User:Amr Ebrahim

From Opasnet
Jump to: navigation, search

Homework 1

Homework 1a

#: . Good. You have answered more questions than asked for. I have added some clarifications to the text. --Jouni (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant defense)

Homework 1a: Open policy practice 1. What is the main purpose of environmental health assessment?

  • Studying the characteristics of our living environment and its impacts on human health by applying research to validate cause and effect relations.
  • Improving plans using pragma-dilectic theory through knowledge sharing approaches, while taking in consideration complexity.
  • Supply knowledge in regards to facilitating communication and implementation of assessment produced to assist governance to desired outcomes.

2.What is shared understanding?

The purposeful rafting of polarity in final decision options at hand. Employing experts and stakeholders in process of collective understanding of the magnitude of decision options. Involving means of support to execute, evaluate and manage intended knowledge rendered towards decision making. Throughout co-creating and facilitating synthesis utilizing probability and quantitative modeling.

3. What are the main differences between regulatory and academic assessment approaches? Give examples of each.

Regulatory Assessment Approach
Captures the political infusion of societal decision making . They often look at decision from the lens of authorities and its association with communal and private governance. Poor policies can be the results of poor understanding of the interaction dynamics of each party. An example for that can be the COP private funding policies. #: . Typically, these are assessments whose content and/or process is regulated by law, e.g. chemical safety assessment by the REACH directive, or environmental impact assessments regulated by the EIA directive. --Jouni (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant attack)
Academic Assessment Approach
The discipline that recognizes objectives towards decision making process through sufficing information needed.This takes place through a process of decision support by creating research questions that follows pragmatic rational. An example can be energy efficiency and nudge theory.

4. What are co-creation skills? An amalgamating function that insures the execution , evaluation and management ( also referred to as international experience #: . Not international experience but interactional expertise, meaning that people working in co-creation (often called facilitators) are able to interact with other disciplines and people. They are experts in making syntheses of the information produced. --Jouni (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant attack)). Which is as set of capabilities that combines expertise, administrative and active involvement to handle the task of collaboration, information objectives and shared understanding. Towards purposeful management of decision making and information. 5. What are the main differences between open assessment and most other assessment approaches?

Open Assessment
is a method that capitalizes on the use of information to generate better policies decision by explicitly introduce value judgement. based on scientific methods and structure to deal with disputes and contending in an open platform based on observation and reason to reject of accept.
other open assessment
all assessment methods has common structure to enable effective automation and rendering of information by structures attributes and sub-attributes encompassing ( scope, answers, rational).#: . Question, answer, and rationale are typical for open assessments, not other assessments. Open participation is a key difference between open assessment and other approaches. --Jouni (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant attack)

6. What is benefit-risk assessment? The prerequisite for safety procedures , where reveals the intrinsic hazardous component, substance or product.Composed of ( decompose- assessment, exposure-assessment, hazard identification and risk characterization. #: . What you describe is a typical risk assessment. Benefit-risk assessment looks also at the benefits of the activity or product. --Jouni (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant attack) 7. What is open assessment?

Is a method that attempts to answer a set of scientific questions that can improve societal decision making in an open participation context to produce value judgement.

8. What different purposes are there for participation in assessment and/or decision making?

The purpose of participating in an assessment is to improve deliberate plans of actions that guides decision making to reach desired outcomes. It helps set milestones to impact, causes, problem owners, targeted segments and level of interaction.

9. What are the dimensions of openness?

It is a principle framework to insure and monitor deviation from ideal state of openness during execution creating the balance needed for open practice and openness towards closed process.that takes place in a continual fashion to assist with participatory assessment and decision making process in a step-by-step consideration.

10. What relevant stakeholder roles are there in environmental health assessment and related decision making

Knowledge about environmental health relationships and actions influencing them are tightly interconnected. Therefore, categories of interactions are set to facilitate interactions between stakeholders in the level of involvement. ( Isolated, informing, participatory, joint and shared).

11.What is effectiveness' in the context of environmental health assessment and related decision making?

It is the follow up and post hoc analysis of the changes that can be provoked after the delivery of results to insure good assessment and evaluation. Throughout running evaluation approach to influence the decision making process addressing (quality of content, applicability and efficiency). Effective environmental health assessment therefore necessitates collaboration between environmental experts and decision makers.

12.What is the trialogical approach to knowledge creation and learning?

It is the relevant involvement of all parties in the process learning to produce knowledge artifacts in a collective learning explicit linking knowledge creation to practice. It usually is considered in the context of computer support collaborative learning considering issues with knowledge creation and innovation.

13. What is decision support?

A scheme core to evaluate and manage decision in open policy evaluate what exactly went wrong after results are obtains from the process. Contributing to decision making with high quality of content.

14. What is a pragmatic knowledge service?

is a hybrid system of information technology not only meant for creating practical knowledge but also a vehicle of cultural change from individualistic perspective. Governed by 4 major characteristics: collaboration, knowledge practice, knowledge implementation and adaptability.

15. What is collaboration?

Building and managing networked communities and social relations required for carrying out knowledge advancement effort. Allowing users to learn, lean, share and combine each other’s competences and experiences.

16. What are the properties of good assessment?

Informative, collaborative, coherent) in regards to content. (In regards to applicability (relevance, availability, usability and acceptability) and intra/inter - assessments in regards to efficiency.

17. What is the role of modelling in assessment and policy making?

It is the co-creation and facilitation category used to develop actual assessment models based on generic methods and case specifications.

18. What parts does the open policy practice consist of?

Intentionality, causality, critique, shared information objects, openness and reuse. #: . These are principles used. It consists of these parts: shared understanding as the ultimate goal; execution (this work follows the principles you mention); co-creation skills and facilitation; and evaluation and management. --Jouni (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant attack)

19. What does it mean that the results of assessments can be considered shared information objects?

Information shared using a systemic structure that allows open work space. Used to define research questions to be answered in open assessment. While collaborate to answer questions to with stand critique and build causal connections.

Homework 1b

Exercises on Khan Academy and Quizlet were performed, and I found them very useful.

Homework 2

this is a demonstration of practicing template on opasnet.

THL. THL LOGO EN WEB 272x66px.jpg

This is just a table to demonstrate the skill of making t2b table on opasnet

User:Amr Ebrahim(Anual Energy consumption in Finland (2007 - 2013))

Homework 3: Basic concepts of open assessment and co-creation

Task A:

  • Q1. HOw do we weigh the attributes in an assessment and link it to variables in decision making ?
    #: . I am not quite sure what you mean with the question. Maybe you mean how to weigh competing objectives in an assessment? There are several approaches to that, e.g. multi-attribute utility theory and others. From the perspective of open policy practice, any relevant approach can be used, as long as the values and preferences by decision makers are made explicit and documented, and the reasoning can be criticized. --Jouni (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)
  • Q2. in climate change what is the applicable value of sensitivity analysis in decision making?
    #: . Sensitivity analyses are very important in all decision making, because practically always there are many uncertainties that have not been fully quantified. In such situations, sensitivity analyses provides information about what would happen if an assumption was true or not. Such understanding is important even if we coulnd't determine how likely the assumption is. --Jouni (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)

Task B:

Co-creation converts the market into a forum where dialogue among the consumer, the firm, consumer consumers are separate, with distinct, predetermined roles, and, consequently, that supply and demand are distinct, but mirrored, processes oriented around the exchange of products and services between firms and consumers. Adopting to a new experience-based view of economic theory where Dialog, access, risk benefits, and transparency (DART) emerge as the basis for interaction between the consumer and the firm. Co-creation is about joint creation of value by the company and the customer. Moving away from the traditional sense of dictating value and experiences to consumers and thinking on their behalf. Hence it is not that the firm trying to please the customer, rather allowing the customer to co-construct the service experience to suit their context. The notion of Joint problem framing and problem solving paves the path to creating an experience environment in which consumers can have active dialogue and co-construct personalized experiences; where services may be the same but customers can construct different experiences, variety of customization, converting the business as consumers do in real time Continuous dialogue, co-constructing personalized experiences and Innovating experience environments for new co-creation experience. In another realm knowledge is believed to have a strong role to play in any theory of decision making that is built on beliefs and values. The process of incorporating scientific knowledge into beliefs and values to better a bridge decision making process. Therefore co-creation in the case of knowledge consists of co-design, co-production and co-dissemination and that takes place with the involvement of various stakeholders. The understanding of knowledge in the process of decision making process while placing co creation as a process that needs to be met recently have shown the need to fulfill specific criteria’s:

  1. Develop new processes and skills that meets the required Integration: between science and decision that requires strong communication , inter personal and entra personal capacity in facilitating outcomes.Simultaneously develop the needed organizational and managerial competencies through professional support or training.
  2. Increased capability to deal with inertia to change: needed integration between decision, knowledge and co creation requires critical reflection on the role of science rather than traditional research that is limited on science only leaving the commercial side unattended.
  3. Clarify roles, responsibilities and rules of engagement: Integration is research coordination, which spans the entire research process. Different actors will have different levels and forms of involvement in different parts of the process. This requires clarity about roles and responsibilities, about who makes decisions when, and about how to appropriately safeguard scientific integrity and relevant standards of quality.
  4. Establish integrated institutions: The disciplinary based practices and structures of existing educational and research systems are not conducive to integrated efforts, and will need to be supplemented with new, integrated structures.
  5. Develop support systems: The same is true for typical academic reward and career advancement systems, as well funding mechanisms — including selection and evaluation procedures. Integration calls for a critical review of such systems.
  6. Remove persistent inequalities: In terms of access to power and resources, as well as research capacities, the world of science is plagued by persistent inequalities that pose a fundamental challenge to the deeper levels of collaboration that integration calls for.

Accordingly to meet the shift of combining decisions that are business operational with knowledge that meets co-creation consensus. The operation researcher is required to function more as a consultant, since intervention requires myriad of tasks performed by a facilitators to the client other than just analysis. The paradigm shift from expert mode towards the facilitation mode which is a holistic approach, to better move from traditional optimal objective solution to a useful cooperation that foster better implementation of modeling and analysis. The facilitator mode of involvement is more suitable to support complex problems. Therefore a clear set of functions should be provided in this approach that requires a set of abilities.

  • The ability to frame problems in social constructs to help the management team to reach goals.
  • Formulating problems into a developed structured model to help implementation.
  • Define metrics that are objective driven for management specifications.
  • Gathering scientific data that covers social and technical constructs client specifications.
  • Evaluating options in an attributed modeling to help prioritizing and management.
  • Present result in decision support and guidance.
  • Assist with increased management commitment to the implementation of the chosen options.
  • Set mile stones for problem leaning and implementations.

The facilitator role is majorly driven to assist with different Facilitation can be done at two levels: facilitating an individual, or facilitating a group. It typically requires involving with management team drawn from the client organization for better outcomes. The aim of the involvement is usually driven by developing a better activity or process flows, while maintain a close monitor to cause and effect relationships to better manage relationships between decision choices and their (deterministic or uncertain) consequences. Skills that should be available in a facilitator are:

  • Active listening.
  • Chart writing competence in writing style and speed, the use of appropriate formats and symbols and coding information.
  • Managing group dynamics and power shift that allows him to cop during the process.
  • Reaching closure allowing reaching agreements towards a pathway.
  • Develop support systems: The same is true for typical academic reward and career advancement systems, as well funding mechanisms — including selection and evaluation procedures. Integration calls for a critical review of such systems.
  • Remove persistent inequalities: In terms of access to power and resources, as well as research capacities, the world of science is plagued by persistent inequalities that pose a fundamental challenge to the deeper levels of collaboration that integration calls for.

Homework 6

Homework 6: Collaboration in climate policy assessment ( AMR, Ehab)

Homework 6, part A:

Questions about identifying roles and participation:

  • Who are the relevant participants of the assessment? and their roles?
  • Regulatory participants:
  1. EU room for the river projects and altered discharge regimes at the German-Dutch border.
  2. Delta Committee to parliament.
  3. Regional board consisting of (municipalities, provinces, the waterboards.
  4. ‘bestuurlijke tafels’ national governmental stakeholders.
  • Execution Participants:
  1. Port Rotterdam Company
  2. Rotterdam Delta commissioner.
  3. Deltares research institute.
  4. Network Organisation for Quality of Environnment (NOK).
  5. "maatschappelijke adviesgroep" (MAG) included stakeholders from a range of sectors, including inland shipping, nature NGO’s, logistics, industry, residents and is headed by the mayor of Rotterdam.
  6. landscape architects under supervision of a national atelier.
  • What kind of relevant knowledge they (may) have regarding the assessment?
  • What needs and aims do they represent in the assessment?

'Deltares, Port Rotterdam and NOK:

  1. GIS mapped megasites description: current and planned use, potential and actual risks
  2. Boundary conditions for sustainable development: stakeholders interest, funding options and legislative framework (water quality targets set by water framework directive).
  3. Management instruments and effects: risk-function relations and risk reduction measures.
  4. Description of Management Options.
  5. Option driven rehabilitation scenarios, technical feasibility tests and technical designs.
  6. Cost-efficient management scenarios and selection of final project goals
  7. Embedding principles and organizational models for implementation
  8. Procedure for risk assessment and evaluating the proportionality of hazard prevention measures.
  9. Assessment system for hazard appraisal and measure rankin with regard to subsequent utilization (function-orientated risk assessment).
  10. Guideline for monitoring and predicting the temporal and spatial behaviour of environmental aspects for cost-effective procedures based on the risk-related management of sites.
  11. Evaluation study on sites risk assessments comparing national requirements versus the new harmonized procedures.

EU and regulatory:

  1. Technical guideline for the implementation of MNA for the management of multiple enviromental hazards.
  2. Report on the applicability of existing protocols/guidelines for EU sites.
  3. Protocol/technical guideline for the implementation on MNA (Demona).
  4. Procedure for description of the legislative framework.

‘maatschappelijke adviesgroep’ (MAG) and Delta committee:

  1. Cost-estimation tool, CARO – Cost Analysis of Remediation Options Tool Description.
  2. Comparative analysis of cost-efficiency.
  3. Procedure for description of stakeholder's interest and commitment towards current and future use.
  4. Procedure for listing research needs and site investigation requirements.

Homework 6, part B:

  • How could the relevant participants be involved in the assessment in an effective way?
  1. Continuous update of boundary conditions and discussions about the possible future strategy.
  2. Approval and adjustments of conceptual model concept: discussion on receptors (what are the receptors?)
  3. Decision about further IMS development
  • How can the quality of an assessment be assured if anyone can participate?
  1. Make an overview of boundary conditions.
  2. Build the conceptual model including the transfer pathways that are taken into account and the planes of compliance.
  3. overview of objectives and interests as well as the current and possible future strategy for managing.
  • How can you prevent malevolent contributions where the purpose is to vandalise the process?
  1. Build a process descriptions maintaining confidentiality and the provide clarity in way the results are presented.
  2. Determine risks and derive local standards suggestions for clustering, including organizational arguments as basis for clustering (such as similarity of activities and the cooperation and synergy between neighboring locations).
#: . You could open up and clarify this point a bit. --Jouni (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)
  • How can you make the outcome converge to a conclusion, because all issues are uncertain and controversial?
  1. Define risk management objectives while bearing in mind that discussion on objectives is ongoing.
  2. Insure Intensive communication between the execution team and regulatory through designing clear orientation and workshops.
  3. Prioritization and optimization of risk, while controlling the propositions in scenarios.
  • How can you ensure that the outcomes are useful for the users?
  1. Build implementation plan that is clear and fortified with comments and open for improvement.
  2. Insure that all parties involved understand and are committed to guidelines set for implementations.
  3. Develop monitoring program built on indicators that provide practical considerations and synergy.
  4. Medium-Long term process reviews with continuous commitment assured.

Homework 9: Evaluation of assessment

Homework 9, part A: Evaluating BIO-FUEL ASSESSMENT


Alternative fuel specially bio diesel have gained a great momentum. The emphases on various types of feed stock is of interest to investors and producers. Bio refinery operation are seeking to coheir with environmental code to benefit from the environmental label associated and regulators code of conduct. #: . You could say two sentences about the topic and content of the assessment. Without even a link, it is difficult for a reader to understand this. --Jouni (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)


In the process of attempting to handle the topic of alternative fuels specially bio-diesel we have to understand the various of uncertainty associated with the production. This depends for sure on the end product and its grade, commonly B6 to B20 contains 6% to 20% bio diesel blended with petroleum diesel. while B5 is 5% bio diesel, 95% petroleum diesel. B100 (pure bio diesel) is typically used as a blend stock to produce lower blends and is rarely used as a transportation fuel( for more see: another element that should be payed attention to while we are conducting the environmental assessment are the various bio refinery options available depending on the feed stock. There for each feed stock usually follows a specific process and each has its different impacts and costs on the final product and continuity apart from resulting hazards. So in order to understand the social , environmental and commercial adequateness of jatropha and fish waste as sources of production. We have to focus on more than just the outcome of the using these feed stocks.

It is often described as ecological and raw material factors to bio refinery operators, hence the major limitation often cited are in the accessibility and competition on raw material (sheppard et al , 2011)[1]. and that in advance have to be considered for its environmental association. Therefore, the environmental based analysis for the feed stock procurement and logistic is as hinted in the assessment valid. hence not much focus was shed on that.

The most vital part of bio refinery methods are used in this case it will be oil and algal lipid biorefinery as most of aquatic oil extraction primarily and secondary and what chemicals are used in the process to convert fatty acids to glycerol. another factor what is the technique used in the secondary refinery and its environmental feasibility with economic or financial attractiveness. In this regard most aquatic bio refinery do fall in to the same category. In the same case jatropha is not one of the plant based feed stock that follows lignocellulosic path, on the contrary it follows oil bio refineries same as the aquatic products generally. hence the processing and the chemicals used for sanctification and extraction differ. why might this be vital? because the operation of the process determines the quality of the bio diesel and the water content with in that will fit or be discarded from mixing with petro based diesel and the vapure of such product on the environment and the dumping process and its costs.


In the study there are two major aspects of the evaluation of both fish waste and jatropha. The inquiry wither it is environmental viable and its feasible attractiveness. coming to a conclusion of the much suitable choice of fish waste, even though that their are more aquatic options to study than just fish waste and its supply chain such as ( algal production and farming in India and Thailand, sea weed farming in Indonesia ) attractiveness. the argument that was not discussed is the quality of the outcome product between jatropha and fish waste omega oil and the refining process and environmental suitability of sites. bellow i will characterize elements of supporting decision making by means of science-based analysis and participation. It considers the possibilities and constraints for assessors and participants to influence the decisions and consequent actions in terms of:

Dimensions of openness.
Dimension Description
Scope of participation
  • Alternative energy experts
  • Ecological and environmental researchers
  • Private Energy investors
  • Combustion emission audits
  • Bio refinery engineers
  • Project life cycle specialists
Access to information The environmental validity of commercial application of fish waste and jatropha as feed stock for bio diesel production #: . You should describe how participants were able to access the information rather than what the information was. --Jouni (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant attack)
Timing of openness Tn the beginning and in the end of the assessment process based on specific scenarios of the assessment.
Scope of contribution energy and quality experts are invited to assess the the proposed outcome of the environmental assessment and its viable commercial applications. while environmental and ecological assessors are the lead of the proposing the environmental profiling of materials used. The private investors are invited in both phases to increase their understanding of what is to be proposed and its return of investment schemes.
Impact of contribution Both energy experts and investors are only allowed to participate with in the environmental framework and materials proposed by the environmental researchers. The weight is denoted to either the application is promising financially and its quality is in line with the environmental guideline.
Properties of good decision support.
Attribute Description characterization
Quality of content The content can be a little bit dispersed between environmental benefits and feasible appropriation of a source for commercial bio-diesel production the information displayed gave brief information of the environmental impact of each feed stock. Hence it didn't cover aspects of commercial profitability (how many T's yielded from hectare or acre or which feed stock yields better quality product i.e. less water percentage mix with diesel and level of evaporation). The information can be a display or an elementary discussion, which have covered initially part of the question in remark. although the options given are very specific, i believe a broader show case would have been more useful i.e. non- food plant based feed stock and aquaculture resources feed stock.
Applicability Relevance The assessment question was directed towards acceptance and environmental impact and ecological sustainability of the supply chain. while the assessment had more to do with assessing the commercial utility of the feed stock and environmental impact of the choice. In regards to the shared responsibility of biodiesel commercial label.
Availability The report is accessible on opasnet with 2 different assessment on each feed stock. It can suffice for making a choice between both elements but not the best choice of whats available. If the people interested in biodiesel looks up what is available it can be quite difficult to make a decision based on the various content of different resources and current commercial adaptations. Hence the fact that in both examples nothing about the market and industrial challenges were mentioned. this can be an environmental axiom that should be discussed before choosing one over the other.
Usability IT does partially provide a basic understanding that needs farther research by the receiver to extract more information. It is clear a spectator will notice that it is an environmental comparison between jatropha and fish waste as a commercial feed stock to produce biodeisel. Although it is useful , it can be very hard to make a business decision based on the provided information.
Acceptability It answers one part of the various environmental concerns that can be projected by the users and their economic attractiveness.
Efficiency This type of studies should be conducted in a series of assessmenet of various resources and thier economic attractiveness and environmental impacts. It will take a bit time to conduct a full understanding of biodeisil scenarios. It will be very useful since the domaine is highly explored by different users and private parties as well.
Settings of assessments
Attribute categories analogies
  • Environment
  • GHG
  • Cost
  • Attractiveness
  • bioeconomy
  • Circular economy
  • Bio-refinery and bio-fuel
  • environmental acceptance in means of being adequate
  • the commercial attractiveness and impact of environmental friendly fuel production
  • the cost , the sustainability of resource and its environmental impacts
  • Production
  • choice
  • Return of investement
  • EU regulation on fuel production
  • sustainable supply chain
  • Future expansions and project life cycle
  • comparison between two types of choices.
  • the pealing economic, environmental, and sustainable supply of the choices available.
Problem owner #: . Problem owner is defined more narrowly than what you do here: it is the group that has interest in performing the assessment. In this case the, industry was the problem owner. EU was not involved. --Jouni (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant attack)
  • Policy maker
  • Industry, business
  • Expert
  • Consumer
  • Public
  • bio refinery experts, environmental scientists , ecological design engineers, investors.
  • The private beneficiaries
  • Investors , governments, and EU regulating bodies among others.
  • other business sectors in the domain i.e. the heavy demand on fish waste for biodesiel will affect other sectors that are interested in the same resource like poultry feed industry and eco-fertilizers producers.
  • Policy maker
  • Industry, Business
  • Expert
  • which feed stock is more suitable
  • Business decision makers and investors along with energy excerpts
  • energy investors and regulators
  • Isolated
  • It interacts from the environmental perspective of concerns and potential differentiation of the described options. the interaction could have been wider to draw on a holistic picture of what other options available for production. hence the assessment was separated from any influence of exterior parties.



