Purpose of environmental health assessment is to provide information for policy making. This is done using information obtained from environmental health research and considering how environmental-health relationship is affected by different actions and decisions. Environmental health assessment quides and offers plans for decision making to achieve the ideal outcome.
Pragmatism means that theory and practice are not separated or be seen as detached concept but instead of that they are seen compined subject which is strongly intertwined. For environmental health assessment this means that it through theory and to practice society's health and well being is improved. ----#: . Perhaps a bit more specifically it could be said that assessments need to be linked to and driven by practical needs of policy making. --Mikko Pohjola 10:37, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
There can be many different purposes in participation regarding to environmental health assessment. Few main purposes for participation can be: influence assessment and their outputs, influence policy decisions and influencing policy making from outside the policy making structures. These are just few main purposes and in reality there often is many sub-purposes inside these. Different ways of participation are not often exclusive, but instead they interact with each other. ----#: . Right. One other way of organizing purposes for participation is 1) because laws, regulations or rule say so, 2) because assessment results or decisions are better if people are given a (feeling of a) possibility to participate and influence, and 3) because participants (may) have valuable input to assessments or decisions. --Mikko Pohjola 10:37, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Question: I would like to know more about Training costs, and how do you define different cost variables in an assessment. Is there some basic values/numbers for different variables that can be used if there is no specific information about some variables? Is there some advices how costs should be divived betweem differet variables when doing environmental health assessment.
Done with Sami Rissanen in his user page: http://en.opasnet.org/w/User:Sami_Rissanen
The Helsinki Metropolitan Area Climate Change Adaptation Strategy
Material link: Pääkaupunkiseudun ilmastonmuutoksen sopeutumistrategia
Q: What are the aims/goals of the strategy/program, i.e. what are the desired impacts and outcomes striven for?
A: Strategy concentrates on the adaptation of the built and urban environment to the changing climate. The vision is climate proof city.
The strategy aims to:
- assess the impacts of climate change in the area,
- prepare for the impacts of climate change and to extreme weather events and
- to reduce the vulnerabilities of the area to climate variability and change.
Possible impacts of climate change which has to be taken into account are climate variation, extreme weather, sea level rise and warming climate. Aim is to reach better working city even in extreme weather conditions. There need to be a flood control against sea level rise.
----#: . You could try to be a bit more specific and consider what does it mean to "prepare for the impacts..." and "reduce the vulnerabilities...". --Mikko Pohjola 20:43, 24 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
- ----#: . I added new info here. --Sami Rissanen 12:58, 25 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
- ----#: . Better, although I would say that climate variation, extreme weather, … are characteristics of climate change that then (may) have certain impacts to the infrastructure and activities of the city and its inhabitants. --Mikko Pohjola 14:54, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Q: Who are those that benefit if the aims/goals of the strategy/program are reached? How?
A: Citizens, because the target is to secure well-being. Actually whole cosiety benefits when there is less unwanted damages (and road blocks).
⇤--#: . Anything that might be related to businesses, public services, other organizations, …? You can think of not only the aims, but also the actions needed to implement the strategy. --Mikko Pohjola 14:54, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
- ----#: . Fixed.. --Sami Rissanen 09:44, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Q: What are the actions that are needed/intended to take in order to progress towards the aims/goals?
- Land use: Keep enough green areas in city, pay attention to flood control and biodiversity.
- Traffic and technical networks: Attention to public transport. Flood control especially in challenging places like roads under bridges and other lowland places are important. Flood can be caused by melt water or sea level rise during storm. Snowing heavily can cause problems too.
- Buildings and the climate proof local environment: Use modelling to see what elevation would be safe for foundations of new buildings.
- Water and waste management: Work to reduce overflows from mixed water sewers. Recalculate the dimensioning for water management at the Ämmänsuo waste treatment plant, keeping eye on climate and weather changes.
