On Tuesday, 23 October the Centre for the Built Environment and Health, and Gaia Resources hosted a targeted workshop with stakeholders interested in using the POS Tool for Planning purposes. The workshop’s aim was twofold: demonstrate the beta version of our web based POS Tool and discuss proposed functions to include in the second phase of software development. The workshop was held at the Australian Urban Design Research Centre and included stakeholders from Lendlease, the Cities of Belmount and Swan, SKM, the Department of Sport and Recreation, Praxis Economics, Placescapes, Department of Planning, and UWA’s Urban Design Centre.

Participants were first provided with an overview of the project and POS data followed by a demonstration of the POS Tool (beta version) and examples of the proposed data interrogation and integration functions in the second phase of the Tool’s development. After the presentation, a Q and A session was followed by a broad discussion of stakeholder needs and desired functionality prompted by the examples mentioned above.

Current functions of the POS TOOL (phase 1) presented were: - please see previous blog for screen captures of each.

1.    Search by address, park name and suburb

2.    Query of POS amenity for a park

3.    Statistics concerning the distribution of POS and POS amenity in each Suburb/LGA

4.    The ability to combine and download data concerning POS distribution and amenity, and population characteristics for each Suburb/LGA.     

Examples of advanced functions for phase 2:

1.    Calculate POS statistics for a user defined area. Users could upload their own polygon boundaries for which statistics on POS amenity and population characteristics would be calculated. Output information could then be exported for analysis.

2.    Calculate POS statistics for buffered points. User could upload a spreadsheet with Latitude and Longitude coordinates which would be buffered (user specified distance).  Statistics on POS amenity and population characteristics would be calculated for each buffer as well as the distance from each buffered point to surrounding parks.

3.    Calculate level of POS service under current situation and future scenarios with ability to change the value of variables such as population density, and population structure and the provision of POS and POS amenity.

 

An overview of some of questions and answers are as follows:

Q: How are distance measures calculated?
A: On the initial search page as the crow flies but all statistics are calculated based on street network distance.

Q: Does ‘Hockey’ mean there is an actual hockey pitch?
A: Yes.

Q: Is there a description of types of facilities included in the data set?
A: Yes, proper metadata will be provided. This is on the way.

Q: Are POS boundaries based on the cadastre?
A: No, boundaries are hand digitised.

Q: Can LGA’s provide data to the system if it conforms to the POS Tool standards.
A: Not at the moment but this would be useful for updating the data and keeping the dataset current.

Q: Do population statistics (i.e. catchment statistics) employ dasymetric mapping techniques?
A: Not at the moment.

Q: Can we determine the areas without access to parks?
A: Yes, the final version of the system will include a heat-map of accessibility which will be a layer that can be turned on and off.

Q: Will you include a ‘Quality’ score?
A: We intend to and have a place holder in the data model and the webpage.

Q: Will you include crowd-sourcing as an approach to developing a ‘Quality’ score?
A: We have discussed this as an approach to also promote longevity of the system but no decisions have been made.

Q: Do the attributes include venue hire facilities?
A: No.

Q: Can park statistics be aggregated to correspond to the different park classifications used in the Perth Metropolitan region (i.e. Department of Sport and Recreation and Liveable Neighbourhoods).
A: Yes, our classification structure enables aggregation of POS statistics to both standards. Currently, this will have to be done by the user using the spreadsheets of POS information provided for download.

Q: Do you have information on how often POS flood?
A: No.

Q: Does the data cover the entire Perth Metropolitan region?
A: Yes, all of the Perth and Peel regions.

Additional Points:

·        Types of parks should be hyperlinked to their definitions.

·        Liveable Neighbourhoods use different walking distances for different parks – should use their distances approach and/or include several walk distances.

·        Include ‘Heat’ maps of quality score as well as park access.

·        Include usage information – this data is not available and is a research project in its own right.

·        Tool should align to Structural Planning Guidelines

·        Useful to be able to link other websites (LGA website) directly to parks in their region.

Summary of stakeholder comments concerning desired functions or additional data for inclusion in phase 2:

·        Loading own boundaries to calculate POS statistics is very useful – wide support.

o   Disagreement on whether a function needs to be provided for people to draw their own boundaries.

·        Calculating distance from a point location to a park would be useful from a passive transport perspective – the reverse is useful as well.

·        A planning ‘calculator’ which allows for the manipulation of park area and amenity in relation to population characteristics would be the most useful (magical).

o   Best to keep this simple and work well without getting too complicated.

·        Include Perth average for park statistics so LGAs can see where they are in relation to the broader region.

·        SLIP could be a viable solution to maintain longevity and data updates.  

Commnets on usefulness of the POS Tool:

“we just got the detail of all POS areas and % of each done, but that was $20-$30k - smaller LGAs would not be able to do this, so this will be a great resource for them and a tool to be able to help them proving up their parks, etc. - fantastic for the smaller local governments and those with $ pressure”

“excellent tools for strategic planning, qualifying the provisos etc. - this is exactly what they want”

“Coming up with performance measurements at DoP and annual reporting on the liveable neighbourhoods - that is what the DoP want to report on, so this is quite useful for them”

In conclusion, the group provided a very positive response to the POS Tool. Many of their suggestions for phase 2 provide confirmation to the POS team’s thoughts for more advanced functions. We would like to thank all the participants for thoughtful suggestions and comments, and kind words of encouragement.