Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evidence-Informed Planning for Healthy Liveable Cities: How Can Policy Frameworks Be Used to Strengthen Research Translation?

  • Built Environment and Health (MJ Nieuwenhuijsen and AJ de Nazelle, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Environmental Health Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of the Review

A compelling body of research demonstrates associations between urban design and health, but this research is often not reflected in urban policies. This article reviews the literature on the science and practice of translating health research into urban policy and planning. Two Australian case studies demonstrate how policy frameworks can help guide evidence-based planning for healthy urban environments.

Recent Findings

To influence city planning, health researchers need to undertake policy-relevant research and understand policymaking processes. Policy frameworks can assist researchers to tailor research evidence and research translation strategies to the political and policymaking context. Strong links between urban policymakers and health researchers can help bridge the knowledge-policy divide.

Summary

Policy frameworks can help researchers to identify and capitalise on windows of opportunity for evidence-based policy change. Doing so increases the likelihood of public health evidence informing urban policies that will create healthy liveable cities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. •• Giles-Corti B, Vernez Moudon A, Reis R, Turrell G, Dannenberg A, Badland H, et al. City planning and population health: a global challenge. Lancet. 2016;388(1062):2912–24 Comprehensively reviews the literature on the pathways through which urban policies impact health and advocates for use of evidence-based policy indicators.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Barton H, Thompson S, Burgess S, Grant M, editors. The Routledge handbook of planning for health and well-being: shaping a sustainable and healthy future. Oxon: Routledge; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Badland H, Whitzman C, Lowe M, Davern M, Aye L, Butterworth I, et al. Urban liveability: emerging lessons from Australia for exploring the potential for indicators to measure the social determinants of health. Soc Sci Med. 2014;111:64–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.04.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lowe M, Whitzman C, Badland H, Davern M, Hes D, Aye L, et al. Liveable, healthy, sustainable: what are the key indicators for Melbourne neighbourhoods? Melbourne: Place, Health and Liveability Research Program, The University of Melbourne; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  5. United Nations. Sustainable development goals. Goal 11: make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. 2016. http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/cities/. Accessed 23 May 2016.

  6. 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. Melbourne: Healthy Liveable Cities Group RMIT University; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  7. •• Sallis JF, Bull F, Burdett R, Frank LD, Griffiths P, Giles-Corti B, et al. Use of science to guide city planning policy and practice: how to achieve healthy and sustainable future cities. Lancet. 2016;388(10062):2936–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)30068-x Explores the ability of effective research translation to facilitate health-enhancing urban and transport policies, using literature review and multiple case studies.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Taylor EJ, Hurley J. “Not a lot of people read the stuff”: Australian urban research in planning practice. Urban Policy Res. 2015:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2014.994741.

  9. Krizek K, Forysth A, Slotterback CS. Is there a role for evidence-based practice in urban planning and policy? Plan Theory Pract. 2009;10(4):459–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Allender S, Cavill N, Parker M, Foster C. ‘Tell us something we don’t already know or do!’ - the response of planning and transport professionals to public health guidance on the built environment and physical activity. J Public Health Policy. 2009;30(1):102–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Troy P. Australian urban research and planning. Urban Policy Res. 2013;31(2):134–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2013.793260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. •• Pratt M, Salvo D, Cavill N, Giles-Corti B, McCue P, Reis RS, et al. An international perspective on the nexus of physical activity research and policy. Environ Behavior. 2016;48(1):37–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916515609668 Drawing on multiple streams theory and international case studies, it examines the complex interplay between research and policy designed to promote active living.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Zardo P, Collie A. Measuring use of research evidence in public health policy: a policy content analysis. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Petticrew M, Whitehead M, Macintyre SJ, Graham H, Egan M. Evidence for public health policy on inequalities: 1: the reality according to policymakers. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58(10):811–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2003.015289.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Smith KE, Joyce KE. Capturing complex realities: understanding efforts to achieve evidence-based policy and practice in public health. Evid Policy 2012;8(1):57–78.