----#: . Again, you could try to be a bit more specific and consider e.g. what changes in land use, traffic and technical networks, water and waste management etc. are needed to realize to make the Helsinki region more "prepared" and less "vulnerable". You can focus on some that seem most relevant from the health impacts of climate program point of view (remember, the assignment says: "Consider that you are given an assignment to assess the direct or indirect health impacts caused by a climate (adaptation) strategy or program.". --Mikko Pohjola 20:43, 24 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
- ----#: . By looking at how the needed change can be realized, also the following questions on what actions/decision and by who probably become easier to grasp. --Mikko Pohjola 20:43, 24 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
- ----#: . I tried to fix this too. --Sami Rissanen 13:21, 25 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
- ----#: . Again better. However, it is rather the risks related to different themes you have listed than the actions needed to overcome these risks. --Mikko Pohjola 14:54, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
- ----#: . I tried to fix this too. --Sami Rissanen 13:21, 25 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Q: Who are those that actually realize these actions?
A: Cities realize the actions.
Participants in preparing the strategy: Land use:
- Cities: Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa, Kauniainen (city planning, technical services, environment centre), Forestry Development Centre Tapio Uudenmaan liitto.
- ----#: . Fixed.. --Sami Rissanen 10:05, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Traffic and technical networks:
- HSL, Cities (responsible for public transport)
- Partners in co-operation: Cities (city planning, technical services), The Finnish Transport Agency, The Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment Companies.
Building and the climate proof local environment:
- Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Transport and Communications, Finnish Meteorological Institute, Finnish Environment Institute, Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment, STUK, City of Pori, City of Helsinki, HSY, Cities (city planning, building control), Finnish Environment Institute.
Water and waste management:
- Partners in co-operation: Cities (preparedness planning, city planning, technical services), Water Protection Association of the River Vantaa and Helsinki Region, Water treatment plants in the area of the River Vantaa
Rescue services and safety:
- Cities (administration and management, preparedness planning, health care and social services), Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Partners in co-operation: Rescue departments, network of preparatory operations, HSL, companies (such as maintenance companies), HSY, Rescue departments, relevant organisations, Ilmasto-info
Health care and Social services:
- Cities (all sectors), Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, police, rescue services, defence forces, HSY, Ilmasto-info
- Partners in co-operation: Organisations (patient and customer organisations, neighbourhood associations), housing associations (people responsible for rescue), Regional State Administrative Agency Hospital District of Helsinki and Uusimaa, Finnish Meteorological Institute
Co-operation in the production and distribution of information:
- HSY, cities, Turku, Lahti, Finnish Meteorological Institute, University of Turku, National Institute of Health and Welfare, many partners from research area
----#: . Looks good, but are they all related to actually taking the actions that prevent or reduce the damages of e.g. extreme weather events? Or is this a list of participants in preparing the strategy? They are, indeed, two quite different things. --Mikko Pohjola 14:54, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
- ----#: . You are right. Only cities can realize the actions. --Sami Rissanen 10:10, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Q: What are the decisions that are needed to make in order to enable/promote the actions?
A:It must be decided how and which ways capital city region is going to prepare and adapt it's infrastructure, service systems and networks toward climate change. Then it can be decided what kind of actions or action options are needed and amount/type of resources to enable these actions.
⇤--#: . Doesn't the strategy now suggest how the capital city region should prepare, and propose actions needed for its realization? Consider that the strategy is accepted and in implementation (if it isn't yet). What are then the actions that should be happening? Who are in the positions to decide about something being done or not? See if you can find one or two specific actions/action options from the strategy as examples, and try tolook in them in a bit more detail. --Mikko Pohjola 14:54, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
Q: Who are the decision makers?
A:Decision makers are the same participants as before: the Helsinki Region Environmental Services Authority (HSY), which is coordinating strategy preparation. Other participants are Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa and Kauniainen cities and their experts, regional emergency services, Ministry of Environment and Helsinki Transport Authority
'Q:What direct or indirect health impacts, positive or negative, these decisions and actions (may) have?
A: The intended decisions and actions are divided in different categories based on different sectors in society and every area has own planned adaptation policy, so also the health impacts are assessed to each sector as individual. Also each sector may have more than one action options and then health impacts are assessed to all different options. Only such options are mentioned in this homework where health impacts are assessed. Most impacts are direct but there is some indirect effects also (t.ex guidances that improves public health in future aspect)
Action option 2. Secure collective green areas.
