2. Introduction
The south part of the university consist of
building 23 and 22 which the centre for
research and Action in public
health(CeRAPH) , building 24 which s the
Ann Harding conference centre. Buildings
16(a,b,c) and 13(a,b) are used by the
maintance service departments ,
3. Aims and Objectives of the Audit
• To know whether a community can be considered a healthy
place and how it can be improved, tools needed to be measured
and analyze health- risk.
• To measure the health components of a community’s physical
environment and to predict the potential positive and negative
impacts on the changes to that environment
4. Methods of
Audit
• The 5 basic ingredients that make
make a neighborhood a place where
people from all ages and abilities are
safe and enjoyable and easy to access
their community on foot . The audit
was conducted using a model tool
healthy built environment developed
by Dr Jenniefer Kent of university of
new south wales .
5. Factors considered in the Audit
• a)Walkability and built environment: This examined
path maintenance, path size and wheelchair
accessibility, how the features were conducive to
walking and cycling along the area?
• b) Availability of shade: What types of shade are in
place on the walking paths and in the social places?
• c) Public transport and parking: Does the site act as
a link to public transport and offer ample parking
and accessibility?
• d) Places of social interaction: The type of spaces
provided. The quantity of the places?
• e) Food facilities: What choices of food are available
for purchase in this area of campus including
affordability, quality and health concerns?
6. Audit Findings
• street crossing is available every 300feet( about the length
of a block and its well paintied to make it visible to both
pedestrians and drivers at all times
• this part of the university lack a vibrate and desirable
walking destination and features i.e parks and garden
where people can meet and socialize.
• safety ,comfort and beauty- streets makes one feel safer
more comfortable and inviting when there is good lighting,
well maintained side walks and landscaping.
• available of amenities such as drinking fountains,
bathrooms benches, public arts it promotes people to
engage in outdoor activities
8. Shared roads for both pedestrians and motor vehicles . This gives the university community a
good access to and from the building as they walk from the car park to the building
University of Canberra maps
9. Conclusion
Walkability measures; places that are walkable offer many health benefits, i.e. increase
physical activity and social capital and decrease in injuries and air pollution. Using the health
impact assessment (HIA) as our recommended measure, the following factors are assessed;
distance between intersections, closeness of desirable destinations, proportion of street
with sidewalks and perception of comfort and safety while walking/cycling (Moudon and
Lee 2003)
Within the university south sector, a range of environmental conditions may enhance health,
wellbeing, academic performance, or if not well managed and designed they can be
undermined. Transport to and from university represent a paradox walking and cycling activity
that does not only offer routine physical activity but also offer improved air quality and reduced
traffic congestion near schools, also it will reduce the amount of spending in paying for a
parking fee. The location of fast foods may either promote or threaten health with more fast
foods restaurants around the area, students and community members eat more of fast food
and fewer fresher fruits and vegetables (Davis and Carpenter 2009)
10. Recommendation.
Recommendations
Provide quality open spaces and recreational facilities; accessibility
for all ages, ethnicities, ability-levels and social economic groups.
Ensure active travel options (such as walking, cycling and public
transport) which are readily available and accessible between home,
school and local centers.
Ensure that the localities are walkable by providing streets that are
attractive and safe.
Providing accessibilities to open feed back reports from the student
and staff parting the maintenance issues and keeping everyone open
on proposals to improve the health on campus.
Have timeframes and varying tools to conduct and monitor the
changes progression on the proposed changes.
11. References
• Brownson, R. C., R. A. Housemann, D. R. Brown, J. Jackson-Thompson, A. C. King, B. R. Malone,
and J. F. Sallis. 2000. “Promoting Physical Activity in Rural Communities: Walking Trail Access, Use,
and Effects.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 18: 235–41.
• Bauman, A. E., and F. C. Bull. 2007. Environmental Correlates of Physical Activity and Walking in
Adults and Children: A Review of the Reviews. London: National Institute of Health and Clinical
Excellence.http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/word/environmental%20corre
lates%20of%20physical%20activity%20review.pdf.
• Cohen, D. A., D. Golinelli, S. Williamson, A. Sehgal, T. Marsh, and T. L. Mckenzie. 2009. “Effects of
Park Improvements on Park Use and Physical Activity: Policy and Programming Implications.”
American Journal of Preventive Medicine 37: 475–80.
• Cohen, D. A., T. L. Mckenzie, A. Sehgal, S. Williamson, D. Golinelli, and N. Lurie. 2007.
“Contribution of Public Parks to Physical Activity.” American Journal of Public Health 97: 509–14.
• Cutts, B. B., K. J. Darby, C. G. Boone, and A. Brewis. 2009. “City Structure, Obesity, and
Environmental Justice: An Integrated Analysis of Physical and Social Barriers to Walkable Streets
and Park Access.” Social Science & Medicine 69: 1314–22.
• Davison, K. K., and C. T. Lawson. 2006. “Do Attributes in the Physical Environment Influence
Children’s Physical Activity? A Review of the Literature.” International Journal of Behavioral
Nutrition and Physical Activity 3 (19): 1–17.
