Sometimes, so-called ‘international rankings’ are good for nothing if not comedy gold. Consider Melbourne, still touting itself as ‘the world’s most liveable city’. Clearly, anyone making that claim hasn’t stewed in the city’s hour-long traffic jams. Germany is the fifth-most-democratic country, supposedly. Which must be news to the country’s most popular political party, under threat of being outlawed by the ruling elite. It’s probably also news to New Zealanders whose doors are getting knocked on by the rozzers because of lawful social media posts that their country is the second-freest in the world, according to the Economist.
So it was a raised eyebrow and a bit of a chuckle that I read that, apparently, Tasmania is ‘Australia’s healthiest state to live in’ and Hobart the number-one capital city.
Note the caveat, though: to live in.
Using data from 2016 to 2019, a Monash University research team has developed what they now know to be the world’s first index of environmental health risks, mapping Australian geographical locations against local environmental risks and associated causes of death.
The study, by the University’s Climate, Air Quality Research Unit (CARE) at the School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, is now complete, and the numbers are in.
So, they’re not actually measuring healthy outcomes, just the potential for good health, from the ‘environment’.
“We established, to our knowledge, the first tool to quantify and communicate environmental health risks using three types of mortality data and 12 environmental factors,” it reads.
“This … provides a robust framework to assess environmental health risks and guide targeted interventions. Our methodology can be adapted globally to standardise risk evaluation.”
Specifically, the report evaluated 12 factors:
- Fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
- Ozone (O3)
- Green space: Normalised Difference Vegetation Index
- Night time light
- Mean temperature in summer
- Mean temperature in winter
- Temperature variability in summer
- Temperature variability in winter
- Relative humidity
- Building density
- Road density
- Socio-economic status: The Index of Relative Socio-Economic Advantage and Disadvantage
Well, on 11 out of those 12, of course Tasmania scores highly. You only need to see all the rocks coated with orange lichen to know how clean the air is, here. In fact, Cape Grim in the north-west has the world’s cleanest air.
With the relative absence of big cities, we have decently dark nights, which contributes to sleep, no doubt. Our temperate climate also helps, although winters are bitterly cold compared to the rest of Australia. Nearly half of the state is protected as national parks and reserves: the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area alone takes up one-fifth of the island.
The 12 environmental factors are then run through data regarding cause of death and other mortality data, which is how Hobart and Tasmania came out on top, because it had lower environmental risks and better conditions that reduced death risk.
But having a healthy environment doesn’t guarantee healthy outcomes. Especially not when Tasmanians so often make such unhealthy lifestyle choices.
For a start, many Taswegians just love a durrie. Tassie has the second-highest rate of smoking of any state, only behind the Northern Territory. Still, the good news is that even our ‘high’ rate of smoking is still pretty low: just 16 per cent of Tasmanians smoke daily, weekly or less than weekly.
We also love our Maccas just a bit too much. Tasmania has the highest obesity rates in Australia. Strangely, though, the state also has a very low rate of cardiovascular disease. Possibly that’s because Tasmania is one of the most active states in Australia: around 70 per cent of Tasmanians participate in sport or physical recreation, equal to WA, and only exceeded by the ACT (home, just coincidentally, to the Australian Institute of Sport). Unsurprisingly, the most popular physical activity in Tasmania is tramping.
You can lead a Tasmanian to a healthy environment, but you can’t make him healthy. Tasmania has Australia’s second-shortest life expectancy. The ACT once again leads the pack. But the difference is barely statistically significant: less than two years separate Tasmania from the ACT.
It surely doesn’t help, too, that we have the country’s oldest population. This is due to two factors: a significant percentage of younger Tasmanians move to the Mainland for better work opportunities, while the last decade or two has seen a dramatic influx of Mainland gaffers and gammers flooding to Tasmania for the retirement lifestyle. Many towns along the picturesque east coast are virtual Boomer-towns: God’s waiting rooms, with clean air and empty beaches.
Oh, and to forestall the inevitable: Tasmania actually has a lower rate of congenital birth defects than most states. Most of those are Type 1 diabetes.