- Green and natural areas have positive effects to peoples living environment and in studies it is showed that it affects positively to mental and physical well being. Natural areas can also increase opportunities for exercise and so they support positive health impacts associated to exercise.
Traffic and technical networks.
Action option 1. Public transport adaptation plan.
- By supporting public transport and light transportation, exercises positive impacts on health are supported. Adaptation plan also advances traffic safety and can decrease accident risks in exceptional situations. It also can decrease injury risks from people who use light- or public transportation.
Action option 2. Readiness plan: risks for traffic- and technical networks.
- By ensuring electric- and data networks reliability hospitals performance is secured and well working traffic network increases ambulance services performance.
Building and climate proof local environment.
Action option 1. Building hights.
- For future aspect this option can reduce negative health effects attributed to buildings humidity and indoor air quality problems.
Water and waste management.
- For overall health impacts that this sector decisions can have, it is mentioned that floods and defunctioning waste water treatment exposes to diseases that travel in sewer's waste waters.
Rescue services and safety.
Action option 1. Readiness plan.
- Successful risk management is advances controlling and reducing negative health impacts from climate change in municipal healthcare. Examples from such negative impacts are exceptional warm decades, changes in amount of pollen and algae and diseases that can infect by animals or entrant species becoming more common. Also readiness plan decreases possible stress in healthcare system when exceptional situations are faced.
Action option 2. Safety situation centers.
- Ensuring enough resources to rescue work and healthcare system improves ability to prevent negative health impacts arising from exceptional situations.
Action option 3. Leading- and readiness rehearsals.
- Leading and readiness rehearsals improve rescue works ability to prevent negative health impacts associated to exceptional situations caused by extreme events.
Action option 4. Citizens self-prepare.
- Instructions for self-preparing to exceptional situations can improve citizens safety and health and it decreases the stress that extreme events cause to rescue work.
Health care and social services.
Action option 1. Readiness plan.
- Better preparing increases patient safety t.ex. through properly allocated resources and considering the risks can help to predict possibly disease cases.
Action option 2. Recognizing vulnerable groups.
- Patient safety is improved when vulnerable groups are recognized and taken into consideration when allocating and defining resources. If needed, extra precautions are allocated to recognized groups.
Action option 3. Urban survival -scheme.
- Urban survival scheme can at it's best can help to reduce stress carecenters and rescue work. Scheme can advance national health and it can decrease number of disease cases if it includes guidance for these subjects.
Co-operation in the production and distribution of information.
Action option 1. Network for distributing information.
- Creating network for information distribution can improve research attributed to national health and arising of new information.
Action option 2 & 3. International survey for good policies & national co-operation networks.
- If survey includes mapping of actions related to national health, this action option can improve national health work related to climate change and it's impacts.
←--#: . Very good work on this question! Actually, also the specific actions that I called for in some comments above are identified here nicely. --Mikko Pohjola 14:54, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
'Q:Where and how do these impacts take place, who are those that face these health impacts in practice?
A: In this climate change adaptation strategy the assessed health impacts take mostly place in capital city region. In practise every citizen in that region faces these health impacts.
----#: . Not everyone facing all impacts from all actions, but altogether many are affected in different ways, right? --Mikko Pohjola 14:54, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Also people who work in city area face these impacts (t.ex. prevented indoor air quality problems in offices etc. buildings.) These health impacts also reflect to health care system, rescue work and ambulance services if need for their services is increased. People in city planning and decision making also face these impacts so, that they might need to improve preparement and actions to prevent negative health impacts associated to climate change. As how impacts take place: t.ex. new structure building planning, increased resources to healthcare system and rescue work, new city planning to green and natural areas and communicational and traffic networks, new waste and waste water management planning all produces these intended positive health impacts.
----#: . There are many different kinds of health related impacts deriving from different actions. Others are beneficial, other adverse. Others are bigger, other small. Some people, groups, organizations etc. face some impacts, others may face other. Perhaps you could pick one or two specific actions as examples and consider them in light of this and two following questions in a bit more detail. --Mikko Pohjola 14:54, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
'Q:Are the health impacts big or small in relation to other impacts (e.g. economical, social, climate, other environmental, ...)?
