Spatial and socioeconomic inequities in liveability in Australia’s 21 largest cities: Does city size matter?

Saghapour, Tayebeh; Turrell, Gavin; Gunn, Lucy; Both, Alan; Lowe, Melanie; Rozek, Julianna; Roberts, Rebecca; Hooper, Paula; Butt, Andrew; Higgs, Carl

doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2022.102899

Cited by 13 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Given the small size of greater Adelaide (geographically and population density), we would have expected a more homogeneous distribution in the relative disadvantage within communities, or at least a less stark change between areas of the city in reasonable proximity. This level of disadvantage in an Australian capital city is confronting, but unfortunately not isolated (7). The analysis clearly indicates that the northern Adelaide region has a community with a high percentage of people living on constrained income namely the aged pension during retirement age, and unemployment benefits during working age; many are long term recipients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Profiling health and socioeconomic disadvantage in the northern Adelaide Local Health Network population

Shoubridge,

Maddison,

Lynch

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveWe describe aspects of social disadvantage in the northern Adelaide region, demonstrate how living with disadvantage impacts health outcomes to understand how the local health network can better serve this disadvantaged community.DesignUsing large scale, population-based data from the 2021 census we captured a snapshot of the disadvantage and health status of the community within the northern Adelaide region compared to the central and southern regions of Adelaide and other Australian capital cities.ResultsNorthern Adelaide is a region of greater relative disadvantage, as shown by both the low Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage score (993) compared to the national average (1000) and scores above the national average for the central and southern Adelaide regions. Social determinants that contribute to this relative disadvantage include the proportion of people with no or limited education (26%) and those living on constrained income sources (e.g. unemployment benefits / aged pension, 10% and 72%, respectively). The northern Adelaide region has higher burdens of long-term health conditions including but not limited to diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease and lung diseases. The comparatively high prevalence of obesity (37%) for people in the north of Adelaide were associated with low numbers of people with adequate fruit intake (48%) and the higher proportion of people who currently smoke (16%) and who undertake low or no levels of exercise (73%).ConclusionsSocial disadvantage in the northern Adelaide region is associated with poorer health outcomes and higher levels of health risk behaviour compared to the less disadvantaged central and southern regions of Adelaide. Adapting health care to recognise this association may help improve the health of people living with disadvantage.Summary boxThe known. The northern Adelaide region is a disadvantaged community.The new. Here we demonstrate the types and prevalence of social determinants of health and the health status of the northern Adelaide community compared to other regions of greater Adelaide and other greater Australian capital cities.The implications.This snapshot of the local social determinants of health sets a context for the health system to respond to the well-being needs of a community that are driven by some of the most adverse social determinants in Australia.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Profiling health and socioeconomic disadvantage in the northern Adelaide Local Health Network population

Shoubridge,

Maddison,

Lynch

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Residential distance to the CBD was operationalised as a continuous variable, with some neighbourhoods being very close to the CBD and others being very distant. We know from previous research that suburbs on the outskirts of Australia's capital cities are more likely to be sprawling, and to have a built form that is less residentially dense, with a poorly interconnected street network, and a less diverse land use mix [42]. These types of neighbourhoods are less walkable, they are often located a long way from employment and essential services, they require greater reliance on private motor vehicles, and are less conducive to the use of public transport and active travel (i.e., waking and cycling).…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

Neighbourhood socioeconomic disadvantage and body size in Australia’s capital cities: The contribution of obesogenic environments

2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Residents of socioeconomically disadvantaged neighbourhoods have higher rates of overweight and obesity and chronic disease than their counterparts from advantaged neighbourhoods. This study assessed whether associations between neighbourhood disadvantage and measured body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference, are accounted for by obesogenic environments (i.e., residential distance to the Central Business District [CBD], supermarket availability, access to walkable destinations). The study used 2017–18 National Health Survey data for working-aged adults (aged ≥18 years, n = 9,367) residing in 3,454 neighbourhoods across Australia’s state and territory capital cities. In five of eight cities (i.e., Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, and Perth) residents of disadvantaged neighbourhoods had significantly higher BMI and a larger waist circumference than residents of more advantaged areas. There was no association between neighbourhood disadvantage and body size in Hobart, Darwin, and Canberra. Associations between neighbourhood disadvantage and body size were partially explained by neighbourhood differences in distance to the CBD but not supermarket availability or walkable amenities. The results of this study point to the role of urban design and city planning as mechanisms for addressing social and economic inequities in Australia’s capital cities, and as solutions to this country’s overweight and obesity epidemic and associated rising rates of chronic disease.

show abstract

“…Nonetheless, as lockdowns were extended, the challenges of living, working, and studying in poorly designed housing, with insufficient or inflexible space, or in neighbourhoods that lacked key local infrastructure, such as green spaces or shops, increased social isolation and affected mental health 18 . This prompted an exodus to outer suburban and regional areas 26 , placing pressure on housing affordability and local infrastructure, and displacing lower income households, particularly in regional cities 28 . If unchecked post-pandemic, this trend could exacerbate the urban sprawl already rife across many cities 26 , and widen socioeconomic inequities 28 .…”

Section: The Impact Of the Covid-19 Pandemic On City Dwellersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This prompted an exodus to outer suburban and regional areas 26 , placing pressure on housing affordability and local infrastructure, and displacing lower income households, particularly in regional cities 28 . If unchecked post-pandemic, this trend could exacerbate the urban sprawl already rife across many cities 26 , and widen socioeconomic inequities 28 .…”

Section: The Impact Of the Covid-19 Pandemic On City Dwellersmentioning

confidence: 99%

What are the lessons from COVID-19 for creating healthy, sustainable, resilient future cities?

2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted lives and the economy, reminding the global community of the devastating health and economic impacts of uncontrolled infectious disease. It has affected how and where people live, work, shop, and play, and exposed our cities’ vulnerabilities, leading to calls for a health lens to be applied in designing, approving, and evaluating city plans. Socioeconomic, spatial and health inequities have been amplified, particularly for those living in inadequate or poorly designed housing, neighbourhoods, and cities. Hence, city mayors have committed to ‘build back better’ with all daily living amenities within a 15-min walking or cycling trip. Designed well, these cities have the potential to be healthier, more sustainable, equitable, and resilient. Yet their delivery requires a rethink of city planning. Drawing on lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic, we argue that to reduce the risk of future pandemics, we must mitigate climate change, limit urban expansion, and use nature-based solutions to protect natural habitats and biodiversity. We then explore how healthy, sustainable, and resilient 15-minute cities could be planned to reduce emissions and ensure our cities are more resilient in the event of future crises. Given that higher density housing underpins the success of 15-minute cities, we also examine how to create more resilient housing stock, through well-implemented health-supportive apartment design standards. Finally, we argue that to achieve all this, cross-sector leadership and investment will be vital.

show abstract

Spatial and socioeconomic inequities in liveability in Australia’s 21 largest cities: Does city size matter?

Cited by 13 publications

References 79 publications

Profiling health and socioeconomic disadvantage in the northern Adelaide Local Health Network population

Profiling health and socioeconomic disadvantage in the northern Adelaide Local Health Network population

Neighbourhood socioeconomic disadvantage and body size in Australia’s capital cities: The contribution of obesogenic environments

What are the lessons from COVID-19 for creating healthy, sustainable, resilient future cities?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About