Audit of the Tasmanian Transport‐Related Physical Activity Policy Environment—Lessons for Comprehensive Policy Making

ABSTRACT

Issue Addressed

Government policy largely determines the transport‐related physical activity (TRPA) environment—an environment central to global PA promotion frameworks (e.g., Global Action Plan on Physical Activity). However, little is known about this policy environment—a knowledge gap this study aimed to fill in Tasmania.

Methods

Guided by the Comprehensive Analysis of Policy on Physical Activity (CAPPA) framework, the World Health Organisation's Health Enhancing Physical Activity Policy Audit Tool (PAT) Version 2 was contextualised to reflect the study's subnational and TRPA focus (PAT‐C). In 2024, a five‐person Tasmanian multi‐sector project team completed the PAT‐C. The audit included 20 policy documents systematically extracted from Tasmanian government websites screened for TRPA relevance. After PAT‐C completion, a SWOT analysis underpinned by the CAPPA identified strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the TRPA policy environment.

Results

Key strengths were: 9/20 policy documents directly supported TRPA; many agencies/formal groups/mechanisms within/outside of subnational government provide TRPA leadership/advocacy. Main weaknesses were: 11/20 policy documents made no/indirect TRPA reference; certain settings and population groups for TRPA targeting were overlooked across policies; disclosure of consultation and policy cross‐referencing was inconsistent; missing were mechanisms to ensure evidence‐based policy, a TRPA communication strategy, dedicated funding, specific targets, robust measures and comprehensive TRPA intervention evaluation. Targeted advocacy addressing TRPA‐related policy environment omissions was a key opportunity. Fluctuating political commitment and operating environments were important threats. Conclusion and So what: Many gaps in the TRPA environment were identified that, if filled, could support population‐level health gain by tackling upstream influences on physical activity.

1. Introduction

Globally, most adolescents (80%) and just over a quarter of adults (27%) do not meet the World Health Organisations' recommendations for physical activity [1]. Between 2020 and 2030, physical inactivity was estimated to cost the global community in direct health care costs US$27 billion annually [1]. Over the decades, efforts to increase population‐level physical activity have principally focused on leisure‐time with minimal impact [2, 3]. This limited impact likely reflects several factors: leisure‐time physical activity generally contributes less to total physical activity than other domains, such as work, household, or travel [4]; interventions have focused on individual behaviour change despite physical activity being influenced by complex social and environmental factors [2, 5, 6]; and leisure‐time may have been easier to target, as it does not compete with powerful sectors such as housing, road, and automobile industries [7, 8].

Transport related physical activity (TRPA) (walking or wheeling to get from place to place including to and from public transport; also known as active transport) provides promise for increasing physical activity levels and therefore health, across all life stages because it is situated within the way people travel from place to place—commonly a daily and habitual pattern. For instance, Biobank data from 263 450 participants in the United Kingdom (UK) found that active commuting (walking/wheeling) was associated with reductions in premature mortality and disease burden [9]. A systematic review found that walking to and from public transport results in an additional 8–33 min of walking, which could be lifesaving [10]—each minute of walking equates to approximately 100 steps and each 1000 daily step count increase from baseline reduces all‐cause mortality risk by 6%–36% [11, 12]. Australian based modelling in New South Wales (NSW) estimated that the societal economic gain by exchanging five weekly single car trips for cycling or walking across a year was $2.95 and $5.24 respectively per kilometre—this modelling accounted for physical inactivity related disease, air pollution and road trauma [13]. Thus, environments that enable TRPA are health and economically enhancing for individuals and societies.

The World Health Organisation's (WHO) 2018–2030 Global Action Plan on Physical Activity (GAPPA) responds to the complexity of physical activity [14]. TRPA enabling environments are largely determined by government and, to work well, require a systems‐based approach as advocated by the GAPPA. Under the GAPPA's “Create active environments” objective, it advocates for changes to the material environment through strengthened urban and transport planning policy integration, improved walking and cycling infrastructure, policy actions to improve road and personal safety, and strengthened regulatory and design guidelines and frameworks [14]. While capturing direct policy impacts on behaviour is difficult, examples of policy positively influencing TRPA exist [15]. A recent systematic review of 17 quasi‐experimental, cross‐sectional, mixed methods, and pre‐post studies conducted across several countries investigating the impact of transport‐related public policies (decisions, plans or actions enforced by government or a government agency) on physical activity found that policies supporting walking and cycling safety, convenience and connection, active travel promotion and support for public transport were associated with higher levels of physical activity [16].

However, implementing TRPA enabling policy often attracts powerful lobby groups and political debate over competition for finite road space [7, 17]. In Australia, TRPA enabling environments are largely determined by subnational (state and territory) policy and are implemented jointly with local governments spanning both urban and non‐urban environments. Despite the benefits, TRPA enabling environments are not widespread in Australia, as evidenced by increasing levels of subsidised expenditure on road infrastructure (AUD$8 billion annually) to support the rising levels of motor vehicle use [18]. To create environments that support TRPA, an in‐depth understanding of the policies that shape these environments is needed. Yet, like in other countries, there are knowledge gaps regarding TRPA policy and policy environments (the factors that contribute to policy making and implementation) at the Australian subnational level and therefore, knowledge of where the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats lie to best guide place‐based TRPA advocacy is limited [1, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24].

This study aimed to fill a knowledge gap by systematically auditing the Tasmanian TRPA policy environment through use of a contextualised WHO physical activity policy audit tool. Generating knowledge about the TRPA policy environment acts on GAPPA objectives to better understand the systems‐level gaps influencing population‐level physical activity.

2. Methods

This study involved an audit of TRPA‐related subnational government policies in Tasmania, using a contextualised version of the WHO HEPA PAT. The Comprehensive Analysis of Policy on Physical Activity (CAPPA) framework provided the overarching structure of this policy environment audit [25]. The CAPPA has been used in subnational physical activity policy audits to provide a theoretical framework to interpret empirical data [26]. The CAPPA conceptualises the policy cycle using six categories that provide a consistent context for describing, understanding and analysing specific policy components (Table 1).

TABLE 1.

Policy Audit Tool‐C (PAT‐C) mapped against the Comprehensive Analysis of Policy on Physical Activity (CAPPA).

CAPPA categories	PAT‐C
Purpose of analysis	Audit
Policy level	Subnational
Policy sector	Education, Environment/Climate change, Health, Sport and recreation, Tourism, Transport, Urban design and planning
Type of policy	Formal written policies
Stage of policy cycle	Implementation, Maintenance, Succession
Scope of analysis	Content

For this study, a policy was defined as a written document that contains priorities, defines goals and objectives, and may or may not include an action plan and is issued by the Tasmanian Government [22, 27]. Ethics approval was not required because only publicly available information was used.

2.1. Setting

Tasmania has a population of approximately 558 000 [18, 28]. In 2021, 3.2% of employed Tasmanians > 15 years of age who travelled to work used public transport (national average 4.6%), 4.2% walked only (national average 2.5%), 0.7% cycled (national average 0.7%) and 70.5% travelled by car as a driver or passenger (national average 57.8%) [28]. Locating the study in Tasmania is important because rates of travelling by car are higher than the national average, coupled with strong opposition to enhance the TRPA environment [28, 29, 30]. Additionally, the Tasmanian Government spent AUD$481.7 M on roads in 2022–2023, including $403.5 M from state own funds and $78.2 M through grants to local governments [18]. By contrast, Tasmanian Government revenue in 2022–2023 from transport‐related sources was AUD$285.6 M through registration ($210.0 M), licencing ($8.8 M) and stamp duty ($66.8 M) [18]. This represents a state shortfall of $196.1 M, which is subsidised by general taxation [18].

2.2. Framework and Tools

The audit was guided by the WHO's Health‐Enhancing Physical Activity Policy Audit Tool (HEPA PAT) Version 2 [22, 27]. The HEPA PAT was selected because it was deemed the preferred tool in a recent systematic review of instruments used to assess national‐level physical activity and sedentary behaviour policy [27, 31]. To our knowledge, there is no physical activity policy environment audit tool designed specifically for the subnational level, nor specifically for TRPA. Therefore, the HEPA PAT was contextualised (hereafter referred to as the PAT‐C) for this study. The PAT‐C was mapped against the six CAPPA categories as summarised in Table 1.

The eight steps to operationalise the PAT‐C (Table S1) and the 11 sections of the audit process followed that of the HEPA PAT, which are described in detail elsewhere [22, 27]. In summary, the eight steps cover assembling a multi‐sector project team, engaging stakeholders and progressing the audit to completion. The 11 sections capture key factors that make up the policy environment including government structure, leadership, written policy, goals, targets, surveillance, evaluation, funding, political commitment, and capacity building.

2.3. Project Team

As per step one of the HEPA PAT, a Tasmanian project team was assembled, led by author VC, and included public health researchers and three members experienced within subnational Tasmanian government from the sectors of environment/climate change, health and transport. The team's membership was checked as per the HEPA PAT to ensure: knowledge of relevant past/present/developing TRPA related policies across sectors; capacity to engage other stakeholders if necessary; status and institutional support to lead the audit, integrate different stakeholder views and engage in a process to learn from successful or less successful experiences in subnational government efforts to promote TRPA.

Modifications to the HEPA PAT were conducted to align with the study context—subnational rather than national and TRPA rather than HEPA (Table S2). Author MS led the modifications which were checked and refined by research team members VC, MM, PM, TW, then reviewed and finalised by the Tasmanian project team. Of the 29 HEPA PAT items, two were deemed irrelevant or duplicated and excluded (Items 3 and 5). The remaining n = 27 items were contextualised with “national” changed to “state” (referred to as subnational in this manuscript) as relevant and “HEPA” changed to “TRPA” as relevant. Other changes were for clarity, completeness and modernising (e.g., the list of international documents originally listed under Item 11 was updated and national and subnational documents added by the project team). The perceived usefulness of the documents in the development of TRPA policy (originally Item 11, becoming Item 9 in the PAT‐C) were scored separately by the three project team members experienced in Tasmanian subnational government, rather than by consensus, because each member was from a different sector.

2.4. Policy Identification

Section 3 of the HEPA PAT requires collation of relevant policies [22, 27]. Out of scope documents were defined as: Legislation, implementation/work plans, departmental strategic plans, out of date policy documents, policy documents in draft or planning stages, and national or sub‐state‐level (e.g., local government authority) policies. Legislation was defined as out of scope because the primary focus of the study was strategic policy documents. Comprehensive auditing of the legislative environment requires an alternate methodology to the HEPA‐PAT, such as scientific legal mapping, in addition to legal expertise [32].

Aligning with the GAPPA's Action 2.5 under its objective “Create Active Environments” policies were collected by searching all Tasmanian subnational government department organisational charts to find applicable departments [14]. A desktop review of the respective departmental websites followed to identify policies relevant to TRPA.

Policies were checked for reference to other key policy documents and included if relevant to TRPA. Project team members independently reviewed the compiled list to assess completeness, confirm policy currency and verify key characteristics (e.g., title, year, authorship and departmental ownership). A consensus approach was used to correct for any discrepancy regarding the inclusion or exclusion of a policy. Where consensus was not reached, the final decision was made by the project team lead author VC. From the extracted policies, the project team identified documents key to the TRPA agenda either because of the policy's direct relevance or its potential for influence. Project team members were also asked to provide details of any scheduled updates to policies or relevant policies under development. Reference to TRPA within a policy was determined by using truncated search terms: physical, activ*, transport, public, walk*, cycl*, wheel*, liveability.

2.5. Data Collection

Author MS led the population of the PAT‐C. The presence of each PAT‐C item in the Tasmanian policy environment was determined by desktop review and/or expert opinion within the project team. The project team checked the completion of each PAT‐C item, initially section by section to manage workload, ending in a final review of the fully completed PAT‐C. On two occasions, two people from outside the project team were asked to provide input on some items relevant to their expertise. The project team communicated regularly through email until the PAT‐C was finalised (approximately a 7‐month process from May to November 2024).

2.6. Data Synthesis

The six CAPPA categories (Table 1) guided a narrative account of the policy environment exposed through the PAT‐C [33]. A SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis organised by CAPPA categories was used to summarise the audit's key findings—SWOT evaluation has been used in physical activity‐related studies including policy evaluation [19]. The SWOT by CAPPA category summary was initially compiled by author MS, which was subsequently checked by author PM and any disputes resolved by author VC.

3. Results

Findings reflect a combination of a systematic desktop review of policy documents and structured expert opinion of the multi‐sector project team, as specified within the HEPA PAT methodology. Table 2 indicates whether the presence of each of the PAT‐C's 27 items was determined by desktop review and/or expert opinion.

TABLE 2.

PAT‐C item presence in the Tasmanian TRPA policy environment assessed by desktop and expert opinion.

PAT‐C item number	PAT‐C item description	Item present in the Tasmanian TRPA policy environment	Data collection method
			Desktop review	Expert opinion
Section 1—Background information and subnational context
1a	Subnational government structure	✓	✓	✓
1b	Governance at a subnational level	Covered in 1a and 1c	Covered in 1a and 1c	Covered in 1a and 1c
1c	Main subnational government departments promoting TRPA	✓	✓	✓
Section 2—Leadership and partnerships
2	National or subnational leadership by agencies for TRPA	✓	✓	✓
3	Cross‐sectoral collaboration at the subnational level	✓	✓	✓
Section 3—Policy documents
4	Key past policy documents or past events	✓	—	✓
5	Key current policy documents	✓	✓	✓
6	Evidence of consultation in policy development	✓ a	✓	✓
7	Evidence of cross‐referencing and alignment within and between policies	✓ a	✓	✓
8	Subnational mechanism for evidence‐based policy	X	—	✓
9	Use of international, national and subnational documents	✓	—	✓
10	National documents supporting subnational TRPA implementation	✓ b	—	✓
Section 4—Policy scope, content and implementation
11	Delivery settings for TRPA	✓ b	✓	—
12	Target population groups for TRPA	✓ b	✓	—
13	Communication strategy for TRPA promotion	X	—	✓
14	Examples of large‐scale TRPA‐related programs/interventions	✓	—	✓
Section 5—Recommendations, goals and targets
15	National recommendations for TRPA	✓ b	✓	—
16	Subnational goals for population prevalence of TRPA	✓ b	✓	✓
17	Other direct/indirect goals/targets that relate to TRPA a promotion	✓ b	✓	✓
Section 6—Surveillance
18	Subnational health surveillance or monitoring measuring TRPA	✓ b	✓	✓
19a	Influence of TRPA data on policy development	✓ b	—	✓
19b	Influence of TRPA data on subnational promotion of TRPA	✓ b	—	✓
Section 7—Evaluation
20a	Evaluation of key subnational policy documents	✓ b	✓	✓
20b	Evaluation of TRPA subnational projects/interventions	✓ b	—	✓
21	Economic evaluation of TRPA interventions or physical inactivity	X	✓	✓
Section 8—Funding and commitments
22	Ring‐fenced subnational funding for TRPA policy or action plans	X	—	✓
23	Evidence of political commitment to the subnational TRPA agenda	✓ c	—	✓
Section 9—Capacity building through a subnational network
24	Existence of professional networks/systems connecting those interested/working in TRPA	✓	✓	✓
Section 10—Experience of policy implementation, progress and remaining challenges
25a	Areas of greatest progress for TRPA	✓	—	✓
25b	Biggest challenges for TRPA	✓	—	✓
26	Suggestions for other jurisdictions developing subnational TRPA policy	N/A	—	—
27	Further details/comments	N/A	—	N/A
Section 11—Summary of how the HEPA PAT was completed

Abbreviations: N/A, not applicable; TRPA, transport‐related physical activity.

^a Most but not all policies.

^b Limited.

^c Fluctuating.

Forty‐two Tasmanian Government policy documents were identified, and after screening, 20 were included in the audit (Figure 1). Summary details of the included policies are provided below under Section 3 of the PAT‐C (Table 4).

FIGURE 1.

Overview of policy documents identified and screened. * See Table 4 for a full list of included policies ^†“Not a policy” defined as legislation, implementation/work plan, departmental strategic plan, evaluation framework.

TABLE 4.

Included policy documents by sector.

Policy title	Date published	Sector (including Whole of Government)
		Education	Environment/Climate change	Health	Transport	Urban design/Planning	Whole of Government
Wellbeing for Learning: Child and Student Wellbeing Strategy [34]	2022	√
Tasmania's Climate Change Action Plan 2023–2025 a , b [35]	2023		√
Healthy Tasmania Five‐Year Strategic Plan 2022–2026 a , b [36]	2022			√
Long‐Term Plan for Healthcare in Tasmania 2040 [37]	2023			√
Our Healthcare Future. Advancing Tasmania's Health [38]	2022			√
Rethink 2020: A state plan for mental health in Tasmania 2020–2025 [39]	2020			√
State Road Hierarchy [40]	Unknown				√
State Roads Infrastructure Asset Management Policy [41]	2014				√
State Roads Infrastructure Service Policy a [42]	2014				√
Tasmanian Urban Passenger Transport Framework a , b [43]	2010				√
Tasmanian Walking and Cycling for Active Transport Strategy a , b [44]	2010				√
Tasmanian Walk, Wheel, Ride Policy a , b [45]	2024				√
Transport Access Strategy a , b [46]	2018				√
Towards Zero—Tasmanian Road Safety Strategy 2017–2026 [47]	2016				√
Tasmanian Housing Strategy b , c [48]	2023					√
Equal Means Equal. Tasmanian Women's Strategy 2022–2027 [49]	2022						√
It Takes a Tasmanian Village – Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy a [50]	2021						√
Tasmanian Child and Youth Wellbeing Framework a [51]	2018						√
Tasmania's Population Policy. Planning for our future a , b [52]	2024						√
2030 Visitor Economy Strategy Tasmania c [53]	2023

^a Explicit reference made to transport‐related physical activity (TRPA) in the policy.

^b Identified by project team as a key document for the TRPA agenda.

^c Tourism sector.

The findings for each of the 27 items are reported below under the corresponding 11 sections of the PAT‐C.

3.1. Section 1: Background Information and Subnational Context

The Tasmania Government is predicated on the Westminster system (founded in England). The Legislative Council (Upper House, reviews and amends) and House of Assembly (Lower House, proposes) oversee legislation. The Executive Council has executive power comprising the Governor and senior ministers (the Cabinet appointed by the Governor). Executive power is actioned by the Premier as advised by Cabinet. Currently, there are eight government departments responsible for policy and services across Tasmania [54]. As determined by the project team, five departments were most relevant to the TRPA agenda and three departments did not have a substantive role (Table 3).

TABLE 3.

Tasmanian government departments, responsibilities and relevance to transport‐related physical activity (TRPA).

Tasmanian government department a	Sector responsibility relevant to TRPA	Role relevant to TRPA
Education, Children and Young People	Education	Enabling children and young people to engage in active living.
Health	Health	Ensuring that Tasmanians can access the health services they need and encourage preventive activities that support health and wellbeing
Justice	Not applicable	Not applicable
Police, Fire and Emergency Management	Not applicable	Not applicable
Premier and Cabinet	Urban design and planning	Ensuring that Tasmanians have access to spaces and places that support active living
Natural Resources and Environment	Not applicable	Not applicable
State Growth	Environment/Climate change, Sport and recreation, Transport, Tourism	Ensuring transport‐related infrastructure supports active living; monitoring and reporting on Tasmania's greenhouse gas emissions; and implementing projects/programs to reduce emissions which includes support for active transport
Treasury and Finance	Not applicable	Provides objective advice to the Government on economic and financial management. Implements Government policies and programs, and performs analysis, monitoring and reporting functions on the Government's behalf.

