Search

Issue Addressed: While the links between sun exposure and skin cancer are well known, the benefits of sun exposure, particularly as a source of vitamin D, are less well known. This paper reports on a deliberative study exploring public perspectives about sun exposure harms and benefits. Methods: Two citizens' juries were conducted in Brisbane and Adelaide to consider questions about sun exposure, vitamin D and health promotion. Members of the general population (jurors) listened to evidence from expert witnesses about the harms and benefits of sun exposure. Most witness sessions extended for 60 min, with 6 sessions over 2 days. At each citizens' jury, jurors were asked to listen to expert testimony, consider the evidence and make policy recommendations. The planning and design of the citizens' juries were informed by well‐established citizens' jury methods. Results: Jurors proposed that Australia needs improved public information about the harms and benefits of sun exposure. They argued for information that supports personal decision‐making that accounts for differences in skin tone and geographical region. Jurors agreed that Australia needs an updated sun safety campaign that reflects new research and addresses diversity. A one‐size‐fits‐all approach to sun protection may no longer be appropriate. Conclusions: While a new campaign should address both harms and benefits, jurors felt the need for skin cancer prevention outweighs the desirability of generating vitamin D through sun exposure. More nuanced public health messages are needed, which balance the need for skin protection and vitamin D, and acknowledge the diversity of Australia's population. So What?: Previous research studies are typically siloed into the separate areas of vitamin D or skin cancer research. This study incorporated both topics and pooled the views of participants in two citizens' juries who agreed on the need for improved information about the harms and benefits of sun exposure to reflect a modern Australian population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Artificial intelligence (AI) is not only disrupting industries and businesses, particularly the ones have fallen behind the adoption, but also significantly impacting public life as well. This calls for government authorities pay attention to public opinions and sentiments towards AI. Nonetheless, there is limited knowledge on what the drivers behind the public perception of AI are. Bridging this gap is the rationale of this paper. As the methodological approach, the study conducts an online public perception survey with the residents of Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane, and explores the collected survey data through statistical analysis. The analysis reveals that: (a) the public is concerned of AI invading their privacy, but not much concerned of AI becoming more intelligent than humans; (b) the public trusts AI in their lifestyle, but the trust is lower for companies and government deploying AI; (c) the public appreciates the benefits of AI in urban services and disaster management; (d) depending on the local context, public perceptions vary; and (e) the drivers behind the public perception include gender, age, AI knowledge, and AI experience. The findings inform authorities in developing policies to minimise public concerns and maximise AI awareness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The January 2011 flood event that impacted southeast Queensland is amongst the most extensive and severe floods in terms of loss of life and property damage that the region has experienced, despite it being only the eighth highest flood on record at the Brisbane City Gauge. The spring of 2010 was the wettest on record for Queensland, New South Wales, and the Murray-Darling Basin (Bureau of Meteorology 2011a) at that time. The flood mitigation dams in the region, Somerset Dam and Wivenhoe Dam, had to be operated for flood mitigation purposes during October 2010, which was the first occasion since February 2001 that Wivenhoe Dam had been called into action due to the Millennium Drought. The wet October was followed by a very dry November which, in turn, was followed by the wettest December on record for Brisbane. Somerset Dam and Wivenhoe Dam were again pressed into action on three separate occasions during December 2010. The resultant releases ensured that only minor flooding resulted in the Lower Brisbane River during these events. However, on the 5th of January 2011, another rainfall event started to unfold across the catchments of the dams. By the 10th of January 2011, an upper-level low combined with a humid easterly flow to bring very heavy rainfall and flash flooding to southeast Queensland and northeast New South Wales. The heaviest falls were in the areas north and west of Brisbane, with three-day totals exceeding 200 mm over most of the Brisbane River catchment. This rainfall event resulted in a flood of record in the Upper Brisbane River and Upper Lockyer Creek catchments that sadly resulted in a substantial loss of life in Toowoomba and the Lockyer Valley, and which required record releases from Wivenhoe Dam. The resultant downstream flooding saw some 14,000 properties impacted, principally in the Lockyer Valley Regional Council, Somerset Regional Council, Brisbane City Council, and Ipswich City Council local government regions. Flood damage was estimated to be around $2.53 billion. This paper discusses the event as it unfolded and the subsequent judicial inquiries, engineering reviews, and legal proceedings that resulted from the consequences of the operation of Somerset Dam and Wivenhoe Dam. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents a passive transit accessibility model and showcases its applications to Brisbane, Australia, as a robust decision support tool for transport and urban planning. Active accessibility describes how easy it is for a person to reach essential activities such as work, education or shopping, while passive accessibility refers to the ease of an activity located in a given area being reached by potential users such as workers, students or shoppers. The passive accessibility measure can help determine the location of new activity centres where good transit access is essential to serve nearby communities. Two case studies are presented to demonstrate the application of the model. First, the model is used to examine the passive transit accessibility of major employment and commercial areas in Brisbane, Australia, to identify areas deemed in needs of transit service improvement. Second, the model is incorporated into the node–place modelling framework for assessment of potential transit oriented development (TOD). The node–place model offers a conceptual framework for evaluating the (re)development potential or enhancing the transit supply of station areas. The node–place model is used to classify 1186 analysis zones in Brisbane. The study identifies areas that have potential for transforming into TODs after improving transit accessibility or changing land use or development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]