User:Niklas
⇤--#: . You still have some unfinished homework(s). For most people it is just some small thing (or maybe a broken link to an existing work?). But please check it quickly, as the deadline is on Friday. Check the follow-up table! --Jouni 18:10, 13 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
Contents
Homework 1
1. What is the main purpose of environmental health assessment?
- The main purpose is to improve deliberate plans of actions that guide decisions aiming for desired outcomes.
7. What is impact assessment?
- In impact assessment the purpose is to evaluate the impact, for example what kind of impacts some environmental thing has. There are also directives that control how the impact assessment is done, for example some EU-directives. ----#: . Or what some "thing" has on environment or something else. In principle, impact assessment is any kind of assessment that considers any impacts, but it is true that particularly environmental impact assessment is quite strictly controlled by legislation in most parts of the world. For example, health impact assessment is much less regulated, although e.g. WHO has tried to formulate the general practice guidelines for HIA. --Mikko Pohjola 10:51, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
9. What are the dimensions of openness?
- Scope of participation, access to information, timing of openness, scope of contribution, impact of contribution.
←--#: . good brief and clear answers. --Mikko Pohjola 10:51, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
Homework 2
- How effective is the supervising in Opasnet, for example if someone writes some wrong information in purpose and just want to harm the website, how long it takes that someone In Opasnet notice that?
Homework 3. feat. Kasperi Juntunen
http://en.opasnet.org/w/User:Kasperi_Juntunen
Homework 4. feat Kasperi Juntunen
http://www.rotterdamclimateinitiative.nl/documents/2011_09_06%20KORT_Jaarversl_RCI_over10_EN%20DEFINITIEF.pdf
⇤--#: . Add here, which climate program/strategy you are considering below. --Mikko Pohjola 23:49, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
←--#: . The counter comments seem mostly OK. Just update your actual answers accordingly. --Mikko Pohjola 06:51, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
- ----#: . Also you could think of the bioenergy issue a bit more. --Mikko Pohjola 06:51, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
What are the aims/goals of the strategy/program, i.e. what are the desired impacts and outcomes striven for?
RCI is a project is trying to make transition to sustainability and the main point is to reduce CO2 emissions. Another aim of this project is to make a broad public support and commitment for their goal.
----#: . How does the project try to make the transition and CO2 emission reduction? What does it want to change in order to make the main point come to reality? --Mikko Pohjola 23:49, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
- ----#: . Project tries to do reduction of CO2 emissions by improving energy efficiency, using of rewewable energy, carbon capture, re-use and storage and by adaptation. --Niklas 11:39, 11 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Who are those that benefit if the aims/goals of the strategy/program are reached?
On the long period everyone benefits if CO2 emissions are reduced. Society comes cleaner and the impacts to nature are not so harmful anymore.
⇤--#: . Surely CO2 emission reduction is a good thing. But think of how the ways of reducing CO2 emissions may benefit someone. --Mikko Pohjola 23:49, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
- ----#: . Also note that CO2 emission reduction does not necessarily mean cleaner air and cleaner environment in general. Consider e.g. biomass burning for energy. --Mikko Pohjola 23:49, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
←--#: . Reducing CO2 emissions does not necessary mean cleaner air but as we all know reducing green house gases prevent climate change so it is good as we think future as we should. Biomass burning for energy should be considered because then we can use same energy for other meaning also. --Niklas 11:49, 11 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
- ----#: . Biomass burning for smaller GHG emissions typically comes with air quality problems: e.g. PM from energy production and PM from increased transport of biomass to energy plants close to where people live. A typical case of ending in a win-lose situation. In addition, use of bioenergy can turn out also as increases in GHG emission, making a sure looking win-win turn even as a lose-lose situation. --Mikko Pohjola 06:51, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
What are the actions that are needed/intended to take in order to progress towards the aims/goals? In order to reduce CO2 economical actions and investments in energy efficiency, renewable energy, adaption, carbon capture, re-using and storage must be done. They also inform people and encourage them to take action.
⇤--#: . What economical actions and investments to what? What should be done with energy efficiency, renewable energy etc.? Which kinds of actions are encouraged? This list looks more like a breakdown of the aims. --Mikko Pohjola 23:49, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
- ←--#: . Economical actions and investments should be done to improve energy efficiency and to change energy production more suitable for renewable energy. Energy efficiency is also improved by urban planning. Companies tries to improve energy efficiency. Also energy efficiency is improved in mobility by using cleaner vehicles and cleaner fuel, like rewewable fuels. Project encourages and tries to get companies to commit to program in order to save energy. --Niklas 12:00, 11 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
Who are those that actually realize these actions?
Policy makers, government, researchers and environment organizations. Also citizens can make difference by changing their habits of energy consumption.
⇤--#: . Do e.g. policy makers and researchers really make building renovations for better energy efficiency? They can have roles in preparing strategies or developing policies to promote desired actions, but the basic-level actions do usually take place by someone else. --Mikko Pohjola 23:49, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
←--#: . Policy makers can give restrictions and arrears and then environmental organizations and companies which are specialized to environmental-friendly solutions can give the tools to accomplish these arrears. --Niklas 12:07, 11 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
←--#: . Good point regarding the citizens roles. --Mikko Pohjola 23:49, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
What are the decisions that are needed to make in order to enable/promote the actions?
Needed decisions are that policy makers should encourage or force companies and citizens to programs and actions that advance this project and the positive impacts to nature and society.
----#: . Try to get a bit better grip of the actions related to the project and then think who are actually those involved in doing them and making decisions that enable them. Maybe pick one or two specific actions as examples look into them in more detail. E.g. what kinds actions, actors, decisions and decision makers relate to increasing the use of light traffic within the city. --Mikko Pohjola 23:49, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
What direct or indirect health impacts, positive or negative, these decisions and actions (may) have?
At first, reducing CO2 emissions means that also fine particle emissions are reduced so health impacts on fine particles are reduced, like cardiology and heart disease and respitory organ diseases. If these actions are made impacts to nature are reduced. The people who face these health impacts are the people and nature of Rotterdam. In order to make these decisions there must be done investments and actions which cost to economy but in long-term actions will end up to win-win results with nature, citizens and society.
⇤--#: . It is possible that CO2 emissions and fine particle exposures go down hand in hand, but not at all necessarily so. In addition, the impacts do not necessarily distribute evenly to all parts of the population. Also, consider if all the increased costs caused by some actions are really paid off and overcompensated over time. No negative impacts in any regard to anyone ever? --Mikko Pohjola 23:49, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
----#: . The costs of reducing CO2 emissions will not distribute evenly. Increased costs of reduction of CO2 emissions will be in the future because if we don't do the actions now later on the adaptation will cost more than investments today. Of course investments cause financial loses to companies and to community. --Niklas 12:18, 11 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Formulate a plausible and meaningful specific assessment question that takes account of (some of) the aspects considered in above questions.
What are the actions which reduces CO2 emissions and what impacts these actions have?
----#: . Makes sense, but remains a bit vague. Doesn't the project already list actions that, at least should, reduce CO2 emissions? If sticking to those, it would indeed be useful to assess e.g the health impacts related to these actions and see whether the expected win-win is well-founded in different cases. --Mikko Pohjola 23:49, 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).
it conforms to the decision,aims and strategies.
Our answers do represent shared understanding by including effects to nature, society and economy and health.
----#: . Shared understanding between who? Who are those that would agree that all relevant points are duly taken into account, decision maker aims and decision criteria are explicitly described etc. nature, society, economy, and health do relate to each other, but a shared understanding about their relationships is a more tricky question. --Mikko Pohjola 23:49, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Homework 5 feat. Kasperi Juntunen
Homework 5, part A: Questions about identifying roles and participation:
- Who are the relevant participants of the assessment?
Policy makers, companies and industry, citizens and environment organizations.⇤--#: . As you are working with a specific climate program, you probably could name the participants more precisely. E.g. which environmental organizations are in question? --Marjo 13:30, 5 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ←--#: . In addition, city council of Rotterdam, representers of Climate Neutral Cities Innovation Programme, Heat Distribution Company and representers of the Rotterdam Bioport programme. --Niklas 12:30, 11 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
- What roles the different participants (may) take in the assessment?
Policy makers should think about society economy by thinking impact of CO 2 emission reduction to health care cost and costs of impacts to nature. In the end policy makers decides which actions are done after assessment. Companies and industry thinks about their production and costs of investments. Also the efficiency of actions can be evaluated by industry. Citizens can give their opinion but it is not so relevant. Experts of bio-energy and rewevable energy are also needed. ----#: . Good overall considerations. Based on this, you could additionally express the roles per participant in short form. For example, city council may have roles of decision maker and information source; researchers of institute x may have a role of experts in bioenergy etc.. By the way, why do you think that the opinion of citizens is not so relevant? --Marjo 13:30, 5 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
- What kind of relevant knowledge they (may) have regarding the assessment?
Policy makers have knowledge about legislation, human health and its costs. Industry and companies have knowledge about production, how it can be developed and how efficiency actions are. ----#: . Do policy makers have enough knowledge on human health? --Marjo 13:30, 5 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
- What needs and aims do they represent in the assessment?
The aim is to reduce CO 2 emission. In the assessment they also have to think about costs of actions and investments. Also ways of informing people have to think so energy efficiency of society could be improved.⇤--#: . You should specify the aims and needs per participant. For example: "City administration of Rotterdam has an aim of xx % reduction in city´s GHG emissions." --Marjo 13:30, 5 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
- ←--#: . City of Rotterdam has two aims: city of Rotterdam will reduce CO2 emissions by 50 % by the year 2025 compared to 1990 levels and full adaptation to climate change for the region of Rotterdam. --Niklas 12:38, 11 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
Homework 5, part B: Consider also the following questions about facilitating collaboration:
- How could the relevant participants be involved in the assessment in an effective way?
They should share their knowledge to each others so they can think about all outcomes of actions. ←--#: . Good. --Marjo 13:32, 5 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
- How can the quality of an assessment be assured if anyone can participate?
There should be supervisors who ensure information which is included to assessment is relevant.
- How can you prevent malevolent contributions where the purpose is to vandalise the process?
By supervisors like in previous question.
- How can you make the outcome converge to a conclusion, because all issues are uncertain and controversial?
By making models of different actions, by informing people about energy saving, by comparing different investment in society and industry and by estimating their outcomes. They need experts for that who can consider all these issues together.←--#: . Good points. --Marjo 13:32, 5 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
- How can you ensure that the outcomes are useful for the users?
Reducing CO 2 emission is always in long-term win-win situation. It needs investments and changes but they will pay themselves back. Homework 5, part C: Prepare following tables from the climate programme of your selection. Instructions for table structures can be found at Training assessment.
