19 resultados para Private infonnation
em University of Queensland eSpace - Australia
Resumo:
This pilot project at Cotton Tree, Maroochydore, on two adjacent, linear parcels of land has one of the properties privately owned while the other is owned by the public housing authority. Both owners commissioned Lindsay and Kerry Clare to design housing for their separate needs which enabled the two projects to be governed by a single planning and design strategy. This entailed the realignment of the dividing boundary to form two approximately square blocks which made possible the retention of an important stand of mature paperbark trees and gave each block a more useful street frontage. The scheme provides seven two-bedroom units and one single-bedroom unit as the private component, with six single-bedroom units, three two-bedroom units and two three-bedroom units forming the public housing. The dwellings are deployed as an interlaced mat of freestanding blocks, car courts, courtyard gardens, patios and decks. The key distinction between the public and private parts of the scheme is the pooling of the car parking spaces in the public housing to create a shared courtyard. The housing climbs to three storeys on its southern edge and falls to a single storey on the north-western corner. This enables all units and the principal private outdoor spaces to have a northern orientation. The interiors of both the public and private units are skilfully arranged to take full advantage of views, light and breeze.
Resumo:
This pilot project at Cotton Tree, Maroochydore, on two adjacent, linear parcels of land has one of the properties privately owned while the other is owned by the public housing authority. Both owners commissioned Lindsay and Kerry Clare to design housing for their separate needs which enabled the two projects to be governed by a single planning and design strategy. This entailed the realignment of the dividing boundary to form two approximately square blocks which made possible the retention of an important stand of mature paperbark trees and gave each block a more useful street frontage. The scheme provides seven two-bedroom units and one single-bedroom unit as the private component, with six single-bedroom units, three two-bedroom units and two three-bedroom units forming the public housing. The dwellings are deployed as an interlaced mat of freestanding blocks, car courts, courtyard gardens, patios and decks. The key distinction between the public and private parts of the scheme is the pooling of the car parking spaces in the public housing to create a shared courtyard. The housing climbs to three storeys on its southern edge and falls to a single storey on the north-western corner. This enables all units and the principal private outdoor spaces to have a northern orientation. The interiors of both the public and private units are skilfully arranged to take full advantage of views, light and breeze.
Resumo:
Objective To determine patterns of dental set-vices provided to a cohort of the insured population 18 years and over, in private general practice in New South Wales, Australia. Basic research design A cohort study using the person-years method and Poisson regression for analysis. Setting Data were derived from claims records submitted by members of a health insurance fund (Government Employees Health Fund-GEHF) for rebates during the study period 1 January 1992-31 December 1995. Participants There were 133,467 members aged 18 years and over from New South Wales. Main outcome measures To determine, by age group, for those members who used private general practice and made a claim (referred to as 'patients') the annual number of visits, total number of services received per year and number of services received at a visit, Results The mean number of visits per patient was 2.4 per year with patients under 45 years making fewer visits than the 45-54 age group reference category. Mean number of services utilised per patient-year was 5.9, with services provided increasing from 3.5 for the 18-24-year-old group, reaching a plateau of approximately 6.2 for those aged 45 years or more. The number of services received per visit was 2.4 and there were no differences by age. Service mix was dominated by restorative (35%), diagnostic (27%), and preventive services (18%); with age specific variations observed. Conclusions Age was found to be an important determinant in the use of dental services, independent of membership duration and gender.
Resumo:
Some believe that provision of private property rights in wildlife on private land can provide a powerful economic incentive for nature conservation because it enables property owners to market such wildlife or its attributes. If such marketing is profitable, private landholders will conserve the wildlife concerned and its required habitat. But land is not always most profitably used for exploitation of wildlife, and many economic values of wildlife (such as non-use economic values) cannot be marketed. The mobility of some wildlife (their fugitive nature) adds to the limitations of the private property approach. While some species may be conserved by this approach, it is suboptimal as a single policy approach to nature conservation. Nevertheless, it is being experimented with in the Northern Territory of Australia where landholders have the possibility of harvesting on their properties a quota of eggs and chicks of red-tailed black cockatoos for commercial sale. This scheme is expected to provide an incentive to private landholders to retain hollow trees essential for the nesting of these birds. Aspects of this approach are analysed using this case, and related ones, from Northern Australia. It is noted that the private property rights approach adopted in southern Africa is unlikely to be equally successful everywhere. The long-term survival of some species depends on their ability to use private lands without severe harassment, either for their migration or to supplement their available resources, for example, the Asian elephant in Sri Lanka. Nature conservation on private land is often a useful, if not essential, supplement to conservation on public lands. Community and public incentives for such conservation are outlined.