  16. Giles-Corti B, Sallis J, Sugiyama T, Frank L, Lowe M, Owen N. Translating active living research into policy and practice: one important pathway to chronic disease prevention. J Public Health Policy. 2015;36:231–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. United Nations. World urbanization prospects: the 2018 revision. New York: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division; 2018.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. World Health Organization. UN habitat. Global report on urban health: equitable healthier cities for sustainable development. Italy: WHO; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Davoudi S. Evidence-based planning: rhetoric and reality. disP 2006;42(165):14–24. https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rdsp20/current

  21. Glasgow R, Green LW, Taylor M, Stange K. An evidence integration triangle for aligning science with policy and practice. Am J Prev Med. 2012;42(6):646–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Green LW, Ottoson J, Garcia C, Robert H. Diffusion theory and knowledge dissemination, utilization, and integration in public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2009;30:151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Cherney A, Head B, Boreham P, Povey J, Ferguson M. Research utilization in the social sciences. Sci Commun. 2013;35(6):780–809. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547013491398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Head BW. Reconsidering evidence-based policy: key issues and challenges. Polic Soc. 2010;29(2):77–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rychetnik L, Bauman A, Laws R, King L, Rissel C, Nutbeam D, et al. Translating research for evidence-based public health: key concepts and future directions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2011-200038.

  26. Tabak RG, Khoong EC, Chambers DA, Brownson RC. Bridging research and practice: models for dissemination and implementation research. Am J Prev Med. 2012;43(3):337–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.05.024.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Dobbins M, Hanna S, Ciliska D, Manske S, Cameron R, Mercer S et al. A randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of knowledge translation and exchange strategies. Implement Sci. 2009;4. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-61.

  28. Dobbins M, Robeson P, Ciliska D, Hanna S, Cameron R, O’Mara L, et al. A description of a knowledge broker role implemented as part of a randomized controlled trial evaluating three knowledge translation strategies. Implement Sci. 2009;4(23):1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Brownson RC, Royer C, Ewing R, McBride TD. Researchers and policymakers: travelers in parallel universes. Am J Prev Med. 2006;30(2):164–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2005.10.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Innvaer S, Vist G, Trommald M, Oxman A. Health policymakers’ perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002;7. https://doi.org/10.1258/135581902320432778.

  31. Mulley C, Reedy L, editors. Research into policy: improving the research evidence base for transport policy makers in NSW. Australasian Transport Research Forum (ATRF), 36th, Brisbane. Australia: Queensland; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Robbins PT, Wield D, Wilson G. Mapping engineering and development research excellence in the UK: an analysis of REF2014 impact case studies. J Int Dev. 2017;29(1):89–105. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Cherney A, Head B, Povey J, Boreham P, Ferguson M. The utilisation of social science research – the perspectives of academic researchers in Australia. J Sociol. 2015;51(2):252–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783313505008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Dobrow MJ, Goel V, Lemieux-Charles L, Black NA. The impact of context on evidence utilization: a framework for expert groups developing health policy recommendations. Soc Sci Med. 2006;63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.04.020.

  35. Jewell CJ, Bero LA. “Developing good taste in evidence”: facilitators of and hindrances to evidence-informed health policymaking in state government. Milbank Q. 2008;86(2):177–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2008.00519.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Campbell S. Green cities, growing cities, just cities?: urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development. J Am Plan Assoc. 1996;62(3):296–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369608975696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Legacy C, Curtis C, Neuman M. Adapting the deliberative democracy ‘template’ for planning practice. Town Plan Rev. 2014;85(3):319–40. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2014.20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. • McCosker A, Matan A, Marinova D. Policies, politics, and paradigms: Healthy planning in Australian local government. Sustainability. 2018;10(4):1008 A qualitative analysis of influences on development and implementation of healthy built environment policy, drawing on multiple streams theory.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Lowe M, Whitzman C, Giles-Corti B. Health-promoting spatial planning: approaches for strengthening urban policy integration. Plan Theory Pract. 2017:1–18.

