How+to+write+the+report

Four principal parts of the analysis Conflicts and constraints
 * Notes for GEOS9016: Final report**

Conflicts include: Building Conservation

Constraints Waterway pollution Fire They constrain the building locations

Ideal site Locate extension that best satisfies building criteria (distance from road, slope, solar access, views and privacy) and minimises any conflict with conservation values, also minimising waterway pollution and fire risk.

4 models __Pollution erosion model__ __Fire model__ __Conservation model__ __Building model__ Find areas with:
 * Low slope gradient (from DEM)
 * Close to existing vehicle access (fire trails data set)
 * Better passive solar characteristics (ie north facing slopes) (from DEM)
 * Areas with nice views and/or privacy (from DEM)

__The final combination__ 2 steps Step 1 Exclude any areas from the building model that have too high a hazard and compare it with conservation model to identify areas with low conflict (ie low conservation areas).

Step 2 From the list of potential sites need to identify those that are of the correct size and rank them. Need to calculate areas and changing weightings (iterative process) to get a list of candidates.

Possibly present multiple scenarios, eg where conservation is valued highly.

=Clarification from Shawn=

thanks ||
 * =Message= ||  || [|Next Message] [[image:http://vista.elearning.unsw.edu.au/webct/discussion/images/shim.gif width="1" height="24" align="absmiddle"]] ||
 * **Topic:** GEOS9016 || ****Date:**** 8 May 2009 7:56 AM ||
 * **Subject:** Final report clarification || **Author:** Froissard, Jean-Christophe [[image:http://vista.elearning.unsw.edu.au/webct/images/conarrow.gif width="13" height="11" align="absmiddle" caption="View PeopleLink Options for this User" link="Javascript:setGlobalParametersFordiscussionMemberMenuForNonGradeableTopics('discussionMemberMenuForNonGradeableTopics', '453982263017', '-1'); showmenu('discussionMemberMenuForNonGradeableTopics-1090816549027825423', 'discussionMemberMenuForNonGradeableTopics_SSTU',0,0);"]] ||
 * Shawn, just a clarification on the final report. Do you want us to spend some time on justifying and supporting our choice of values used in the models. For example in the conservation layer there are a number of endangered species. There are some reports that can suggest certain distances need to be kept from them to facilitate recovery. Should we go to the trouble of researching these limits? Basically I'm asking if the final report is more concerned with the GIS layer creation and final conclusion or whether the report is that of an environmental consultant demonstrating reference to environmental reports, factors and limits in coming to its conclusion.


 * **Topic:** GEOS9016 || ****Date:**** 8 May 2009 12:51 PM ||
 * **Subject:** Re:Final report clarification || **Author:** Laffan, Shawn [[image:http://vista.elearning.unsw.edu.au/webct/images/conarrow.gif width="13" height="11" align="absmiddle" caption="View PeopleLink Options for this User" link="Javascript:setGlobalParametersFordiscussionMemberMenuForNonGradeableTopics('discussionMemberMenuForNonGradeableTopics', '8598634022', '-1'); showmenu('discussionMemberMenuForNonGradeableTopics3521536249640446298', 'discussionMemberMenuForNonGradeableTopics_SINS',0,0);"]] ||
 * Keep it focussed on the GIS concepts. Make reasonable assumptions and use them.

If you have a source of data then that is nice, but not essential.

Shawn. ||