The community restrictions during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic adversely impacted older adults’ physical activity levels. This convergent mixed-method study assessed the adaptation of the Recreovía, a community-based physical activity program in Bogotá, and characterized physical activity levels among older adult participants. Our results showed how the Recreovía adapted during the pandemic to continue promoting physical activity, through indoor and outdoor strategies, including virtual physical activity sessions and safety protocols. During this time, 72%–79% of the older adults attending the adapted program were physically active. A greater proportion of park users (84.2%) and more people involved in vigorous physical activity were observed during Recreovía days. Older adults had positive experiences and perceptions of the Recreovía program related to their health and social well-being. Even though the older adults prefer being outdoors, the adapted program allowed participants to continue with their physical activity routines as much as possible during the pandemic.@en

Objective: “Nature prescriptions” are increasingly being adopted by health sectors as an adjunct to standard care to attend to health and social needs. We investigated levels of need and interest in nature prescriptions in adults with cardiovascular diseases, psychological distress and concomitants (e.g. physical inactivity, sedentary behaviour, obesity, loneliness, burn-out). Methods: A nationally-representative survey of 3,319 adults across all states and territories of Australia was completed in February 2021 (response 84.0%). Participants were classified across 15 target groups using validated health indicators and surveyed on (1) time and frequency of visits to green and blue spaces (nature spaces), (2) interest in a nature prescription, and (3) potential confounders (e.g. age, income). Analyses were done using weighted logistic regressions. Results: The sample was 50.5% female, 52.0% were aged ≥45 years, 15.2% were living alone and 19.3% were born overseas in non-English-speaking countries. Two-thirds of the sample spent 2 hours or more a week in nature, but these levels were generally lower in target groups (e.g. 57.7% in adults with type 2 diabetes). Most participants (81.9%) were interested in a nature prescription, even among those spending fewer than 2 hours a week in nature (76.4%). For example, 2 hours a week or more in nature was lowest among sedentary adults (36.9%) yet interest in nature prescriptions in this group was still high (74.0%). Lower levels of nature contact in target groups was not explained by differences in access to or preference for local nature spaces. Conclusions: High levels of interest in nature prescriptions amid low levels of nature contact in many target health groups provides impetus for developing randomised trials of interventions that enable people to spend more time in nature. These findings can inform intervention co-design processes with a wide range of community stakeholders, end-users in target health groups, and the health professionals who support them.@en

Objective: “Nature prescriptions” are increasingly being adopted by health sectors as an adjunct to standard care to attend to health and social needs. We investigated levels of need and interest in nature prescriptions in adults with cardiovascular diseases, psychological distress and concomitants (e.g. physical inactivity, sedentary behaviour, obesity, loneliness, burn-out). Methods: A nationally-representative survey of 3,319 adults across all states and territories of Australia was completed in February 2021 (response 84.0%). Participants were classified across 15 target groups using validated health indicators and surveyed on (1) time and frequency of visits to green and blue spaces (nature spaces), (2) interest in a nature prescription, and (3) potential confounders (e.g. age, income). Analyses were done using weighted logistic regressions. Results: The sample was 50.5% female, 52.0% were aged ≥45 years, 15.2% were living alone and 19.3% were born overseas in non-English-speaking countries. Two-thirds of the sample spent 2 hours or more a week in nature, but these levels were generally lower in target groups (e.g. 57.7% in adults with type 2 diabetes). Most participants (81.9%) were interested in a nature prescription, even among those spending fewer than 2 hours a week in nature (76.4%). For example, 2 hours a week or more in nature was lowest among sedentary adults (36.9%) yet interest in nature prescriptions in this group was still high (74.0%). Lower levels of nature contact in target groups was not explained by differences in access to or preference for local nature spaces. Conclusions: High levels of interest in nature prescriptions amid low levels of nature contact in many target health groups provides impetus for developing randomised trials of interventions that enable people to spend more time in nature. These findings can inform intervention co-design processes with a wide range of community stakeholders, end-users in target health groups, and the health professionals who support them.@en

Objective: “Nature prescriptions” are increasingly being adopted by health sectors as an adjunct to standard care to attend to health and social needs. We investigated levels of need and interest in nature prescriptions in adults with cardiovascular diseases, psychological distress and concomitants (e.g. physical inactivity, sedentary behaviour, obesity, loneliness, burn-out). Methods: A nationally-representative survey of 3,319 adults across all states and territories of Australia was completed in February 2021 (response 84.0%). Participants were classified across 15 target groups using validated health indicators and surveyed on (1) time and frequency of visits to green and blue spaces (nature spaces), (2) interest in a nature prescription, and (3) potential confounders (e.g. age, income). Analyses were done using weighted logistic regressions. Results: The sample was 50.5% female, 52.0% were aged ≥45 years, 15.2% were living alone and 19.3% were born overseas in non-English-speaking countries. Two-thirds of the sample spent 2 hours or more a week in nature, but these levels were generally lower in target groups (e.g. 57.7% in adults with type 2 diabetes). Most participants (81.9%) were interested in a nature prescription, even among those spending fewer than 2 hours a week in nature (76.4%). For example, 2 hours a week or more in nature was lowest among sedentary adults (36.9%) yet interest in nature prescriptions in this group was still high (74.0%). Lower levels of nature contact in target groups was not explained by differences in access to or preference for local nature spaces. Conclusions: High levels of interest in nature prescriptions amid low levels of nature contact in many target health groups provides impetus for developing randomised trials of interventions that enable people to spend more time in nature. These findings can inform intervention co-design processes with a wide range of community stakeholders, end-users in target health groups, and the health professionals who support them.@en

Objective: “Nature prescriptions” are increasingly being adopted by health sectors as an adjunct to standard care to attend to health and social needs. We investigated levels of need and interest in nature prescriptions in adults with cardiovascular diseases, psychological distress and concomitants (e.g. physical inactivity, sedentary behaviour, obesity, loneliness, burn-out). Methods: A nationally-representative survey of 3,319 adults across all states and territories of Australia was completed in February 2021 (response 84.0%). Participants were classified across 15 target groups using validated health indicators and surveyed on (1) time and frequency of visits to green and blue spaces (nature spaces), (2) interest in a nature prescription, and (3) potential confounders (e.g. age, income). Analyses were done using weighted logistic regressions. Results: The sample was 50.5% female, 52.0% were aged ≥45 years, 15.2% were living alone and 19.3% were born overseas in non-English-speaking countries. Two-thirds of the sample spent 2 hours or more a week in nature, but these levels were generally lower in target groups (e.g. 57.7% in adults with type 2 diabetes). Most participants (81.9%) were interested in a nature prescription, even among those spending fewer than 2 hours a week in nature (76.4%). For example, 2 hours a week or more in nature was lowest among sedentary adults (36.9%) yet interest in nature prescriptions in this group was still high (74.0%). Lower levels of nature contact in target groups was not explained by differences in access to or preference for local nature spaces. Conclusions: High levels of interest in nature prescriptions amid low levels of nature contact in many target health groups provides impetus for developing randomised trials of interventions that enable people to spend more time in nature. These findings can inform intervention co-design processes with a wide range of community stakeholders, end-users in target health groups, and the health professionals who support them.@en

Objective: “Nature prescriptions” are increasingly being adopted by health sectors as an adjunct to standard care to attend to health and social needs. We investigated levels of need and interest in nature prescriptions in adults with cardiovascular diseases, psychological distress and concomitants (e.g. physical inactivity, sedentary behaviour, obesity, loneliness, burn-out). Methods: A nationally-representative survey of 3,319 adults across all states and territories of Australia was completed in February 2021 (response 84.0%). Participants were classified across 15 target groups using validated health indicators and surveyed on (1) time and frequency of visits to green and blue spaces (nature spaces), (2) interest in a nature prescription, and (3) potential confounders (e.g. age, income). Analyses were done using weighted logistic regressions. Results: The sample was 50.5% female, 52.0% were aged ≥45 years, 15.2% were living alone and 19.3% were born overseas in non-English-speaking countries. Two-thirds of the sample spent 2 hours or more a week in nature, but these levels were generally lower in target groups (e.g. 57.7% in adults with type 2 diabetes). Most participants (81.9%) were interested in a nature prescription, even among those spending fewer than 2 hours a week in nature (76.4%). For example, 2 hours a week or more in nature was lowest among sedentary adults (36.9%) yet interest in nature prescriptions in this group was still high (74.0%). Lower levels of nature contact in target groups was not explained by differences in access to or preference for local nature spaces. Conclusions: High levels of interest in nature prescriptions amid low levels of nature contact in many target health groups provides impetus for developing randomised trials of interventions that enable people to spend more time in nature. These findings can inform intervention co-design processes with a wide range of community stakeholders, end-users in target health groups, and the health professionals who support them.@en

Objective: “Nature prescriptions” are increasingly being adopted by health sectors as an adjunct to standard care to attend to health and social needs. We investigated levels of need and interest in nature prescriptions in adults with cardiovascular diseases, psychological distress and concomitants (e.g. physical inactivity, sedentary behaviour, obesity, loneliness, burn-out). Methods: A nationally-representative survey of 3,319 adults across all states and territories of Australia was completed in February 2021 (response 84.0%). Participants were classified across 15 target groups using validated health indicators and surveyed on (1) time and frequency of visits to green and blue spaces (nature spaces), (2) interest in a nature prescription, and (3) potential confounders (e.g. age, income). Analyses were done using weighted logistic regressions. Results: The sample was 50.5% female, 52.0% were aged ≥45 years, 15.2% were living alone and 19.3% were born overseas in non-English-speaking countries. Two-thirds of the sample spent 2 hours or more a week in nature, but these levels were generally lower in target groups (e.g. 57.7% in adults with type 2 diabetes). Most participants (81.9%) were interested in a nature prescription, even among those spending fewer than 2 hours a week in nature (76.4%). For example, 2 hours a week or more in nature was lowest among sedentary adults (36.9%) yet interest in nature prescriptions in this group was still high (74.0%). Lower levels of nature contact in target groups was not explained by differences in access to or preference for local nature spaces. Conclusions: High levels of interest in nature prescriptions amid low levels of nature contact in many target health groups provides impetus for developing randomised trials of interventions that enable people to spend more time in nature. These findings can inform intervention co-design processes with a wide range of community stakeholders, end-users in target health groups, and the health professionals who support them.@en

Objective: “Nature prescriptions” are increasingly being adopted by health sectors as an adjunct to standard care to attend to health and social needs. We investigated levels of need and interest in nature prescriptions in adults with cardiovascular diseases, psychological distress and concomitants (e.g. physical inactivity, sedentary behaviour, obesity, loneliness, burn-out). Methods: A nationally-representative survey of 3,319 adults across all states and territories of Australia was completed in February 2021 (response 84.0%). Participants were classified across 15 target groups using validated health indicators and surveyed on (1) time and frequency of visits to green and blue spaces (nature spaces), (2) interest in a nature prescription, and (3) potential confounders (e.g. age, income). Analyses were done using weighted logistic regressions. Results: The sample was 50.5% female, 52.0% were aged ≥45 years, 15.2% were living alone and 19.3% were born overseas in non-English-speaking countries. Two-thirds of the sample spent 2 hours or more a week in nature, but these levels were generally lower in target groups (e.g. 57.7% in adults with type 2 diabetes). Most participants (81.9%) were interested in a nature prescription, even among those spending fewer than 2 hours a week in nature (76.4%). For example, 2 hours a week or more in nature was lowest among sedentary adults (36.9%) yet interest in nature prescriptions in this group was still high (74.0%). Lower levels of nature contact in target groups was not explained by differences in access to or preference for local nature spaces. Conclusions: High levels of interest in nature prescriptions amid low levels of nature contact in many target health groups provides impetus for developing randomised trials of interventions that enable people to spend more time in nature. These findings can inform intervention co-design processes with a wide range of community stakeholders, end-users in target health groups, and the health professionals who support them.@en

