Well, I'll kick off the debate on SPDs. Once again, the emphasis seems to be on domestic (we all, or virtually all of us live in a home of one sort or another) so are the proposals an improvement or not?
I must say I dislike the term "risk assessment" in the context of SPDs. For me this phrase conjures up the idea of balancing the probability of an event against the likely level of harm of such an event. But for SPDs it's only the first part. I think something like "transient likelihood assessment" is a better description.
I also dislike the abrupt 10-fold change in fenv between urban and suburban/rural. Since for many properties the distinction between urban and suburban is vague and highly subjective, it means that mostly the yes/no result of the risk assessment is dictated by that vague choice. I'd prefer something like a number from 0..10 based on the roughly estimated percentage of open space in the 1km square surrounding the property (parks, fields etc) - assuming of course that that's what the urban/suburban/rural disctinction is supposed to be about.
I must say I dislike the term "risk assessment" in the context of SPDs. For me this phrase conjures up the idea of balancing the probability of an event against the likely level of harm of such an event. But for SPDs it's only the first part. I think something like "transient likelihood assessment" is a better description.
I also dislike the abrupt 10-fold change in fenv between urban and suburban/rural. Since for many properties the distinction between urban and suburban is vague and highly subjective, it means that mostly the yes/no result of the risk assessment is dictated by that vague choice. I'd prefer something like a number from 0..10 based on the roughly estimated percentage of open space in the 1km square surrounding the property (parks, fields etc) - assuming of course that that's what the urban/suburban/rural disctinction is supposed to be about.