  40. Gagnon F, Bellefleur O. Influencing public policies: two (very good) reasons to look toward scientific knowledge in public policy. Can J Public Health. 2015;106(1 Supplement 1):eS9–sS11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Walt G, Shiffman J, Schneider H, Murray S, Brugha R, Gilson L. ‘Doing’ health policy analysis: methodological and conceptual reflections and challenges. Health Policy Plan. 2008;23:308–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Walt G, Gilson L. Reforming the health sector in developing countries: the central role of policy analysis. Health Policy Plan. 1994;9(4):353–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. • Weible C, Sabatier PA, editors. Theories of the policy process. 4th ed. Boulder: Westview Press; 2017. The latest edition of this book includes updated chapters summarising recent research and concepts on key policy frameworks and theories, including multiple streams theory and the narrative policy framework.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Cairney P, Heikkila T. A comparison of theories of the policy process. In: Sabatier PA, Weible C, editors. Theories of the policy process. 3rd ed. Boulder: Westview Press; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  45. O’Donovan KT. Does the narrative policy framework apply to local policy issues? Polit Policy. 2018;46(4):532–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. • Shanahan E, Jones M, McBeth M, Radaelli C. The narrative policy framework. In: Weible C, Sabatier PA, editors. Theories of the policy process. 4th ed. Boulder: Westview Press; 2017. The narrative policy framework’s inclusion in the most recent editions of this popular book highlights the growing research interest in this policy theory. It summarises the latest thinking and research applications of this framework.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Kingdon J. Agendas, alternatives and public policies. 2nd ed. New York: Harper Collins; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Zahariadis N. Ambiguity and multiple streams. In: Sabatier PA, Weible C, editors. Theories of the policy process. 3rd ed. Boulder: Westview Press; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Hoeijmakers M, De Leeuw E, Kenis P, De Vries NK. Local health policy development processes in the Netherlands: an expanded toolbox for health promotion. Health Promot Int. 2007;22(2):112–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dam009.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Frost H, Geddes R, Haw S, Jackson CA, Jepson R, Mooney JD, et al. Experiences of knowledge brokering for evidence-informed public health policy and practice: three years of the Scottish Collaboration for Public Health Research and Policy. Evid Policy. 2012;8(3):347–59.

  51. Innvær S, Vist G, Trommald M, Oxman A. Health policy-makers’ perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002;7(4):239–44. https://doi.org/10.1258/135581902320432778.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Lavis JN, Permanand G, Oxman AD, Lewin S, Fretheim A. SUPPORT tools for evidence-informed health policymaking (STP) 13: preparing and using policy briefs to support evidence-informed policymaking. Health Res Policy Syst. 2009;7:1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-7-s1-s13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Orton L, Lloyd-Williams F, Taylor-Robinson D, O’Flaherty M, Capewell S. The use of research evidence in public health decision making processes: systematic review. PLoS One. 2011;6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0021704.

  54. Hess JJ, Eidson M, Tlumak JE, Raab KK, Luber G. An evidence-based public health approach to climate change adaptation. Environ Health Perspect. 2014;122(11):1177–86. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1307396.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Whitehead M, Petticrew M, Graham H, Macintyre SJ, Bambra C, Egan M. Evidence for public health policy on inequalities: 2: assembling the evidence jigsaw. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58(10):817–21. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2003.015297.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Lowe M, Whitzman C, Badland H, Davern M, Aye L, Hes D, et al. Planning healthy, liveable and sustainable cities: how can indicators inform policy? Urban Policy Res. 2015;33(2):131–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Flitcroft K, Gillespie J, Carter S, Salkeld G, Trevena L. Incorporating evidence and politics in health policy: can institutionalising evidence review make a difference? Evid Policy. 2014;10(3):439–55. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426514x672399.

  58. Giles-Corti B, Knuiman M, Timperio A, Van Niel K, Pikora TJ, Bull FC, et al. Evaluation of the implementation of a state government community design policy aimed at increasing local walking: design issues and baseline results from RESIDE, Perth Western Australia. Prev Med. 2008;46(1):46–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Frank LD, Mayaud J, Hong A, Fisher P, Kershaw S. Unmet demand for walkable transit-oriented neighborhoods in a midsized Canadian community: market and planning implications. J Plan Educ Res. 2019;online first. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x19831064.

  60. McBeth MK, Shanahan EA, Arnell RJ, Hathaway PL. The intersection of narrative policy analysis and policy change theory. Policy Stud J. 2007;35(1):87–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Shanahan EA, Jones MD, McBeth MK. Policy narratives and policy processes. Policy Stud J. 2011;39(3):535–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. McBeth M, Jones M, Shanahan E. The narrative policy framework. In: Sabatier PA, Weible C, editors. Theories of the policy process. 3rd ed. Boulder: Westview Press; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Freestone R, Wheeler A. Integrating health into town planning: a history. In: Barton H, Thompson S, Burgess S, Grant M, editors. The Routledge handbook of planning for health and well-being: shaping a sustainable and healthy future. Oxon: Routledge; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Department of Health and Human Services. Victorian public health and wellbeing plan 2015–2019. Melbourne: Department of Health and Human Services, Victorian Government2015.

  65. Victorian Government. Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008. Victorian Government: Melbourne; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Moreland City Council. Moreland municipal public health and wellbeing plan. Moreland: Moreland City Council; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Cardinia Shire Council. Cardinia Shire’s Liveability Plan. Pakenham: Cardinia Shire; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Interface Councils. Interface councils liveability snapshot. Melbourne: Interface councils; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Economist Intelligence Unit. Liveability ranking report. London: Economist Intelligence Unit; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Whitzman C, Ryan C. A vision for metropolitan Melbourne. In: Whitzman C, Gleeson B, Sheko A, editors. Melbourne: What next?, research monograph no. 1. Parkville: Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, The University of Melbourne; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Giles-Corti B, Mavoa S, Eagleson S, Davern M, Roberts R, Badland H. How walkable is Melbourne? The development of a transport walkability index for Metropolitan Melbourne. Melbourne: University of Melbourne; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Congress for the New Urbanism. The movement. Congress for the new urbanism. 2018. http://www.cnu.org/. Accessed 24 Sept 2018.

  73. Bull F, Hooper P, Foster S, Giles-Corti B. Living liveable. The impact of the Liveable Neighbourhoods Policy on the health and wellbeing of Perth residents. Perth, Western Australia. 2015.

  74. Hooper P, Giles-Corti B, Knuiman M. Evaluating the implementation and active living impacts of a state government planning policy designed to create walkable neighborhoods in Perth, Western Australia. Am J Health Promot. 2014;28(sp3):S5–S18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Hooper P, Knuiman M, Bull F, Jones E, Giles-Corti B. Are we developing walkable suburbs through urban planning policy? Identifying the mix of design requirements to optimise walking outcomes from the ‘Liveable Neighbourhoods’ planning policy in Perth, Western Australia. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015;12(1):63. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-015-0225-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. • Cairney P, Jones MD. Kingdon’s multiple streams approach: what is the empirical impact of this universal theory? Policy Stud J. 2016;44(1):37–58 In-depth analysis of the application and impact of Kingdon’s multiple streams theory in public policy research literature.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. United Nations. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 23 December 2016. United Nations: New Urban Agenda; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  78. LaRocca R, Yost J, Dobbins M, Ciliska D, Butt M. The effectiveness of knowledge translation strategies used in public health: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2012;12(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Armstrong R, Waters E, Dobbins M, Anderson L, Moore L, Petticrew M, et al. Knowledge translation strategies to improve the use of evidence in public health decision making in local government: intervention design and implementation plan. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Locked Bag 4115, Fitzroy, VIC, 3065, Australia

    Melanie Lowe

  2. Australian Urban Design Research Centre, School of Design, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia

    Paula Hooper

  3. Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

    Helen Jordan

  4. Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies, Potsdam, Germany

    Kathryn Bowen

  5. Healthy Liveable Cities Group, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

    Iain Butterworth & Billie Giles-Corti

Authors
  1. Melanie Lowe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paula Hooper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Helen Jordan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kathryn Bowen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Iain Butterworth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Billie Giles-Corti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melanie Lowe.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Melanie Lowe was supported by the NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Healthy Liveable Communities (#1061404). Paula Hooper is supported by a Healthway Research Fellowship (#32892) and by the NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Healthy Liveable Communities (#1061404). Helen Jordan and Iain Butterworth each declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Kathryn Bowen was supported by a NHMRC Translating Research into Practice Fellowship (#1110297). Billie Giles-Corti is supported by an NHMRC Senior Principal Research Fellowship (#1107672) and leads the NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Healthy Liveable Communities (#1061404).

Human and Animal Rights

All reported studies/experiments with human or animal subjects performed by the authors have been previously published and complied with all applicable ethical standards (including the Helsinki declaration and its amendments, institutional/national research committee standards, and international/national/institutional guidelines).

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Built Environment and Health

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lowe, M., Hooper, P., Jordan, H. et al. Evidence-Informed Planning for Healthy Liveable Cities: How Can Policy Frameworks Be Used to Strengthen Research Translation?. Curr Envir Health Rpt 6, 127–136 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-019-00236-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-019-00236-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation