The conversation begun with some examples known by each one of us about the different hazards in the list. The conversation then already gave importance to some hazards while other ones were already given less importance.
The second step was to organize a manner to rank all the hazards, and to put together our ideas. So that the feelings of everyone should be included, we decided that each one of us had to give importance to the hazards with a percentage. The total had to reach 100%. After that, we mixed all our percentages, and we obtained a really precise ranking, although our personal rankings were only made of 5, 10 or 15 %.
We also had a discussion about what should be more important to take into account; human lives, economic , direct or indirect , long or short term impacts.
I'm from Belgium, and I think that conclusions reached during the course would not be so different. Only the volcanic eruptions and the tsunami would have a smaller importance, but the rest fits very well. This is the fact that our group was composed of a French guy and 2 others from Finland. SO our point of view was kind of "general" European view.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire