General assessment criteria (20%) *General assessment criteria shown below Poorly written with errors in spelling, grammar. Demonstrates inconsistent use of good quality, credible and relevant research sources to support and develop ideas. There are mistakes in using the APA style. Is written according to academic genre (e.g. with introduction, conclusion or summary) and has accurate spelling, grammar, sentence and paragraph construction. Demonstrates consistent use of credible and relevant research sources to support and develop ideas, but these are not always explicit or well developed. Is well-written and adheres to the academic genre (e.g. with introduction, conclusion or summary). Demonstrates consistent use of high quality, credible and relevant research sources to support and develop ideas. There are no mistakes in using the APA style. There are no mistakes in using the APA style.

Analysis and application with synthesis of new knowledge • Analysis of evidence to recommend changes in current policy, regulation and management (25%) Limited synthesis and analysis. Limited application/recommendat ions based upon analysis. Demonstrated analysis and synthesis of new knowledge with application. Shows the ability to interpret relevant information and literature. Well-developed analysis and synthesis with application of recommendations linked to analysis/synthesis. Thoroughly developed and creative analysis and synthesis with application of pretested models and / or independently developed models and justified recommendations linked to analysis/synthesis. Highly sophisticated and creative analysis, synthesis of new with existing knowledge. Strong application by way of pretested models and / or independently developed models. Recommendations

Critical reasoning, presentation and defence of an argument and/or position • Critical analysis of the driving forces (economic, social, political, institutional, developmental) behind the environmental determinants (10%) • Critical analysis of the impact of the environmental risk upon the geographic population (10%) • Critical analysis of the impact of the environmental risk upon equity issues (10%) Specific position (perspective or argument) fails to take into account the complexities of the issue(s) or scope of the assignment. Makes assertions that are not justified. Specific position (perspective or argument) begins to take into account the issue(s) or scope of the assignment. Justifies any conclusions reached with arguments not merely assertion. Specific position (perspective or argument) takes into account the complexities of the issue(s) or scope of the assignment. Others’ points of view are acknowledged. Justifies any conclusions reached with well-formed arguments not merely assertion. Specific position (perspective or argument) is expertly presented and accurately takes into account the complexities of the issue(s) and scope of the assignment.

Exhibits knowledge and understanding • Knowledge and understanding of evidence-based approaches to environmental risk assessment and management (25%) Limited understanding of required concepts and knowledge Key components of the assignment are not addressed. Knowledge/understandin g of the field or discipline. Resembles a recall or summary of key ideas. Often conflates/confuses assertion of personal opinion with information substantiated by evidence from the research/subject materials. Thorough knowledge/understanding of the field or discipline/s. Supports personal opinion and information substantiated by evidence from the research/subject materials. Demonstrates a capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts. Highly developed understanding of the field or discipline/s. Discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from the research/course materials and extended reading.

Grade Description (Grading Scheme) Evidence of unsatisfactory achievement of one or more of the learning objectives of the subject, insufficient understanding of the subject content and/or unsatisfactory level of skill development. Evidence of satisfactory achievement of subject learning objectives, the development of relevant skills to a competent level, and adequate interpretation and critical analysis skills. Evidence of a good level of understanding, knowledge and skill development in relation to the content of the subject or work of a superior quality on the majority of the learning objectives of the subject. Demonstration of a high level of interpretation and critical analysis skills. Evidence of a high level of achievement of the learning objectives of the subject demonstrated in such areas as interpretation and critical analysis, logical argument, use of methodology and communication skills.

(25%) • General Assessment Criteria (20%) o Provides a lucid introduction o Shows a sophisticated understanding of the key issues o Shows ability to interpret relevant information and literature in relation to chosen topic o Demonstrates a capacity to explain and apply relevant concepts o Shows evidence of reading beyond the required readings o Justifies any conclusions reached with well-formed arguments and not merely assertions o Provides a conclusion or summary o Correctly uses academic writing, presentation and grammar: ? Complies with academic standards of legibility, referencing and bibliographical details (including reference list) ? Writes clearly, with accurate spelling and grammar as well as proper sentence and paragraph construction ? Uses appropriate APA style for citing and referencing research

Assignments will be assessed in terms of the extent to which students demonstrate: • Knowledge and understanding of evidence-based approaches to environmental risk assessment and management (25%) • Critical analysis (30% in total) o Critical analysis of the driving forces (economic, social, political, institutional, developmental) behind the environmental determinants (10%) o Critical analysis of the impact of the environmental risk upon the geographic population (10%) o Critical analysis of the impact of the environmental risk upon equity issues (10%) • Analysis of evidence to recommend changes in current policy, regulation and management (25%)