NCCS-2012-Publication National Climate Change Strategy of Singapore 2012 #: . Again, links to the assessment and maybe two sentences about the main content would be beneficial for a reader. --Jouni (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)

Characterization of the assessment
Attribute Characterization
Impacts Assessment is made for all involved in managing the effects of climate change in Singapore as well as for all that could possibly be affected by the effects of climate change. the assessment includes various environmental axioms,coastal protection , water resource and drainage, biodiversity, public health and energy demand and urban structure.
Causes the causes are to be considered an umbrella theme for different interacting elements of a national agenda. the causes of bench marking is relevant for increasing awarness to domistic parties and appropriating decision making process.
Problem owner The assessment is of main interest in creating public agenda and social promotion rather than focused addressment of a specific axiom. The owners are governmental and social bodies in relevance of the application along with public directives to specify actions. The assessment doesnt include methods and strategic pathways to implementation rather a holistic view on matters.
Target although the target is a geared towards a national environmental campaigning, there isn't an integrated patterns in the a unified project i.e. the increased plantation of mangrove treas in the costal plan and how it will link to irrigation with in the water security plan hence the impact on air quality and depretiation of CO2 and what kind of biodiversity is aimed for and urban quality of living and energy efficiency. #: . This should be about target users of the assessment. --Jouni (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant attack)
Interaction The draft assessment does not mention who are the specific stakeholders of each project and magnitude of projects along with allocation of interest of each chapter. this calls for a restructure from project management prespective to link each agenda to the other in a leaner manner to fulfill a prosperous outcome.modes of participation is vaguely stated.
Dimensions of openness
Dimension Characterization
Scope of participation national based governance and local community along with institutional bodies geared to achieve an umbrella theme. the assessment didnt provide a specific approach or strategies and mile stones of each project and impacts and links between each mandate.
Access to information Access to information for the participants is not identified.
Timing of openness a stretched timing of long term goals are stated for some parts of the vision. hence no short term frame have been specified.
Scope of contribution there have been no specific indication of a unified agenda on iterative fashion to provide bench marks and how each element will be valuable for the other. #: . This should be about participants' possibility to participate in different parts of the assessment. --Jouni (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant attack)
Impact of contribution it can be seen from the assessment, that the boundaries can be materialized in what should be done in regards to each element apart from the outcomes of each mandate. the limitation can be limited due to the lack of stated thought of scenarios or link between all the considered goals. #: . This should be about how the participants can actually influence the outcome of the assessment. --Jouni (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant attack)
Evaluation of the assessment by category
Category Evaluation (1-5) Reasoning
Quality of content 1 the assessment is vague in its constructs. it would be problematic to base an scenario on a dispersed elements that has no unified iterative that link all axioms to each other. stakeholders are no clear in each mandate and therefore a clear responsibility wont be drafted.
Applicability Relevance 1 The intended inclination of various elements do have strong linkage to each other. as mentioned above the mangrove project and links to all other axioms as a bench mark to increase an action plan to public. The assessment suffices only in addressing what should be done. with no furnishing of mile stones of the scenarios. hence a clear projection of goals is absent.
Availability: 1 the assessemnt holds no detail of functions and no mentioning of who over looks what? the aim of an adoption strategy that means of conducts are based on shared understanding on unification of stated projects. there for the availability of information under what have been stated is of scares.
Usability: Potential of the information in the output to generate understanding among its user(s) 2 the assessment as mentioned above only serves the purpose as a canvas for something yet to be figured out. A lot more details are yet to be shown to functionality.
Acceptability 2 The dispersed nature of the information stated can prove limitation towards governance of projects, let alone it didnt specify a single path that can combine benefits in different axioms to drive a call for actions.
Efficiency 1 Effectively the assessment needs to create a moto to drive social and governmental cohesion to a unified environmental cognition and goals, to facilitate the public endorsement of a specific actions plan that is based on a scenario that amalgamates the axioms in focus.

Suggestions for the improvement of the assessment

  • based on the highlighted goals of the Singaporean national adaptation draft. the assessment should have linked elements in to proposing an action based on proposed options.
  • at this stage indicators are needed but most importantly the iterative fashion in the assessment to draw a strategic decision. it should have included a proposition of a national agenda that fits all axioms in an environmental relevance. the goal is the ability to create an environmental action plan that can be promoted to public to insure adequate fit to adopt and include various social stake holders.