Hobart, Tasmania. Credit: Peter Robinson via Pexel
A new measure of what is needed to maintain health has identified living in Australia’s healthiest sector based on a variety of environmental and socioeconomic factors.
A Monash University-led study found that Tasmania and Hobart are the healthiest states/territories and capitals, while Northern Territory and Darwin are rated unhealthy.
Published on Environment International, the New Environmental Colity Health Index (EQHI) provides a robust framework for assessing environmental health risks and guiding targeted interventions worldwide. We combine 12 factors, including air quality, green space, climate, and socioeconomic conditions, and then assess how these factors are associated with the risk of death.
Researchers from the School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine (SPHPM) Climate and Air Quality Research Unit analyzed 2,180 statistical discipline level 2 in all regions of Australia.
South, East and Southwest coastal regions generally score higher than inland and northwest regions on a scale of 0 to 100, with more numbers indicating improved environmental and health.
Senior author and Monash University is a well-known Guo, Professor of Global Environmental Health at SPHPM, where regions with environmental risks and better conditions, such as Tasmania and Hobart, have scored higher scores. He said.
“Hobart, the capital of Tasmania, had the best EQHI overall,” Professor Guo said. “The difference was important, Hobart had a very good outcome (the best score), while Darwin had the lowest score, reflecting low environmental and socioeconomic conditions.
“Similarly, Melbourne’s score compared to Sydney reflects a combination of better air quality, favorable climate and other environmental conditions, and higher socioeconomic benefits, which is associated with lower health risks. I’m doing it.”
Professor Guo said the study provides valuable tools for measuring environmental conditions, improving environmental conditions in regions with low EQHIS, reducing health risks, and promoting well-being. He said he emphasized the need.
He said that between 2016 and 2019, the proportion of regions with the highest EQHI decreased by 6%. However, over 70% of Australians still lived in high-scoring areas.
“When considering population distribution, this study found that scores improved in Perth and Darwin, decreased in Sydney, Canberra and Brisbane, and remained stable in Melbourne and Adelaide from 2016 to 2019. “Professor Guo said.
The authors of this study aim to develop an index that integrates multiple environmental exposures and socioeconomic status to assess the risk of death in Australia.
They believed that existing environmental quality indicators could not explain the different health effects of different exposures and excluded socioeconomic status indicators.
Researchers have shown that PM2.5 (very small particles usually found in smoke), ozone, temperature, humidity, normalized differential vegetation index, vegetation index, vegetation index, vegetation index, vegetation index, vegetation index, vegetation index, vegetation index, vegetation index, vegetation index, vegetation index, vegetation index, vegetation index, vegetation index, vegetation index, vegetation index, vegetation index, vegetation index, vegetation index, vegetation index, vegetation index, vegetation index, vegetation index, vegetation index, vegetation index, vegetation index, vegetation index, vegetation index, vegetation index, vegetation index, vegetation index, vegetation index, vegetation index, vegetation index, vegetation index, vegetation index, vegetation index, All-cause, cardiovascular and respiratory mortality data (2016-2019), including exposure, were combined. Night light, roads, building density, socioeconomic status.
Using various models, data was used to calculate which locations are the healthiest people live in.
“We have put the first one to know practical and effective tools to communicate environmental health risks based on quantitative relationships using three types of mortality data and 12 environmental factors. It has been established,” the study found.
“This EQHI provides a comprehensive framework for developing targeted environmental improvement measures tailored to Australia’s local conditions. Our methodology is to develop unique EQHIs by other countries. and enable globally consistent and comparable assessment of environmental health risks.
Professor Guo said EQHI can be integrated into policy and public health frameworks as follows:
Spread the results to policy makers to inform environmental improvements and health interventions. Educate the public and stakeholders about interpreting and using EQHI. Working with local governments and organizations, we will implement targeted measures in areas with low scores.
12 environmental and socioeconomic factors
Particulate matter (PM2.5) Ozone (O3) Green space: Night light in normalized differential vegetation vegetation Average summer temperature summer temperature fluctuations Variation of relative humidity in winter Relative socioeconomic advantages and inadequateness Profit
Details: Shuang Zhou et al, New Environmental Quality Health Index, Environmental International (2025) identify healthy locations in Australia. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2025.109268
Provided by Monash University
Quote: New Measure, obtained on February 9, 2025 from https://phys.org/news/2025-02-australia-health.html on February 9, 2025 Identifies (February 7, 2025).
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from fair transactions for private research or research purposes, there is no part that is reproduced without written permission. Content is provided with information only.
