling: the iConnect study. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(3):473–81. Crossref | PubMed

Foster C, Kelly P, Reid HAB, Roberts N, Murtagh EM, Humphreys DK, et al. What works to promote walking at the population level? A systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52(12):807–12. Crossref | PubMed

Sallis JF, Cerin E, Conway TL, Adams MA, Frank LD, Pratt M, et al. Physical activity in relation to urban environments in 14 cities worldwide: a cross-sectional study. Lancet. 2016;387(10034):2207–17. Crossref | PubMed

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

11  Nau T, Smith BJ, Bauman A, Bellew B. Legal strategies to improve physical activity in populations. Bull World Health Organ. 2021;99(8):593–602. Crossref | PubMed

12  Gostin LO, Monahan JT, Kaldor J, DeBartolo M, Friedman EA, Gottschalk K, et al. The legal determinants of health: harnessing the power of law for global health and sustainable development. Lancet. 2019;393(10183):1857–910. Crossref | PubMed

13  Nau T, Lee K, Smith BJ, Bellew W, Reece L, Gelius P, et al. Toward whole-of-system action to promote physical activity: a cross-sectoral analysis of physical activity policy in Australia. J Phys Act Health. 2019:1–10. Crossref | PubMed

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

16  Hooper P, Foster S, Giles-Corti B. A case study of a natural experiment bridging the ’research into policy’ and ’evidence-based policy’ gap for active-living science. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(14). Crossref | PubMed

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

23  Hooper P, Knuiman M, Foster S, Giles-CortiB. The building blocks of a ’liveable neighbourhood’: identifying the key performance indicators for walking of an operational planning policy in Perth, Western Australia. Health Place. 2015;36:173–83. Crossref | PubMed

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

26  Burris S, Hitchcock L, Ibrahim J, Penn M, Ramanathan T. Policy surveillance: a vital public health practice comes of age. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2016;41(6):1151–73. Crossref | PubMed

27  Burris S, Ashe M, Levin D, Penn M, Larkin M. A transdisciplinary approach to public health law: The emerging practice of legal epidemiology. Annu Rev Public Health. 2016;37:135–148. Crossref | PubMed

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/

29  Presley D, Reinstein T, Webb-Barr D, Burris S. Creating legal data for public health monitoring and evaluation: Delphi standards for policy surveillance. J Law Med Ethics. 2015;43(1_suppl):27–31. Crossref | PubMed

30  Harris PJ, Harris-Roxas BF, Harris E. An overview of the regulatory planning system in New South Wales: identifying points of intervention for health impact assessment and consideration of health impacts. N S W Public Health Bull. 2007;18(9–10):188–91. Crossref | PubMed

31  Shill J, Mavoa H, Crammond B, Loff B, Peeters A, Lawrence M, et al. Regulation to create environments conducive to physical activity: understanding the barriers and facilitators at the Australian state government level. PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e42831. Crossref | PubMed