A: Health impacts are at least moderate or even large related to most other impacts. Sometimes social impacts or economical impacts seem to be assessed as remarkable as health impacts. Also other environmental impacts, such affecting to land use, structure building planning and traffic/communicational networks are seen big impacts also. In overall, it seems that health impacts are seen most concerning impact group related to others in assessment, so health impacts can be seen big.
Q:Do the intended policies result in win-win, win-lose, lose-win, or lose-lose situations with regard to health and other impacts?
A: In assessment it seems that all the action options are considered so, that there will be very minor nor any negative health impacts. So it seems to be allways win-x situation regarding to health vs. other impacts. Mostly there seems to be win-win situation but sometimes, t.ex. there is temporary negative social impacts in specific are from construction work, such as noise and emissions, negative economical impacts as rising costs or negative environmental impacts such as increased GHG emissions. So sometimes there is win-lose situations too. In some options there is both negative and positive options so then you could say that result is win-"balanced".
←--#: . Good thinking! Isn't it funny (or perhaps the opposite: not funny at all) to notice that a climate change adaptation strategy can involve actions that increase GHG emissions, which strengthens climate change, which increases the climate change risks, causing an increased need for adaptation actions, and so on Of course, one should try to consider the whole picture, not just one action in separation from its context, but still... --Mikko Pohjola 14:54, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
'Formulate a plausible and meaningful specific assessment question that takes account of (some of) the aspects considered in above questions.
A: How could we find the most cost efficient way to execute these actions and should there be some kind of classification system for each impact and their magnitude, or is every impact seen equal regarding it's magnitude.
----#: . This is an interesting point of view, addressing important points. I think the main point in making this question operational relates to what is meant by effective. You could try to specify that a bit more. The problem of magnifying, weighing, balancing and combining of different impacts is really interesting and worth a whole lot of scientific research. However, if the interpretation of effectiveness is clarified and the aims of an assessment are clear, also the problem of dealing with multiple types of impact becomes easier to manage. --Mikko Pohjola 14:54, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
'Extra question: In what ways your answers do or do not represent "shared understanding"? (The climate program/strategy can be considered a compilation of contributions by many experts and attempting to reflect the views and needs of different decision makers and stakeholders)
A: I think that answers do not represent real shared understanding. They represent the suggestions, needs and opinions from experts and capital city area decision makers. Citizens and companies living and working in capital city area are not directly included in decision making. There also seems to be many different action options, so maybe shared understanding is not very clear even among experts and city area decision makers.
←--#: . Probably so. On the other hand, the experts and decision makers have probably tried, more or less, to take account the needs of the society, business and the local citizens, but how representative their interpretation is and how much it has been given weight in preparation of the strategy? I'm not sure, but at least I don't remember that there would have been any extensive participatory activities in preparation of the strategy. I could be wrong though. --Mikko Pohjola 14:54, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
Q:Who are the relevant participants of the assessment? A: Relevant participants are the ones having authority to make action plans and decisions. These are: the Helsinki Region Environmental Services Authority (HSY), which is coordinating strategy preparation. Other participants are Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa and Kauniainen cities and their experts, regional emergency services, Ministry of Environment and Helsinki Transport Authority. Also some smaller regional organizations are included.
Q:What roles the different participants (may) take in the assessment? A: Cities own environmental experts, HSY and Ministry of Environment may take expert roles and source of information about environmental and health issues. Cities itself and their representatives may take decision maker roles. Regional emergency services may take role as source of information and also decision maker regarding to emergency and rescue services. Smaller regional participants may take role as a source of information.
Q:What kind of relevant knowledge they (may) have regarding the assessment? A: HSY, Ministry of Environment and cities experts may have knowledge about health issues, environmental issues and environmental planning. Cities and their representatives have information about city planning, functions, city resources, demands and needs for adapting to climate change. Regional emergency services have information regarding emergency and rescue work and their functioning and their needs so that they are able to adapt and prepare in climat change. Smaller regional participants have information for smaller pieces and their needs.
