The Impact of Health Geography on Public Health Research, Policy, and Practice in Canada

Michelle M. Vine

Kate Mulligan

Kate Mulligan

Rachel Harris

Rachel Harris

3 and

Jennifer L. Dean

Jennifer L. Dean

Department of Health Sciences, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON L2S 3A1, Canada

Canadian Institute for Social Prescribing, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5T 3M7, Canada

Independent Researcher, Hamilton, ON L8P 1H6, Canada School of Planning, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(18), 6735; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20186735

Submission received: 29 June 2023 / Revised: 17 August 2023 / Accepted: 7 September 2023 / Published: 9 September 2023

Abstract

The link between geography and health means that the places we occupy—where we are born, where we live, where we work, and where we play—have a direct impact on our health, including our experiences of health. A subdiscipline of human geography, health geography studies the relationships between our environments and the impact of factors that operate within those environments on human health. Researchers have focused on the social and physical environments, including spatial location, patterns, causes of disease and related outcomes, and health service delivery. The work of health geographers has adopted various theories and philosophies (i.e., positivism, social interactionism, structuralism) and methods to collect and analyze data (i.e., quantitative, qualitative, spatial analysis) to examine our environments and their relationship to health. The field of public health is an organized effort to promote the health of its population and prevent disease, injury, and premature death. Public health agencies and practitioners develop programs, services, and policies to promote healthy environments to support and enable health. This commentary provides an overview of the recent landscape of health geography and makes a case for how health geography is critically important to the field of public health, including examples from the field to highlight these links in practice.

1. Introduction

Health geography studies how human health and health systems are diffused, distributed, determined, and delivered by using a spatial lens to examine these factors across a range of scales [1,2]. Indeed, the places we occupy—where we are born, where we live, where we work, and where we play—have a direct impact on our health and our experiences of health.

The Canadian Public Health Association defines public health as “the organized effort of society to keep people healthy and prevent injury, illness and premature death” [3]. Public health focuses on the health of the whole population. This focus is different but not disconnected from other parts of the health system, which often prioritizes individual health. A population health approach aims to improve the health of the population and to reduce inequities in health among population groups by looking beyond the health-care system to consider a wider range of factors and conditions impacting health status [4]. Public health functions through programs, services, policies, and other interventions designed to improve the population’s health. These activities are undertaken by multiple levels of government and in collaboration with partners across sectors, such as community and healthcare organizations.

Health geographers have made important contributions to public health scholarship on the reciprocal relationship between place and human health. Most notably, geographers have acknowledged that contextual, compositional, and collective aspects of place together influence population health in a much more relational rather than unilateral way [5,6]. The importance of taking a multiscalar and intersectional approach has also been advocated by health geographers engaging with the WHO’s Healthy Cities initiative, which adopts a community approach to address urban health inequality [7], and more recently, the integrated One Health approach that seeks to explore planetary and human health through connections between humans, animals, and ecosystems [8]. These approaches counter the false dichotomy between population and individual determinants of health (i.e., public health vs. the healthcare system), as Macintyre et al. [6] (p. 128) conclude “… rather than there being one single, universal ‘area effect on health’ there appear to be some area effects on some health outcomes, in some population groups, and in some types of areas.”

The factors and conditions impacting health status are also known as the determinants of health. It is estimated that factors such as behaviour, biology, and access to and quality of healthcare only determine about half of an individual’s health outcomes. The other half of these outcomes are determined by the conditions in which people are born, grow, work, live, and age. These conditions are known as the social determinants of health and include factors such as income, education, working conditions, race, gender, and culture [9].

In Canada and worldwide, there are historical, persistent, and emerging health inequities. The term inequity (or health disparity) is used to: “describe those health inequities, though avoidable, are not avoided and hence are unfair” [10] (p. S517). Individual and social determinants both directly influence these health inequities. To address these inequities in health outcomes across subpopulations, health systems have a responsibility and commitment to data collection, measurement, reporting, and evaluation to highlight these inequities, with the goal of improving access to care for all individuals [11]. The difference between inequity and inequality has been described by Global Health Europe, and it is important to note, “Inequity refers to unfair, avoidable differences arising from poor governance, corruption or cultural exclusion while inequality simply refers to the uneven distribution of health or health resources as a result of genetic or other factors or the lack of resources” [12].

Income-based inequity has historically been a primary indicator of relative rank in the social hierarchy. There has been a call to expand this further to consider alternative “axes of stratification” that include inequities in human capital and political power, in addition to cultural and social assets [13]. Widening discrepancies in income inequality have been, in part, explained through various social markers, including disparities in job security, housing provision, and employment, all of which shape health [14]. These inequities are the result of occurrences resulting from ongoing power relations related to colonial legacies, the slave trade, and employment into insecure and unpleasant occupations through immigration [14]. For example, in Canada, colonial strategies, such as the Indian Act and residential schools, intended to assimilate indigenous people by severing relationships between children and families, families from their land/territory, and nations from their culture [15]. These historic and ongoing impacts of colonialism have contributed to indigenous health inequities that are systematic, socially produced, and unjust. Other types of inequities have been examined by health geographers. Research on the role of discrimination in shaping health and health inequities has focused attention on ethnicity, homelessness, disability, nomad populations, sexual orientation, and gender by way of social, cultural, physical, and economic environments [14].

Health geographers are curious about understanding the spaces and places that influence our health. Furthermore, health geography’s focus on examining the processes and relationships across time and space is valuable to public health, which always considers historical trends, emerging threats, and working at multiple scales. In this commentary, we provide an overview of the recent landscape of health geography and make a case for how health geography is critically important to the field of public health, including examples from the field to highlight these links in practice. Health geographers are well-positioned to continue to be strong collaborators in the work needed to transform Canada’s public health system.

2. Approaching Public Health through Health Geography

Public health is influenced by health geography in multiple ways, from the unseen assumptions and beliefs about the world and how it can be known to the specific practices and methods for gathering knowledge about the world. Unlike the field of medicine, which is rooted in objective and positivist approaches to understanding human health through scientific inquiry, health geographers have adopted various ontological, epistemological, and methodological approaches in public health practice [16]. These approaches support and allow health geographers to examine the processes and relationships across time and space that influence human health and diseases as they evolve [17]. Ontology comprises theories that seek to answer questions about the conditions of the world for knowledge to be possible. Theories are developed by examining the way in which individuals experience life or highlight differences and similarities within everyday life, both inductively (deriving general assumptions from specific instances in life) and deductively (deriving specific assumptions from general instances in life) [18]. Positivist theorists draw upon quantitative statistical methods to investigate patterns in health across space and place, with a sample large enough to generalize to the population, for example, regarding disease spread or diffusion [19,20]. Meanings of health and disease have been subjectively explored by health geographers through experiences of places that are socially constructed, known as social interactionism [21,22,23]. (Giddens emphasized structuralist theory as the practical use of society’s structural components (rules, norms, institutions), which exist as real when they are generated through the social practices of humans [22].

Epistemology is the investigation of the origin, methods, and limitations of what we know about the world—and how we know it—and how that establishes what we accept as valid knowledge [18,23]. In her commencement address to The School of Public Health at the University of California at Berkeley, Krieger [24] acknowledged her belief that public health practice and research requires a passionate epistemology, specifically, “a way of knowing that is at once critical, rigorous, humble, and partisan, on the side of all who are burdened by premature mortality, preventable disease … where knowledge is instrumental for closing, not widening, gaps between rich and poor, between the powerful and disempowered, within countries and across nations” [24] (p.288). It is within this epistemological context that health geographers are often situated.

Methodologically, health geographers adopt a coherent set of procedures and rules to investigate a phenomenon, guided by a framework identified as part of its ontology and epistemology [23] to collect data (i.e., quantitative, qualitative, spatial analysis) to examine our environments and their relationship to health. Quantitative data collection methods have been used to examine geographies of disease (both infectious and chronic), the food-obesity-built environment [25], walkability [26], green spaces [27], and access to healthcare services by way of multilevel modelling and spatial analysis [28] using geographic information systems (GIS) mapping [29,30], personal activity devices/trackers [31,32] with an emphasis on marginalized populations in particular geographical locations (women, low income, racialized populations) [33,34].

Qualitative methods have been used by health geographers to explore the relationship between the environment and health [35], including therapeutic landscapes [36], environmental health [37,38], disability studies [39], health outcomes in indigenous populations [40], newcomers [41,42], children [43], and aging populations [44,45].

Mixed methods—combining qualitative and quantitative research—have been utilized by health geographers to explore the relationship between the environment, human health and health and social services. For example, Chadwick and Collins [46] examined social support availability, neighbourhood characteristics and mental health of recent immigrants using in-depth interviews and secondary analysis of Canadian Community Health Survey data. International studies represent important examples that Canada can learn from. In a study on social isolation and loneliness, Finlay and Kobayashi [47] utilized a parallel convergent mixed-methods case study, including in-person, in-depth interview sessions with US older adults framed by the Neighbourhood Design Characteristics Checklist (NeDeCC) to assess residential environments at three levels: dwelling, street and neighbourhood, in-person observations, and ArcGIS mapping software to calculate the NeDeCC for every participant’s home location. In Australia, Brown and others [48] conducted a mixed-method participatory GIS study focused on evaluating the validity of using qualitative interviews and quantitative mapping methods in Australia. A mixed methods study assessing food environments in a low-, middle-, and high-income community in a Mexican city analyzed the density and proximity of food outlet types and the quantity, variety, pricing, promotion and quality of food (quantitative method), in addition to undertaking qualitative photo elicitation, which uses images during interviews to stimulate culturally relevant reflections [49].

The political ecology of health and disease has guided some of the work of health geographers to expand their understanding of health and disease by focusing on interactions between social institutions, political interests, and human−environment interactions [50]. Political ecologies of health and ill health have applied mixed research methods and multiscalar analysis across time and space [51]. In this way, there has been a need to understand how human health and culture shape interactions with the environment, including confronting the perpetuation of structural inequalities and power relations that shape cultural practices and health processes [52].

A political ecology approach has been applied by health geographers through the lens of understanding the social construction of health and illness and social relevance in a study of infant mortality [53], in addition to an examination of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in South Africa [51]. Political ecology informed an investigation of First Nation’s perspectives on the risks and benefits of salmon aquaculture development in British Columbia, Canada [54]. Strong links were made between poor health and reduced environmental resource access since there are restrictions on social, economic, and cultural activities for indigenous communities that result in good health and well-being [54]. Lead poisoning in North Carolina was examined to reveal the place-based conditions in which higher rates of ill health emerged by way of social, historical, economic, and political processes [55].

3. Public Health

The Social Determinants of Health

The field of public health is an organized effort to promote the health of its population and prevent disease, injury, and premature death. Public health agencies and practitioners plan, develop, implement, and evaluate programs, services, and policies to promote healthy environments to support and enable health. It is within this context that we make the case that health geography has made significant contributions to the field of public health.

There is growing concern about public health issues impacting people’s health at the population level. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) health is a fundamental right, defined as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” [56] (p. 1). The field of public health focuses on the promotion and protection of health and includes the prevention of both chronic (e.g., diabetes, heart disease, cancer) and infectious diseases (e.g., COVID-19, Clostridium difficile ( C. diff ), Avian influenza (H5N1)) [56,57].

The social determinants of health (SDOH) refer to specific factors outside of the healthcare system or healthcare sector that influence the health of individuals and populations and reflect one’s location in society by way of income and social status, race, gender, education and literacy, employment status, and working conditions [9]. The SDOH vary between individuals and populations, where having higher levels of income leads to better health outcomes and, conversely, lower levels of income are associated with poorer health outcomes, which is referred to as the social gradient [58,59]. The social gradient also demonstrates the way income influences other SDOH (e.g., food, housing, education, health services, etc.) to produce better or worse health outcomes.

There have been recent calls to re-examine and continue expanding the SDOH, since they omit structural racism and the health system itself as a SDOH [60]. This call is relevant considering the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, where the lived experiences of racial and ethnic minority residents [61], food bank users [62], and essential workers were not considered in stay-at-home orders and social distancing recommendations [60]. This latter example demonstrates that structural racism is a root cause of racial health disparities inherent within the economic and employment system, in part by way of compensation and benefits and discrepancies in wage and worker safety laws, but particularly and perhaps most importantly, given that home healthcare workers are predominantly women of colour [58]. Similarly, in exploring why COVID-19 infections disproportionately impacted racialized communities, it was found that racialized individuals were more likely to be employed as essential workers or in other occupations with more exposure to infections, proximity to others, or less ability to work from home [63].

Structural determinants of health and the root causes of inequities have been examined by Crear-Perry and others [64]. Specifically, these are social and political structures—racism, classism, and gender oppression—that result in discriminatory policies and practices (e.g., human slavery, Jim Crow: state-led racial segregation, redlining: home mortgages being denied on the basis of race), that limited the socio, economic, and physical mobility and well-being of marginalized populations [64]. Similarly, the renewed research focus on the links between the built environment and population health has also shed light on the upstream structural determinants of health [65]. Of note, health geographers Dean & Elliott [66] have explored the complex interactions between physical, social, political, and economic aspects of the neighbourhood environment that produced adolescent body weight, while Pritchard [67], Leger et al. [68], and Biglieri and Dean [31] have all examined how ageist ableist assumptions and practices that have resulted in the exclusion of older adults and persons living with disabilities and diverse body sizes and shapes from everyday built environments.

Significant attention has been paid by health geographers to environmental injustice. This includes the actions and policies that place groups or communities, regardless of social position, at greater health risk through increased proximity and exposure to hazardous environmental conditions or natural disasters (https://ncceh.ca/resources/blog/renewed-attention-environmental-equity-and-justice (accessed on 12 June 2023)). Health geographers have promoted environmental justice initiatives and approaches and advocated for the inclusion of community voices to better inform the development of environmental health public policy, multiscalar analysis, and interdisciplinary partnerships [69]. Future research in this area in Canada to explore health prevention and racialization is needed [70].

Structure has also been examined as a fundamental cause of health inequity in the field of public health, as a complex layer of interrelated and interacting causes embodied by the individual [64,71]. In their example of smoking behaviours and structure, Crammond and Carey [71] outline an expanded theory of structural factors that make up a habitus of smoking, including pleasure, peers, public health messaging, perceptions of risk, cultural capital, family, coolness, economic capital, aesthetics, and gender (p. 11). In the case of smoking—as well as other “marketable health hazards” such as poor-quality food and beverages and alcohol, cannabis, and other drugs—the commercial determinants of health also impact whether someone smokes [72].

The commercial determinants of health are defined as “strategies and approaches used by the private sector to promote products and choices that are detrimental to health” [73] (p. e895). Marketing, lobbying, corporate social responsibility strategies, and extensive supply chains are channels that are driven by the internationalization of trade and capital, the demand for growth, and the expanding outreach of corporations [73]. These channels impact corporate reach and boost the health impacts related to corporate enterprise, specifically in the areas of alcohol, sugar-sweetened beverages, and tobacco sales.

There are some notable challenges associated with measuring the impact of social, structural, and behavioural determinants of health on populations, including that they are complex, multifaceted pathways with factors that are not linear and may be impacted by variables such as epigenetics and genetic factors, that health effects manifest over long periods and are hard to track, and that it is difficult to access information across sectors (e.g., education, health services, planning, housing) [74]. Further, when SDOH data are collected, they are not always connected to other data systems at the individual or patient level or available in real-time [75]. Aligned with Goal 3 of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), “To ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages” [76], public health practitioners, researchers, and policymakers seek to improve population health and reduce differences in health outcomes (health inequities) that result from race/ethnicity, geographic location, and socioeconomic position, as identified by education, income, and wealth [77]. Without adequate data to measure, understand, and respond to health inequities through focused interventions, this becomes even more challenging.

4. Health Geography’s Contributions to Public Health

In the 1990s, a shift from medical to health geography included a recognition of the need to explore health and illness in the context of experiences of being in place, defined as the local environment in which social process, health, and disease occur [78,79]. A focus on place involves understanding the relationship between individuals and the physical, cultural, and social environments in which they are located, which have a direct influence on their health and, to a lesser extent, also influence their access to health services [78].

Along with this disciplinary shift, health geographers expanded their focus beyond largely positivist (objective, quantitative) approaches to those informed by theory and more qualitative in nature [80,81]. As such, by the end of the twentieth century, health geographers were engaged in research adopting a population health perspective, particularly given their renewed definition of health (as described above) and a need to understand the social determinants of health [80]. Specifically, the way in which the environment and its conditions operate to influence and/or shape people’s health has been the focus of the work of health geographers. For example, access to health-promoting or protecting resources varies between social and physical environments, resulting in patterns that shape health-related behaviours within certain population groups and thus result in health inequities [82]. In 2009, Luginaah raised an important question about where the subdiscipline of health geography was headed, specifically, “How can we continue to identify, classify and reduce the risks of health that result from environmental and social inequalities, behavioural determinants (without victim blaming) and often location-specific determinants?” [83] (p. 94). Luginaah also stated the need for health geographers to highlight the policy implications of research findings and the relevance of research to the public (health) agenda [83].

A shift towards focused efforts on public health initiatives in health geography has identified health and place as critically important for engagement between health geography and public health [2]. Health and place (housing, neighbourhood, location, infrastructure) have been expressed through the link between its quality (housing, neighbourhood deprivation) and relationship to health behaviours (physical activity, nutrition, smoking, and alcohol consumption) to inform the development of new public health interventions, urban planning initiatives, and community development [20]. Specifically in practice, health geographers have used population health surveillance by collecting and analyzing health data, health promotion by empowering individuals and communities, and injury and illness prevention through risk reduction efforts, in turn, developing health promotion and protection interventions [20]. In addition to contributing to disciplinary discussions and debates in geography, the work of health geographers continues to inform the development of recommendations for public health practice and policy [84,85].

An overarching goal of health promotion and disease prevention is to support, and not hinder, healthy behaviour. A focus on the environment, including un/supportive environmental factors, has included research on the relationship between individual behaviours and features of the built, social, and policy environments at the local level to examine immigrant well-being [41,86], child and older adult mobility [32], and overall walkability [26,31,68,87], food retail stores and food deprivation [62,88], urban agriculture [89], school nutrition policy [90,91], therapeutic landscapes (coasts, seaside, urban parks, hospitals and clinics, gardens, etc.) [92,93], dengue fever and governance [94], and overweight and obesity [95,96,97,98]. Implications of many of these studies include multicomponent public health interventions to implement within these environments in order to support health behaviours (e.g., physical activity, walkability, nutritious food purchasing and intake) or advocate for broader structural changes.

Inequities in health were examined during the COVID-19 pandemic, linking inequities in COVID-19 outcomes with existing inequities in the social determinants of health and chronic diseases [99,100]. A recent study tracked the geography of disparity connected to COVID-19 vulnerability and social determinants of health in Colorado using geospatial statistics and GIS to estimate census tract level rates of COVID-19 to map areas of low and high incidence, including links to mental health and chronic conditions and the following social determinants of health, which represent inequities in income, education, access to healthcare, and race/ethnicity [101]. In Ontario, local public health units also use GIS to estimate census tract level rates for both incidence of COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccine uptake (City of Toronto: https://www.toronto.ca/community-people/health-wellness-care/health-programs-advice/respiratory-viruses/covid-19/covid-19-pandemic-data/covid-19-vaccine-data/ (accessed on 3 June 2023; City of Hamilton: https://www.hamilton.ca/people-programs/public-health/diseases-conditions/coronavirus-covid/covid-19-vaccine#vaccine-distribution (accessed on 3 June 2023); City of Hamilton (cases): https://www.hamilton.ca/people-programs/public-health/diseases-conditions/coronavirus-covid/covid-19-data#incidence-rate-by-ct (accessed on 3 June 2023). These data were used to inform vaccine clinic planning as well as neighbourhood-level vaccine uptake strategies. The City of Toronto, Canada collects data on neighbourhoods to address planning needs and the social determinants of health. As such, Toronto developed a neighbourhood map (N = 158) to track the weekly dose count of the population vaccinated for COVID-19 during specific periods according to neighbourhood of residence. As such,

Health inequity can explain why some neighbourhoods may have lower vaccination rates. Health inequity refers to preventable differences in health between groups of people … Inequities in vaccination uptake are often a result of lack of availability of services in one’s neighbourhood, lack of flexible service hours and access to transportation to attend vaccine clinics… In addition, lower vaccine uptake has been linked to negative historical experiences with health care institutions and distrust of health care, much of which stems from discrimination, systemic racism, and the effects of colonization

Population Health Intervention Research

Population Health Intervention Research (PHIR) seeks to develop and evaluate interventions (policies and programs) that influence health at the population health level while considering health equity and the contexts in which interventions are designed, established, implemented, and evaluated [103]. These include deliberate efforts to improve health across various sectors: health, education, employment, or housing, for example [104]. COVID-19 vaccination campaigns, taxation on tobacco products and sugar-sweetened beverages, school board nutrition policy [90,91], social prescribing [105,106], and infrastructure for active transportation include examples of interventions that can positively affect upstream determinants of health (e.g., risk exposure, social inequities, disadvantage) that have been explored by health geographers. These types of efforts support the impact on population health, and with a particular focus on place and context, also operate to disrupt the environmental and social conditions of risk and reduce inequities in health across settings [104]. In this way, health geographers are well positioned to undertake PHIR by way of innovative methods and theories with the goal of being able to articulate the complexity of relationships between health, interventions, and place [107].

Topics of interest to health geographers in PHIR have included housing as an important setting for improving health, such as in the contexts of improvements to safety, tenant interactions with a house, material conditions and mental health, and the symbolism and meaning of being housed after homelessness [108,109]. Another example of PHIR is using population health data via data linkage and GIS spatial analysis to explore the relationship between health outcomes and health behaviours. For example, Public Health Ontario produces interactive map-based dashboards to highlight temporal and spatial trends of key public health indicators (e.g., chronic diseases, injuries, health behaviours, health equity, mortality, reproductive and child health, and substance use) examined by public health units and the province of Ontario (https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/data-and-analysis/commonly-used-products/snapshots (accessed on 2 June 2023). Public Health Ontario and researchers at the MAP Centre for Urban Solutions at St. Michael’s Hospital (Unity Health Toronto) have also developed the Ontario Marginalization Index (ON-Marg) (https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/Data-and-Analysis/Health-Equity/Ontario-Marginalization-Index (accessed on 15 May 2023)), which measures and maps differences in marginalization across Ontario. Data are available at multiple levels, including at dissemination areas (i.e., population between 400 to 700 people) and public health unit levels) [110].

More generally, the built (physical) environment has seen a strong focus in health geography using geocoding (e.g., postal codes, census subdivisions (municipalities), metropolitan areas, divisions, economic regions, federal electoral districts, population centres, census tracts, and dissemination areas) [111], and Ontario Ministry of Health public health unit boundaries to layer onto population-level data [112] and to highlight Canadian health service access gaps using GIS story maps to help connect communities to health services they may not be accessing [113]. Further, the deep collaboration between health geography and urban planning has also made important theoretical and practical contributions to the development of healthy and equitable communities through a range of community, policy, governance, and structural changes [113,114,115,116,117].

The Dalla Lana School of Health at the University of Toronto recently hosted a 2023 Geospatial Data Visualization Challenge, whereby teams developed ArcGIS story maps to present a public health issue of choice through maps and visualization to highlight child poverty and food insecurity, the opioid crisis, physical activity and well-being (https://resources.esri.ca/news-and-updates/the-2023-university-of-toronto-geospatial-data-visualization-challenge (accessed on 6 May 2023)). ArcGIS developed a COVID-19 Health Dashboard to produce maps illustrating the number of COVID-19 cases by province and confirmed cases by provincial public health units, and population density at the dissemination area and neighbourhood level (https://resources-covid19canada.hub.arcgis.com/apps/90fdd2da4bba4c79a33c2202760b3c5d/explore (accessed on 6 May 2023)).

5. Future Directions in Health Geography and Public Health

The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada and around the world are unprecedented and include the worsening of pre-existing health inequities [61,62,99,100,102]. The 2021 Annual Report on the State of Public Health in Canada from the Chief Public Health Officer (CPHO) reflects on the impacts of COVID-19 and highlights the criticality of community participation and collaboration to respond to current and future public health challenges [118]. One of the independent reports commissioned to inform this report argued that “the future of public health is at the neighbourhood scale” [119]. Indeed, some of the most impactful public health interventions during COVID-19 were community and neighbourhood-driven, including locally organized pop-up vaccination clinics, community ambassador programs, and community organizing to prevent transmission and encourage vaccine uptake. The public health system in Canada functions at multiple scales, and there is increasingly a need to work at the smallest scale possible, given geography’s strong influence on health.

At a larger scale, health geographers are well positioned to address health system strains and health human resource challenges in the Canadian context by undertaking additional research at the interface between public health and health services; for example, into the practice of social prescribing, or community-led referral to services to address needs rooted in the social and environmental determinants of health [120]. Health geographers are also ideally situated to interrogate the ways in which digital approaches to public health, including online health literacy and artificial intelligence, and the impacts of new technologies on public health (e.g., automated and electrified transportation) have the potential to both mitigate and exacerbate geographic disparities in access to health and health infrastructure [85,121,122].

Finally, health geographers have the potential to fill a leadership role with respect to knowledge integration across scales and disciplines necessary to address the impending public health challenges. The increasing recognition of systems complexities in ongoing public health polycrises and syndemics [123], from the opioid crisis to climate change, will require health geographers to advance understanding and action on the policy and practice dimensions of individual, community, and institutional resilience.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M.V.; Methodology, M.M.V., K.M., R.H. and J.L.D.; Investigation: M.M.V.; Writing—original draft, M.M.V., K.M., R.H. and J.L.D.; Writing—review & editing, M.M.V., K.M., R.H. and J.L.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Elliott, S. Health Geography. In Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research ; Michalos, A.C., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Dummer, T. Health geography: Supporting public health policy and planning. CMAJ 2008, 178 , 1177–1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Canadian Public Health Association (n.d). What Is Public Health? Available online: https://www.cpha.ca/what-public-health (accessed on 16 June 2023).
  4. Government of Canada. What Is the Population Health Approach? Government of Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2012. Available online: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/health-promotion/population-health/population-health-approach.html#What (accessed on 1 May 2023).
  5. Andrews, G.J.; Hall, E.; Evans, B.; Colls, R. Moving beyond walkability: On the potential of health geography. Soc. Sci. Med. 2012, 75 , 1925–1932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Macintyre, S.; Ellaway, A.; Cummins, S. Place effects on health: How can we conceptualise, operationalise and measure them? Soc. Sci. Med. 2002, 55 , 125–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Barton, H.; Thompson, S.; Burgess, S.; Grant, M. (Eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Planning for Health and Well-Being: Shaping a Sustainable and Healthy Future ; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2015; Available online: https://www.routledge.com/The-Routledge-Handbook-of-Planning-for-Health-and-Well-Being-Shaping-a/Barton-Thompson-Burgess-Grant/p/book/9781138023307 (accessed on 26 June 2023).
  8. World Health Organization (WHO). One Health ; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023; Available online: https://www.who.int/health-topics/one-health#tab=tab_1 (accessed on 28 April 2023).
  9. Government of Canada. Social Determinants of Health and Health Inequalities. 2023. Available online: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/health-promotion/population-health/what-determines-health.html (accessed on 16 June 2023).
  10. Marmot, M.; Allen, J.J. Social determinants of health equity. Am. J. Public Health 2014, 104 , S517–S519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI). Health Equity and Population Health ; Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI): Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2022; Available online: https://www.cihi.ca/en/topics/health-equity-and-population-health (accessed on 27 April 2023).
  12. Global Health Europe: A Platform for Europe Engagement in Global Health. Inequity and Inequality in Health. Global Health Europe. 2009. Available online: https://globalhealtheurope.org/values/inequity-and-inequality-in-health/ (accessed on 26 June 2023).
  13. Subramanian, S.V.; Kawachi, I. Income inequality and health: What have we learned so far? Epidemiol. Rev. 2004, 26 , 78–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Pearce, J. The ‘blemish of place’: Stigma, geography and health inequalities. A commentary on Tabuchi, Fukuhara & Iso. Soc. Sci. Med. 2012, 75 , 1921. [Google Scholar]
  15. Greenwood, M.; Lindsay, N.M. A commentary on land, health, and Indigenous knowledge(s). Glob. Health Promot. 2019, 26 , 82–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Gatrell, A.C.; Elliott, S.J. Geographies of Health: An Introduction , 3rd ed.; Wiley Blackwell: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  17. Curtis, S.; Riva, M. Health geographies I: Complexity theory and human health. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2010, 34 , 215–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Aitkin, S.C.; Valentine, G. (Eds.) Ways of knowing and ways of doing geographic research. In Approaches to Human Geography: Philosophies, Theories, People and Practices ; Sage: Washington, DC, USA, 2015; Chapter 1; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  19. Kearns, R.; Moon, G. From medical to health geography: Novelty, place and theory after a decade of change. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2002, 26 , 605–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Andrews, G.J.; Evans, J.; Dunn, J.R.; Masuda, J.R. Arguments in health geography: On sub-disciplinary progress, observation, translation. Geogr. Compass 2012, 6 , 351–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Eyles, J.; Taylor, S.M.; Baxter, J.; Sider, D.; Willms, D. The social construction of risk in a rural community: Responses of local residents to the 1990 Hagersville (Ontario) tire fire. Risk Anal. 1993, 13 , 281–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Giddens, A. Structuration theory: Past, present and future. In Giddens’ Theory of Structuration ; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 201–221. [Google Scholar]
  23. Kitchin, R.; Tate, N.J. Conducting Research in Human Geography: Theory, Methodology and Practice ; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  24. Krieger, N. Passionate epistemology, critical advocacy, and public health: Doing our profession proud. Crit. Public Health 2000, 10 , 287–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Cummins, S.; Clary, C.; Shareck, M. Enduring challenges in estimating the effect of the food environment on obesity. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2017, 106 , 445–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Dean, J.; Biglieri, S.; Drescher, M.; Garnett, A.; Glover, T.; Casello, J. Thinking relationally about built environments and walkability: A study of adult walking behavior in Waterloo, Ontario. Health Place 2020, 64 , 102352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Richardson, E.A.; Pearce, J.; Mitchell, R.; Kingham, S. Role of physical activity in the relationship between urban green space and health. Public Health 2013, 127 , 318–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Kanaroglou, P.; Delmelle, E. Spatial Analysis in Health Geography ; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  29. Frew, R.; Higgs, G.; Harding, J.; Langford, M. Investigating geospatial data usability from a health geography perspective using sensitivity analysis: The example of potential accessibility to primary healthcare. J. Transp. Health 2017, 6 , 128–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Musa, G.J.; Chiang, P.H.; Sylk, T.; Bavley, R.; Keating, W.; Lakew, B.; Tsou, H.-C.; Hoven, C.W. Use of GIS mapping as a public health tool–-From cholera to cancer. Health Serv. Insights 2013, 6 , HSI-S10471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Biglieri, S.; Dean, J. Fostering mobility for people living with dementia in suburban neighborhoods through land use, urban design and wayfinding. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2022; 1–15, Online First . [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Loebach, J.E.; Gilliland, J.A. Free range kids? Using GPS-derived activity spaces to examine children’s neighborhood activity and mobility. Environ. Behav. 2016, 48 , 421–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hanna-Attisha, M.; LaChance, J.; Sadler, R.C.; Champney Schnepp, A. Elevated blood lead levels in children associated with the Flint drinking water crisis: A spatial analysis of risk and public health response. Am. J. Public Health 2016, 106 , 283–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Rosenberg, M. Health geography III: Old ideas, new ideas or new determinisms? Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2017, 41 , 832–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Fenton, N.E.; Baxter, J. (Eds.) Practicing Qualitative Methods in Health Geographies ; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  36. Alaazi, D.A.; Masuda, J.R.; Evans, J.; Distasio, J. Therapeutic landscapes of home: Exploring Indigenous peoples’ experiences of a Housing First intervention in Winnipeg. Soc. Sci. Med. 2015, 147 , 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Kangmennaang, J.; Bisung, E.; Elliott, S.J. ‘We are drinking diseases’: Perception of water insecurity and emotional distress in urban slums in Accra, Ghana. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17 , 890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Crighton, E.; Gordon, H.; Barakat-Haddad, C. Environmental health inequities: From global to local contexts. In Routledge Handbook of Health Geography ; Crooks, V., Andrews, G.J., Pearce, J., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 172–178. [Google Scholar]
  39. Chouinard, V. Chapter 25: Mapping life on the margins: Disability and chronic illness. In Routledge Handbook of Health Geography ; Crooks, V., Andrews, G.J., Pearce, J., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 172–178. [Google Scholar]
  40. Richmond, C.A.M.; Big-Canoe, K. The geographies of Indigenous health. In Routledge Handbook of Health Geography ; Crooks, V., Andrews, G.J., Pearce, J., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 179–188. [Google Scholar]
  41. Harrington, D.W.; Dean, J.; Wilson, K.; Qamar, Z. “We don’t have such a thing, that you may be allergic”: Newcomers’ understandings of food allergies in Canada. Chronic Illn. 2015, 11 , 126–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rishworth, A.; Niraula, A.; Dean, J.; Wilson, K.; Ghassemi, E.; Baldo, A. Rural futures? Mapping newcomers’ hopes about potential resettlement in Canadian rural areas. Can. Geogr. 2022, 67 , 253–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Collins, D.; Evans, J. Health Geography. In International Encyclopedia of Geography: People, the Earth, Environment and Technology: People, the Earth, Environment and Technology ; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  44. Loebach, J.; Gilliland, J. Examining the social and built environment factors influencing Children’s independent use of their neighborhoods and the experience of local settings as child-friendly. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2022, 42 , 539–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Skinner, M.W.; Cloutier, D.; Andrews, G.J. Geographies of ageing: Progress and possibilities after two decades of change. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2015, 39 , 776–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Chadwick, K.A.; Collins, P.A. Examining the relationship between social support availability, urban center size, and self-perceived mental health of recent immigrants to Canada: A mixed-methods analysis. Soc. Sci. Med. 2015, 128 , 220–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Finlay, J.M.; Kobayashi, L.C. Social isolation and loneliness in later life: A parallel convergent mixed-methods case study of older adults and their residential contexts in the Minneapolis metropolitan area, USA. Soc. Sci. Med. 2018, 208 , 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Brown, G.; Strickland-Munro, J.; Kobryn, H.; Moore, S.A. Mixed methods participatory GIS: An evaluation of the validity of qualitative and quantitative mapping methods. Appl. Geogr. 2017, 79 , 153–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bridle-Fitzpatrick, S. Food deserts or food swamps? A mixed-methods study of local food environments in a Mexican city. Soc. Sci. Med. 2015, 142 , 202–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mayer, J.D. The political ecology of disease as one new focus for medical geography. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 1996, 20 , 441–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. King, B. Political ecologies of health. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2010, 34 , 38–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Cutchin, M.P. The need for the “new health geography” in epidemiological studies of environment and health. Health Place 2007, 13 , 725–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Gesler, W.M.; Bird, S.T.; Olijeski, S.A. Disease ecology and a reformist alternative: The case of infant mortality. Soc. Sci. Med. 1997, 44 , 657–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Richmond, C.; Elliott, S.J.; Matthews, R.; Elliott, B. The political ecology of health: Perceptions of environment, economy, health and well-being among ‘Namgis First Nation. Health Place 2005, 11 , 349–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Hanchette, C.L. The political ecology of lead poisoning in eastern North Carolina. Health Place 2008, 14 , 209–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. World Health Organization (WHO). Basic Documents: Forty-Ninth Edition (Including Amendments Adopted up to 31 May 2019) ; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020; Available online: https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/pdf_files/BD_49th-en.pdf (accessed on 15 May 2023).
  57. Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC). Infectious Diseases ; Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC): Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2022; Available online: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/infectious-diseases.html (accessed on 16 May 2023).
  58. Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Closing the Gap in a Generation: Health Equity through Action on the Social Determinants of Health. Final Report of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health ; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  59. Raphael, D.; Bryant, T.; Mikkonen, J.; Raphael, A. Social Determinants of Health: The Canadian Facts ; Ontario Tech University Faculty of Health Sciences and Toronto: Oshawa, ON, Canada; York University School of Health Policy and Management: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  60. Yearby, R. Structural racism and health disparities: Reconfiguring the social determinants of health framework to include the root cause. J. Law Med. Ethics 2020, 48 , 518–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Zhuang, Z.C.; Edge, S.; Dean, J. What is the future of public space? Hidden stories of immigrant suburbs during a global pandemic. Town Plan. Rev. 2021, 92 , 229–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Regnier-Davies, J.; Edge, S.; Austin, N. The intersection of structure and agency within charitable community food programs in Toronto, Canada, during the COVID-19 pandemic: Cultivating systemic change. Crit. Public Health 2022, 33 , 355–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Sze, S.; Pan, D.; Nevill, C.R.; Gray, L.J.; Martin, C.A.; Nazareth, J.; Minhas, J.S.; Divall, P.; Khunti, K.; Abrams, K.R.; et al. Ethnicity and clinical outcomes in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis. eClinicalMedicine 2020, 1 , 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Crear-Perry, J.; Correa-de-Araujo, R.; Lewis Johnson, T.; McLemore, M.R.; Neilson, E.; Wallace, M. Social and structural determinants of health inequities in maternal health. J. Women’s Health 2021, 30 , 230–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Corburn, J. Toward the Healthy City: People, Places, and the Politics of Urban Planning ; Mit Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  66. Dean, J.A.; Elliott, S.J. Prioritizing obesity in the city. J. Urban Health 2012, 89 , 196–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Pritchard, E. Body size and the built environment: Creating an inclusive built environment using universal design. Geogr. Compass 2014, 8 , 63–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Leger, S.J.; Dean, J.L.; Edge, S.; Casello, J.M. “If I had a regular bicycle, I wouldn’t be out riding anymore”: Perspectives on the potential of e-bikes to support active living and independent mobility among older adults in Waterloo, Canada. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2019, 123 , 240–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Masuda, J.R.; Poland, B.; Baxter, J. Reaching for environmental health justice: Canadian experiences for a comprehensive research, policy and advocacy agenda in health promotion. Health Promot. Int. 2010, 25 , 453–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Giang, A.; Boyd, D.R.; Ono, A.J.; McIlroy-Young, B. Exposure, access, and inequities: Central themes, emerging trends, and key gaps in Canadian environmental justice literature from 2006 to 2017. Can. Geogr./Le Géographe Can. 2022, 66 , 434–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Crammond, B.R.; Carey, G. What do we mean by ‘structure’ when we talk about structural influences on the social determinants of health inequalities? Soc. Theory Health 2017, 15 , 84–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Frank, J.; Abel, T.; Campostrini, S.; Cook, S.; Lin, V.K.; McQueen, D.V. The Social Determinants of Health: Time to Re-Think? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17 , 5856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Kickbusch, I.; Allen, L.; Franz, C. The commercial determinants of health. Lancet Glob. Health 2016, 4 , e895–e896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Braveman, P.; Gottlieb, L. The social determinants of health: It’s time to consider the causes of the causes. Public Health Rep. 2014, 129 (Suppl. S2), 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Mullangi, S.; Aviki, E.M.; Hershman, D.L. Reexamining Social Determinants of Health Data Collection in the COVID-19 Era. JAMA Oncol. 2022, 8 , 1736–1738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. United Nations (UN). Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) ; UN: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015; Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ (accessed on 17 May 2023).
  77. Arcaya, M.C.; Arcaya, A.L.; Subramanian, S.V. Inequalities in health: Definitions, concepts, and theories. Glob. Health Action 2015, 8 , 27106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Kearns, R.A. Place and health: Towards a reformed medical geography. Prof. Geogr. 1993, 45 , 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Dyck, I. Health and health care experiences of the immigrant woman: Questions of culture, context and gender. In Community, Environment and Health in British Columbia ; Hayes, M.V., Foster, L.T., Foster, H.D., Eds.; Western Geographic Series; University of Victoria Press: Oak Bay, BC, Canada, 1992; Volume 27, pp. 231–256. [Google Scholar]
  80. Elliott, S.J. And the question shall determine the method. Prof. Geogr. 1999, 51 , 240–243. Available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1111/0033-0124.00160 (accessed on 27 April 2023). [CrossRef]
  81. Eyles, J.; Smith, D. Qualitative Methods in Health Geography ; Polity Press: Cambridge, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  82. Ellaway, A.; Macintyre, S. Are perceived neighbourhood problems associated with the likelihood of smoking? J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health 2009, 63 , 78–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Luginaah, I. Health geography in Canada: Where are we headed? Can. Geogr. 2009, 53 , 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Crooks, V.A.; Andrews, G.J.; Pearce, J.; Snyder, M. Chapter 1: Introducing the Routledge Handbook of Health Geography ; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  85. Mulligan, K. Digital inclusion, online participation and health promotion: Promising practices from community-led participatory journalism. Glob. Health Promot. 2022, 30 , 35–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Edge, S.; Davis, C.; Dean, J.; Onilude, Y.; Rishworth, A.; Wilson, K. The role of urban and rural greenspaces in shaping immigrant wellbeing and settlement in place. Wellbeing Space Soc. 2023, 4 , 100127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Frohlich, K.L.; Collins, P.A. Children’s right to the city and their independent mobility: Why it matters for public health. J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health , 2023; preprint . [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Black, C.; Ntani, G.; Inskip, H.; Cooper, C.; Cummins, S.; Moon, G.; Baird, J. Measuring the healthfulness of food retail stores: Variations by store type and neighbourhood deprivation. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2014, 11 , 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Mulligan, K.; Archbold, J.; Baker, L.E.; Elton, S.; Cole, D. Toronto municipal staff and policy-makers’ views on urban agriculture and health: A qualitative study. J. Agric. Food Syst. Commun. Dev. 2018, 8 , 133–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Vine, M.M.; Elliott, S.J. Examining local-level factors shaping school nutrition policy implementation in Ontario, Canada. Public Health Nutr. 2014, 17 , 1290–1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Vine, M.M.; Elliott, S.J.; Raine, K.D. Exploring implementation of the Ontario School Food and Beverage Policy at the secondary school level: A qualitative study. Can. J. Diet. Pract. Res. 2014, 75 , 118–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Foley, R.; Kistemann, T. Blue space geographies: Enabling health in place. Health Place 2015, 35 , 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Bell, S.L.; Foley, R.; Houghton, F.; Maddrell, A.; Williams, A.M. From therapeutic landscapes to healthy spaces, places and practices: A scoping review. Soc. Sci. Med. 2018, 196 , 123–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Mulligan, K.; Elliott, S.J.; Schuster-Wallace, C. The place of health and the health of place: Dengue fever and urban governance in Putrajaya, Malaysia. Health Place 2012, 18 , 613–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Barakat-Haddad, C.; Saeed, U.; Elliott, S. A longitudinal cohort study examining determinants of overweight and obesity in adulthood. Can. J. Public Health 2017, 108 , e27–e35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Leatherdale, S.T.; Pouliou, T.; Church, D.; Hobin, E. The association between overweight and opportunity structures in the built environment: A multi-level analysis among elementary school youth in the PLAY-ON study. Int. J. Public Health 2011, 56 , 237–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Pouliou, T.; Elliott, S.J. Individual and socio-environmental determinants of overweight and obesity in Urban Canada. Health Place 2010, 16 , 389–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Harrington, D.W.; Elliott, S.J. Weighing the importance of neighbourhood: A multilevel exploration of the determinants of overweight and obesity. Soc. Sci. Med. 2009, 68 , 593–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Bambra, C.; Riordan, R.; Ford, J.; Matthews, F. The COVID-19 pandemic and health inequalities. J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health 2020, 74 , 964–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Gatzweiler, F.; Fu, B.; Rozenblat, C.; Su, H.J.J.; Luginaah, I.; Corburn, J.; Boufford, J.I.; Valdes, J.V.; Nguendo-Yongsi, B.; Howden-Chapman, P.; et al. COVID-19 reveals the systemic nature of urban health globally. Cities Health 2021, 5 (Suppl. S1), S32–S36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Lee, J.; Ramírez, I.J. Geography of disparity: Connecting COVID-19 vulnerability and social determinants of health in Colorado. Behav. Med. 2022, 48 , 72–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. City of Toronto. Technical Notes: COVID-19 Vaccine Administration Dashboard ; City of Toronto: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2023; Available online: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KRaQ1N45by0pv8xC5VF9YPXfezJkqwAn/view (accessed on 18 April 2023).
  103. Craig, P.; Di Ruggiero, E.; Frohlich, K.L.; Mykhalovskiy, E.; White, M.; on behalf of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)–National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Context Guidance Authors Group. Taking Account of Context in Population Health Intervention Research: Guidance for Producers, Users and Funders of Research; Southampton: NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre. 2018. Available online: https://www.storre.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/27205/1/Craig%202018%20context%20guidance%20FullReport-CIHR-NIHR-01.pdf (accessed on 19 May 2023).
  104. Hawe, P.; Ruggiero, E.D.; Cohen, E. Frequently asked questions about population health intervention research. Can. J. Public Health 2012, 103 , e468–e471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Bhatti, S.; Rayner, J.; Pinto, A.D.; Mulligan, K.; Cole, D.C. Using self-determination theory to understand the social prescribing process: A qualitative study. BJGP Open 2021, 5 , 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Muhl, C.; Mulligan, K.; Bayoumi, I.; Ashcroft, R.; Godfrey, C. Establishing internationally accepted conceptual and operational definitions of social prescribing through expert consensus: A Delphi study. BMJ Open 2023, 13 , e070184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Harrington, D.W.; McLafferty, S.; Elliott, S.J. (Eds.) Population Health Intervention Research: Geographical Perspectives ; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  108. Riva, M.; Mah, S.M. Practicing health geography in public health: A focus on population-health-intervention research. In Routledge Handbook of Health Geography ; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 354–360. [Google Scholar]
  109. Dunn, J.R. Housing and healthy child development: Known and potential impacts of interventions. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2020, 41 , 381–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Matheson FI (Unity Health Toronto), Moloney G (Unity Health Toronto), van Ingen T (Public Health Ontario). 2021 Ontario Marginalization Index: User Guide. Toronto, ON: St. Michael’s Hospital (Unity Health Toronto). Joint Publication with Public Health Ontario. 2023. Available online: https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/Documents/O/2017/on-marg-userguide.pdf?rev=06cc3a5e23d4448ab6851b528756c428&sc_lang=en&hash=6E2098165339B008502D273C397BC699 (accessed on 12 June 2023).
  111. Statistics Canada. 2021 Census of Population: Population and Dwelling Count Highlights Tables ; Statistics Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2023. Available online: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/hlt-fst/pd-pl/index-eng.cfm (accessed on 12 June 2023).
  112. ArcGIS Online. Ontario Ministry of Health Public Health Unit Boundaries. 2020. Available online: https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=274038a10c1849748106c275e8891bdb (accessed on 11 May 2023).
  113. Bazargani, M. Highlighting Canadian Health Access Gaps Using GIS ; Esri Canada: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2022; Available online: https://resources.esri.ca/news-and-updates/highlighting-canadian-health-access-gaps-using-gis (accessed on 10 May 2023).
  114. Buttazzoni, A.; Dean, J.; Minaker, L. Urban design and adolescent mental health: A qualitative examination of adolescent emotional responses to pedestrian-and transit-oriented design and cognitive architecture concepts. Health Place 2022, 76 , 102825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Corburn, J. Urban place and health equity: Critical issues and practices. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14 , 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Collins, P.A.; Hayes, M.V. Examining the Capacities of Municipal Governments to Reduce Health Inequities: A Survey of Municipal Actors’ Perceptions in Metro Vancouver. Can. J. Public Health 2013, 104 , e304–e310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Pakeman, K.; Collins, P. Socio-spatial inequities beyond the big city: Evaluating the World Health Organization’s Urban HEART tool in a non-metropolitan context. Cities Health 2018, 2 , 181–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Government of Canada. The Chief Public Health Officer of Canada’s Report on the State of Public Health in Canada 2021 ; Government of Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2021. Available online: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/phac-aspc/documents/corporate/publications/chief-public-health-officer-reports-state-public-health-canada/state-public-health-canada-2021/cpho-report-eng.pdf (accessed on 12 June 2023).
  119. Mulligan, K. Strengthening Community Connections: The Future of Public Health Is at the Neighbourhood Scale ; University of Toronto, Dalla Lana School of Public Health: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2022; 35p, Available online: https://nccph.ca/projects/reports-to-accompany-the-chief-public-health-officer-of-canadas-report-2021/strengthening-community-connections-the-future-of-public-health (accessed on 28 June 2023).
  120. Mulligan, K.; Hsiung, S.; Bloch, G.; Park, G.; Richter, A.; Stebbins, L.; Talat, S. Social Prescribing in Canada: A Tool for Integrating Health and Social Care for Underserved Communities. Healthc. Q. 2023, 25 , 17–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Azzopardi-Muscat, N.; Sørensen, K. Towards an equitable digital public health era: Promoting equity through ahealth literacy perspective. Eur. J. Public Health 2019, 29 (Suppl. S3), 13–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Edge, S.; Goodfield, J.; Dean, J. Shifting gears on sustainable transport transitions: Stakeholder perspectives on e-bikes in Toronto, Canada. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2020, 36 , 197–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Health and Medicine Division; Board on Global Health; Forum on Microbial Threats. Using Syndemic Theory and the Societal Lens to Inform Resilient Recovery from COVID-19: Toward a Post-Pandemic World: Proceedings of a Workshop. In Brief ; Minicucci, C., Ed.; National Academies Press (US): Washington, DC, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.


© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Vine, M.M.; Mulligan, K.; Harris, R.; Dean, J.L. The Impact of Health Geography on Public Health Research, Policy, and Practice in Canada. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 6735. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20186735

AMA Style

Vine MM, Mulligan K, Harris R, Dean JL. The Impact of Health Geography on Public Health Research, Policy, and Practice in Canada. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(18):6735. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20186735

Chicago/Turabian Style

Vine, Michelle M., Kate Mulligan, Rachel Harris, and Jennifer L. Dean. 2023. "The Impact of Health Geography on Public Health Research, Policy, and Practice in Canada" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 18: 6735. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20186735

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.