Kuopio workshop report
The report about the workshop, including outcomes, experiences, lessons learned, problems faced, development needs identified etc., will be written here. An intermediate report will be prepared for presentation at the SP1 meeting on 20 March in London and the final report will be prepared in the end of the workshop and presented at SP4 workshop on 16-17 April in Oslo. Perhaps the most relevant parts of the outcomes of the workshop should also be presneted in the SP3 meeting 28 March in Rome?
Intermediate report to SP1 meeting
The original idea of the workshop was to get people together to work on a particular risk assessment case using the available methods and tools within Intarese. Based on the experiences during the assessment work we were expected to increase our understanding of:
- what are all the relevant parts of integrated risk assessment?
- what are all the methods and tools that we have available within Intarese?
- what kind of methods and tools we are missing?
The role of the case study was thus intended more of an instrumental type - helping to concretize the discussions about the methods and tools. Naturally some expectations were also set for the actual outcome of the assessment itself, although already in advance it was considered a secondary goal.
As was more or less expected, the first week of the workshop was quite a fuss. Among the participants there was no common agreement on what is (or could be) the Intarese framework and what are (could be) the methods and tools to use within it, while everyone also realized there was not too much time and resources to carry out the case study. This resulted in long and often exhausting meetings and discussions of what and when should we do and why. In between the meetings a lot of things were produced in the wiki-pages, although the question of "are we doing the right things?" was often present in the back of people's minds. Anyhow, luckily the weekend break did good to us and when we came back to work on the second monday of the workshop, everything seemed clearer and making much more sense.
What actually happened so far is that the risk assessment case study on Schiphol airport did indeed help us to direct the discussions to deal with the most important issues that required attention in light of integrated assessment method development. The progress of the case study assessment itself was not too great. In fact quite early it already turned out that within the given time and resource limits we could apply the so called "quick and dirty" method if we were to get any real results out of the case study, but this would not probably be of much use considering the primary goals of the workshop mentioned above. Instead we ended up little by little shifting more and more towards conceptual-level discussions about phases of risk assessment and methods and tools available to complete them.
Now, a little more than half-way through the workshop, the most significant outcomes clearly are the tables behind the link above. Despite still being draft versions, the tables could actually be considered as the so far most comprehensive attempt to describe the Intarese method and combining the contributions of different WP's of SP1 within one framework. Also the concept of assessment workspace was introduced as to describe the missing tool that would bind and integrate all the different more detailed methods and tools as well as users to the same "Intarese system". It must noted however, that the content of the assessment workspace -page is still a very early draft.
In addition to the pages linked to above, there are several pages related to the case study that have been created containing valuable information (see also the bottom of page), but for the time being the actual assessment is not proceeding at least until the feedback from SP1 meeting has been received. If a need to continue the assessment further and to more detail shall be expressed by SP1 meeting, we have the possibility to do that. If not, the remaining work efforts will be concentrated more on the conceptual considerations of the methodological framework.
Jouni's e-mail to Clive moved to SP1 general information page
Noise policy figure and descriptions moved to case study main page