Q:What needs and aims do they represent in the assessment? A: HSY, Ministry of Environment and cities experts. Aims: to find convenient solutions and options how to make capital city region adabted to climate change. Also prevent negative health impacts and advance positive. Needs: Information and data about cities functionalities, resources etc. affecting to option planning. Cities and their representatives. Aims: to protect and adapt cities infrastructure toward climate change, to protect and improve citizens health and prevent negative health impacts and in future do city planning in a way that climate change adaptation is taken into account. Needs: Scientific information and possible/reasonable action options. Regional emergency services. Aims: To be able to offer emergency and rescue services and maintain functionality and prepareness in exceptional situations and to have enough resources allowing this. Needs: information about possible action options and how the needs of emergency services have considered in decision making.
Q:How could the relevant participants be involved in the assessment in an effective way? A: There needs to be many meetings arranged and it should be compulsory that there is at least one representative for each participant, so that in every meeting every participant knows where assessment is going and can also express own needs, ideas and information they may have to make assessment better. Also questions and data collection from each participant would be good idea to get information from all participants.
Q:How can the quality of an assessment be assured if anyone can participate? A: There could be ranking system to each participants opinions and suggestions, so that more remarkable participans like HSY, Ministry of Environment and cities decision makers have bigger value in decision making then smaller institution, like emergency services and small regional participants. Most value should probably put to experts opinions and suggestions based on their scientific knowledge and expertise on this kind of assessments. There could also be citizens opinions icluded but they would only be used as proposal or additional information, not as directly to support decision making.
Q:How can you prevent malevolent contributions where the purpose is to vandalise the process? A: It might be good the check participants expertise and knowledge about environmental issues and assessments. Also there should be survey to each participant about their goals and purposes in assessment and what ways they see best suitable for achieving it. Also there should be all the time open discussion and every participants opinions and actions should be openly seen and discussed among all participants from time to time, so if some participants actions or hole participation looks suspicious or harmful to assessment process, that participant could be excluded.
Q:How can you make the outcome converge to a conclusion, because all issues are uncertain and controversial? A: Meetings should be guided in certain direction that participants for example, vote for best solution to each question. That way the progress won't stop because allways some option must be choosed to be "least worst" among others. If everyone just tries to drive his own intensions and suggestions, the risk it that assessment process gets jammed easily, but when every participant has to vote one option among all presented, the option which gets most votes, wins and assessment process moves on toward final conclusion.
Q:How can you ensure that the outcomes are useful for the users? A: If in meetings and discussions every participant has expressed their needs and what they expect from assessment, and then these needs are discussed and decisions made based on them, i think that the final outcome is somewhat useful to all participants, at least some amount. Of cource every participant can't get everything and compromises needs to be done, as in every situation.
←--#: . Comments on 5 A and B. Good, in-depth work with interesting ideas that would be worth further considering. --Marjo 17:06, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) part C:
|1||Cities (city planning)||Land use plan||Save green areas||Flood potency grows||Year: 2012-2020||-||-|
|2||HSL, Cities (responsible for public transport)||Traffic and technical networks plan||Develop public transportation||Service level gets better||Year:2012-2020|
|3||Cities, HSL, Government, Finnish Meteorological Institute, STUK, STUK||Building and climate proof local environment plan||Minimum elevation for construction bases if sea level rises||Quantity of flood damages reduces||Year:2012-2014||-||-|
|4||HSY, Cities||Water and waste management plan||Prepare for the problems caused by extreme weather events||Less costs from damages||From year: 2012|
|5||Cities||Rescue services and safety plan||Extreme weather effects||Positive health impact to community||From year: 2012||-|
|6||Cities||Health care and social services plan||Prepare for the problems caused by extreme weather events||Planning costs, possibly savings in the future||From year: 2013|
|7||HSY, Cities, National Institute of Health and Welfare||Co-operation in the production and distribution of information||More co-operation||produces better knowledge||From year:2012||-|
⇤--#: . Column Options describes what is done and Variable describes what things change based on the actions. You could clarify your table a bit from this perspective. --Jouni 15:37, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
- ----#: . fixed --Sami Rissanen 09:36, 15 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Flood potency: How many times in 100 year-scale smelt water causes significant problems.
Service level: Possibility to handle hard situations during extreme weather events.
Quantity of flood damages: Plan is to save all new buildings from rising sea level.
Knowledge: Sharing information between decisision makers. Possibly produces new information. Everybodys knowledge grows up.
|1||Cities||Flood potency||Year: 2012-2020|
|2||Cities||Service level||Year: 2012-2020|
|3||Cities||Quantity of flood damages||Year:2012-2014|
|4||Cities||Costs||From year: 2012|
|5||Cities||Health impact||From year: 2012|
|6||Cities||Planning costs||From year: 2013|
|7||Cities||Knowledge||From year: 2012|
Give Euro-values for every variable and find out how get the best result. Everything influences to everything.
- ----#: . Cities want to find best alternative from every sector. First they have to think how large time scale they choose, like 2 years or 25 years. Then trie to give euro values for everyting and then make calculations separately in each sector. --Sami Rissanen 09:46, 15 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
----#: . Please see User:Isabell Rumrich#DARM course 2013 – Homework 9 for an example how to present the characterizations and evaluations of homework 9 in three tables for easier reading and commenting. I recommend everyone to present their answers in this kind of format. You can do it e.g. by copying the tables as such and just replacing their contents. --Mikko Pohjola 09:56, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Evaluation of Kasperi's and Niklas's draft assessment 
|Impacts||Draft states that mining company has negative impacts for citizens health and environment due the waste waters. Waste waters can damage plants, animals and humans using waste water.|
|Causes||Mining company's activities in overall cause environmental issues, in draft it's mentioned that leak of waste water pool and poor waste water processing causes these problems.|
|Problem owner||Mainly Talvivaara company, local residents, people enjoying local nature and working nearby mine area and environmental organizations are problem owners. Ministry of Environment and local ELY centre have power to take actions.|
|Target||ELY centre, local residents, Talvivaara company, environmental organizations.|
|Interaction||Participatory is the interaction type that comes in to my mind. Most related participants are taken into account. Probably ordinary citizens and local residents have been excluded from assessment process in practise.|
|Scope of participation||Talvivaara and environmental organizations represents, (neutral?) researchers and experts. Local citizens would also be allowed to participate.|
|Access to information||Seems that experts and researchers could do measurements and get relevant information regarding state of hazard. Talvivaara and environmental organizations would share their opinion about situation. ----#: . Not sure that Talvivaara would be necessarily willing to share information beyond what is mandated by the law. --Mikko Pohjola 14:57, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)|
|Timing of openness||Not mentioned.|
|Scope of contribution||Aspects are the mining company's own interest to continue business, ELY and environmental organizations have their aspect and concern of environmental state and peoples health.|
|Impact of contribution||Specialists, researchers and ELY would probably have most impact, citizens opinions are taken as a note. ----#: . And then another question would be, how much would Talvivaara be willing to take account of what the assessment recommends, unless mandated by the law or required by regional authorities. --Mikko Pohjola 14:57, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)|
|Quality of content||2||The idea of assessment seems quite exact, maybe needs little forming. Also participants are taken into account pretty accurately, but then the analyses, results and conclusions apparently don't answer to assessment question.|
|Applicability: Relevance||2||Updated assessment question is good in relation to the purpose of the assessment. In the "Endpoints" section the intented needs of users are represented, but otherwise they do not come cleary pointed out in assessment process.|
|Applicability: Availability||1||There is no description when and where assessment infomation is provided. Thou, information would be provided by ELY researchers, Talvivaara and from environmental organizations. ----#: . Also possible to give 0, if not possible to evaluate. --Mikko Pohjola 14:57, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)|
|Applicability: Usability||4||Usability would be good in my opinion and even ordinary citizen could understand main points in assessment and on the possible outcome. Well made environmental assessment from Talvivaara's waste water leaks would be very useful to all participants. ----#: . You can also consider if you think the assessment, as planned, would be likely to results in a well made assessment. --Mikko Pohjola 14:57, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)|
|Applicability: Acceptability||3||Probably the assessment would be accepted by the way it was meant to do by intended users otherwise, but the question for "neutral" researchers doing measurements and how much is citizens opinion valued remains unanswered. Because resuls and conclusions of assessment remain unclear, it is difficult to say if the assumed results would be accepted by intended users. ----#: . Some party may always be unhappy with assessment results, but if the results are well reasoned and all relevant views are explicitly taken into account, it is difficult to oppose them. --Mikko Pohjola 14:57, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)|
|Efficiency||4||I think that assessment would take a lot of effort to get valid results, but on the other hand information regarding waste waters and their risks to environment and peoples health would be very important to have. Expected result would be very useful to intended user and assessment participants. Results would also give additional information regarding possible environmental risks of mining business.|
Ideas for how to improve the draft. It would be good to define current scenario and to think what kind of results could be achieved by assessment and what could be conclusion. What is actually achieved by doing assessment?
