Great Deal! Get Instant $10 FREE in Account on First Order + 10% Cashback on Every Order Order Now

Microsoft Word - Audit of place report 2.docx 1 Letter of transmittal 6 July 2018 University of Canberra University Drive, Bruce Canberra, Australian Capital Territory 2617 To all parties concerned:...

1 answer below »
Microsoft Word - Audit of place report 2.docx
     1    
Letter of transmittal
6 July 2018
University of Canbe
a
University Drive, Bruce
Canbe
a, Australian Capital Te
itory 2617
To all parties concerned:
The attached document is a completed report into the findings of an audit
conduced on the central sector of the University of Canbe
a campus,
accompanied by a number of recommendations in response to the findings.
Should there be any confusion in regards to the information presented within
this report please do not hesitate me through the details provided.
Kind regards,
U3151802
Landscape architecture student
XXXXXXXXXX
a.edu.au
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
     2    
Healthy    and    Sustainable    places    audit    
esults    analysis    report        
Client: Healthy and Sustainable Places unit conveners

Student: U3151802

Word count: 1,600
     3    
Table of contents
I. Introduction…………………………………………………………………..5
II. Methodology of the audit..………………………………………………….5
II.a. Accessibility.……………….…………………………………………..……5
II.b. Shade…………………………………………………………………..……5
II.c. Safety……………........…………………………………………..………...5
II.d. Transport. …………………………………………………………..………5
II.e. facilities. …………………………………………………………………….6
II.f. Places to meet and socialise. …………………………….……………….6
III. Results of the audit…………...……………………………………………..7
III.a. Accessibility and shade. ………………………………….………………7
III.b. Safety……………........………………………………….………………...7
III.c. Transport. ………………………………………………….………………7
III.d. Food facilities. …………………………………………….……………….8
III.e. Places to meet and socialise. …………………………..……………….8
III.f. Considerations. ………………………………………..………………...8-9
IV. Discussion……..……………………………………………………… XXXXXXXXXX
V. Conclusion.…………………………………………………………..……..10
VI. Recommendations…………………………………..……………………..11
VII. Reference list………………..……………………………………………..12
Appendix 1 - Area of audit.………………………………………….........………13
Appendix 2 - Excerpt 1 from the Healthy Built Environments Program audit
document…………………………………………………………...……………....14
Appendix 3 - Excerpt 2 from the Healthy Built Environments Program audit
document…………………..……………………………………...………………..14
Appendix 4 - Question excerpt from the Western Australian department of
transport audit document.………………………………….………….…………..15
Appendix 5 - Specification excerpt from the Western Australian department of
transport audit document.………………………………………..………………..15
    
    
    
     4    
Executive Summary
This report was performed as an assessment piece required by Healthy and
Sustainable places unit, taking place at the university of Canbe
a. This report
examined the results of a Healthy Built Environments Program (HBEP)
walkability audit that was conducted on the central part of the university
campus. Also discussed in this report are shortcomings and potential
alternatives to the audit tool used. The subsequent results from the audit
identified three major issues that limited the area’s walkability status.
Unknown
     5    
I. Introduction
The following report will discuss the results of a walkability audit that was
conducted as part of an assessment piece for the healthy and sustainable
places unit offered at the University of Canbe
a. The audit method used was
the Healthy Built Environments Program (HBEP) developed by Dr Jennifer
Kent et al from the university of New South Wales. The data collection method
used for the audit was through visual observation. In addition to discussing
the results of the audit this report will discuss the shortcomings of the utilised
audit tool and compare it to other available audit tools and put forward a
number of recommendations to address issues identified within the audited
site.
II. Methodology of the audit
The audit was conducted on the central sector of the university of Canbe
a
campus. The results of the audit were attained through walking from the
southern sector of the site to the north of the site (see Appendix 1). Whilst
walking through the site observations were made of the su
ounding area in
egards to the following factors:
a) Accessibility: This is aimed at examining the quality of this area’s walking
paths, and how it caters to people requiring wheel chairs or walking canes
) Shade: What types of shade is provided on walking paths and in places
where people gather.
c) Safety: How safe one feels when traversing this area and the potential for
vehicles or cyclists to pose a to danger pedestrians.
d) Transport: Does the site cater to different forms of transport and how well
does it connect to public transport
Unknown
Unknown
     6    

e) Food facilities: What types of food facilities are present within the area
and what are the cost of such foods; their nutritional value and availability.
f) Places to meet and socialise: The types of spaces where people can
gather, the quality of such spaces and presence of pleasant aesthetics
within such areas.
Each facet is accompanied by a number of observations (see Appendix 2)
these observations would be given a rating from very poor to very good or on
a scale of one to five following in the same manner with one being very poor
and with five being very good. In addition to providing a grade an example of
the question would have to be observed. In addition to the scales each factor
equire the auditor to answer a number of specific questions to provide a
higher level of detail of the site (see Appendix 3). After all questions had been
answered and the appropriate details provided the subsequent data would be
collated. Should there be a high level of positive ratings this would indicate a
healthy area whereas the opposite would signify an unhealthy area.
     7    
III. Results of the audit
Performing the audit using the HPMAT within this section of the university
campus yielded a number of interesting result which are as follows:
A. Accessibility and shade

In regards to the level of accessibility and shade within the area the results
indicated that this particular area of the university campus not only
accommodated people of all walking abilities but also possessed a
comfortable walking and gathering environment for those within the area.

B. Safety
Despite the wide paths allowing for ease of movement for both cyclists and
pedestrians without either posing a danger to each other the paths are poorly
maintained consequently creating number of potential trip hazards limiting the
site’s walkability. Inadequate passive security measures such as lighting also
limits the site’s walkability to the daytime due to insufficient levels of lighting in
the area. As this area is predominantly pedestrian oriented vehicles do not
pose any danger to pedestrians.
C. Transport

A wide variety of transport options such as skateboarders’ cyclists are
supported with the appropriate facilities such as bike racks being provided.
Public transport infrastructure within the area is non-existent; facilities such as
us stops are located on the borders of the university campus. However as
mentioned earlier the university campus is pedestrian focused therefore the
omission of public transport infrastructure is admissible.
     8    
D. Food facilities

There was a presence of both healthy and non-healthy food outlets within this
area. However there did seem to be a higher presence of unhealthy food
outlets in this area. The costs of said foods ranged from 5 to 10 dollars. A
community garden does exist within this area of the university campus
allowing for access to fresh produce. However as of the time the audit was
conducted the garden was in a state of disrepair.
E. Places to meet and socialise

The area possessed an abundance of social gathering areas, with visitors
eing provided green space and hardscape gathering areas, all of which were
well maintained. However these lacked any sort of amenities that would make
them pleasing to be around.

F. Considerations

Whilst this audit method identifies a number of shortcomings within this area
of the university campus a number of considerations must be taken into
account when analysing the final results.
Firstly this audit was performed from the perspective of a landscape architect
as such some shortcomings of the site may be more or less apparent to them
when compared to a public health advisor undertaking an audit of such a site.
In addition this audit tool is based predominantly around visual observations
to determine the health of site and does not use a baseline to determine the
area’s health allowing possible bias to enter the results. Furthermore the
auditing tool used is not the only method of determining the walkability of an
area as a number other audit tools exist to quantify such results. Tools such
as the Western Australian department of transport audit require the auditor to
answer explicit set of questions (see appendix 4) to determine walkability of
the site. This method also incorporates a number of specifications for walkway
access into the audit documentation package (see appendix 5) allowing the
Unknown
     9    
auditor to definitively determine if the site appropriately caters for different
access needs through measurements rather than doing so through visual
observations required by the HBEP tool, which can be subject to auditor bias.
Despite being a small component in the health impact assessment (HIA)
process, audits are essential for identifying cu
ent issues within a site require
attention or mapping the possible impacts of a policy on the wider community.
Should this vital step within the HIA process be omitted the subsequent policy
implemented within the respective area may not be able to fully address the
issues the site suffers from. However, the HIA process does have its
drawbacks as noted by Knol, Slottje, van der Sluijs and Le
et XXXXXXXXXXthis
process is not applicable to all sites and may require modification to some
steps depending the area being audited.
IV. Discussion
The shortcomings identified by the audit can be attributed to three main
factors namely, the lack of pathway maintenance, insufficient levels of lighting
and improper access to healthy food sources. Secondary shortcomings
identified were a lack of aesthetically pleasing elements.
The lack of apparent maintenance of the pathways as noted by Avery,
Clements, Ha
ison, Hughey and Thompson, M XXXXXXXXXXdecreases the
practicality of affected areas. Avery et al XXXXXXXXXXgoes on to note possible
adoption of a geographic information system (GIS) to aid the maintenance
process. In addition to site maintenance the level lighting within the site
contributes largely to its useability as it acts as a passive surveillance
measure making an area appear safer and as
Answered Same Day Jun 23, 2021

Solution

Popi answered on Jun 26 2021
135 Votes
Report        1
Audit result analysis report
Table of contents
Introduction    4
The methodology of audit    4
Accessibility    4
Shade    4
Safety    4
Transport    4
Food Facilities    4
Places to meet and socialize    4
Results of the audit    5
Accessibility and shade    5
Safety    5
Transport    5
Food facility    5
Places to meet and socialize    5
Considerations    6
Discussion    6
Conclusion    6
Recommendations    7
References    8
Appendices    9
Appendix 1: Access and circulation in Area    9
Appendix 2: Indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements    9
Appendix 3: How easy would it be for the following people to get around this part of area    10
Appendix 4: Safety    10
Appendix 5: Transport    10
Appendix 6: Food facilities    11
Appendix 7: Places to meet and socialize    11
Executive Summary
This particular report deals with the subsequent analysis and fruitful evaluation of the process of an audit of the particular locality. The whole audit has been done over the area, Bonner. The ethnicity and portability of the overall job have been maintained considering the guideline of health ethics and the report of the audit has also examined the results of the Healthy Built Environment Program (HBEP). In the report, every site of the concerned local area has been mentioned and various alternative tools have been used to reduce the complexity of the job. The ultimate result of the audit process indicates the walkability and degree of the health status of the local area.
Introduction
In order to explore the environmental or physical status of any area or place, it is immensely needed to follow several processes of audit and observatory framework (Yehia, 2019). This particular report is dealing with the inspectional details of the local area of Bonner, Australia. The audit has been done to evaluate the average social lifestyle of the area, along with the presentation of the sustainable growth of the area, and the environment as well as. The whole work has been done in prescribed method of a group approach but the individual observation has been counted as an essential attribute of this work. All the necessary approaches and observations have been listed in this audit method.
The methodology of audit
The audit has been conducted over the local area of Bonner. The populated area is being chosen as a better place for the examination. Through a series of eye observations and various walking procedures and measurements, the overall audit has been conducted. Local eyewitnesses are also being asked a few questions related to this study. Su
oundings are examined by keeping in mind the following series of criteria.
(a) Accessibility
The accessibility indicates the examination and judgment of the quality of the walking path of the concerned area. The accessibility of the wheelchairs and walking canes also has been examined throughout the audit process.
(b) Shade
The shades over the pavements and the walking way of the locality have also been judged and the overall covered area for the gathering has been counted.
(c) Safety
Safety is one of the most demanding parts of any area. Here the safety status of the pedestrian and traveling have also been judged. The degree of danger during traveling is being measured effectively.
(d) Transport
The transportation system and the facilities are being judged. The connectivity with public transport and either various forms of the transport system has been examined throughout this audit process. The footpath is well maintained and connected. A series of feedback has also been gathered by frequent questioning. (Appendix 2)
(e) Food Facilities
The availability of various foods and the nutritional values of the food particles are also being judged properly. The facilities of the food and the demand for food in the area are being examined.
(f) Places to meet and socialize
Socialization is a natural phenomenon in society. In this case, the place and spaces of the social gathering have been remarked. The quality of spaces and the weather is also being judged. All the location and specific aesthetic sites are also being marked according to their priority.
All the observations and methods of the study have been done by following proper procedures and rules. Each of the results has been accepted after a series of cross-checking. A huge number of observatory feedback from the dwellers are also being collected. A specific set of questions and a certain scale of marking are being used here to get a suitable...
SOLUTION.PDF

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

More Questions »

Submit New Assignment

Copy and Paste Your Assignment Here