Valitse muuttuja

[fsd_no] FSD study number

[fsd_vr] FSD edition number

[fsd_pro] FSD processing level

[fsd_id] FSD case id

[q1a_1a] Importance of different types of information (Areas of risk assessment): Quantitative information on cumulative risks from multiple stressors (public debate)

[q1a_1b] Importance of different types of information (Areas of risk assessment): Quantitative information on cumulative risks from multiple stressors (EU risk management)

[q1a_2a] Importance of different types of information (Areas of risk assessment): Integrated information on ecological and human health effects (public debate)

[q1a_2b] Importance of different types of information (Areas of risk assessment): Integrated information on ecological and human health effects (EU risk management)

[q1a_3a] Importance of different types of information (Areas of risk assessment): Empirical validation of model simulations of risks (public debate)

[q1a_3b] Importance of different types of information (Areas of risk assessment): Empirical validation of model simulations of risks (EU risk management)

[q1a_4a] Importance of different types of information (Areas of risk assessment): Integrated specific information on both exposures and effects (public debate)

[q1a_4b] Importance of different types of information (Areas of risk assessment): Integrated specific information on both exposures and effects (EU risk management)

[q1a_5a] Importance of different types of information (Areas of risk assessment): Information on risks and benefits of substitutes for presently used chemicals (public debate)

[q1a_5b] Importance of different types of information (Areas of risk assessment): Information on risks and benefits of substitutes for presently used chemicals (EU risk management)

[q1a_6a] Importance of different types of information (Areas of risk assessment): Information of risks in all life-cycle stages of chemicals and other products (public debate)

[q1a_6b] Importance of different types of information (Areas of risk assessment): Information of risks in all life-cycle stages of chemicals and other products (EU risk management)

[q1b_1a] Importance of different types of information (Variability and uncertainty): Descriptions of the variability of risks to specific organisms (public debate)

[q1b_1b] Importance of different types of information (Variability and uncertainty): Descriptions of the variability of risks to specific organisms (EU risk management)

[q1b_2a] Importance of different types of information (Variability and uncertainty): Descriptions of the variability of risks to humans (public debate)

[q1b_2b] Importance of different types of information (Variability and uncertainty): Descriptions of the variability of risks to humans (EU risk management)

[q1b_3a] Importance of different types of information (Variability and uncertainty): Information on uncertainties with respect to exposures (public debate)

[q1b_3b] Importance of different types of information (Variability and uncertainty): Information on uncertainties with respect to exposures (EU risk management)

[q1b_4a] Importance of different types of information (Variability and uncertainty): Information on uncertainties with respect to effects (public debate)

[q1b_4b] Importance of different types of information (Variability and uncertainty): Information on uncertainties with respect to effects (EU risk management)

[q1b_5a] Importance of different types of information (Variability and uncertainty): Information on uncertainties in measures to reduce risks (public debate)

[q1b_5b] Importance of different types of information (Variability and uncertainty): Information on uncertainties in measures to reduce risks (EU risk management)

[q1b_6a] Importance of different types of information (Variability and uncertainty): Justifications for the chosen safety factors (public debate)

[q1b_6b] Importance of different types of information (Variability and uncertainty): Justifications for the chosen safety factors (EU risk management)

[q1c_1a] Importance of different types of information (Risk communication): Qualitative (narrative) descriptions of risks (public debate)

[q1c_1b] Importance of different types of information (Risk communication): Qualitative (narrative) descriptions of risks (EU risk management)

[q1c_2a] Importance of different types of information (Risk communication): Presentations of risks using maps (public debate)

[q1c_2b] Importance of different types of information (Risk communication): Presentations of risks using maps (EU risk management)

[q1c_3a] Importance of different types of information (Risk communication): Information on the acceptance of specific risks by stakeholder groups (public debate)

[q1c_3b] Importance of different types of information (Risk communication): Information on the acceptance of specific risks by stakeholder groups (EU risk management)

[q1c_4a] Importance of different types of information (Risk communication): Information on ways to avoid, eliminate and reduce risks (public debate)

[q1c_4b] Importance of different types of information (Risk communication): Information on ways to avoid, eliminate and reduce risks (EU risk management)

[q1c_5a] Importance of different types of information (Risk communication): Information on different possible precautionary measures (public debate)

[q1c_5b] Importance of different types of information (Risk communication): Information on different possible precautionary measures (EU risk management)

[q1c_6a] Importance of different types of information (Risk communication): Information on long term risk scenarios (public debate)

[q1c_6b] Importance of different types of information (Risk communication): Information on long term risk scenarios (EU risk management)

[q2_1] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: Risks can be assessed and compared in quantitative terms

[q2_2] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: All risks to human health can be compared in quantitative terms

[q2_3] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: Uncertainties related to cumulative risks from multiple stressors can not be quantified by mathematical modelling