- Decisions table
----#: . Columns Cell, Change, Unit, and Amount are not important for this exercise. You can leave them empty. --Jouni 15:31, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
| Obs | Decisionmaker | Decision | Option | Variable | Cell | Change | Unit | Amount | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Industry | Cleaning.policy | Reduce green house gas emissions | exposure; fine particles | Year:2020 | Multiply | - | 0.5 | |
| 2 | Industry | Investment | Reduce green house gas emissions | training.costs | Year:2020;Expenditure:Cleaning equipment use | Add | € | 50000 | |
| 3 | Industry | Developing the process | Reduce green house gas emissions | training.costs | Year:2020;Expenditure:More efficient production | Add | € | 50000-100000 | |
| 4 | City of Rotterdam | Edification campaing to citizens | Energy saving | Energy consumption | Year:2020 | Multiply | - | 1.2 | |
| 5 | City of Rotterdam | Improving use of Bio-energy and renewable energy usage | Reducing CO 2 emissions | Costs | Year:2020;Expenditure:New technology | Add | € | 500000 | |
| 6 | City of Rotterdam | Carbon storage | Growing forest | Carbon emissions storaged | Year:2020 | Multiply | - | 1.1 | |
| 7 | Citizens of Rotterdam | Energy saving | Reducing energy consumption | - | - | Add | € | - |
- ⇤--#: . You could describe the variables a bit more precisely. For example, "exposure" to what? If the explanation is too long to be included into table, put it below it. --Marjo 17:42, 5 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
- ----#: . Otherwise looks quite good. Jouni may give further comments. --Marjo 17:42, 5 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
⇤--#: . The Decisions table describes what actions can be taken and by whom. The column Variable describes the primary targets of these actions, i.e. things that are changed by actions. In contrast, the Endpoints table describes the things that are of primary interest to different stakeholders. It is unlikely that the Variable columns would contain same things in both tables. --Jouni 14:39, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
- Endpoints table
| Obs | Stakeholder | Variable | Cell | Model | Result | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City of Rotterdam | Green house gas emissions | Year:2012 | Weighted sum | 1000 | |
| 2 | City of Rotterdam | Green house gas emissions | Year:2020 | Weighted sum | 800 | |
| 3 | City of Rotterdam | Costs of actions to city | Year:2020 | Weighted sum | 1 | |
| 4 | City of Rotterdam | Emissions:Carbon storage | Year:2012 | Weighted sum | 1000 | |
| 5 | City of Rotterdam | Emissions:Carbon storage | Year:2020 | Weighted sum | 800 | |
| 6 | Industry | Costs of investments to production changes | Year:2020 | Weighted sum | 600 | |
| 7 | Citizens | Emissions | Year:2012 | Weighted sum | 1000 | |
| 8 | Citizens | Energy consumption | Year:2020 | Weighted sum | 900 | People are interested in consumption as saving their own energy costs |
| 9 | Citizens | Health | Year:2020 | Weighted sum | 900 | Interest of their own health |
| 10 | City of Rotterdam | Campaing costs | Year:2020 | Weighted sum | 1 | Costs of informing people |
⇤--#: . What do you mean with "Emissions;Investment"? Again the variables should be described a bit more precisely. --Marjo 17:42, 5 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
⇤--#: . Do these stakeholders really care about emissions, or about bad things caused by emissions? What? --Jouni 15:31, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
Homework 9
Assessment of Homework 3 of Phatman
Knowledge-policy interaction
| Attribute | characterization |
|---|---|
| Impacts | The increased production of ghg causes global warming. |
| Causes | Ghg and CO2 cause that global warming develop faster. |
| Problem owner |
|
| Target |
|
| Interaction | Participant have big influence to outcomes, city counsild can influence by making different decisions and for example transport commissions can influence to CO2 emissions. ----#: . See the comments below regarding dimensions of openness and consider which of the example categories (modes of interaction) would describe the intended level of interaction in the drafted assessment. --Mikko Pohjola 20:03, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
| Dimension | Characterization |
|---|---|
| Scope of participation | City counsils and transport commissions. But also citizens, because for example if city counsil gives some rules, citizens conform to them or not. |
| Access to information | I didnt find the answer from the assessment. |
| Timing of openness | The timing is not so clear in this assessment, but I understood that for example the city counsil are allowed to do new decisions as soon as they want. ----#: . How about participants' contributions to the assessment and related decisions. --Mikko Pohjola 20:03, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
| Scope of contribution | I could not find clear answer to this from the assessment but participant could contribute for example to CO2 emissions and by that way also to the global warming. ----#: . That's contributing to the underlying phenomena (climate change), but which parts of the assessment could the participants contribute to? --Mikko Pohjola 20:03, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
| Impact of contribution | Because we are talking about global warming, we could say that participant can influence to outcomes as much as they want and can. ----#: . Here too, think more of the possibility of a participant to influence the assessment results and related decisions. --Mikko Pohjola 20:03, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
Evaluation of the assessment draft
