File:Use of risk assessment in the society.ppt: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
(this is marked as old version) |
||
(18 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<big><big><font style="background-color:yellow">NOTE! A newer version and format of this file can be found from [[:File:Use of risk assessment in the society.pptx]].</font></big></big> | |||
A critical evaluation about the '''use of current risk assessment practices in the society'''. | A critical evaluation about the '''use of current risk assessment practices in the society'''. | ||
{{lecture|moderator=Jouni}} | {{lecture|moderator=Jouni}} | ||
{{THS | |||
|nimi = Use of toxicological risk assessment in the society 2014 | |||
|tehtäväryhmä = 6.04.00.03 | |||
|tehtrnimi = Tiedotusmateriaalit, luentokalvot | |||
|vastuualue = YMAL | |||
|vuosi = 2014 | |||
|vastuuhenkilö = Jouni Tuomisto | |||
|luotu = 11.3.2014 | |||
|linkki = [http://en.opasnet.org/w/File:Use_of_risk_assessment_in_the_society.ppt] | |||
|suojeluluokka = ei luokiteltu | |||
}} | |||
[[Category:2015]] | |||
{{THS | |||
|nimi = Use of toxicological risk assessment in the society 2013 | |||
|tehtäväryhmä = 6.04.00.03 | |||
|tehtrnimi = Tiedotusmateriaalit, luentokalvot | |||
|vastuualue = YMAL | |||
|vuosi = 2013 | |||
|vastuuhenkilö = Jouni Tuomisto | |||
|luotu = 15.5.2013 | |||
|linkki = [http://en.opasnet.org/w/File:Use_of_risk_assessment_in_the_society.ppt] | |||
|suojeluluokka = ei luokiteltu | |||
}} | |||
{{THS | |||
|nimi = Use of toxicological risk assessment in the society 2012 | |||
|tehtäväryhmä = 6.04.00.03 | |||
|tehtrnimi = Tiedotusmateriaalit, luentokalvot | |||
|vastuualue = YMAL | |||
|vuosi = 2012 | |||
|vastuuhenkilö = Jouni Tuomisto | |||
|luotu = 7.5.2012 | |||
|linkki = [http://en.opasnet.org/w/File:Use_of_risk_assessment_in_the_society.ppt] | |||
|suojeluluokka = ei luokiteltu | |||
}} | |||
{{THS | |||
|nimi = Use of toxicological risk assessment in the society 2010 | |||
|tehtäväryhmä = 6.04.00.03 | |||
|tehtrnimi = Tiedotusmateriaalit, luentokalvot | |||
|vastuualue = YMAL | |||
|vuosi = 2010 | |||
|vastuuhenkilö = Jouni Tuomisto | |||
|luotu = 7.5.2010 | |||
|linkki = [http://en.opasnet.org/w/File:Use_of_risk_assessment_in_the_society.ppt] | |||
|suojeluluokka = ei luokiteltu | |||
}} | |||
[[Category:Assessments]] | [[Category:Assessments]] | ||
[[Category:Risk assessments]] | [[Category:Risk assessments]] | ||
[[Category:YMAL lectures 2010]] | [[Category:YMAL lectures 2010]] | ||
:''For instructions on making lecture pages, see [[Lecture]]. | |||
This lecture has been given in: | |||
* Advanced toxicological risk assessment (ADTOXRI), 7.5.2010, 7.5.2012, 15.5.2013, 11.3.2014, 10.3.2015, ?.3.2016, 2.3.2017, 28.2.2018 (Application of toxicological risk assessment in society). 2014 slides contain a case study about [[:op_fi:Pahtavaaran kaivos|Pahtavaara mine]]. | |||
;Question in the exam 21.5.2012: Select two different approaches to impact assessment (e.g. health impact assessment, chemical safety assessment in Reach, environmental impact assessment, open assessment, traditional risk assessment according to the "Red Book", life cycle assessment, or some other existing approach). Think about the availability of information in an assessment for a) reading, b) criticism, and c) further use. Discuss the similarities and differences of these two approaches in this respect. (10 p) | |||
;Evaluation criteria for the exam: The main point of the question is to make the student think about the availability of the information collected for an assessment. The evaluation is based on how the student is able to elaborate the connections of availability and use of information, and the availability of information as a rate limiting step for use in assessment approaches. Detailed knowledge about the procedures of different assessment approaches is not high priority in the evaluation. For full ten points, the following issues have to be covered in the answer: | |||
:* Selection of two assessment approaches. | |||
:* Short description of each approach regarding information and its availability in the assessment process. | |||
:* Identification of groups who have differential access to information (e.g. authorities vs. citizens in Reach). | |||
:* Comparison of the two approaches about reading (which groups can read which parts of an assessment). | |||
:* Comparison of the two approaches about criticism (who has the power to challenge the correctness of information in an assessment). | |||
:* Comparison of the two approaches about further use (which parts of the assessment can be used for other purposes than the original need, and who can use it). | |||
:* Discussion about the implications of these differences (what problems and benefits does the availability or non-availability of information cause in an assessment process and the use of assessment results). | |||
:*If the student discussed only one approach, a maximum of 6/10 is available. | |||
:Additional points are available, if the student is able to discuss other relevant points of information production, availability, and use in assessment processes. However, full 10/10 was given only if the answer covered the items described above. | |||
; Question | |||
List the six principles of executing open policy practice. Describe why each principle is needed. If relevant, give also examples about situations where current assessment practices (e.g. REACH or environmental impact assessment YVA) are NOT following these principles. | |||
; Alternative formulation | |||
The six principles of executing open policy practice are intentionality, shared information objects, causality, critique, reuse and openness. Describe WHAT each of them actually means, WHY it is needed, and HOW it improves assessments. If relevant, give also examples about situations where current assessment practices (e.g. REACH or environmental impact assessment YVA) are NOT following these principles. |
Latest revision as of 06:56, 1 February 2019
NOTE! A newer version and format of this file can be found from File:Use of risk assessment in the society.pptx.
A critical evaluation about the use of current risk assessment practices in the society.
This page is a lecture.
The page identifier is Op_en4194 |
---|
Moderator:Jouni (see all) |
|
Upload data
|
Metadata about document Use of toxicological risk assessment in the society 2014 (in Finnish) help |
---|
|
Metadata about document Use of toxicological risk assessment in the society 2013 (in Finnish) help |
---|
|
Metadata about document Use of toxicological risk assessment in the society 2012 (in Finnish) help |
---|
|
Metadata about document Use of toxicological risk assessment in the society 2010 (in Finnish) help |
---|
|
- For instructions on making lecture pages, see Lecture.
This lecture has been given in:
- Advanced toxicological risk assessment (ADTOXRI), 7.5.2010, 7.5.2012, 15.5.2013, 11.3.2014, 10.3.2015, ?.3.2016, 2.3.2017, 28.2.2018 (Application of toxicological risk assessment in society). 2014 slides contain a case study about Pahtavaara mine.
- Question in the exam 21.5.2012
- Select two different approaches to impact assessment (e.g. health impact assessment, chemical safety assessment in Reach, environmental impact assessment, open assessment, traditional risk assessment according to the "Red Book", life cycle assessment, or some other existing approach). Think about the availability of information in an assessment for a) reading, b) criticism, and c) further use. Discuss the similarities and differences of these two approaches in this respect. (10 p)
- Evaluation criteria for the exam
- The main point of the question is to make the student think about the availability of the information collected for an assessment. The evaluation is based on how the student is able to elaborate the connections of availability and use of information, and the availability of information as a rate limiting step for use in assessment approaches. Detailed knowledge about the procedures of different assessment approaches is not high priority in the evaluation. For full ten points, the following issues have to be covered in the answer:
- Selection of two assessment approaches.
- Short description of each approach regarding information and its availability in the assessment process.
- Identification of groups who have differential access to information (e.g. authorities vs. citizens in Reach).
- Comparison of the two approaches about reading (which groups can read which parts of an assessment).
- Comparison of the two approaches about criticism (who has the power to challenge the correctness of information in an assessment).
- Comparison of the two approaches about further use (which parts of the assessment can be used for other purposes than the original need, and who can use it).
- Discussion about the implications of these differences (what problems and benefits does the availability or non-availability of information cause in an assessment process and the use of assessment results).
- If the student discussed only one approach, a maximum of 6/10 is available.
- Additional points are available, if the student is able to discuss other relevant points of information production, availability, and use in assessment processes. However, full 10/10 was given only if the answer covered the items described above.
- Question
List the six principles of executing open policy practice. Describe why each principle is needed. If relevant, give also examples about situations where current assessment practices (e.g. REACH or environmental impact assessment YVA) are NOT following these principles.
- Alternative formulation
The six principles of executing open policy practice are intentionality, shared information objects, causality, critique, reuse and openness. Describe WHAT each of them actually means, WHY it is needed, and HOW it improves assessments. If relevant, give also examples about situations where current assessment practices (e.g. REACH or environmental impact assessment YVA) are NOT following these principles.
File history
Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time.
Date/Time | Dimensions | User | Comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|
current | 09:37, 31 January 2019 | (3.26 MB) | Jouni (talk | contribs) | Case of climate neutral Helsinki added |
08:47, 28 February 2018 | (1.57 MB) | Jouni (talk | contribs) | Svg graph of information flow in OPP. Also, some textual edits. | |
11:48, 2 March 2017 | (1.56 MB) | Jouni (talk | contribs) | Open policy practice principles ("the temple figure") added. | |
08:00, 10 March 2015 | (1.51 MB) | Jouni (talk | contribs) | New opp diagram and Bed Book diagram added | |
08:19, 11 March 2014 | (1.39 MB) | Jouni (talk | contribs) | Pahtavaara added | |
09:51, 15 May 2013 | (1.13 MB) | Jouni (talk | contribs) | A few typos corrected | |
04:03, 15 May 2013 | (1.18 MB) | Jouni (talk | contribs) | Case-study-based approach implemented in slides (Pori Isomäki). The content is organised around the open decision making practice (Tekaisu method, avoin päätöksentekomenetelmä). | |
10:04, 7 May 2012 | (1.1 MB) | Jouni (talk | contribs) | Small edits. Lecture should be based on discussion rather than talking. Otherwise difficult to follow the logic of slides. | |
04:25, 7 May 2012 | (1.04 MB) | Jouni (talk | contribs) | A new version for Adtoxri. A bunch of applicable slides in a random order. Must be organised. | |
11:57, 7 May 2010 | (273 KB) | Jouni (talk | contribs) | Food for thought added |
You cannot overwrite this file.
File usage
There are no pages that use this file.