Objective: “Nature prescriptions” are increasingly being adopted by health sectors as an adjunct to standard care to attend to health and social needs. We investigated levels of need and interest in nature prescriptions in adults with cardiovascular diseases, psychological distress and concomitants (e.g. physical inactivity, sedentary behaviour, obesity, loneliness, burn-out). Methods: A nationally-representative survey of 3,319 adults across all states and territories of Australia was completed in February 2021 (response 84.0%). Participants were classified across 15 target groups using validated health indicators and surveyed on (1) time and frequency of visits to green and blue spaces (nature spaces), (2) interest in a nature prescription, and (3) potential confounders (e.g. age, income). Analyses were done using weighted logistic regressions. Results: The sample was 50.5% female, 52.0% were aged ≥45 years, 15.2% were living alone and 19.3% were born overseas in non-English-speaking countries. Two-thirds of the sample spent 2 hours or more a week in nature, but these levels were generally lower in target groups (e.g. 57.7% in adults with type 2 diabetes). Most participants (81.9%) were interested in a nature prescription, even among those spending fewer than 2 hours a week in nature (76.4%). For example, 2 hours a week or more in nature was lowest among sedentary adults (36.9%) yet interest in nature prescriptions in this group was still high (74.0%). Lower levels of nature contact in target groups was not explained by differences in access to or preference for local nature spaces. Conclusions: High levels of interest in nature prescriptions amid low levels of nature contact in many target health groups provides impetus for developing randomised trials of interventions that enable people to spend more time in nature. These findings can inform intervention co-design processes with a wide range of community stakeholders, end-users in target health groups, and the health professionals who support them.@en

Objective: “Nature prescriptions” are increasingly being adopted by health sectors as an adjunct to standard care to attend to health and social needs. We investigated levels of need and interest in nature prescriptions in adults with cardiovascular diseases, psychological distress and concomitants (e.g. physical inactivity, sedentary behaviour, obesity, loneliness, burn-out). Methods: A nationally-representative survey of 3,319 adults across all states and territories of Australia was completed in February 2021 (response 84.0%). Participants were classified across 15 target groups using validated health indicators and surveyed on (1) time and frequency of visits to green and blue spaces (nature spaces), (2) interest in a nature prescription, and (3) potential confounders (e.g. age, income). Analyses were done using weighted logistic regressions. Results: The sample was 50.5% female, 52.0% were aged ≥45 years, 15.2% were living alone and 19.3% were born overseas in non-English-speaking countries. Two-thirds of the sample spent 2 hours or more a week in nature, but these levels were generally lower in target groups (e.g. 57.7% in adults with type 2 diabetes). Most participants (81.9%) were interested in a nature prescription, even among those spending fewer than 2 hours a week in nature (76.4%). For example, 2 hours a week or more in nature was lowest among sedentary adults (36.9%) yet interest in nature prescriptions in this group was still high (74.0%). Lower levels of nature contact in target groups was not explained by differences in access to or preference for local nature spaces. Conclusions: High levels of interest in nature prescriptions amid low levels of nature contact in many target health groups provides impetus for developing randomised trials of interventions that enable people to spend more time in nature. These findings can inform intervention co-design processes with a wide range of community stakeholders, end-users in target health groups, and the health professionals who support them.@en

Objective: “Nature prescriptions” are increasingly being adopted by health sectors as an adjunct to standard care to attend to health and social needs. We investigated levels of need and interest in nature prescriptions in adults with cardiovascular diseases, psychological distress and concomitants (e.g. physical inactivity, sedentary behaviour, obesity, loneliness, burn-out). Methods: A nationally-representative survey of 3,319 adults across all states and territories of Australia was completed in February 2021 (response 84.0%). Participants were classified across 15 target groups using validated health indicators and surveyed on (1) time and frequency of visits to green and blue spaces (nature spaces), (2) interest in a nature prescription, and (3) potential confounders (e.g. age, income). Analyses were done using weighted logistic regressions. Results: The sample was 50.5% female, 52.0% were aged ≥45 years, 15.2% were living alone and 19.3% were born overseas in non-English-speaking countries. Two-thirds of the sample spent 2 hours or more a week in nature, but these levels were generally lower in target groups (e.g. 57.7% in adults with type 2 diabetes). Most participants (81.9%) were interested in a nature prescription, even among those spending fewer than 2 hours a week in nature (76.4%). For example, 2 hours a week or more in nature was lowest among sedentary adults (36.9%) yet interest in nature prescriptions in this group was still high (74.0%). Lower levels of nature contact in target groups was not explained by differences in access to or preference for local nature spaces. Conclusions: High levels of interest in nature prescriptions amid low levels of nature contact in many target health groups provides impetus for developing randomised trials of interventions that enable people to spend more time in nature. These findings can inform intervention co-design processes with a wide range of community stakeholders, end-users in target health groups, and the health professionals who support them.@en

Background: Evidence for the health benefits of urban green space tends to stem from small, short-term quasi-experimental or cross-sectional observational research, whilst evidence from intervention studies is sparse. The development of an urban greenway (9 km running along 3 rivers) in Northern Ireland provided the opportunity to conduct a natural experiment. This study investigated the public health impact of the urban greenway on a range of physical activity, health, wellbeing, social, and perceptions of the environment outcomes. Methods: A repeated cross-sectional household survey of adult residents (aged ≥16 years) who lived ≤1-mile radius of the greenway (intervention sample) and > 1-mile radius of the greenway (control sample) was conducted pre (2010/2011) and 6-months post implementation (2016/2017). We assessed changes in outcomes pre- and post-intervention follow-up including physical activity behaviour (primary outcome measure: Global Physical Activity Questionnaire), quality of life, mental wellbeing, social capital and perceptions of the built environment. Linear regression was used to calculate the mean difference between post-intervention and baseline measures adjusting for age, season, education, car ownership and deprivation. Multi-level models were fitted using a random intercept at the super output area (smallest geographical unit) to account for clustering within areas. The analyses were stratified by distance from the greenway and deprivation. We assessed change in the social patterning of outcomes over time using an ordered logit to make model-based outcome predictions across strata. Results: The mean ages of intervention samples were 50.3 (SD 18.9) years at baseline (n = 1037) and 51.7 (SD 19.1) years at follow-up (n = 968). Post-intervention, 65% (adjusted OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.00) of residents who lived closest to the greenway (i.e., ≤400 m) and 60% (adjusted OR, 0.64 95% CI 0.41 to 0.99) who lived furthest from the greenway (i.e.,≥1200 m) met the physical activity guidelines - 68% of the intervention sample met the physical activity guidelines before the intervention. Residents in the most deprived quintiles had a similar reduction in physical activity behaviour as residents in less deprived quintiles. Quality of life at follow-up compared to baseline declined and this decline was significantly less than in the control area (adjusted differences in mean EQ5D: -11.0 (95% CI − 14.5 to − 7.4); − 30.5 (95% CI − 37.9 to − 23.2). Significant change in mental wellbeing was not observed despite improvements in some indicators of social capital. Positive perceptions of the local environment in relation to its attractiveness, traffic and safety increased. Conclusions: Our findings illustrate the major challenge of evaluating complex urban interventions and the difficulty of capturing and measuring the network of potential variables that influence or hinder meaningful outcomes. The results indicate at this stage no intervention effect for improvements in population-level physical activity behaviour or mental wellbeing. However, they show some modest improvements for secondary outcomes including positive perceptions of the environment and social capital constructs. The public health impact of urban greenways may take a longer period of time to be realised and there is a need to improve evaluation methodology that captures the complex systems nature of urban regeneration.@en

Background: Evidence for the health benefits of urban green space tends to stem from small, short-term quasi-experimental or cross-sectional observational research, whilst evidence from intervention studies is sparse. The development of an urban greenway (9 km running along 3 rivers) in Northern Ireland provided the opportunity to conduct a natural experiment. This study investigated the public health impact of the urban greenway on a range of physical activity, health, wellbeing, social, and perceptions of the environment outcomes. Methods: A repeated cross-sectional household survey of adult residents (aged ≥16 years) who lived ≤1-mile radius of the greenway (intervention sample) and > 1-mile radius of the greenway (control sample) was conducted pre (2010/2011) and 6-months post implementation (2016/2017). We assessed changes in outcomes pre- and post-intervention follow-up including physical activity behaviour (primary outcome measure: Global Physical Activity Questionnaire), quality of life, mental wellbeing, social capital and perceptions of the built environment. Linear regression was used to calculate the mean difference between post-intervention and baseline measures adjusting for age, season, education, car ownership and deprivation. Multi-level models were fitted using a random intercept at the super output area (smallest geographical unit) to account for clustering within areas. The analyses were stratified by distance from the greenway and deprivation. We assessed change in the social patterning of outcomes over time using an ordered logit to make model-based outcome predictions across strata. Results: The mean ages of intervention samples were 50.3 (SD 18.9) years at baseline (n = 1037) and 51.7 (SD 19.1) years at follow-up (n = 968). Post-intervention, 65% (adjusted OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.00) of residents who lived closest to the greenway (i.e., ≤400 m) and 60% (adjusted OR, 0.64 95% CI 0.41 to 0.99) who lived furthest from the greenway (i.e.,≥1200 m) met the physical activity guidelines - 68% of the intervention sample met the physical activity guidelines before the intervention. Residents in the most deprived quintiles had a similar reduction in physical activity behaviour as residents in less deprived quintiles. Quality of life at follow-up compared to baseline declined and this decline was significantly less than in the control area (adjusted differences in mean EQ5D: -11.0 (95% CI − 14.5 to − 7.4); − 30.5 (95% CI − 37.9 to − 23.2). Significant change in mental wellbeing was not observed despite improvements in some indicators of social capital. Positive perceptions of the local environment in relation to its attractiveness, traffic and safety increased. Conclusions: Our findings illustrate the major challenge of evaluating complex urban interventions and the difficulty of capturing and measuring the network of potential variables that influence or hinder meaningful outcomes. The results indicate at this stage no intervention effect for improvements in population-level physical activity behaviour or mental wellbeing. However, they show some modest improvements for secondary outcomes including positive perceptions of the environment and social capital constructs. The public health impact of urban greenways may take a longer period of time to be realised and there is a need to improve evaluation methodology that captures the complex systems nature of urban regeneration.@en

Background: Evidence for the health benefits of urban green space tends to stem from small, short-term quasi-experimental or cross-sectional observational research, whilst evidence from intervention studies is sparse. The development of an urban greenway (9 km running along 3 rivers) in Northern Ireland provided the opportunity to conduct a natural experiment. This study investigated the public health impact of the urban greenway on a range of physical activity, health, wellbeing, social, and perceptions of the environment outcomes. Methods: A repeated cross-sectional household survey of adult residents (aged ≥16 years) who lived ≤1-mile radius of the greenway (intervention sample) and > 1-mile radius of the greenway (control sample) was conducted pre (2010/2011) and 6-months post implementation (2016/2017). We assessed changes in outcomes pre- and post-intervention follow-up including physical activity behaviour (primary outcome measure: Global Physical Activity Questionnaire), quality of life, mental wellbeing, social capital and perceptions of the built environment. Linear regression was used to calculate the mean difference between post-intervention and baseline measures adjusting for age, season, education, car ownership and deprivation. Multi-level models were fitted using a random intercept at the super output area (smallest geographical unit) to account for clustering within areas. The analyses were stratified by distance from the greenway and deprivation. We assessed change in the social patterning of outcomes over time using an ordered logit to make model-based outcome predictions across strata. Results: The mean ages of intervention samples were 50.3 (SD 18.9) years at baseline (n = 1037) and 51.7 (SD 19.1) years at follow-up (n = 968). Post-intervention, 65% (adjusted OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.00) of residents who lived closest to the greenway (i.e., ≤400 m) and 60% (adjusted OR, 0.64 95% CI 0.41 to 0.99) who lived furthest from the greenway (i.e.,≥1200 m) met the physical activity guidelines - 68% of the intervention sample met the physical activity guidelines before the intervention. Residents in the most deprived quintiles had a similar reduction in physical activity behaviour as residents in less deprived quintiles. Quality of life at follow-up compared to baseline declined and this decline was significantly less than in the control area (adjusted differences in mean EQ5D: -11.0 (95% CI − 14.5 to − 7.4); − 30.5 (95% CI − 37.9 to − 23.2). Significant change in mental wellbeing was not observed despite improvements in some indicators of social capital. Positive perceptions of the local environment in relation to its attractiveness, traffic and safety increased. Conclusions: Our findings illustrate the major challenge of evaluating complex urban interventions and the difficulty of capturing and measuring the network of potential variables that influence or hinder meaningful outcomes. The results indicate at this stage no intervention effect for improvements in population-level physical activity behaviour or mental wellbeing. However, they show some modest improvements for secondary outcomes including positive perceptions of the environment and social capital constructs. The public health impact of urban greenways may take a longer period of time to be realised and there is a need to improve evaluation methodology that captures the complex systems nature of urban regeneration.@en

Urban liveability is a global priority for creating healthy, sustainable cities. Measurement of policy-relevant spatial indicators of the built and natural environment supports city planning at all levels of government. Analysis of their spatial distribution within cities, and impacts on individuals and communities, is crucial to ensure planning decisions are effective and equitable. This paper outlines challenges and lessons from a 5-year collaborative research program, scaling up a software workflow for calculating a composite indicator of urban liveability for residential address points across Melbourne, to Australia’s 21 largest cities, and further extension to 25 global cities in diverse contexts.@en

Urban liveability is a global priority for creating healthy, sustainable cities. Measurement of policy-relevant spatial indicators of the built and natural environment supports city planning at all levels of government. Analysis of their spatial distribution within cities, and impacts on individuals and communities, is crucial to ensure planning decisions are effective and equitable. This paper outlines challenges and lessons from a 5-year collaborative research program, scaling up a software workflow for calculating a composite indicator of urban liveability for residential address points across Melbourne, to Australia’s 21 largest cities, and further extension to 25 global cities in diverse contexts.@en

Urban liveability is a global priority for creating healthy, sustainable cities. Measurement of policy-relevant spatial indicators of the built and natural environment supports city planning at all levels of government. Analysis of their spatial distribution within cities, and impacts on individuals and communities, is crucial to ensure planning decisions are effective and equitable. This paper outlines challenges and lessons from a 5-year collaborative research program, scaling up a software workflow for calculating a composite indicator of urban liveability for residential address points across Melbourne, to Australia’s 21 largest cities, and further extension to 25 global cities in diverse contexts.@en

Urban liveability is a global priority for creating healthy, sustainable cities. Measurement of policy-relevant spatial indicators of the built and natural environment supports city planning at all levels of government. Analysis of their spatial distribution within cities, and impacts on individuals and communities, is crucial to ensure planning decisions are effective and equitable. This paper outlines challenges and lessons from a 5-year collaborative research program, scaling up a software workflow for calculating a composite indicator of urban liveability for residential address points across Melbourne, to Australia’s 21 largest cities, and further extension to 25 global cities in diverse contexts.@en

Urban liveability is a global priority for creating healthy, sustainable cities. Measurement of policy-relevant spatial indicators of the built and natural environment supports city planning at all levels of government. Analysis of their spatial distribution within cities, and impacts on individuals and communities, is crucial to ensure planning decisions are effective and equitable. This paper outlines challenges and lessons from a 5-year collaborative research program, scaling up a software workflow for calculating a composite indicator of urban liveability for residential address points across Melbourne, to Australia’s 21 largest cities, and further extension to 25 global cities in diverse contexts.@en

Urban liveability is a global priority for creating healthy, sustainable cities. Measurement of policy-relevant spatial indicators of the built and natural environment supports city planning at all levels of government. Analysis of their spatial distribution within cities, and impacts on individuals and communities, is crucial to ensure planning decisions are effective and equitable. This paper outlines challenges and lessons from a 5-year collaborative research program, scaling up a software workflow for calculating a composite indicator of urban liveability for residential address points across Melbourne, to Australia’s 21 largest cities, and further extension to 25 global cities in diverse contexts.@en