^a TRPA relevant policy may be authored by the Tasmanian Government (Whole of Government) rather than through a single department.

3.2. Section 2: Leadership and Partnerships

Numerous national and subnational agencies provide leadership on TRPA promotion, including government (e.g., the Tasmanian Government Department of State Growth, Metro Tasmania) and non‐government agencies: health organisations such as the National Heart Foundation of Australia; advocacy groups (e.g., Cycling South and Bicycle Network Tasmania); peak professional bodies (e.g., Planning Institute of Australia including its Tasmanian branch); multi‐sector and multi‐professional Tasmanian based coalitions (e.g., the Premier's Health and Wellbeing Advisory Council (PHWAC)), the Tasmanian Active Living Coalition (TALC) and the Tasmanian Public Health and Research Action Coalition (TasPHRAC); professional societies (e.g., Asia Pacific Society for Physical Activity); and the private sector (e.g., Royal Automobile Club of Tasmania).

Mechanisms for cross‐sectoral collaboration to deliver subnational TRPA policy are through the Tasmanian multisector/professional councils PHWAC and coalitions (TALC and TasPHRAC). Additionally, the Tasmanian Climate Change Act mandates broad consultation including with portfolio ministers—this is relevant to TRPA policy because the Climate Change Action Plan recognises TRPA as a means to reduce carbon emissions [35].

3.3. Section 3: Policy Documents (Past and Current)

3.3.1. Past Key Policy Documents and Events

A past key policy document considered influential by the project team in shaping the Tasmanian TRPA agenda was Tasmania's Plan for Physical Activity 2011–2021 [55]. One of the policy's goals was “Create built and natural environments that enable and encourage physical activity” which encapsulated TRPA. The project team identified several key past events as influencing the current Tasmanian TRPA context:

• The Premier's Physical Activity Council (PPAC) (established in 2001) had responsibility for the development and oversight of Tasmania's Plan for Physical Activity 2011–2021 [55]. One of PPAC's several working groups acted on the plan's goal of “Create built and natural environments that enable and encourage physical activity”

• PPAC was superseded by the PHWAC in 2016—the council advises the Premier and Government on effective approaches for improving the health and wellbeing of all Tasmanians, including TRPA

• PHWAC developed The Tasmania Statement in 2019 (updated in 2021) which signifies the Premier's commitment to collaborate on long term solutions to address the social and economic factors that influence health [56].

• In 2019, the University of Tasmania and the Department of Health, Tasmanian Government hosted an active living forum which led to the formation of TALC. TALC is represented by over 15 Tasmanian government and non‐government organisations. TALC advocates for government policy that enhances active living.

3.3.2. Current Policy Documents

Twenty current policy documents published between 2010 and 2024 were identified through the desktop review as relevant to the TRPA agenda (Table 4) [34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53].

Policies spanned the education, environment/climate change, health, transport, urban design/planning, and tourism sectors. Most policy documents were from the health and transport sectors or authored at a whole of government level. The project team identified 10 documents as key to the TRPA agenda either because of the policy's direct relevance (most commonly from the transport sector) or its potential for influence (most commonly from the urban design/planning or whole of government sectors) [35, 36, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 50, 51, 52].

Amongst the 10 key policy documents identified, the majority (n = 7) demonstrated evidence of a consultative process in policy development (e.g., by engaging different stakeholders through surveys, group discussions or written submissions) [35, 36, 46, 48, 50, 51, 52]. The three policies that did not specify in their policy the use of a consultative process were from the transport sector (Tasmanian Urban Passenger Transport Framework; Tasmanian Walk, Wheel, Ride Policy; Tasmanian Walking and Cycling for Active Transport Strategy) [43, 44, 45].

Eight of the 10 key policies demonstrated at least some evidence of cross‐referencing within and between policies (exceptions were the Tasmanian Child and Youth Wellbeing Framework and the Tasmanian Walk, Wheel, Ride Policy), but the policy objectives and principles did not always align [45, 51]. For example, the Tasmanian Housing Strategy (2023) refers to the social determinants of health and liveability, but does not refer to the Healthy Tasmania strategy (2022) which has a strong focus on these concepts [36, 48].

While there is no Tasmanian Government based mechanism to ensure policies are informed by the best available scientific evidence, there are within‐sector mechanisms. For example, the Healthy Tasmania strategy has a research and evaluation framework, and the Climate Change Act mandates a science‐based approach, which is evident in Tasmania's Climate Change Action Plan [35, 57, 58].

Based on expert opinion, the perceived usefulness of international, national and subnational documents spanning physical activity, health, transport and urban planning and design in the development of Tasmanian TRPA policy was generally variable by sector representation (Table S3). Greatest agreement amongst the three project members completing this task was in the high level of perceived usefulness (rated 4/5) of Tasmania's Walking and Cycling for Active Transport Strategy [44]. The listed international level documents were more commonly perceived as useful for TRPA policy development within the health and environment/climate change sectors and the national level documents within the health sector only. The project member representing the transport sector generally ranked the international and national documents as not useful for subnational TRPA related policy development.

In the health sector, there are national level documents that support subnational TRPA implementation including the National Preventive Health Strategy and National Obesity Strategy [59, 60]. There is no national TRPA policy—the Australian Government's policy statement on infrastructure makes scant reference to TRPA [61].

3.4. Section 4: Policy Scope, Content and Implementation

The delivery settings for TRPA in the included policies were limited to primary schools, transport, environment/climate change, and community. The population groups targeted were children/young people, those financially disadvantaged, and the general population. There was no communication strategy for TRPA promotion in Tasmania.

Four large‐scale TRPA related programs/interventions were identified by the project team as illustrating the types of policy actions occurring in Tasmania. The Healthy Tasmania Fund administered by the Department of Health has supported several community level TRPA projects in recent years. The Better Active Transport Grant Program, administered by the Department of State Growth, was established in 2023 and has funded (total AUD$8.1 M) local government infrastructure initiatives to improve TRPA. The 2023 e‐Mobility Rebate program, administered by the Department of State Growth, provided rebates (which were fully subscribed) up to $250 for e‐scooters/skateboards, $500 for e‐bikes, and $1000 for cargo e‐bikes. The division of Renewables, Climate and Future Industries Tasmania in the Department of State Growth offers Community Climate Change Action Grants for community projects that improve information and knowledge about climate change, reduce emissions, and build resilience, with focused TRPA projects considered for funding.

3.5. Section 5: Recommendations, Goals and Targets

At a national level, only general recommendations are made for TRPA which are directed at those 18–64 years through the Australian physical activity guidelines [62]. The guidelines encourage walking or riding instead of driving for short trips and getting off a bus stop earlier to increase walking [62]. Specific goals for population prevalence of TRPA at the Tasmanian level are limited to the Healthy Tasmania Strategic Plan [36]—a measure of success of the strategy is “more Tasmanians use public and active transport”. Tasmania's main urban public transport provider, Metro Tasmania, as part of its current Corporate Plan states that an indicator of success is “Patronage will increase” but it does not name specific targets nor benchmarks [63].

Indirectly targeting TRPA, the Healthy Tasmania strategy aims to increase population prevalence of physical activity from 3 in 10 children (2–17 years) and 2 in 10 adults meeting weekly physical activity guidelines [36]. The strategy mentions improving physical activity levels through TRPA but does not quantify the target.

3.6. Section 6: Surveillance

The Tasmanian Population Health Survey is conducted every 3 years via telephone and has collected information from adults on TRPA through a single item since 2016 [64]. The question asks, “in the last week, on how many days did you walk, run, or bicycle for at least 10 min continuously to get to and from places?” This self‐report question is the main subnational mechanism for evaluating TRPA related project impact and is used within the Healthy Tasmania evaluation framework as one measure of success [57]. The question focuses on adults only and excludes walking or wheeling trips of less than 10 min. This is a limitation because many trips are of short duration but make an important contribution to weekly physical activity targets.

[65]. Based on expert opinion, this single question has influenced the Healthy Tasmania strategy, but was unlikely to have influenced TRPA promotion in other ways because it is limited in scope [36]. Findings from other national (e.g., administered by the Bicycle Network) and local transport surveys (e.g., Hobart Travel Survey) are used for TRPA advocacy.

3.7. Section 7: Evaluation

Amongst the included policy documents, only the Healthy Tasmania Strategic Plan has an evaluation conducted but TRPA was not a specific focus [36, 66]. There has been no economic evaluation of TRPA related interventions. Only one example of an evaluation of a TRPA related project was known by the project team—conducted by the division of Renewables, Climate and Future Industries Tasmania in the Department of State was a two‐phase survey for rebate recipients for the e‐mobility rebate program (under Tasmania's Climate Change Action Plan) to determine how recipients have used their e‐bike/e‐mobility device and the impact of the rebate on their purchase decision [35]. Results were not available at the time of writing.

3.8. Section 8: Funding and Commitments

There is no ’ring‐fenced’ (dedicated) subnational funding for TRPA.

There is evidence of political commitment to promote TRPA, demonstrated in several policies included in this review and through initiatives to support active and public transport use described above in Section 4. However, expert opinion indicated political commitment fluctuates (e.g., the Tasmanian Government recently withdrew promised funding to support a TRPA trial in its capital city, Hobart [29]).

3.9. Section 9: Capacity‐Building Through a Subnational Network

As described under Sections 2 and 3 above, the TALC and TasPHRAC are two mechanisms enabling networking and capacity building in TRPA.

3.10. Section 10: Experience of Policy Implementation, Progress and Remaining Challenges

Based on expert opinion, areas of greatest Tasmanian TRPA‐related progress included e‐bike subsidies through the Department of State Growth, the recently published Tasmanian Cycling Infrastructure Design Guide and partnerships supporting TRPA leading to a stronger voice and vision (e.g., TALC) [67]. The greatest challenges noted for TRPA, included decision makers and the planning system favouring property developers' wants over TRPA, lack of agreement on good TRPA policy and operational restrictions on what government departments can report. Expert opinion is that other Australian jurisdictions may advance TRPA policy development by connecting multiple champions across levels of authority, addressing complex problems through incremental solutions and identifying a stepwise process to support longer‐term advocacy.

3.11. Section 11: Summary of How the PAT‐C Was Completed

Information required in this Section includes project team membership, process overview, timeline and experts consulted—these details are described in the Methods.

Using the CAPPA framework, the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats within the Tasmanian TRPA policy environment as assessed according to the 11 sections of the PAT‐C are summarised in Table 5.

TABLE 5.

SWOT analysis of the TRPA Tasmanian policy environment audit findings by CAPPA's six category framework.

SWOT level CAPPA category	Strengths	Weaknesses	Opportunities	Threats
Purpose of analysis (Audit)	Audit helped identify TRPA policy gaps for prioritised action	—	—	—
Policy level (Subnational)	Established collaborations and mechanisms for TRPA policy development	—	Collaborations can help fill TRPA policy environment gaps	—
Policy sector (Education, Environment/Climate change, Health, Sport and recreation, Tourism, Transport, Urban design and planning)	Many agencies engaged in TRPA policy partnerships	—	Agencies can help fill TRPA policy environment gaps	—
Type of policy (Formal written policies)	Several policy documents directly support TRPA. There are grants/incentives to implement TRPA initiatives	Some sectors do not have TRPA related policy. Cross‐referencing of policies and policy alignment is inconsistent. TRPA targets are limited in scope. No robust measurement. Evaluation of TRPA specific projects limited. There is no TRPA communications strategy	Strengthen the TRPA policy environment through connected and accountable policy across sectors.	—
			Build community support for TRPA policy through a communications strategy”
Stage of policy (Implementation, Maintenance or Succession)	Explicit TRPA policy developed.	Lack of identified funding to implement explicit TRPA policy.	Use existing coalitions to build political commitment to support TRPA policy implementation.	—
	Cross agency TRPA structures available to facilitate coordinated policy implementation
			Enable implementation of explicit TRPA policy with designated funding.
Scope of analysis (Content)	—	Many relevant policydocuments make no or indirect reference to TRPA. TRPA not prioritised in the planning system. No ringfenced funding for TRPA	Strengthen the TRPA policy environment by filling policy gaps within and across sectors. Advocate for TRPA prioritisation in transport and land use planning systems and funding by promoting its broad benefits.	Fluctuating political commitment and operating environments

Abbreviations: CAPPA Comprehensive Analysis of Policy on Physical Activity; SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats; TRPA transport‐related physical activity.

4. Discussion

This study enabled collection of rich data about the Tasmanian TRPA policy environment bringing together a systematic collation and analysis of policy and consensus based expert opinion, exposing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Subnational level leadership for TRPA in Tasmania was evident through several policies, advocacy agencies, collaborative mechanisms and targeted grants/incentives. However, opportunities for leadership growth remain. These include more transparent consultation in policy making, stronger intersectoral policy alignment, broader sector coverage, and improved promotion and accountability measures. Key accountability gaps include transparent use of evidence, dedicated funding, rigorous measurement and target setting for TRPA, and evaluation of TRPA‐specific initiatives. Targeted advocacy to address the TRPA policy environment gaps may also stabilise political commitment, as fluctuating political will was identified as a threat to TRPA progression. Such political dynamics threatening TRPA progress have been identified in other Australian jurisdictions (e.g., NSW [23]).

Intersectoral policy making is identified as a key element to successful policy for physical activity promotion in the HEPA PAT [27]. Analysis of subnational TRPA policy in Victoria found that interagency collaboration and inter‐government level negotiations were critical success factors [23, 24]. In Tasmania, the sectors of health and transport and whole of government more commonly authored policies that made direct or indirect reference to TRPA, highlighting intersectoral gaps. For instance, there was no current relevant policy from the sport and recreation sector, despite the immediate past Plan for Physical Activity 2011–2021 having a TRPA specific goal [55]. In a recent umbrella review of 10 studies, barriers to multi‐sectoral health related action were due to lack of shared vision, funding, political leadership, ownership/accountability and data driven outcomes [68]. TRPA policy environment weaknesses exposed in this study align with the aforementioned barriers. These findings highlight the types of advocacy needed to strengthen the TRPA policy environment as well as the need for systems‐level interventions consistent with the GAPPA [14].

The absence of a shared TRPA vision was evident in most policies included in this study as they contained no or indirect reference to TRPA, although access to transport would likely influence policy success. For example, in the health sector, three included policies overlooked access to transport as influencing health care access [37, 38, 39, 69]. Similarly, in the Wellbeing for Learning Strategy there is no explicit reference to TRPA, but it does state that a material basic for wellbeing for learning may include having access to transport to get to and from school [34]. Further, a descriptor of wellbeing in the strategy is that young people are as physically active as they can be, yet the importance of TRPA enabling environments to get to and from school is not discussed [34, 70].

The absence of robust surveillance measures of TRPA and limited evaluation of TRPA specific initiatives has consequences for accountability, policy development and sustainability and the inability to accurately measure policy implementation success [68]. Strengthening accountability measures is also important to mitigate fluctuating political commitment which was identified in this study as a threat to TRPA [68]. Such accountability measures could highlight the co‐benefits of TRPA on policy‐relevant issues in Tasmania (and nationwide), such as impacts of increasing TRPA on cost‐of‐living, mental wellbeing, social isolation, air pollution, congestion, road deaths and serious injuries, access to jobs, and local business viability (e.g., bakeries, cafes, local greengrocers).

Only some settings and population groups were targeted for TRPA improvement. As advocated by GAPPA, expanding the reach of TRPA interventions through a systems‐level approach is needed to shift the population prevalence of physical inactivity [14]. Although not a specified item in the HEPA PAT, it is notable that there is no current Tasmanian physical activity plan, nor is there a national plan, which is counter to > 80% of countries [71]. The absence of a physical activity plan means there is no overarching guidance or milestones/targets which may drive gaps identified in the TRPA policy environment.

In a multi‐country study of evidence types used in HEPA policy, the use of scientific evidence in policymaking was highly variable but was more likely to occur when partnerships between researchers and policymakers were present [72]. In Tasmania, although there is no subnational mechanism to ensure evidence‐based TRPA policy, which may influence policy success, formal collaborations exist between researchers and policymakers e.g., TasPHRAC and TALC [72, 73]. The findings of this study can be used to strengthen connections between researchers and policy makers and to target collaborative TRPA advocacy as detailed in Table 5.

4.1. Limitations

Some responses to the PAT‐C items were based on expert opinion and there may be alternate views or relevant information not captured. Restricting the audit to strategic policy documents and excluding legislation ensured methodological consistency. However, statutory frameworks also shape the physical activity environment, as demonstrated through scientific legal mapping [32]. Future research could build on this work through integration of legal analysis to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the TRPA policy environment. It is possible that other policy documents relevant to the TRPA environment were overlooked, despite a rigorous data collection method involving project team members who had extensive Tasmanian Government policy experience. The HEPA PAT provides a framework for a comprehensive audit of the policy environment, but it does not account for varying levels of influence of the different items (e.g., adequate dedicated funding would arguably have a greater impact on TRPA compared with a communications strategy). Whilst the audit had a subnational focus, the national and local Australian government policy environments also influence TRPA, which future studies could consider. A more detailed analysis of the subnational policy and funding environment for roads and car use (e.g., car dependency) and low‐density housing, and single‐land‐use policy (e.g., urban sprawl) would also add value, given these are major upstream determinants of TRPA. The audit reflects the policy environment at the time of data collection—some study findings may not represent policy changes that have subsequently occurred.

4.2. Strengths

This study has filled an important knowledge gap. It has demonstrated that contextualising the HEPA‐PAT enabled collection of rich information about the Tasmanian TRPA policy environment. Data collection was strengthened by a multi‐sector project team highly experienced in Tasmanian government policy. Following an established WHO protocol aided data collection efficiency and rigour and methodological transparency [27]. The CAPPA provided an analytical framework which, combined with the SWOT analysis, has provided stakeholders with clear guidance on where to direct TRPA‐related advocacy [25].

5. Conclusions

A contextualised WHO tool exposed strengths, opportunities, threats and areas for improvement in the Tasmanian TRPA policy environment. Important gaps identified included lack of accountability measures and limitations in cross‐sectoral policy alignment. The study findings provide guidance for policy‐ and decision‐makers developing policies to support TRPA. Strengthening the TRPA policy environment through subnational governments may provide the upstream influence required for population‐level PA increases, conferring important individual and societal‐level benefits.

Funding

This work was supported by a National Heart Foundation of Australia Future Leader Fellowship (grant number 104892).

Ethics Statement

Ethics approval was not required for this study because only publicly available information was used.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supporting information

Table S1: Eight steps to operationalise the Policy Audit Tool (PAT)‐C.

Table S2: Modifications made to the Health Enhancing Physical Activity Policy Audit Tool (HEPA PAT).

Table S3: Usefulness of international, national and subnational documents in the development of Tasmanian transport‐related physical activity policy by sector representation of project team members experienced in subnational Tasmanian government.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.