Menzies Centre for Health Policy, School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, Level 6 The Hub, Charles Perkins Centre D17.
Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Architecture, Design and Planning, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Health Promot Int. 2020 Aug 1;35(4):649-660. doi: 10.1093/heapro/daz056.
Rapid urbanization requires health promotion practitioners to understand and engage with strategic city planning. This policy analysis research investigated how and why health was taken up into strategic land use planning in Sydney, Australia, between 2013 and 2018. This qualitative study develops two case studies of consecutive instances of strategic planning in Sydney. Data collection was done via in-depth stakeholder interviews (n = 11) and documentary analysis. Data collection and analysis revolved around core categories underpinning policy institutions (actors, structures, ideas, governance and power) to develop an explanatory narrative of the progress of 'health' in policy discourse over the study period. The two strategic planning efforts shifted in policy discourse. In the earlier plan, 'healthy built environments' was positioned as a strategic direction, but without a mandate for action the emphasis was lost in an economic growth agenda. The second effort shifted that agenda to ecological sustainability, a core aspect of which was 'Liveability', having greater potential for health promotion. However, 'health' remained underdeveloped as a core driver for city planning remaining without an institutional mandate. Instead, infrastructure coordination was the defining strategic city problem and this paradigm defaulted to emphasizing 'health precincts' rather than positioning health as core for the city. This research demonstrates the utility in institutional analysis to understanding positioning health promotion in city planning. Despite potential shifts in policy discourse and a more sophisticated approach to planning holistically, the challenge remains of embedding health within the institutional mandates driving city planning.
快速城市化要求健康促进从业者了解并参与战略城市规划。本政策分析研究调查了澳大利亚悉尼市在 2013 年至 2018 年期间,如何以及为何将健康纳入战略土地利用规划。这项定性研究开发了悉尼市两个连续战略规划实例的两个案例研究。通过深入的利益相关者访谈(n=11)和文献分析进行了数据收集。数据收集和分析围绕着政策机构的核心类别(行为者、结构、理念、治理和权力)展开,以在研究期间的政策话语中发展“健康”的解释性叙述。这两项战略规划工作在政策话语中发生了转变。在早期的规划中,“健康的建筑环境”被定位为一个战略方向,但由于没有行动授权,重点在经济增长议程中失去了。第二项努力将该议程转移到生态可持续性上,其中核心方面是“宜居性”,这对促进健康有更大的潜力。然而,“健康”仍然没有作为城市规划的核心驱动力得到充分发展,仍然没有机构授权。相反,基础设施协调是定义战略城市问题的关键,这种模式默认强调“健康区”,而不是将健康定位为城市的核心。这项研究表明,制度分析在理解将健康促进纳入城市规划方面的实用性。尽管政策话语可能发生转变,并且更全面地采用综合规划方法,但仍面临将健康纳入推动城市规划的机构授权的挑战。