This booklet holds a collection of drawings, maps, schemes, collages, artistic impressions etc. which were made by students during an intense design moment in the project (re)CYCLE Limburg, which took place in December 2016. Students of Built Environment, Facility Management, Social Work and Health & Care cooperated in making designs and developing strategies for urban renewal in Kerkrade West (Province of Limburg, the Netherlands). The study focused on the importance of qualitative and shared public spaces. The local community (inhabitants, shopkeepers, entrepreneurs, municipality, housing corporation) was actively engaged by sharing knowledge and information, ideas and opinions. These reflections are part of the Limburg Action Lab (part of the Smart Urban Redesign Research Centre). It engages in research by design on innovative and tactical interventions in public space, that might enhance the identity, sustainability and socio-spatial structure of neighbourhoods.
This booklet contains the analyses and designs that were produced by international teams of students, designers and researchers on the revitalization of public space in the district of Kerkrade – West (Limburg, the Netherlands) in December 2017 during the International Design Workshop (re)CYCLE LIMBURG 2. It was partially built on knowledge, experiences and ideas from the preceding workshop in December 2016. The outcomes of the workshop are mainly presented in the form of drawings, maps, schemes, collages, artistic impressions etc. Both workshops were framed in the interdisciplinary project Kerkrade-West of Zuyd UAS and its Research Centre for Smart Urban ReDesign (SURD).
Forensic reports use various types of conclusions, such as a categorical (CAT) conclusion or a likelihood ratio (LR). In order to correctly assess the evidence, users of forensic reports need to understand the conclusion and its evidential strength. The aim of this paper is to study the interpretation of the evidential strength of forensic conclusions by criminal justice professionals. In an online questionnaire 269 professionals assessed 768 reports on fingerprint examination and answered questions that measured self-proclaimed and actual understanding of the reports and conclusions. The reports entailed CAT, verbal LR and numerical LR conclusions with low or high evidential strength and were assessed by crime scene investigators, police detectives, public prosecutors, criminal lawyers, and judges. The results show that about a quarter of all questions measuring actual understanding of the reports were answered incorrectly. The CAT conclusion was best understood for the weak conclusions, the three strong conclusions were all assessed similarly. The weak CAT conclusion correctly emphasizes the uncertainty of any conclusion type used. However, most participants underestimated the strength of this weak CAT conclusion compared to the other weak conclusion types. Looking at the self-proclaimed understanding of all professionals, they in general overestimated their actual understanding of all conclusion types.