Evaluation of Matthew's and Adedayo's draft assessment 
|Impacts||Environmental and health impacts are addressed by climate change in result of increased GHG emissions that also affect to peoples healht.|
|Causes||Waste management plant in Lagos metropolis is using incineration as a method, this has seen as a cause to elevated GHG and other emissions, such as heavy metals and pathogens. Alternative waste management method, landfill, is also considered and studied.|
|Problem owner||Citizens, the state government, waste management company. Probably in this draft the state government is seen to have biggest power to take action toward issue. The Environmentalists from State Government Engineers Community are seen as the one conducting the assessment. Citizens probably are the most relevant group affected by impacts.|
|Target||Seems that intended users would be citizens maybe, and of course the state government and waste management company. The waste management company would have most use for assessment, because then it could consider alternative waste managing methods.|
|Interaction||Seems that interaction is here isolated, so that Government has the people to do the job, and then waste management company decides if it's gonna have alternative ways for waste management. Citizens might get information about the overall health effects but maybe they are kept away from actual assessment process.|
|Scope of participation||Seems that only these "Environmentalists" are allowed to take participate in process and they are the ones sharing information to other participants. In practise, i would see that waste management company has to involved because they have also important information.|
|Access to information||"Environmentalists" share information about emissions and health impacts of both methods assessed, landfilling and incinerating.|
|Timing of openness||Not mentioned in assessment.|
|Scope of contribution||State Government is allowed to participate because it's the one doing the assessment and providing information regarding assessment. Citizens are allowed to participate for receiving information regarding health impacts. For other participants, like waste management company, there is no proposed aspects.|
|Impact of contribution||Seems that "Environmentalists" from state government have most impact and other participants doesn't have much of any impact, at least in assessment process itself. For results, the waste management company has impact for use of result, based on it company can decide alternative waste management methods. ----#: . But like said above, hard to say how much the assessment would influence the decisions of the waste management companies in the end. --Mikko Pohjola 15:07, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)|
|Quality of content||3||Assessment question and answer are well linked to each other and answer provides necessary information for question and seems to me that answer is quite complete. Otherwise, assessment as a whole seems that it doesnt take into account all necessary aspects, like all possible participants.|
|Applicability: Relevance||3||Assessment question is quite good in relate to purpose, if assessment is made well it also serves well the needs of users, such as citizens, state government and waste management company.|
|Applicability: Availability||2||When and where the assessment information would be available is not mentioned, but the source would probably be State Government Engineers Community.|
|Applicability: Usability||3||Intended users, at least the state and waste management plant would understand the results and it would be useful for them. For citizens, probably most of them also would understand as a basic that what results mean and which waste management method is better. At least if results are offered to public in such form, that they can easily interprete them.|
|Applicability: Acceptability||3||I think that mostly the way assessment is done and results achieved are acceptable to participants, but it might be that t.ex citizens or some environmental organizations would like to have other participants to take part in actual assessment process. Now it seems that these "Environmentalists" do the whole work. ----#: . Think e.g. from the point of view of a citizen living near a landfill, or a waste incineration plant. Would he/she be likely to believe that it was made in an acceptable way and that his/her concerns and needs are duly taken account in the assessment? --Mikko Pohjola 15:07, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)|
|Efficiency||4||Some amount of effort would be needed to evaluate possible health and environmental impacts of both assessed waste management methods and to compare these methods among each other. Results would be very useful on based on them waste management company can choose alternative method. Also results are important regarding citizens health and possible negative health impacts and impact in climate change as GHG emissions being main cause to this.|
Ideas for how to improve the draft.
Would be good to think all possible participants and what could each participant bring in to assessment process. I hardly believe that this state government organization could be the only one able to do assessment and gather related information.