Meeting on 2023-10-18 0800 AEST

[carlhiggs]

Attendees: Carl, Jonathan, Shirley
Apologies: Vuokko, Eugen, Geoff
Minutes: Carl

Spatial/software catch ups moving forwards

Moving forwards given the challenges of these meetings (e.g. timezone and schedule clashes) iwe discussed that t might be better to cancel the monthly catch up meeting series. Instead we can engage through github discussions where we can @global-healthy-liveable-cities/software-spatial team to draw attention to specific issues. Organically, we can arrange an ad hoc focused meetings for specific goals, as these arise .

Indicators validation study

Through the cycling indicators working group I've been leading and the climate resilience indicator work @mdlowe is leading we are planning a multi-city validation study to validate the accuracy/feasibility and health behaviour-related evidence base of these kinds of measures. As a first step we're planning to draft and complete a 'meta-survey' of the kinds of leisure and transport travel behaviour surveys and/or data that are available for use in each city, the content and usage terms of these, and specific suggestions for modelling/validation methods. We have collaborators across 8+ cities who we believe are interested in participating in this, and if you'd like to be involved in the study design and/or analysis let us know.

Software updates

Carl shared recent updates on the enhancements branch for templates, policy review functions, software environment and GUI. Ideally this wouldn't all be together on the one branch, but due to time pressures and doing this work mixed in with writing, that is what has occurred. It will be a big update and incremement the software to version 4.5.0; the plan is to merge once we have sign off on the new tempaltes.

Policy and Spatial report templates

It will be great to get your feedback on the new report templates; e.g. how do you find the contextualisation page on p3? For the spatial indicators report in particular there is essentially a blank page on p4 where policy checklists have been omitted and we have the opportunity to showcase some larger map. Jonathan suggested some kind of map for further contextualisation. One possibility is a thematic map showing the location of features, e.g. public open space and distribution of 'daily living' amenities (ie. choropleth of daily living access score), perhaps with an OpenStreetMap basemap (since the first page features a satellite basemap already). Do you think this would be good, or any other thoughts/suggestions, about page 4 of the spatial report, and both reports in general?

If there is anything I missed in the above, or you'd like to anything, please feel free to add!