[q2_4] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: The precautionary principle conflicts with evidence-based risk management

[q2_5] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: Risks from non-chemical agents and stressors are more important than those from chemicals

[q2_6] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: Human health risks of chemicals are more important than their ecological risks

[q2_7] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: Regarding chemical hazards on average, long-term cumulative risks are more relevant than immediate risks

[q2_8] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: Risk management should always tackle worst risks first

[q2_9] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: Risk assessment should be clearly separated from risk management

[q2_10] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: It is possible to develop rapid risk assessment methods that provide sufficient results for making prudent risk management decisions

[q2_11] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: Animal testing for new chemicals can be reduced to a fraction of the present by using other types of tests

[q2_12] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: It is possible to fully standardize risk assessments at a European level

[q2_13] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: Economic considerations should be completely excluded from risk assessments

[q2_14] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: Risk maps are useful in risk assessments at a European level

[q2_15] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: Risk maps are useful in risk assessments at local (municipal) level

[q2_16] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: Risk maps of high resolution tend to mislead people to believe that depicted risk levels express their individual risk

[q2_17] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: People should have free access to maps of risks in their neighbourhood even if they could be misinterpreted

[q2_18] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: Risk mapping of cumulative risks from multiple stressors requires too much resources in relation to their in-formation value

[q2_19] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: Risk management should be strictly based on scientific expertise

[q2_20] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: Risk assessment should be confined to a group of independent experts without engaging stakeholders or interest groups

[q2_21] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: Only stakeholders with direct economic interests should be included in risk management

[q2_22] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: Stakeholder participation in risk management should include all interested parties

[q2_23] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: Fully integrated treatment of risks is precluded by sector differences

[q2_24] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: Extrapolation from test animals to humans can provide useful estimates of risks

[q2_25] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: Using a broad range of risk scenarios is one reliable method to handle uncertainties

[q2_26] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: The key to dealing with uncertainties is more exact measurement and better validated models

[q2_27] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: The precautionary principle should imply that large safety factors are always used

[q2_28] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: Safety factors should be adjusted frequently in the light of new empirical data

[q2_29] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: Regulatory risk assessments should include an obligatory description of the uncertainties inherent in the assessment

[q2_30] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: Professional judgements by risk experts are heavily influenced by social factors such as political position, af-filiation and public attitudes

[q2_31] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: Adverse effects and risks of chemicals are over-represented in scientific literature compared with their benefits

[q2_32] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: It is the task of risk experts to educate the public about the true risks

[q2_33] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: Most risk controversies are caused by a lack of expert information to the public

[q2_34] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: Pointing out all uncertainties confuses people and makes regulatory decision making more cumbersome

[q2_35] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: The media usually exaggerate risks especially when human health is at stake

[q2_26] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: News media should provide more detailed information on risks to the public

[q2_37] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: Risk comparisons are suitable instruments for effective risk communication

[q2_38] How far do you agree or disagree with the following claims or suggestions: Public risk perceptions should influence risk management decisions

[q3a_1] Risk for freshwater algae: Highest in

[q3a_2] Risk for freshwater algae: Second highest in

[q3a_3] Risk for freshwater algae: Third lowest in

[q3a_4] Risk for freshwater algae: Second lowest in

[q3a_5] Risk for freshwater algae: Lowest in

[q3b_1] Risk for freshwater daphnia: Highest in

[q3b_2] Risk for freshwater daphnia: Second highest in

[q3b_3] Risk for freshwater daphnia: Third lowest in

[q3b_4] Risk for freshwater daphnia: Second lowest in

[q3b_5] Risk for freshwater daphnia: Lowest in

[q3c_1] Risk for freshwater fish: Highest in

[q3c_2] Risk for freshwater fish: Second highest in

[q3c_3] Risk for freshwater fish: Third lowest in

[q3c_4] Risk for freshwater fish: Second lowest in

[q3c_5] Risk for freshwater fish: Lowest in

[q3d_1] Cumulative risk: Highest in

[q3d_2] Cumulative risk: Second highest in

[q3d_3] Cumulative risk: Third lowest in

[q3d_4] Cumulative risk: Second lowest in

[q3d_5] Cumulative risk: Lowest in

[q3e_1] How far do you agree or disagree with following statements: The combined map is easy to understand

[q3e_2] How far do you agree or disagree with following statements: The combined map is interesting

[q3e_3] How far do you agree or disagree with following statements: The combined map easily confuses non-specialists

[q3e_4] How far do you agree or disagree with following statements: The combined map is a potentially good tool for raising public awareness

[q3e_5] How far do you agree or disagree with following statements: The combined map is a potentially good tool for informing decision makers

[q4] Gender

[q5] Age

[q6] Education Level

[q7] Main field of expertise

[q8] Working experience in the main field of expertise

[q9] Organisation

[q10] Country

[nom_memb] NoMiracle membership