Difference between revisions of "Talk:Chances and risks"

From MarineSpecies Introduced Traits Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 5: Line 5:
  
 
The content is correct and up to date from a technical point of view. There are a number of good references at the end. It has adequate length and is easy to read for a wide public.
 
The content is correct and up to date from a technical point of view. There are a number of good references at the end. It has adequate length and is easy to read for a wide public.
 +
 +
=== Comments ===
 +
 +
In the second section (risk and return period), the unit of risk as stated (money per year) may be a little simplistic. It should be said that this MAY be a good unit in some cases (material damages), and not that it is the unit of risk in a general way. For instance, damages to the environment are also a risk which can hardly be estimated in the same unit.
  
 
=== Recommendations ===
 
=== Recommendations ===
Line 15: Line 19:
 
** [[Case study risk analysis of marine activities in the Belgian part of the North Sea]]
 
** [[Case study risk analysis of marine activities in the Belgian part of the North Sea]]
 
** [[Portuguese case studies: Caparica]]
 
** [[Portuguese case studies: Caparica]]
* put the article in relevant categories
 
** [[:Category:Coastal risk management]]
 

Latest revision as of 16:47, 5 July 2020

Review by François Hissel

General remarks

The article is written in good English and its topic is perfectly relevant to the Coastal Wiki. Risk is indeed usually seen as a major issue for coastal management because of the increased level of risk on those regions (storm surge, high winds, erosion). This article focusses on the terminology used in this context and tries to explain the difference between chance (or hazard) and risk. This is done in a very concise and illustrative way, with a good example to explain it.

The content is correct and up to date from a technical point of view. There are a number of good references at the end. It has adequate length and is easy to read for a wide public.

Comments

In the second section (risk and return period), the unit of risk as stated (money per year) may be a little simplistic. It should be said that this MAY be a good unit in some cases (material damages), and not that it is the unit of risk in a general way. For instance, damages to the environment are also a risk which can hardly be estimated in the same unit.

Recommendations

Although informative enough at this stage, the article could be improved in some ways: