User:Stefania: Difference between revisions

From Opasnet
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(19 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 11: Line 11:


{{defend|# |Good answers!|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:20, 28 January 2013 (EET)}}
{{defend|# |Good answers!|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:20, 28 January 2013 (EET)}}
==DARM course 2013 - Homework 2==
Although the open assessment method was originally developed for providing solutions to the environment health problems, are there today any real applications on economic issues?


==DARM course 2013 - Homework 3==
==DARM course 2013 - Homework 3==
Line 16: Line 20:
Groupwork with Isabell Rumrich [[http://en.opasnet.org/w/User:Isabell_Rumrich]]
Groupwork with Isabell Rumrich [[http://en.opasnet.org/w/User:Isabell_Rumrich]]


'''SCOPE'''
==DARM course 2013 - Homework 4==


:The purpose of the assessment is to support decision making on issues of societal relevance, in our specific case on climate change polities in cities by working on the emissions of public transport.
Groupwork with Isabell Rumrich [[http://en.opasnet.org/w/User:Isabell_Rumrich]]


'''Question'''
==DARM course 2013 - Homework 5==


:If we analyze the problem of GHG emissions by sector, we can see how relevant traffic is. We choose public transport as part of the traffic sector, because the city can have direct influence on that as being the owner of the company. Therefore, because we are interested in supporting policy making, our question will be the following:  
Groupwork with Isabell Rumrich [[http://en.opasnet.org/w/User:Isabell_Rumrich]]
:“Which fuel can be used in public transport in order to reduce GHG emissions in the sector of traffic?”
:1) BAU
:2) Electric
:3) Bio-fuel


'''Intended Use And Users'''
==DARM course 2013 - Homework 6==


:Different users are supposed to need the assessment:
''' ERF of indoor dampness on respiratory health effects''' [[http://en.opasnet.org/w/ERF_of_indoor_dampness_on_respiratory_health_effects]]
:- the city
:- public transport company
:- consumers
:- car/bus industry
:Everyone expects to use the information in different ways: the city and the firms are interested to know the costs of the fuel; consumers are interested to know the impact on health; the car/bus industry has to develop new techniques for better use of the fuels or can give limitation to what is doable.  


'''Participants'''
'''Climate change policies in Kuopio''' [[http://en.opasnet.org/w/Climate_change_policies_in_Kuopio]]


:DARM participants, transport company, manufacturer industry, city and everyone can participate to make the assessment a well-balanced and well-informed work. There is no reason for which someone is not allowed to participate, because it is an open assessment, and the basic idea is collaboration and sharing information.
'''Climate change policies and health in Kuopio''' [[http://en.opasnet.org/w/Climate_change_policies_and_health_in_Kuopio]]


'''Scenarios'''
==DARM course 2013 - Homework 7==


:Fuel Options: 1) BAU; 2) Electric; 3) Bio-fuel
Contribution to the structured discussion on the Environmental impact assessment directive [[http://en.opasnet.org/w/Talk:Environmental_impact_assessment_directive]]


'''Boundaries'''
==DARM course 2013 - Homework 8==


:Time: Year 2013 – 2023
ERFs for IEQ factors [[http://en.opasnet.org/w/Indoor_environment_quality_%28IEQ%29_factors#Answer]]
:possible technical limitations
:Emissions important only in the city, not in the whole country


'''Analyses'''
==DARM course 2013 - Homework 9==


:Different analyses are needed to be able to produce results that are useful for making conclusions: concentration of emissions and health impacts, number of cars, Kilometers driven, life cycle and costs.
{{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.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 09:58, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}


{{defend|# |I have presented the answers in the table format for easier reading and commenting.|--[[User:Stefania|Stefania]] 16:01, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}


'''ANSWER'''


'''Results'''
'''Evaluation of Thomasa's assessment''' [[http://en.opasnet.org/w/User_talk:Thomasa#HOMEWORK_3]]


{|{{prettytable}}
{|{{prettytable}}
! Fuel
|+ '''Framework for characterizing the settings for health, safety and environmental assessments relevant to materials processing and related public policy.
! km driven
! Attribute
! number of cars
! Categories
! €/KM
! Description
! Emissions [y T/a CO2e]
|-----
! DALY
| Impacts
! overall price (*)
|
* Environment
* Health
* Social and Economic
|
Reduction of GHG emissions in Ghana due to the climate change is designed to affect mainly environmental and human health factors, but not only. Economic and social impacts are also very relevant.
|-----
|-----
| BAU
| Causes
|
* Transport
|  
|  
|
In the assessment, the principal cause of impacts is the transport. In particular, the use of firewood/charcoal emit large amounts of GHG emissions.
|
|
|
|
|-----
|-----
| Electric
| Problem owner
|
* Policy maker
* Industry, Business
* Expert
* Consumer
* Public
|  
|  
|
Ghana Government is the main policy maker, who has responsibility to assess the issue. In addition, Public transport owners have to evaluate and decide which fuel it should be used, in order to mitigate GHG emissions from vehicles. They also need to redesign infrastructures to enhance the efficiency. In addition, schools and NGOs can organize sensitization programs and create awareness at local and national level on climate change issues. However, consumers and public are mainly affected by the impacts.
|
|
|
|
|-----
|-----
| Biofuel
| Target
|
|  
|
* Policy maker
|
* Industry, Business
|
* Expert
|
* Consumer
|
* Public
|
Ghana Government needs the assessment results, in order to design policies. Moreover, public transport companies are one of the most relevant intended users of the assessment results, because they have to decide which fuel it should be used. Also construction companies can make use of the assessment results, in order to redesign houses, following an action plan that allows to use materials that could be able to reduce GHG emissions.
|-----
| Interaction
|  
* Shared
|  
The assessment interacts with the intended users in a SHARED way, because there is an open collaboration between the different actors. They retain their roles and responsibilities, but engage in open collaboration upon determining assessment questions to address and finding answers to them as well as implementing them in practice.{{comment|# |The draft assessment does not seem contain much information to either support or oppose this statement. It could be so, but please provide some reasoning what made you perceive that the drafted assessment would be realized in deeply engaged open collaboration. |--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:58, 10 February 2013 (EET)}} {{defend|# |It is true. But I perceived that the draft assessment would be realized in open collaboration for the involvement of so different actors (Ghana Governement, Schools, NGOs, neighboring countries, EPA, Ghana Universities, Research Institutions, NGOs, etc). This so great involvement allows to suppose that there is an open collaboration. Otherwise, how should implementations of actions be possibile in so many different fields and by so many different people without a collaboration? |--[[User:Stefania|Stefania]] 22:04, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
|}
|}
''(*) includes costs for DALYs, emissions, the fuel itself and the new techniques in the vehicles''




'''Conclusion'''
{|{{prettytable}}
|+ '''Dimensions of openness.
! Dimension
! Description
|-----
| Scope of participation
| All stakeholders (Ghana government, NGOs, transport companies, etc.) are allowed to participate in the process.
|-----
| Access to information
| No information is made available to participants about the issue {{comment|# |Is it explicitly stated in the draft assessment? I don't see that. Or did you mean that there is no information about this issue in the draft?|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:58, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}{{defend|# |Yes, I mean that there is no information about the issue in the draft.|--[[User:Stefania|Stefania]] 22:04, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
| Timing of openness
| The participants are allowed to participate from the beginning {{comment|# |Maybe, but again I would say that it is not really described in the draft assessment.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:58, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}{{defend|# |Yes, you are right, it is always supposed.|--[[User:Stefania|Stefania]] 22:04, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
| Scope of contribution
| It is not specified to which aspects of the issue exactly participants are invited to contribute.
|-----
| Impact of contribution
| The draft assessment gives a lot of weight to participant contributions. The problem is that it could be difficult to get all the groups interested. For this reason, the most weight should be given by transport companies and Ghana government. {{defend|# |Yes, hard to say how it would turn out in reality, but seems like the stakeholder opinions are intended to be highly valued.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:58, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
|}


:The best option is Fuel …, because …


{|{{prettytable}}
|+ '''Properties of good assessment framework.
|-----
! Category
! Description
! Score
! Guiding questions
|-----
| Quality of content
| Specificity, exactness and correctness of information. Correspondence between questions and answers.
| 2
| The assessment question is very specific. The country (Ghana), the time (years 2013-2040) and the target have been exactly considered. But the answer is not included in the assessment. Therefore, the evaluation of quality of content is not very good, there is no correspondence between question and answer, because the answer totally misses.
|-----
| rowspan="4"| Applicability
| ''Relevance'': Correspondence between output and its intended use.
| 3
| The assessment question is good in relation to the purpose of the assessment. It seems that the assessment address enough well the intended needs of the users, also if not all actions proposed are realistic and can actually be taken. For this reason, the relevance can be considered average, but not excellent.
|-----
| ''Availability'': Accessibility of the output to users in terms of e.g. time, location, extent of information, extent of users.
|1
| The draft assessment does not contain any information about the accessibility of the output to users in terms of time, location, extent of information, extent of users, and so on. There are not all data necessary for the assessment. So, the evaluation in this case is very low. {{comment|# |It's also possible to give 0 for "not evaluable".|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:58, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
| ''Usability'': Potential of the information in the output to generate understanding among its user(s) about the topic of assessment.
| 2
| The potential of the information in the output to generate understanding among its users is very limited, so the assessment could not be very useful for them. Anyway, the intended users are be able to understand what the assessment is about.
|-----
| ''Acceptability'': Potential of the output being accepted by its users. Fundamentally a matter of its making and delivery, not its information content.
| 3
| The assessment is not very acceptable, because it is very difficult to realize the actions proposed in the real life {{comment|# |Think of whether the assessment results (like a recommendation for some action instead of another action) from an assessment as drafted would be acceptable to the intended users. Would you still say not acceptable (it's ok, Iäm just checking if you thought of this point from the right perspective)?|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:58, 10 February 2013 (EET)}} {{defend|# |No, in this prospective it would be accetable. It should be possible that the output was accepted by its users. Therefore, I have changed the score.|--[[User:Stefania|Stefania]] 22:04, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
| Efficiency
| Resource expenditure of producing the assessment output either in one assessment or in a series of assessments.
| 2
| The draft assessment is not so much efficient, because so much efforts (considering for example the time, the costs, many users intend to participate, the specific actions to take into account) are needed for making the assessment. {{comment|# |Is broad participation always time consuming and costly?|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:58, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}{{defend|# |In this case yes, but maybe broad partecipation can be done finding a balance and optimizing time and costs.|--[[User:Stefania|Stefania]] 22:04, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
|}


'''RATIONALE'''


'''Endpoints'''
'''Comments and ideas how to improve the draft'''


:The stakeholders that we should consider are the citizens, the city, the transport company, environmental congregations. In particular, each stakeholder is interested in a specific endpoints: the city and the transport firm are interested in the costs of the fuel, the citizens in heath impact, environmental congregations in GHG emissions.
*The structure of the assessment is not very clear. It would be better if the assessment was presented using headings and subheadings, emphasizing the three main points of an assessment: Scope, Answer, Rationale.
*The idea to allow to participate so much people, companies, and institutions is very difficult to carry out, because too much generic. It should be better to focus on some specific groups, explaining what could be their contributions. {{defend|# |I would still try to keep the assessment as open a s possible, but it is very important to also think what knowledge, expertise, opinions etc. is needed and to target efforts to obtaining those.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:58, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
*The actions to take into account are so wide. It should be better to specified them (for example, how firewood/charcoal could be exactly reduced, which is precisely the role of participants in the achievement of the actions)
*Different options should be proposed and the conclusion should recommend one specific option and should explain the choice. {{comment|# |Often it is reasonable to try to identify and drop out bad options instead of trying to find the best option. Sometimes it is hard to say whether one feasible option is better than another, whereas it can be easier to point out if something is clearly wrong with some other options.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:58, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}{{defend|# |Yes, this could be an idea. If it is easier to know about disadvantages (points against) of the different options chosen rather than advantages (points in favor) it could give interesting results and allow to better support decision makers.|--[[User:Stefania|Stefania]] 22:04, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
*Some points miss (considering for example endpoints and variables, they are not mentioned at all).


'''Variables'''
{{defend|# |Good recommendations. Please add them as arguments to the draft assessment text.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:58, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}


:The issues that should be looked at to be able to understand the outcomes of the decision options can be: 1) the costs of fuel; 2) the GHG emissions; 3) the health impact; 4) the life cycle impact; 5) the cost for developing the technique or to use it in the vehicles
:Typically, with health impact assessments, we need to consider some emissions (CO2, NOx, PMx, etc) and some cardiovascular diseases, pulmonary diseases, well-being and exposures.
:Therefore, dose-response data of the emissions and the endpoints need to be available.
:Different population subgroups should be considered: children and elderly individuals are in general more sensitive to health outcomes of air pollution. Furthermore the drivers of the public transport might have higher and longer exposure to the emission due to their work.


==DARM course 2013 - Homework 4==
'''Evaluation of Adedayo's assessment''' [[http://en.opasnet.org/w/User:Adedayo#Homework_3:_Draft_of_an_assessment]]


Groupwork with Isabell Rumrich [[http://en.opasnet.org/w/User:Isabell_Rumrich]]
{|{{prettytable}}
|+ '''Framework for characterizing the settings for health, safety and environmental assessments relevant to materials processing and related public policy.
! Attribute
! Categories
! Description
|-----
| Impacts
|
* Environment
* Health
|
Climate change impact of incineration as the main waste management plan within the Lagos metropolis is designed to affect environmental and human health factors.
|-----
| Causes
|
* Waste treatment process
|
In the assessment, the principal cause of impacts is the incineration in Lagos.
|-----
| Problem owner
|
* Policy maker
* Industry, Business
* Expert
* Consumer
* Public
|
State Government is the main policy maker, who has responsibility to assess the issue. He will use the information from the assessment in policy formulation. In addition, waste management companies have to incorporate results into structuring waste management options and methods.  Environmentalists can give information comparing the GHG emissions of both methods (incineration and landfill), also environmental health effects of these methods. However, consumers and public are mainly affected by the impacts, they are also interested in lowest possible costs for waste disposal.
|-----
| Target
|
* Policy maker
* Industry, Business
* Expert
* Consumer
* Public
|
State Government needs the assessment results, in order to design policies. Waste management companies have to incorporate results into structuring waste management options and methods and environmentalists can use the results to evaluate the effects of the different methods. Moreover, consumers and public need the assessment results, because they want to know the impacts and the costs.
|-----
| Interaction
|
* Participatory
|
The assessment interacts with the intended users in a PARTICIPATORY way, because inclusion of participants is emphasized, but participation is treated as an add-on alongside the actual processes of assessment and/or use of assessment results. Community are allow to participate to get information, but the real processes and evaluations are made by State Government, waste management companies and environmentalists.
|}


'''• What are the aims/goals of the strategy/program, i.e. what are the desired impacts and outcomes striven for?'''
{{comment|# |I kind of agree with the characterizations below (dimensions of openness), but how much are these really explicitly stated in the draft assessment and how much of it is based on your interpretation?|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:58, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}{{defend|# |Yes, I have tried to interprete and write what it should be supposed to be the dimensions of openness, but it is true, it is not very much specified.|--[[User:Stefania|Stefania]] 22:04, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}


