User:Matthew: Difference between revisions

From Opasnet
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(reminder of missing tasks)
 
(13 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''{{attack|# |You still have some unfinished homework(s). For most people it is just some small thing (or maybe a broken link to an existing work?). But please check it quickly, as the deadline is on Friday. Check the [[Decision_analysis_and_risk_management_2013/Homework#Follow-up_table|follow-up table]]!|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 18:09, 13 February 2013 (EET)}}'''
== Homework 1 ==
== Homework 1 ==


Line 23: Line 25:


== Homework 9 ==
== Homework 9 ==
 
===''Assessment - Homework 3 of Niklas [[http://en.opasnet.org/w/User:Kasperi_Juntunen#Homework_3]]===  
{{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]] 09:57, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
 
===''Assessment of Homework 3 of Johnagyemang [[http://en.opasnet.org/w/User:Johnagyemang#Homework_3]]===  
(Groupwork of John Bright Agyemang and Emmanuel Abu-Danso)
 
{{comment|# |I collected the answers into three tables for easier reading and commenting. You could do the same for the other characterization/evaluation below, e.g. by copying the tables as such and replacing their contents (I recommend doing the same to everyone else as well).|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 09:44, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
:{{comment|# |Will get back to comment the contents later.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 09:51, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}


'''Knowledge-policy interaction'''
'''Knowledge-policy interaction'''
Line 40: Line 35:
|-----
|-----
| Impacts
| Impacts
| Climate Change due to GHG emissions of transport and power plants.
| Environmental and health Impacts from Talvivaara mining company
|-----
|-----
| Causes
| Causes
| Present fuels used for transport and power production emit large amounts of greenhouse gases, which play a major role in climate change.
| waste water from talvivaara mining processes pose a huge environmetal issues
|-----
|-----
| Problem owner
| Problem owner
|
|
* The city council is responsible for implementation of guidelines and recommendation.
* The Ministry of environment can make decisions on where the mining company can be sited
* The owner of the public transport company makes the decision about the fuel options.
* Representatives from talvivaara can adopt a new mining waste water discharge option
* Engineers to review designing structures to increase energy efficiency.
* Engineers to evaluate, design, recommend a new technology with less hazardous waste discharge.
|-----
|-----
| Target
| Target
|  
|  
* The city council can use the results to give recommendations or guidelines for fuel choice.
* The ministry of environment can use assesments to make recommendations on mining sites.
* Transport commissions can changed their choice of fuel regarding the assessment results.
* The talvivaara mining represesatives can change to environmental friendly waste water discharge options
* Communication and public relations out fits is responsible for the communication of recommendations. {{comment|# |But are they really the target or a means of delivering the recommendations to the target. Depends a bit on the perspective one wishes to look at the case.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
* Enginners can use the assessments to develop a new less mining waste water technology {{comment|# |Good points (here and above). On the other hand, the assessment would probably point out that "something should be done" instead of giving much advice on how to develop or adopt less polluting waste water technologies or practices.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:22, 12 February 2013 (EET)}}
* Building and construction out fits is responsible to review designs to increase energy efficiency.
|-----
|-----
| Interaction
| Interaction
| The scope of participation is very open, because all stakeholders with environmental concerns are allowed to participate. Based on the assessment draft it is very difficult to group the draft into one category of interaction within the knowledge-policy interaction framework, because the draft gives not enough details to do so.  
|  
{{attack|# |Try to pick one (or two if necessary) of the example categories that you think mostly resembles the type of interaction the draft assessment would promote or aim for.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
*The assessment interacts with intended users of the assessment as it will drive action.The assessment interacts with the citizens of Talvivaara as it will give information on mining waste water hazards - resembles shared knowledge interaction framework. {{comment|# |Does the draft actually contain much support to this statement? Also think if the characterizations below indicate that that the mode of interaction would be shared?|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:22, 12 February 2013 (EET)}}
{{comment|# |I picked the examples categories, which mostly resemble the type of interaction in my opinion.|--[[User:Isabell Rumrich|Isabell Rumrich]] 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
|}
|}


Line 71: Line 64:
|-----
|-----
| Scope of participation
| Scope of participation
| All stakeholders are allowed to participate. However no detailed information are given who is considered as a stakeholder with environmental concerns.
| citizens who live around talvivaara mining are excluded from participattion, talvivaara mining representatives, representatives from environmental organisations (neutral resserchers and specialist)
{{comment|# |all with "environmental concerns" is a broad group of stakeholders, but a bit vaguely expressed in terms of who are the stakeholders that get or don't get to participate.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
{{comment|# |I added a short explanation.|--[[User:Isabell Rumrich|Isabell Rumrich]] 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
|-----
| Access to information
| Access to information
| The assessment draft gives no information about it. It only states that the public awareness should be strengthened.
| The assessment dose not state that there will be public awareness on effects of the mining waste water discharge.
|-----
|-----
| Timing of openness
| Timing of openness
| The draft only states stakeholders as participants. It does not give information whether other parties are invited at some point. The stakeholders have to participate from the beginning on.
| Timing of participation by different stakeholders is not clearly stated, their participation and roles are defined.
|-----
|-----
| Scope of contribution
| Scope of contribution
| The draft allows public participation. However, no detailed information are given whether te participation is limited in any way. 
| The citizens contribution is not defined since their participating is excluded, the mining company representatives and environmetal specialist will involve in providing mining waste discharge options therefore reducing hazards.
{{attack|# |Looks to me that almost anyone would get to participate, at least in principle (see scope of participation), but I'm not sure based on the description. This attribute considers what aspects could the participants address. Little can be said about that based on the draft assessment, but one could guess that perhaps the intended users would have certain specific parts to contribute to, but this is just guessing, since it is not described.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
{{comment|# |though the following contributions was not stated|--[[User:Matthew|Matthew]] 17:43, 11 February 2013 (EET)}}
{{comment|# |I corrected the answer.|--[[User:Isabell Rumrich|Isabell Rumrich]] 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
|-----
| Impact of contribution
| Impact of contribution
| There is only one group of participants: the stakeholders.
| The public's contribution is not stated to be relevant to be  taken into account but health impact on the citizen is considered which is assume to useful in the future
|}
 
'''Evaluation of the assessment draft'''
 
{|{{prettytable}}
|+ '''Evaluation according to the properties of good assessment
! Attribute
! Score
! Explanation
|-----
| Quality of content
| 4
| The content of the assessment is not clear and not well defined. The important issues are not addressed such as the main health and environmental effect of the waste mining water to the citizens of talvivaara.
|-----
| Applicability: Relevance
| 4
| The needs of intended users are not clearly stated to be met as scenerio are not well defined. however dose response level of exposure needed to be identified.
|-----
| Applicability: Availability
| 3
| The availability of the assessment is not mentioned, In my opinion however, the assessment should be available to every citizens living around the talvivaara who are interested in the assessments .
|-----
| Applicability: Usability
| 4
| The intended users may not have a full benefit of the assessment as it dose not provide adequate information on the talvivaara mining company. {{defend|# |Good point. The assessment, as planned, would not really provide advice on what should be done.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:22, 12 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
| Applicability: Acceptability
| 4
| The assessment should be rejected by the mining representative and by other stakeholders more importantly since there is no clear participation of the citizens of the talvivaara in other to study if they have been affected by the waste mining water discharge in lakes. Broad and explicit collaboration is probably the right way to go if one wants acceptance to the assessment evaluation {{comment|# |Or at least they should be careful in making conclusions based on the assessment.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:22, 12 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
| Efficiency
| 4
| Though a lot of effort will be required in doing this assessment so as to make it efficient,  but in this case, the assessment is not efficient as it needs the citizens of talvivaara participation, environmental experts, governments and other important stakeholders.
|}
|}


{{comment|# |The explanations seem mostly sensible, but the scores do not seem to be in line with them. Please check.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:22, 12 February 2013 (EET)}}
'''Comments and ideas how to improve the draft'''
adequate collabortion is needed especially from the stakeholders. citizens contributions, environmental experts, government and others.


Explanations of categories of interaction within the knowledge-policy interaction framework.
{{defend|# |Good comment. Can you think of any other comments? Please add them as arguments to the corresponding draft assessment text.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:22, 12 February 2013 (EET)}}


:It is very difficult to categorize this draft of an assessment into one of the categories, because the draft it too vague and only includes stakeholders as participants. It does not include enough information about other participants or details.
===''Assessment - Homework 3 of Phatman [[http://en.opasnet.org/w/User:Phatman#Homework_3]]===


* Isolated: The assessment is not isolated at all if it is done as the draft describes it. The stakeholders are the only participants, which makes in impossible that they do not interfere with making the assessment.
'''Knowledge-policy interaction'''
* Informing: Again, the draft only includes the stakeholders as participants. The city council and other groups are only named as intended user. That way it does not seem very realistic, that the assessment will be done according to gaining the best outcome for all intended users.
* Participatory: The allowed participation is very narrow and limited.
* Joint: The draft gives no clear information about planned information or data exchange. But due to the list of possible options to answer the study question, there needs to be data and information sharing among the intended users.  Management and follow-up are not included in the draft.
* Shared: Open collaboration is not intended at any point.


{{comment|# |The explanations for the example categories for "Interaction" are just to help you choose the one that most closely describes the type of interaction indicated by the draft assessment you have looked at. No need to make any further analysis according to them.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 09:39, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
{|{{prettytable}}
|+ '''Characterization of knowledge-policy interaction
! Attribute
! characterization
|-----
| Impacts
| Health and environmental impact of GHG  emssion {{comment|# |this is not clearly stated|--[[User:Matthew|Matthew]] 01:26, 12 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
| Causes
| emissions from public transportation and power plant within the city.
|-----
| Problem owner
|
*The city council-ensuring implementation of recommendations
*Energy production experts assessments of GHG amd mitigatiion
*Transpoet commissions to sight for alternative fuel options
* public relation experts to disseminate informations about the GHG to the citizens
|-----
| Target
|
* The city council of will make recommendations and policies for emissions of GHG from traffic.
* Transport commissions for making adequate CO2 emission standard for road transport
|-----
| Interaction
|
*In the assessments, information about interaction is limited and not well defined. {{comment|# |It can be seen as more of collaborative.
|--[[User:Matthew|Matthew]] 06:20, 12 February 2013 (EET)}}
|}


{|{{prettytable}}
|+ '''Characterization of the dimensions of openness.
! Dimension
! Characterization
|-----
| Scope of participation
| All intended users are mentioned in the scope of participation, however their roles in the participation is not clearly defined. {{comment||Intended users such are citizens and environmental experts but this is not stated|--[[User:Matthew|Matthew]] 01:26, 12 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
| Access to information
| The assessment information will be shared by the public relaton experts but information on who will have access to it is not clearly stated
|-----
| Timing of openness
| Timing of participation by different participants is not clearly defined, their participation are mentioned.
|-----
| Scope of contribution
| This is not clearly stated however {{comment|# |This should be more of collaborative|--[[User:Matthew|Matthew]] 01:26, 12 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
| Impact of contribution
| There is no information on the impact of contribution in the assessment
|}


'''Evaluation of the assessment draft'''
'''Evaluation of the assessment draft'''
The assessments is void of the improtant stakeholders and their well defined rolls. thus this can be poorly evaluated


{|{{prettytable}}
{|{{prettytable}}
Line 113: Line 184:
|-----
|-----
| Quality of content
| Quality of content
| 1
| 3
| The complete draft it very vague. The assessment question is already. It does not state a specific city or mentions specific actions taken into account in the assessment. It is a very open question because the way it is written it has to include all European cities and actions taken there. Moreover, important parts of the assessment are missing totally. The variable and the results are not included. All in all it seems like not much effort was put into the draft. The whole concept of open assessment was not used for it and no details about the options considered in the assessment are mentioned. Furthermore, including only the stakeholders as participants would not work in a real assessment.
| The content of the assessment is clearly defined. Important parts of the assessment question are addressed but not clearly stated. but  However the option of improve energy efficiency (renewable fuel) is taken into account
|-----
|-----
| Applicability: Relevance
| Applicability: Relevance
| 1
| 4
| The draft does not contain any information about how the results are communicated and who is allowed to use them. The time framework is until 2020. All in all, if the draft is developed further, the results could be available for all important groups within a limited period of time (maybe months to a year). The outcomes of the assessment, if it is improved and further developed, can be of a use for the intended users. The assessment can give good advice, how the GHG emissions can be decreased.
| The needs of intended users are not met but suggestions about other public transport options is stated in the assessment
{{attack|# |Perhaps the communication issue relates more to availability and usability. Although the question and the description overall is quite vague, it seems that the intended users could have a real need for the results such an assessment could bring (if improved sufficiently).|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
{{comment|# |I made small changes in the answer.|--[[User:Isabell Rumrich|Isabell Rumrich]] 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
|-----
| Applicability: Availability
| Applicability: Availability
| 0
| 3
| The draft does not contain any information about how the results are communicated and who is allowed to use them. The time framework is until 2020. All in all, if the draft is developed further, the results could be available for all important groups within a limited period of time (maybe months to a year). It depends on how the assessment is done and on which data it is based. It has good potential to have a useable outcome, though.
| The availability of the assessment is not mentioned, In my own view, the assessment should be available to every inhabitant who is interested in it.
{{comment|# |This is hard to evaluate due to limited information. If e.g. Opasnet were used in making the assessment, it would increase at least the potential of availability. Again based on guessing. |--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
{{comment|# |I made small changes in the answer.|--[[User:Isabell Rumrich|Isabell Rumrich]] 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
|-----
| Applicability: Usability
| Applicability: Usability
| 2
| 4
| If the assessment is not developed further, the output of the assessment would be very limited, because the stakeholders are the only ones participating in the assessment and their knowledge is limited in assessment. If the draft is developed further and the study question is more limited, there is potential that the assessment might have a useful outcome, which can be understood by the stakeholders, the city and the public. Therefore, the output might be useable for them. {{defend|# |Good. I agree, there is potential and reasonable thinking behind, but should be developed further.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
| The assessment can be used by the transport company and citizens who reside in the city. applicability to the citizen can't be productive since they're not practically involve in the participation.
|-----
|-----
| Applicability: Acceptability
| Applicability: Acceptability
| 0
| 4
| Again, the draft is too vague to be able to evaluate this. In the current state the assessment would not be accepted by anyone, I guess, because too many information are missing. The draft does not even give an idea about the expected results. The fact, that the scope of participation is very broad, can be seen as a good aspect for the acceptability of the assessment. I guess, all groups, who participated in the assessment, will accept the outcome in the end.
| Since all intended users do not participate in the assessment process and their contributions can't be incorporated in the assessment so the assessments shouldn't be accepted.
{{comment|# |I see broad openness, which seems like a good thing. On the other hand, very little is said about how the assessment would be done and kind of knowledge it would be based on, so hard to say.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
{{comment|# |I added an explanation.|--[[User:Isabell Rumrich|Isabell Rumrich]] 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
|-----
| Efficiency
| Efficiency
| 1
| 3
| The assessment described in the draft, would not be efficient. The question is so open that it would be very expensive and time consuming to answer it, if it is possible to find an answer. The whole assessment can be divided into smaller assessment so that more things can be done in the same time and more people can work on it. The different options need different expert knowledge so that it would make sense to assess them in different groups. Of course, the different expert groups would need to share knowledge and data, in order to make the assessment good as a whole. It is a matter of shared understanding.
| The assessmnets is not efficient enough as intended users do not fully Participated, this will bring about diverse thoughts as it might require behavioural change especially from car owners and users, so a lot of work has to go into it.
{{comment|# |On the other hand, practical problems typically requires many kinds of experts and non-experts to co-operate. Good reasoning still.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
{{comment|# |I added an explanation.|--[[User:Isabell Rumrich|Isabell Rumrich]] 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
|}
|}
{{comment|# |If something is very difficult to evaluate based on the given information, also 0 can be given as score for that attribute.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}


'''Comments and ideas how to improve the draft'''
'''Comments and ideas how to improve the draft'''
* Inclusion of renewable energy option - This reduce emissions and keep the environment safe
* In renewable energy option are considered, fuel companies will have to be considered in the assessment too


* The structure of the assessment should be more obvious (eg like the example assessment clearly stated the scope with question, the answer and the rationale.). It is very hard to follow draft with the current structure. Moreover the draft is too vague as a total. There are no details mentioned at all, which would be needed to be able to evaluate the draft.
{{comment|# |Add, your comments to the draft assessment text as arguments.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:31, 12 February 2013 (EET)}}
* The question is very open and makes the assessment very hard. Maybe it would be better to focus on one city and one small part of your current assessment (eg transport or energy production.
* It would be nice if it would be written in whole sentences and in a fluent text. It would make it easier to read. {{comment|# |Also use of headings, lists, indents an other kinds of technical editing would be helpful.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
* The listed intended users are a good start, but not enough regarding your open question.
* The stakeholders as only participants seems unrealistic. Inviting experts and the public for the evaluation of the options and so on should be considered?
* The decision should be something like: Option x is the recommended, because…
* Overall the options are good. It would be nice though, if they would explained them a little better.
* The rationale is missing nearly completely. Endpoints and variables are not mentioned at all.
 
{{defend|# |Good recommendations. Please add them as arguments to the draft assessment description text.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
:{{comment|# |I added the recommendations to the draft assessment description text.|--[[User:Isabell Rumrich|Isabell Rumrich]] 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}

Latest revision as of 16:09, 13 February 2013

⇤--#: . You still have some unfinished homework(s). For most people it is just some small thing (or maybe a broken link to an existing work?). But please check it quickly, as the deadline is on Friday. Check the follow-up table! --Jouni 18:09, 13 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

Homework 1

1. What is the main purpose of environmental health assessment?

The main purpose of environmental health assessments is to implement scientific base actions and support decisions on various issues relating to the environment and health.

2. What is impact assessment?

This can be defined as a structured process aimed identifying, evaluating, and considering impacts of developed policies.

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

answer: they can produce results for both past, future and alternative scenerios, they are cheap and faster than measurements.

←--#: . Good brief and clear answers. --Mikko Pohjola 10:45, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Homework 2

1. In open assessments, To what extent is value judgement and scentific claims involve in decision making if they are both subjected to open criticism.

2. What is the role of decisions in causal diagrame. At what point can a decision maker modify or influence the causal diagramme.


⇤--#: . Where can your other homework answers be found. If they are on someone else's user page(s), add links here so they can be found. --Mikko Pohjola 10:45, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ←--#: . what is the meaning of the term intentional artifacts in result of an assessement --Matthew 10:35, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Homework 9

Assessment - Homework 3 of Niklas [[1]]

Knowledge-policy interaction

Characterization of knowledge-policy interaction
Attribute characterization
Impacts Environmental and health Impacts from Talvivaara mining company
Causes waste water from talvivaara mining processes pose a huge environmetal issues
Problem owner
  • The Ministry of environment can make decisions on where the mining company can be sited
  • Representatives from talvivaara can adopt a new mining waste water discharge option
  • Engineers to evaluate, design, recommend a new technology with less hazardous waste discharge.
Target
  • The ministry of environment can use assesments to make recommendations on mining sites.
  • The talvivaara mining represesatives can change to environmental friendly waste water discharge options
  • Enginners can use the assessments to develop a new less mining waste water technology ----#: . Good points (here and above). On the other hand, the assessment would probably point out that "something should be done" instead of giving much advice on how to develop or adopt less polluting waste water technologies or practices. --Mikko Pohjola 15:22, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Interaction
  • The assessment interacts with intended users of the assessment as it will drive action.The assessment interacts with the citizens of Talvivaara as it will give information on mining waste water hazards - resembles shared knowledge interaction framework. ----#: . Does the draft actually contain much support to this statement? Also think if the characterizations below indicate that that the mode of interaction would be shared? --Mikko Pohjola 15:22, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)


Characterization of the dimensions of openness.
Dimension Characterization
Scope of participation citizens who live around talvivaara mining are excluded from participattion, talvivaara mining representatives, representatives from environmental organisations (neutral resserchers and specialist)
Access to information The assessment dose not state that there will be public awareness on effects of the mining waste water discharge.
Timing of openness Timing of participation by different stakeholders is not clearly stated, their participation and roles are defined.
Scope of contribution The citizens contribution is not defined since their participating is excluded, the mining company representatives and environmetal specialist will involve in providing mining waste discharge options therefore reducing hazards.

----#: . though the following contributions was not stated --Matthew 17:43, 11 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Impact of contribution The public's contribution is not stated to be relevant to be taken into account but health impact on the citizen is considered which is assume to useful in the future

Evaluation of the assessment draft

Evaluation according to the properties of good assessment
Attribute Score Explanation
Quality of content 4 The content of the assessment is not clear and not well defined. The important issues are not addressed such as the main health and environmental effect of the waste mining water to the citizens of talvivaara.
Applicability: Relevance 4 The needs of intended users are not clearly stated to be met as scenerio are not well defined. however dose response level of exposure needed to be identified.
Applicability: Availability 3 The availability of the assessment is not mentioned, In my opinion however, the assessment should be available to every citizens living around the talvivaara who are interested in the assessments .
Applicability: Usability 4 The intended users may not have a full benefit of the assessment as it dose not provide adequate information on the talvivaara mining company. ←--#: . Good point. The assessment, as planned, would not really provide advice on what should be done. --Mikko Pohjola 15:22, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
Applicability: Acceptability 4 The assessment should be rejected by the mining representative and by other stakeholders more importantly since there is no clear participation of the citizens of the talvivaara in other to study if they have been affected by the waste mining water discharge in lakes. Broad and explicit collaboration is probably the right way to go if one wants acceptance to the assessment evaluation ----#: . Or at least they should be careful in making conclusions based on the assessment. --Mikko Pohjola 15:22, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Efficiency 4 Though a lot of effort will be required in doing this assessment so as to make it efficient, but in this case, the assessment is not efficient as it needs the citizens of talvivaara participation, environmental experts, governments and other important stakeholders.

----#: . The explanations seem mostly sensible, but the scores do not seem to be in line with them. Please check. --Mikko Pohjola 15:22, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Comments and ideas how to improve the draft adequate collabortion is needed especially from the stakeholders. citizens contributions, environmental experts, government and others.

←--#: . Good comment. Can you think of any other comments? Please add them as arguments to the corresponding draft assessment text. --Mikko Pohjola 15:22, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Assessment - Homework 3 of Phatman [[2]]

Knowledge-policy interaction

Characterization of knowledge-policy interaction
Attribute characterization
Impacts Health and environmental impact of GHG emssion ----#: . this is not clearly stated --Matthew 01:26, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Causes emissions from public transportation and power plant within the city.
Problem owner
  • The city council-ensuring implementation of recommendations
  • Energy production experts assessments of GHG amd mitigatiion
  • Transpoet commissions to sight for alternative fuel options
  • public relation experts to disseminate informations about the GHG to the citizens
Target
  • The city council of will make recommendations and policies for emissions of GHG from traffic.
  • Transport commissions for making adequate CO2 emission standard for road transport
Interaction
  • In the assessments, information about interaction is limited and not well defined. ----#: . It can be seen as more of collaborative. --Matthew 06:20, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Characterization of the dimensions of openness.
Dimension Characterization
Scope of participation All intended users are mentioned in the scope of participation, however their roles in the participation is not clearly defined. ----': . Intended users such are citizens and environmental experts but this is not stated --Matthew 01:26, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Access to information The assessment information will be shared by the public relaton experts but information on who will have access to it is not clearly stated
Timing of openness Timing of participation by different participants is not clearly defined, their participation are mentioned.
Scope of contribution This is not clearly stated however ----#: . This should be more of collaborative --Matthew 01:26, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Impact of contribution There is no information on the impact of contribution in the assessment

Evaluation of the assessment draft The assessments is void of the improtant stakeholders and their well defined rolls. thus this can be poorly evaluated

Evaluation according to the properties of good assessment
Attribute Score Explanation
Quality of content 3 The content of the assessment is clearly defined. Important parts of the assessment question are addressed but not clearly stated. but However the option of improve energy efficiency (renewable fuel) is taken into account
Applicability: Relevance 4 The needs of intended users are not met but suggestions about other public transport options is stated in the assessment
Applicability: Availability 3 The availability of the assessment is not mentioned, In my own view, the assessment should be available to every inhabitant who is interested in it.
Applicability: Usability 4 The assessment can be used by the transport company and citizens who reside in the city. applicability to the citizen can't be productive since they're not practically involve in the participation.
Applicability: Acceptability 4 Since all intended users do not participate in the assessment process and their contributions can't be incorporated in the assessment so the assessments shouldn't be accepted.
Efficiency 3 The assessmnets is not efficient enough as intended users do not fully Participated, this will bring about diverse thoughts as it might require behavioural change especially from car owners and users, so a lot of work has to go into it.

Comments and ideas how to improve the draft

  • Inclusion of renewable energy option - This reduce emissions and keep the environment safe
  • In renewable energy option are considered, fuel companies will have to be considered in the assessment too

----#: . Add, your comments to the draft assessment text as arguments. --Mikko Pohjola 15:31, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Retrieved from "https://en.opasnet.org/index.php?title=User:Matthew&oldid=29087"