| Attribute | Score | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Quality of content | 3 | The assessments content and information is pretty good, but I think that there could be more information and some things could be explained clearly. |
| Applicability: Relevance | 3 | The assessment address the intended needs of the users quite well. |
| Applicability: Availability | 2 | I didn't find clear answer to this from the assessment. ----#: . Its possible to give 0 as a score if it is not possible to evaluate something. --Mikko Pohjola 20:03, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
| Applicability: Usability | 3 | This assessment is clear and I think that it would be understandable for the users but the lack of information in some points is not a good thing. |
| Applicability: Acceptability | 3 | I think that the assessment would be accepted by the intended users because the improvements are clear and not so hard. ----#: . Think also of the way the assessment is planned to be made and consider whether in that light the assessment results would look convincing in the eyes of the different participants as well as other members of the society --Mikko Pohjola 20:03, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
| Efficiency | 2 | The assessment could be quite efficiency and the assessment result could be usefull in some other use. But I have to say that in my opinion, there is too much lack of information, that's why the grade is so low. ----#: . The incompleteness or unclarity of information relates more to Usability. How much effort would it take to come up with good quality and applicable results according to the drafted assessment? --Mikko Pohjola 20:03, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
Comments and ideas how to improve the draft
The draft is quite good, there are many good ideas and insights. But there are also lack of information. As I said before, some things could be explained clearly and more specifically. The text is also quite hard to read and understand because there is no little headings in the middle of the text.
←--#: . Good recommendations. Please add them as arguments to the corresponding assessment draft text. --Mikko Pohjola 20:03, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
Assessment of Homework 3 of Salla
Knowledge-policy interaction
| Attribute | characterization |
|---|---|
| Impacts | Talvivaara mine produces metal emissions to the lakes nearby. |
| Causes | When the mine produces metal emissions to the lakes, the emissions also influence to domestic water. |
| Problem owner |
|
| Target |
|
| Interaction | The draft interacts with the intended use of the results and the openness in assessment is quite high. ----#: . Which example category (mode of interaction) do you think would be most descriptive for the assessment? --Mikko Pohjola 20:03, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
| Dimension | Characterization |
|---|---|
| Scope of participation | Talvivaara mine, environmental authorities, SYKE and also the local residents. |
| Access to information | SYKE could for example monitor the lakes and environmental authorities could have all the information they need. The local residents could also have information. |
| Timing of openness | For example first the environmental authorities gives some restrictions and then the Talvivaara mine works with that these restrictions influence to emissions and this hole situation. |
| Scope of contribution | For example environmental authorities give advice to Talvivaara mine. |
| Impact of contribution | The participant which have the biggest influence to outcomes is of course Talvivaara mine, but the environmental authorities and local residents can influence to mine. |
Evaluation of the assessment draft
| Attribute | Score | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Quality of content | 5 | The assessments content and information is very good and clear, and also professional. |
| Applicability: Relevance | 4 | The assessment address the intended needs of the users very well. |
| Applicability: Availability | 4 | The information is provided well. ----#: . If this means that the draft delivers information well to its reader, it relates Usability. If it considers how information would be provided to different participants and other members of the society in the planned assessment it's in the right place. --Mikko Pohjola 20:03, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
| Applicability: Usability | 4 | This assessment is clear and professional and I think that it would be understandable for the users and there is enough usable information. |
| Applicability: Acceptability | 4 | I think that the assessment would be accepted by the intended users. Of course the mine has a big role and they have to do many improvements which could mean hard work for them. ----#: . The plan looks fine. However, the local people around the mine are quite upset, so it can be difficult to satisfy everyone even if all their concerns were addressed in the assessment. --Mikko Pohjola 20:03, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
| Efficiency | 5 | The assessment is very efficiency and this kind of assessment could be useful also in some other use. |
Comments and ideas how to improve the draft
In my opinion, the assessment is so good that I don't come up with improvement ideas. The draft is clear, there is enough information in it and the "main idea" is clear.
----#: . Looks like all the main pieces are in place. Of course there's always space for more detailed and more exact description, but it's a good draft. See if you could come up with some, even minor, recommendation and add it as an argument to the draft assessment text. --Mikko Pohjola 20:03, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
