User:Stefania: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→DARM course 2013 - Homework 9: hw9 commented) |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
* Shared | * 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)}} | 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)}} | ||
|} | |} | ||
| Line 110: | Line 110: | ||
|----- | |----- | ||
| Access to information | | 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)}} | | 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 | | 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)}} | | 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 | | Scope of contribution | ||
| Line 150: | Line 150: | ||
|----- | |----- | ||
| ''Acceptability'': Potential of the output being accepted by its users. Fundamentally a matter of its making and delivery, not its information content. | | ''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)}} | | 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 | | Efficiency | ||
| Resource expenditure of producing the assessment output either in one assessment or in a series of assessments. | | Resource expenditure of producing the assessment output either in one assessment or in a series of assessments. | ||
| 2 | | 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)}} | | 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)}} | ||
|} | |} | ||
| Line 165: | Line 165: | ||
*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 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) | *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)}} | *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). | *Some points miss (considering for example endpoints and variables, they are not mentioned at all). | ||
| Line 219: | Line 219: | ||
|} | |} | ||
{{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)}} | {{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)}} | ||
{|{{prettytable}} | {|{{prettytable}} | ||
| Line 267: | Line 267: | ||
| ''Usability'': Potential of the information in the output to generate understanding among its user(s) about the topic of assessment. | | ''Usability'': Potential of the information in the output to generate understanding among its user(s) about the topic of assessment. | ||
| 4 | | 4 | ||
| 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)}} | | 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)}} | ||
|----- | |----- | ||
| ''Acceptability'': Potential of the output being accepted by its users. Fundamentally a matter of its making and delivery, not its information content. | | ''Acceptability'': Potential of the output being accepted by its users. Fundamentally a matter of its making and delivery, not its information content. | ||
| Line 276: | Line 276: | ||
| Resource expenditure of producing the assessment output either in one assessment or in a series of assessments. | | Resource expenditure of producing the assessment output either in one assessment or in a series of assessments. | ||
| 4 | | 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)}} | | 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)}} | ||
|} | |} | ||
| Line 287: | Line 287: | ||
{{defend|# |Good. Add the comments also to the draft assessment text.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:58, 10 February 2013 (EET)}} | {{defend|# |Good. Add the comments also to the draft assessment text.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:58, 10 February 2013 (EET)}} | ||
==DARM course 2013 - Seminar== | |||
You can find the seminar presentation from the link below. | |||
[[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]]
| Attribute | Categories | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Impacts |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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) |
| 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) |
| 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]]
| Attribute | Categories | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Impacts |
|
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 |
|
In the assessment, the principal cause of impacts is the incineration in Lagos. |
| Problem owner |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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)
| 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. |
| 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]]