Are Area-Level Measures of Employment Associated with Health Behaviours and Outcomes?
- 389 Downloads
Accessible employment suited to residents’ needs is an important equity issue and social determinant of health and wellbeing, and a balanced jobs-housing ratio within a region has the potential to provide health benefits. This paper aims to provide evidence on the associations between employment and health, and the potential pathways, as well as identifying spatial indicators that can be used to measure urban employment, a construct of liveability. We used 2011 census data to create and test two area-level spatial measures of urban employment with geo-coded population health behaviour and outcome data (2011 VicHealth survey) in 5206 employed adults living in urban Victoria, Australia. Those living in areas with higher levels of local employment had reduced odds of a longer commute (OR 0.87). The odds of a longer commute time was also greater for those who lived in an area where more people commuted to work by private vehicle (OR 1.20), and less for those who lived in local areas where more people travelled to work by public transport (OR 0.85) or active travel (OR 0.80). The odds of reporting longer sitting times was less for those who lived in a local area where more people commuted to work by private vehicle (OR 0.65). Those who had a longer commute times, regardless of travel mode, had greater odds of reporting more sitting during a typical weekday (OR 1.67). In turn, those who spent more time sitting had significantly greater odds of reporting poorer self-rated health (OR 1.34). Such work provides evidence to policy-makers to help build the argument for which area-level attributes are needed to support urban employment across a region.
KeywordsAdults Geographic information system Liveability Social determinants of health
This work was supported by the NHMRC Centre for Excellence in Healthy Liveable Communities (No. 1061404) and The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre (supported by NHMRC, ACT Health, NSW Health, the Australian National Preventive Health Agency (ANPHA), the Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia (HCF) and the HCF Research Foundation). BGC is supported by an NHMRC Principal Research Fellow Award (No. 1004900). All authors are in part, supported by VicHealth.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare they have no conflict of interest.
- Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2011a). Australian rural profile. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.Google Scholar
- Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2011b). Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS). Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.Google Scholar
- Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2011c). Census 2011. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.Google Scholar
- Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2013). Gender indicators, Australia: Underutilised labour. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.Google Scholar
- Colantonio, A., & Dixon, T. (2011). Urban regeneration and social sustainability. Best practice for European cities. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Department for Transport. (2013). National travel survey statistics. London: Department for Transport.Google Scholar
- Dodson, J., & Sipe, N. (2008). Unsettling suburbia: The new landscape of oil and mortgage vulnerability in Australian cities (Vol. 17). Nathan: Urban Research Program, Griffith University.Google Scholar
- Florida, R. (2011). The rise of the creative class: Revisited. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Frank, L. D., & Pivo, G. (1995). Impacts of mixed use and density on utilization of three modes of travel: Single-occupant vehicle, transit, and walking. Transportation Research Record, 1466, 44–52.Google Scholar
- Giles-Corti, B., Mavoa, S., Eagleson, S., Davern, M., Roberts, R., & Badland, H. (2014). How walkable is Melbourne? The development of a transport walkability index for metropolitan Melbourne. Melbourne: The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
- Lowe, M., Whitzman, C., Badland, H., Davern, M., Hes, D., Aye, L., et al. (2013). Liveable, Health, Sustainable: What are the key indicators for Melbourne neighbourhoods?. Melbourne: Place, Health, and Liveability Research Program, University of Melbourne. (Research paper 1).Google Scholar
- Milner, A., Kavanagh, A., Krnjacki, L., Bentley, R., & LaMontagne, A. (2014). Area-level unemployment and job insecurity: Evidence from a longitudinal study conducted in the Australian working age population. Annuals of Occupational Hygiene, 58(2):171–181.Google Scholar
- Norris, M. (2014). Social housing, disadvantage, and neighbourhood liveability: Ten years of change in social housing neighbourhoods. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Palmer, A. (2005). Health of people who travel to work: The effect of time travel and mode of transport on health. Kent: Centre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent.Google Scholar
- Rohe, W., Cowan, S., & Roderiguez, D. (2012). Assessing the environmental, economic and social benefit of well-located workforce housing. Social Science Research Network. Retrieved 23 August 2012, from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2135239.
- Singleton, P. (2013). A theory of travel decision-making with application for modeling active travel demand. Portland: Master of Science, Portland State University.Google Scholar
- State Government Victoria. (2014). Plan Melbourne. Metropolitan planning strategy 2014. Melbourne: State Government Victoria.Google Scholar
- Strategic Review of Health Inequalities in England post-2010. (2010). Fair society, healthy lives. London: Department of Health.Google Scholar
- Stutzer, A., & Frey, B. (2004). Stress that doesn’t pay: The commuting paradox. Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor.Google Scholar
- Theorell, T. (2000). Working conditions and health. In L. Berkman & I. Kawachi (Eds.), Social Epidemiology (pp. 95–117). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- United Nations Department of Economic & Social Affairs. (2014). World urbanization prospects: 2014 revision. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
- Western Australian Planning Commission and Department for Planning and Infrastructure. (2009). Liveable neighbourhoods: A Western Australian Government sustainable cities initiative. Perth: Western Australian Planning Commission.Google Scholar
- Witten, K., Blakely, T., Bagheri, N., Badland, H., Ivory, V., Pearce, J., et al. (2012). Neighbourhood built environment is associated with residents’ transport and leisure physical activity: Findings from New Zealand using objective exposure and outcome measures. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120(7), 971–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar