817 resultados para Housing rehabilitation.
Resumo:
The research explores how community participation can address affordable housing problems of the poor in Dhaka. The research, based on extensive interviews, community focus groups and household surveys in different Dhaka slums, identifies the limiting factors to promote community participation in affordable housing creation. In Dhaka housing options for poor are currently limited to affordable shelters in informal settlements. Public housing programs have failed to reach the poor and meet affordability levels due to a number of factors including lack of beneficiary participation. Beneficiary participation, though widely recognized for success in housing initiatives, often deteriorates in process of implementation into mere involvement, not reflecting community needs and aspirations and thus failing to meet its core objectives. This research identified the most significant impediments as well as opportunities to advance participation in their own housing provisions in Dhaka city.
Resumo:
Access to the right information at the right time is a challenge facing health professionals across the globe. HEART Online (www.heartonline.org.au) is a website designed to support the delivery of evidence based care for the prevention and rehabilitation of heart disease. It was developed by the Queensland Government and the National Heart Foundation of Australia and launched May 2013.
Resumo:
This report examines the effectiveness of national and international programs that treat and rehabilitate drivers with alcohol dependence and the criteria used to approve the removal of interlocks. The project recommends a stepped care model which requires all participants to attend education and screening and then requires participants who fail to change their behaviour to attend increasingly intensive rehabilitation programs. Failure to complete an interlock program could result in participants having their licence revoked. This project was designed to inform action 36(d) of the National Road Safety Strategy 2011-2020: Investigate the option of requiring demonstrated rehabilitation from alcohol dependence before removal of interlock conditions.
Resumo:
Austroads called for responses to a tender to investigate options for rehabilitation in alcohol interlock programs. Following successful application by the Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety – Queensland (CARRS-Q), a program of work was developed. The project has four objectives: 1. Develop a matrix outlining existing policies in national and international jurisdictions with respect to treatment and rehabilitation programs and criteria for eligibility for interlock removal; 2. Critically review the available literature with a focus on evaluation outcomes regarding the effectiveness of treatment and rehabilitation programs; 3. Analyse and assess the strengths and weaknesses of the programs/approaches identified, and; 4. Outline options with an evidence base for consideration by licensing authorities.
Resumo:
Osseointegration has been introduced in the orthopaedic surgery in the 1990’s in Gothenburg (Sweden). To date, there are two frequently used commercially available human implants: the OPRA (Integrum, Sweden) and ILP (Orthodynamics, Germany) systems. The rehabilitation program with both systems include some form of static load bearing exercises. These latter involved following a load progression that is monitored by the bathroom scale, providing only the load applied on the vertical axis. The loading data could be analysed through different biomechanical variables. For instance, the load compliance, corresponding to the difference between the load recommended (LR) and the load actually applied on the implant, will be presented here.
Resumo:
The desire to solve problems caused by socket prostheses in transfemoral amputees and the acquired success of osseointegration in the dental application has led to the introduction of osseointegration in the orthopedic surgery. Since its first introduction in 1990 in Gothenburg Sweden the osseointegrated (OI) orthopedic fixation has proven several benefits[1]. The surgery consists of two surgical procedures followed by a lengthy rehabilitation program. The rehabilitation program after an OI implant includes a specific training period with a short training prosthesis. Since mechanical loading is considered to be one of the key factors that influence bone mass and the osseointegration of bone-anchored implants, the rehabilitation program will also need to include some form of load bearing exercises (LBE). To date there are two frequently used commercially available human implants. We can find proof in the literature that load bearing exercises are performed by patients with both types of OI implants. We refer to two articles, a first one written by Dr. Aschoff and all and published in 2010 in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery.[2] The second one presented by Hagberg et al in 2009 gives a very thorough description of the rehabilitation program of TFA fitted with an OPRA implant. The progression of the load however is determined individually according to the residual skeleton’s quality, pain level and body weight of the participant.[1] Patients are using a classical bathroom weighing scale to control the load on the implant during the course of their rehabilitation. The bathroom scale is an affordable and easy-to-use device but it has some important shortcomings. The scale provides instantaneous feedback to the patient only on the magnitude of the vertical component of the applied force. The forces and moments applied along and around the three axes of the implant are unknown. Although there are different ways to assess the load on the implant for instance through inverse dynamics in a motion analysis laboratory [3-6] this assessment is challenging. A recent proof- of-concept study by Frossard et al (2009) showed that the shortcomings of the weighing scale can be overcome by a portable kinetic system based on a commercial transducer[7].
Resumo:
In response to the ratification of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD), Australian housing industry leaders, supported by the Australian Government, committed to transform their practices voluntarily through the adoption of a national guideline, called Livable Housing Design. They set a target in 2010 that all new housing would be visitable by 2020. Research in this area suggests that the anticipated voluntary transformation is unrealistic and that mandatory regulation will be necessary for any lasting transformation to occur. It also suggests that the assumptions underpinning the Livable Housing Design agreement are unfounded. This paper reports on a study that problematised these assumptions. The study used eleven newly-constructed dwellings in three housing contexts in Brisbane, Australia. It sought to understand the logics-of-practice in providing, and not providing, visitable housing. By examining the specific details that make a dwelling visitable, and interpreting the accounts of builders, designers and developers, the study identified three logics-of-practice which challenged the assumptions underpinning the Livable Housing Design agreement: focus on the point of sale; an aversion to change and deference to external regulators on matters of social inclusion. These were evident in all housing contexts indicating a dominant industry culture regardless of housing context or policy intention. The paper suggests that financial incentives for both the builder and the buyer, demonstration by industry leaders and, ultimately, national regulation is a possible pathway for the Livable Housing Design agreement to reach the 2020 goal. The paper concludes that the Australian Government has three options: to ignore its obligations under the CRPD; to revisit the Livable Housing Design agreement in the hope that it works; or to regulate the housing industry through the National Construction Code to ensure the 2020 target is reached.
Resumo:
Purpose - This paper empirically examines the effect of developer charges on housing affordability in Brisbane, Australia. Developer paid fees or charges are a commonly used mechanism for local governments to pay for new urban infrastructure. Despite numerous government reports and many years of industry advocacy, there remains no empirical evidence in Australia to confirm or quantify passing on of these charges to home buyers. Design/methodology/approach - This research applies a hedonic house price model to 4,699 new and 25,053 existing house sales in Brisbane from 2005 to 2011. Findings – The findings of is research are consistent with international studies that support the proposition that developer charges are over passed. This study has provided evidence that suggest developer charges are over passed to both new and existing homes in the order of around 400%. Research limitations/implications - These findings suggest that developer charges are thus a significant contributor to increasing house prices and reduced housing affordability. Practical/Social Implications: By testing this effect on both new and existing homes, this research provides evidence in support of the proposition that not only are developer charges over passed to new home buyers but also to buyers of existing homes. Thus the price inflationary effect of these developer charges are being felt by all home buyers across the community, resulting in increased mortgage repayments of close to $1000 per month. Originality/value - This is the first study to empirically examine the impact of developer charges on house prices in Australia. These results are important as they will inform governments on the outcomes of growth management strategies on housing affordability, providing the first evidence of its kind in Australia.
Resumo:
Housing price inflation is a national concern given the serious decline in the number of low and middle income households able to purchase housing. In addition housing supply lags well behind demand. In Melbourne, urban consolidation policies explicitly seek intensification to promote housing supply but planning regulation is often criticised for being a significant cost driver for medium density housing. It is assumed that easing supply constraints will improve affordability. We suggest that laissez-faire planning exacerbates affordability issues because this approach fails to address the basic economic problem: the current inability of the market to efficiently match supply and demand in order to progress an orderly and de-risked development process. The role of “exchange” one of the four housing market sub-systems identified by Burke (2012) has until recently generally been ignored but our examination reveals significant economic transaction costs that manifest as development risks that impact on affordability. Fortunately these can be mitigated, but only if there is a more consumer driven supply response.
Resumo:
Speculative property developers, criticised for building dog boxes and the slums of tomorrow, are generally hated by urban planners and the public alike. But the doors of state governments are seemingly always open to developers and their lobbyists. Politicians find it hard to say no to the demands of the development industry for concessions because of the contribution housing construction makes to the economic bottom line and because there is a need for well located housing. New supply is also seen as a solution to declining housing affordability. Classical economic theory however is too simplistic for housing supply. Instead, an offshoot of Game Theory - Market Design – not only offers greater insight into apartment supply but also can simultaneously address price, design and quality issues. New research reveals the most significant risk in residential development is settlement risk – when buyers fail to proceed with their purchase despite there being a pre-sale contract. At the point of settlement, the developer has expended all the project funds only to see forecast revenue evaporate. While new buyers may be found, this process is likely to strip the profitability out of the project. As the global financial crisis exposed, buyers are inclined to walk if property values slide. This settlement problem reflects a poor legal mechanism (the pre-sale contract), and a lack of incentive for truthfulness. A second problem is the search costs of finding buyers. At around 10% of project costs, pre-sales are more expensive to developers than finance. This is where Market Design comes in.
Resumo:
Developer paid fees or infrastructure charges are a commonly used mechanism for local governments to pay for new infrastructure. However, property developers claim that these costs are merely passed on to home buyers, with adverse effects to housing affordability. Despite numerous government reports and many years of industry advocacy, there remains no empirical evidence in Australia to confirm or quantify this passing on effect to home buyers and the consequent effect on housing affordability. Hence there remains no data from which governments can base policy decision on, and the debate continues. This research examines the question of the impact of infrastructure charges on housing affordability in Australia. It employs hedonic regression methods to estimate the impact of infrastructure charges on house prices and vacant lot prices in Brisbane, Australia during 2005-2011, using a data set of 29,752 house sales, comprising 4,699 new house sales and 25,053 existing house sales and 13,739 lot sales. The regression results for the effect of infrastructure charges on house prices in Brisbane indicated that for every $1.00 of infrastructure charge levied on developers, all house prices increase by $3.69 or a 369% overpassing of these government levies onto home buyers. Thus, this one government levy could be responsible for $877 per month on home owner mortgage repayments in Brisbane, Queensland. This research is consistent with international findings, that support the proposition that developer paid infrastructure charges are passed on to home buyers and are a significant contributor to increasing house prices and reduced housing affordability. Understanding who really pays for urban infrastructure is critical to both the housing affordability and infrastructure funding debates in Australia and this research provides the first empirical data for policy makers to assess their policy objectives and outcomes against.
Resumo:
Purpose This paper is informed by a study that aimed to understand the difficulties in implementing models of housing, and to help address the lack of accessible and affordable private housing for people with disability in Australia. In responding to this aim, the study formulated an ecological map of housing models, which are examined in this paper in terms of their underlying assumptions of vulnerability. Design/methodology/approach The study involved explanation building, using a multiple case study approach, informed theoretically by an ecological framework. It included organisations, families and individuals with disability. Findings For the purpose of this paper, the study revealed a direct relationship between the nature of the housing models proposed, and assumptions of vulnerability. In the context of the study findings, the paper suggests that attempts to address individual housing needs are more likely to achieve a positive outcome when they are person driven, from a premise of ability rather than disability. Overall, it invites a ‘universalistic’ way of conceptualising housing issues for people with disability that has international relevance. Practical implications This paper highlights how assumptions of vulnerability shape environmental responses, such as housing, for people with disability. Originality/value This paper is based on a study that reconciled a person-centred philosophy with an ecological appreciation of the external and internal factors impacting housing choice for people with disability.
Resumo:
When a community already torn by a prolonged war is subsequently subjected to being hit by a natural disaster, the combined impact of such disasters can be extremely devastating. Affected communities often face enormous challenges during the long-term reconstruction, mainly due to the lack of a viable community involvement process. In post-war settings, affected communities are often conceived as being disabled and are hardly ever consulted when reconstruction projects are instigated. This lack of community involvement often leads to poor project planning, decreased community support and an unsustainable completed project. The impact of war, coupled with the tensions created by the poor housing provisions, often hinder the affected residents from integrating permanently into their home communities. This paper identifies a number of fundamental factors that act as barriers to community participation in reconstruction projects. The paper is based on a statistical analysis of a questionnaire survey administered in 2012 in Afghanistan.