:The Irish Academy of Engineering agreed on adaptations to the impacts of climate change. Therefore the engineering profession will take a leading role in identifying the challenges and proposing adaptation measures, which are appropriate and cost-effective.
{|{{prettytable}}
:The goal of this program is to ensure the best contribution of the engineering profession in policies and in planning of future scenarios. It focuses on three key infrastructural areas: water supply, flood alleviation and energy infrastructure.  
|+ '''Dimensions of openness.
:A more detailed goal of the strategy is to review the design standards and amend these as greater certainty about climate change parameters emerges. Additionally, research should be done to minimize the uncertainties in future climate change and the prognosis of extreme weather events.
! Dimension
:The program states not only goals for the climate change, but also for the working process: Experts with different backgrounds should work together in a better way, to ensure decisions are not restricted.
! Description
:The first area considers water supply. We know how water is essential to survive, but also to industry, business and farming. The principal aims
|-----
:The second area that we have to take into account is the flood alleviation, considering that the cities and towns of Ireland are nearly all located by the coast and/or on a large river. The main goals intended to take in this sector concerns 1) assess flood risk; 2) delineate flood plains; 3) implement coastal protection plans; 4) manage and control development; 5) improve flood warnings; 6) review of design standards
| Scope of participation
:The second area that we have to take into account in order to progress towards the goals is the flood alleviation, considering that the cities and towns of Ireland are nearly all located by the coast and/or on a large river. The actions intended to take in this sector concerns 1) assess flood risk; 2) delineate flood plains; 3) implement coastal protection plans; 4) manage and control development; 5) improve flood warnings; 6) review of design standards
| All stakeholders (State government, environmentalists, waste management company, etc.) are allowed to participate in the process. 
|-----
| Access to information
| Different information is made available to participants about the issue (Health Effects – Amount of Heavy metals, Respiratory tract infections, Pathogens, Socio-economic Effects – Cost Analysis, Job creation Environmental Effects – Amount and types of GHG emissions).
|-----
| Timing of openness
| Not all the participants are allowed to participate from the beginning. For example, community could get information in a second moment, after the processes and evaluations.
|-----
| Scope of contribution
| It is specified to which aspects of the issue exactly participants are invited to contribute: for example, can give information comparing the GHG emissions of both methods (incineration and landfill), also environmental health effects of these methods
|-----
| Impact of contribution
| The draft assessment gives a different weight to the different participant contributions. The most weight should be given surely by waste management companies, environmentalists and State government.
|}


'''• Who are those that benefit if the aims/goals of the strategy/program are reached?'''


:The citizens of Ireland are the ones that benefit most, if the goals are reached. But they are not the only ones. Also the State of Ireland will be able to take advantage of this strategy. In fact, the benefits will be both in the social and economic sector.  
{|{{prettytable}}
 
|+ '''Properties of good assessment framework.
'''• What are the actions that are needed/intended to take in order to progress towards the aims/goals?'''
|-----
 
! Category
:The working group decided on variuos actions, which needed to be done:
! Description
 
! Score
:1) All-island statutory plan: an existing government department or agency in each jurisdiction is taking the lead to coordinate all actions and policies. Furthermore, those agencies should agree together on one all-island adaption plan.
! Guiding questions
 
|-----
:2) Establish an adaption framework: Each agency should establish a framework for the upcoming work. It has to define, identify and map the elements of critical infrastructure.  
| Quality of content
 
| Specificity, exactness and correctness of information. Correspondence between questions and answers.
:3) Review engineering design standards: Engineers and climate change researcher should work together to identify the most important climate parameters, that are critical.  
| 4
 
| The reformulated assessment question is specific and the answer is included in the assessment. Therefore, the evaluation of quality of content is good, because there is correspondence between question and answer.
:4) Co-ordinate Research: Two lead agencies should take the overall lead and coordinate the work and the funding.  
|-----
 
| rowspan="4"| Applicability
:5) Research for infrastructure: research for the designing, planning and producing policy for new infrastructures need to be done in short- and medium-term.
| ''Relevance'': Correspondence between output and its intended use.
 
| 4
:6) Link research and implementation: the dialogue between different experts needs to be improved.
| The assessment question is good in relation to the purpose of the assessment. It seems that the assessment address well the intended needs of the users. Therefore, the relevance can be considered good.
 
|-----
:7) Establish research priorities: the research should focus on the current information gaps.  
| ''Availability'': Accessibility of the output to users in terms of e.g. time, location, extent of information, extent of users.
 
|4
:8) Establish observational networks: Networks need to be built to collect data across a range of parameters.
| Information is provided available by the assessment to community above all, after the process. Environmentalists also need some information available to be able to do an evaluation about the consequences.
 
|-----
:9) Learn from others: Countries, which have the same climate conditions as Ireland, should be identified to share knowledge and experience.
| ''Usability'': Potential of the information in the output to generate understanding among its user(s) about the topic of assessment.
 
| 4
:10) Establish Water Resource Authorities: The Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland should establish a Water Resource Authority, which work together and control the available water resources, prepare policy and strategy as well as manage.
| The assessment could be very useful, since problems caused by incineration can feel the community worried about the consequences {{comment|# |This seems more like considering Relevance. Think here of "would the way this assessment is planned to be made help the related decision makers in making better decisions?".|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:58, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}{{defend|# |Yes, the information in the output could be help the users in making better decision.|--[[User:Stefania|Stefania]] 22:04, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
 
|-----
:11) Plan for competing demands: Priorities need to be established in order to deal with equitably with competing demands for scare water resources.
| ''Acceptability'': Potential of the output being accepted by its users. Fundamentally a matter of its making and delivery, not its information content.  
 
| 3
:12) Plan for future water supplies: planning of how water will be harvested, managed and distributed to meet society´s future needs.
| I think the assessment is acceptable, but it should specify better what should be done for other methods, and include also which type of knowledge should be used.
 
|-----
:13) Investigate future water sources: Search for new water sources and adopt a balanced approach for future water supply schemes.
| Efficiency
 
| Resource expenditure of producing the assessment output either in one assessment or in a series of assessments.  
:14) Survey groundwater resources: Investigate groundwater resources to identify them for further development.
| 4
 
| The draft assessment can be considered efficient, because different knowledge are used for making the assessment, and also different participants are included in working together. The results could be also considered to solve the same problem in other cities. {{comment|# |Do you think the results would be given (and in an easily usable format) to other cities or others interested in them? Why or why not?|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:58, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}{{comment|# |Maybe the situations in other cities could be different. Anyway, knowing the process and the results of a city in a similar condition can help to understand better the problem and the actions that could/should be take into account.|--[[User:Stefania|Stefania]] 22:04, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
:15) Investigate water supply sustainability: The changed pattern of rainfall and low flows affect the quantity and quality of available water. Those changed must be investigated.
|}
 
:16) Complete water quality risk assessment and contingency planning: The present sewerage infrastructure and the traditional storm-water drainage systems are not built for extreme weather conditions. The risks of that need to be known.
 
:17) Review flow options: New strategies for low flow situations need to be developed.
 
:18) Use technology to capture data: The collection of data needs to be improved using modern technology.
 
:19) Review the desalination option: A comparison between desalination and other options needs to be reviewed, taking environmental impacts and energy use into account.
 
:20) Implement universal water charging: The high quantities of used water in Ireland can lead to water shortage in the future. Demand management and pricing of water need to be evaluated.
 
:21) Asses flood risk: The flood risk need to be assessed in order to identify and prioritise adaption measures. National agreement on standards, methodologies and actions are needed for that.
 
:22) Complete flood risk maps and management plans: Progress in meeting the requirements of EU Floods Directive is needed.
 
:23) Delineate flood plains: A robust and acceptable methodology to delineate flood plains needs to be developed.
 
:24) Manage and control developments: Guidelines to support planning need to be implemented and followed strictly. This should be monitored by the Government.
 
:25) Identify significant flood defences: Major flood defence assets must be identified and recorded in order to protect and develop them.
 
:26) Control the removal of flood defences: The removal of flood defences, even in private ownership needs to be approved after careful analysis of the impact.
 
:27) Implement costal protection plans: Protections plans for all areas at risk from erosion or flooding need to be developed.
 
:28) Improve flood forecasting and warning: A system for forecasting surges and issuing coastal flood warnings is needed.
 
:29) Install a tide gauge network: A tide gauge network needs to be established. I should have quality-controlled data processing and archiving.  
 
:30) Review the effectiveness of mitigation measures: Land use management and forestry practice need to be part of flood mitigation measures in order to male them sustainable and successful.
 
:31) Increase public awareness: To ensure public support for flood protection measures and controls, the public awareness of the risks of flooding needs to be increased.
 
:32) Produce asset risk registers: A preliminary climate change risk analysis needs to be done by all owners of energy infrastructure. Moreover, a risk register suing climate change parameters needs to be prepard.
 
:33) Review plant output: A preliminary report needs to be done with the expected changes in the output of power plants caused by the climate change.
 
:34) Review power plant requirements: An increase in energy need is expected du to the additional pumping of water supplies, wastewater disposal, agricultural irrigation and air conditioning. A report needs to be done about how climate change could incrase the energy demand.
 
:35) Review water impoundment standards: The standards for water impoundment need to be review by the owners, so that operating nd maintenance procedures take climate change scenrios into account.
 
:36) Review wave energy issues: In the planning and designing wave energy plants the posiible raise in sea level and other climate change scenarios need to be taken into account.
 
:37) Implement coastal protection measures: Coastal protection measures need to be implemented for all kind of sensitive installations like oil refinerz and storage installation, gas and other pipelines, power generating stations and electricity substations.
 
'''• Who are those that actually realize these actions?'''
 
:First of all, the Government has to adopt the proposed actions and froce the implementation of it. Additionally, governmental agencies will be responsible for the controlling of the actions.
:The proposed actions should be mainly realized by Engineers and climate change reseachers. If all propsed actions are implemented, the owners of sensitive installations, flood defences and energy plants need to take actions, depending on what the guidelines require.
 
'''• What are the decisions that are needed to make in order to enable/promote the actions?'''
 
:All actions presented in this framework are only proposals so far. Therefore, the Gorvernment has to evaluate all proposed actions and adopt them for implementation. The proposed actions are not very detailed, that is why concrete decisions cannot be identified.  
 
'''• Who are the decision makers?'''
 
:Again, the Government is the decision maker. Partly, engineers and researcher are able to make minor decisions.


'''• What direct or indirect health impacts, positive or negative, these decisions and actions (may) have?'''


'''• Where and how do these impacts take place, who are those that face these health impacts in practice?The community,the citizens..'''
'''Comments and ideas how to improve the draft'''
'''• Are the health impacts big or small in relation to other impacts (e.g. economical, social, climate, other environmental, ...)?'''  


'''• Do the intended policies result in win-win, win-lose, lose-win, or lose-lose situations with regard to health and other impacts?'''
*The structure of the assessment is very clear and all points of the assessment are present. Maybe other options could be analyzed to have a better evaluation of what is the best one.
*I would explain better also which is the principal role of each participant in the assessment, how they can give their contributions. In some case, this is specified, in other case no (for example which is exactly the role of engineers?).
*In the complex, however, it is a very good assessment.


:The report does not specify health impacts caused by the proposed actions. It only refers to general health impacts caused by climate change.
{{defend|# |Good. Add the comments also to the draft assessment text.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:58, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
:However, analyzing the impacts of climate change on water quality,  some health impacts can be deduced. One of the most critical concerns surely polluted drinking water, which is likely to cause acute health effects.
:The citizens are those that face these health impacts. However, these health impacts are small in relation to other impacts, above all environmental impacts. 
:The environmental impacts may include the erosion of coastal areas, flood events, changing of environmental conditions due to changes in rain pattern.
:Overall, the proposed actions result in a win-win situation, because not only the citizens, but also the environment, benefit of it. The costs might be high, but in the long term it may save a lot of money.


'''• Formulate a plausible and meaningful specific assessment question that takes account of (some of) the aspects considered in above questions.'''


:Which are the strategies needed for critical instructions in order to allow Ireland to adapt to the impact climate change in the sectors of energy supply, water services and flood alleviation?
==DARM course 2013 - Seminar==


'''• 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.'''
You can find the seminar presentation from the link below.


:The given anwers present limited shared understanding. All relevant aspects  have been described in detail,  but decision maker´s decision criteria have not been described very well.
[[http://en.opasnet.org/w/File:IEQ_factors_HW8_DARM.pdf]]

Latest revision as of 09:51, 13 February 2013

DARM course 2013 - Homework 1

What is pragmatism?

Pragmatism is an approach that emphasizes the linking between practice and theory. Knowledge and action are closely intertwined. The validation of a theory depends on its practical verification: in this sense, knowledge can be seen as a tool for action.

What is the trialogical approach to knowledge creation and learning?

The trialogical approach is a new framework developed on the contest of collaborative learning, based on three basic metaphors of learning (acquisition, participation and knowledge-creation) associated with three different processes: one monological, within mind approach; another one dialogical, following an interaction approach through communication and participation; one more trialogical which develops shared artefacts and practices collaboratively. ----#: . Right. Briefly put: trialogical approach is about creating (shared) knowledge and learning by working on something (preferably concrete) in collaboration with others. --Mikko Pohjola 11:20, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

What are the properties of good assessment?

A good assessment should have nine different properties that can be categorized into 3 groups. The first group refers to the quality of content, so the features of the information content in the assessment output and includes informativeness, calibration, coherence. The second one takes into account the applicability of the assessment and consists of relevance, availability, usability and acceptability. Finally, the third group concerns the efficiency that has to characterize the process and includes the efficiencies both intra- and inter-assessement.

←--#: . Good answers! --Mikko Pohjola 11:20, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

DARM course 2013 - Homework 2

Although the open assessment method was originally developed for providing solutions to the environment health problems, are there today any real applications on economic issues?

DARM course 2013 - Homework 3

Groupwork with Isabell Rumrich [[1]]

DARM course 2013 - Homework 4

Groupwork with Isabell Rumrich [[2]]

DARM course 2013 - Homework 5

Groupwork with Isabell Rumrich [[3]]

DARM course 2013 - Homework 6

ERF of indoor dampness on respiratory health effects [[4]]

Climate change policies in Kuopio [[5]]

Climate change policies and health in Kuopio [[6]]

DARM course 2013 - Homework 7

Contribution to the structured discussion on the Environmental impact assessment directive [[7]]

DARM course 2013 - Homework 8

ERFs for IEQ factors [[8]]

DARM course 2013 - Homework 9

----#: . 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 09:58, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

←--#: . I have presented the answers in the table format for easier reading and commenting. --Stefania 16:01, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)


Evaluation of Thomasa's assessment [[9]]

Framework for characterizing the settings for health, safety and environmental assessments relevant to materials processing and related public policy.
Attribute Categories Description
Impacts
  • Environment
  • Health
  • Social and Economic

Reduction of GHG emissions in Ghana due to the climate change is designed to affect mainly environmental and human health factors, but not only. Economic and social impacts are also very relevant.

Causes
  • Transport

In the assessment, the principal cause of impacts is the transport. In particular, the use of firewood/charcoal emit large amounts of GHG emissions.

Problem owner
  • Policy maker
  • Industry, Business
  • Expert
  • Consumer
  • Public

Ghana Government is the main policy maker, who has responsibility to assess the issue. In addition, Public transport owners have to evaluate and decide which fuel it should be used, in order to mitigate GHG emissions from vehicles. They also need to redesign infrastructures to enhance the efficiency. In addition, schools and NGOs can organize sensitization programs and create awareness at local and national level on climate change issues. However, consumers and public are mainly affected by the impacts.

Target
  • Policy maker
  • Industry, Business
  • Expert
  • Consumer
  • Public

Ghana Government needs the assessment results, in order to design policies. Moreover, public transport companies are one of the most relevant intended users of the assessment results, because they have to decide which fuel it should be used. Also construction companies can make use of the assessment results, in order to redesign houses, following an action plan that allows to use materials that could be able to reduce GHG emissions.

Interaction
  • Shared

The assessment interacts with the intended users in a SHARED way, because there is an open collaboration between the different actors. They retain their roles and responsibilities, but engage in open collaboration upon determining assessment questions to address and finding answers to them as well as implementing them in practice.----#: . The draft assessment does not seem contain much information to either support or oppose this statement. It could be so, but please provide some reasoning what made you perceive that the drafted assessment would be realized in deeply engaged open collaboration. --Mikko Pohjola 15:58, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) ←--#: . It is true. But I perceived that the draft assessment would be realized in open collaboration for the involvement of so different actors (Ghana Governement, Schools, NGOs, neighboring countries, EPA, Ghana Universities, Research Institutions, NGOs, etc). This so great involvement allows to suppose that there is an open collaboration. Otherwise, how should implementations of actions be possibile in so many different fields and by so many different people without a collaboration? --Stefania 22:04, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)


Dimensions of openness.
Dimension Description
Scope of participation All stakeholders (Ghana government, NGOs, transport companies, etc.) are allowed to participate in the process.
Access to information No information is made available to participants about the issue ----#: . Is it explicitly stated in the draft assessment? I don't see that. Or did you mean that there is no information about this issue in the draft? --Mikko Pohjola 15:58, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)←--#: . Yes, I mean that there is no information about the issue in the draft. --Stefania 22:04, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
Timing of openness The participants are allowed to participate from the beginning ----#: . Maybe, but again I would say that it is not really described in the draft assessment. --Mikko Pohjola 15:58, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)←--#: . Yes, you are right, it is always supposed. --Stefania 22:04, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
Scope of contribution It is not specified to which aspects of the issue exactly participants are invited to contribute.
Impact of contribution The draft assessment gives a lot of weight to participant contributions. The problem is that it could be difficult to get all the groups interested. For this reason, the most weight should be given by transport companies and Ghana government. ←--#: . Yes, hard to say how it would turn out in reality, but seems like the stakeholder opinions are intended to be highly valued. --Mikko Pohjola 15:58, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)


Properties of good assessment framework.
Category Description Score Guiding questions
Quality of content Specificity, exactness and correctness of information. Correspondence between questions and answers. 2 The assessment question is very specific. The country (Ghana), the time (years 2013-2040) and the target have been exactly considered. But the answer is not included in the assessment. Therefore, the evaluation of quality of content is not very good, there is no correspondence between question and answer, because the answer totally misses.
Applicability Relevance: Correspondence between output and its intended use. 3 The assessment question is good in relation to the purpose of the assessment. It seems that the assessment address enough well the intended needs of the users, also if not all actions proposed are realistic and can actually be taken. For this reason, the relevance can be considered average, but not excellent.
Availability: Accessibility of the output to users in terms of e.g. time, location, extent of information, extent of users. 1 The draft assessment does not contain any information about the accessibility of the output to users in terms of time, location, extent of information, extent of users, and so on. There are not all data necessary for the assessment. So, the evaluation in this case is very low. ----#: . It's also possible to give 0 for "not evaluable". --Mikko Pohjola 15:58, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Usability: Potential of the information in the output to generate understanding among its user(s) about the topic of assessment. 2 The potential of the information in the output to generate understanding among its users is very limited, so the assessment could not be very useful for them. Anyway, the intended users are be able to understand what the assessment is about.
Acceptability: Potential of the output being accepted by its users. Fundamentally a matter of its making and delivery, not its information content. 3 The assessment is not very acceptable, because it is very difficult to realize the actions proposed in the real life ----#: . Think of whether the assessment results (like a recommendation for some action instead of another action) from an assessment as drafted would be acceptable to the intended users. Would you still say not acceptable (it's ok, Iäm just checking if you thought of this point from the right perspective)? --Mikko Pohjola 15:58, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) ←--#: . No, in this prospective it would be accetable. It should be possible that the output was accepted by its users. Therefore, I have changed the score. --Stefania 22:04, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
Efficiency Resource expenditure of producing the assessment output either in one assessment or in a series of assessments. 2 The draft assessment is not so much efficient, because so much efforts (considering for example the time, the costs, many users intend to participate, the specific actions to take into account) are needed for making the assessment. ----#: . Is broad participation always time consuming and costly? --Mikko Pohjola 15:58, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)←--#: . In this case yes, but maybe broad partecipation can be done finding a balance and optimizing time and costs. --Stefania 22:04, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)


Comments and ideas how to improve the draft

  • The structure of the assessment is not very clear. It would be better if the assessment was presented using headings and subheadings, emphasizing the three main points of an assessment: Scope, Answer, Rationale.
  • The idea to allow to participate so much people, companies, and institutions is very difficult to carry out, because too much generic. It should be better to focus on some specific groups, explaining what could be their contributions. ←--#: . I would still try to keep the assessment as open a s possible, but it is very important to also think what knowledge, expertise, opinions etc. is needed and to target efforts to obtaining those. --Mikko Pohjola 15:58, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
  • The actions to take into account are so wide. It should be better to specified them (for example, how firewood/charcoal could be exactly reduced, which is precisely the role of participants in the achievement of the actions)
  • Different options should be proposed and the conclusion should recommend one specific option and should explain the choice. ----#: . Often it is reasonable to try to identify and drop out bad options instead of trying to find the best option. Sometimes it is hard to say whether one feasible option is better than another, whereas it can be easier to point out if something is clearly wrong with some other options. --Mikko Pohjola 15:58, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)←--#: . Yes, this could be an idea. If it is easier to know about disadvantages (points against) of the different options chosen rather than advantages (points in favor) it could give interesting results and allow to better support decision makers. --Stefania 22:04, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
  • Some points miss (considering for example endpoints and variables, they are not mentioned at all).

←--#: . Good recommendations. Please add them as arguments to the draft assessment text. --Mikko Pohjola 15:58, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)


Evaluation of Adedayo's assessment [[10]]

Framework for characterizing the settings for health, safety and environmental assessments relevant to materials processing and related public policy.
Attribute Categories Description
Impacts
  • Environment
  • Health

Climate change impact of incineration as the main waste management plan within the Lagos metropolis is designed to affect environmental and human health factors.

Causes
  • Waste treatment process

In the assessment, the principal cause of impacts is the incineration in Lagos.

Problem owner
  • Policy maker
  • Industry, Business
  • Expert
  • Consumer
  • Public

State Government is the main policy maker, who has responsibility to assess the issue. He will use the information from the assessment in policy formulation. In addition, waste management companies have to incorporate results into structuring waste management options and methods. Environmentalists can give information comparing the GHG emissions of both methods (incineration and landfill), also environmental health effects of these methods. However, consumers and public are mainly affected by the impacts, they are also interested in lowest possible costs for waste disposal.

Target
  • Policy maker
  • Industry, Business
  • Expert
  • Consumer
  • Public

State Government needs the assessment results, in order to design policies. Waste management companies have to incorporate results into structuring waste management options and methods and environmentalists can use the results to evaluate the effects of the different methods. Moreover, consumers and public need the assessment results, because they want to know the impacts and the costs.

Interaction
  • Participatory

The assessment interacts with the intended users in a PARTICIPATORY way, because inclusion of participants is emphasized, but participation is treated as an add-on alongside the actual processes of assessment and/or use of assessment results. Community are allow to participate to get information, but the real processes and evaluations are made by State Government, waste management companies and environmentalists.

----#: . I kind of agree with the characterizations below (dimensions of openness), but how much are these really explicitly stated in the draft assessment and how much of it is based on your interpretation? --Mikko Pohjola 15:58, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)←--#: . Yes, I have tried to interprete and write what it should be supposed to be the dimensions of openness, but it is true, it is not very much specified. --Stefania 22:04, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Dimensions of openness.
Dimension Description
Scope of participation All stakeholders (State government, environmentalists, waste management company, etc.) are allowed to participate in the process.
Access to information Different information is made available to participants about the issue (Health Effects – Amount of Heavy metals, Respiratory tract infections, Pathogens, Socio-economic Effects – Cost Analysis, Job creation Environmental Effects – Amount and types of GHG emissions).
Timing of openness Not all the participants are allowed to participate from the beginning. For example, community could get information in a second moment, after the processes and evaluations.
Scope of contribution It is specified to which aspects of the issue exactly participants are invited to contribute: for example, can give information comparing the GHG emissions of both methods (incineration and landfill), also environmental health effects of these methods
Impact of contribution The draft assessment gives a different weight to the different participant contributions. The most weight should be given surely by waste management companies, environmentalists and State government.


Properties of good assessment framework.
Category Description Score Guiding questions
Quality of content Specificity, exactness and correctness of information. Correspondence between questions and answers. 4 The reformulated assessment question is specific and the answer is included in the assessment. Therefore, the evaluation of quality of content is good, because there is correspondence between question and answer.
Applicability Relevance: Correspondence between output and its intended use. 4 The assessment question is good in relation to the purpose of the assessment. It seems that the assessment address well the intended needs of the users. Therefore, the relevance can be considered good.
Availability: Accessibility of the output to users in terms of e.g. time, location, extent of information, extent of users. 4 Information is provided available by the assessment to community above all, after the process. Environmentalists also need some information available to be able to do an evaluation about the consequences.
Usability: Potential of the information in the output to generate understanding among its user(s) about the topic of assessment. 4 The assessment could be very useful, since problems caused by incineration can feel the community worried about the consequences ----#: . This seems more like considering Relevance. Think here of "would the way this assessment is planned to be made help the related decision makers in making better decisions?". --Mikko Pohjola 15:58, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)←--#: . Yes, the information in the output could be help the users in making better decision. --Stefania 22:04, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
Acceptability: Potential of the output being accepted by its users. Fundamentally a matter of its making and delivery, not its information content. 3 I think the assessment is acceptable, but it should specify better what should be done for other methods, and include also which type of knowledge should be used.
Efficiency Resource expenditure of producing the assessment output either in one assessment or in a series of assessments. 4 The draft assessment can be considered efficient, because different knowledge are used for making the assessment, and also different participants are included in working together. The results could be also considered to solve the same problem in other cities. ----#: . Do you think the results would be given (and in an easily usable format) to other cities or others interested in them? Why or why not? --Mikko Pohjola 15:58, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)----#: . Maybe the situations in other cities could be different. Anyway, knowing the process and the results of a city in a similar condition can help to understand better the problem and the actions that could/should be take into account. --Stefania 22:04, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)


Comments and ideas how to improve the draft

  • The structure of the assessment is very clear and all points of the assessment are present. Maybe other options could be analyzed to have a better evaluation of what is the best one.
  • I would explain better also which is the principal role of each participant in the assessment, how they can give their contributions. In some case, this is specified, in other case no (for example which is exactly the role of engineers?).
  • In the complex, however, it is a very good assessment.

←--#: . Good. Add the comments also to the draft assessment text. --Mikko Pohjola 15:58, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)


DARM course 2013 - Seminar

You can find the seminar presentation from the link below.

[[11]]

Retrieved from "https://en.opasnet.org/index.php?title=User:Stefania&oldid=29058"