User:Joshuan: Difference between revisions

From Opasnet
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(5 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. Because of your absence in seminars, you also have extra homework: it is the same work as HW6, but with new pages. Check the [[Decision_analysis_and_risk_management_2013/Homework#Follow-up_table|follow-up table]]!|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 18:09, 13 February 2013 (EET)}}'''
== Home Work 1 ==
== Home Work 1 ==


Line 15: Line 17:




==Homework 9==
== Homework 9 ==
http://en.opasnet.org/w/File:Darm_9.docx
 
{{comment|# |Partly quite good, partly not. Not OK in current form.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 09:17, 16 February 2013 (EET)}}
 
The old version, copied directly from a word document, was removed and can be found from page history.
 
===''Assessment of Homework 3 of Assessment of Homework 3 of Juho Kutvonen ===
 
(Groupwork of Juho Kutvonen and Salla)


Assessment of Homework 3 of Juho Kutvonen
'''Knowledge-policy interaction'''
(Groupwork of Juho Kutvonen and Salla)
Knowledge-policy interaction  
Characterization of knowledge-policy interaction


{| {{prettytable}}
{|{{prettytable}}
| Attribute  
|+ '''Characterization of knowledge-policy interaction
| characterization  
! Attribute
|----
! characterization
| Impacts  
|-----
| Impacts
| The effects of metals on lake water as domestic water as a result metal emissions from the Talvivaara mine
| The effects of metals on lake water as domestic water as a result metal emissions from the Talvivaara mine
|----
|-----
| Causes  
| Causes
| Present metal emission from the Talvivaara mine negatively affecting the feasibility of nearby lake water as domestic water.  
| Present metal emission from the Talvivaara mine negatively affecting the feasibility of nearby lake water as domestic water.  
|----
|-----
| Problem owner  
| Problem owner
| •
|
| Local residents who experiences the impacts   
* Local residents who experiences the impacts   
|----
* Environmental authorities, who provide metal emission restrictions to Talvivaara mine.  
| •
* Talvivaara mine experts and engineers to review designing structures to ensure that the metal emissions could be reduced.  
| Environmental authorities, who provide metal emission restrictions to Talvivaara mine.  
|-----
|----
| Target
| •
|  
| Talvivaara mine experts and engineers to review designing structures to ensure that the metal emissions could be reduced.  
* The city council can use the results to give recommendations or guidelines for proper mechanisms of operation of the mine to cut down   metal emissions.   
|----
* Local residents living nearby lakes to document first had experience.
| Target  
* Communication and public relations out fits is responsible for the communication of recommendations
| •
|-----
| The city council can use the results to give recommendations or guidelines for proper mechanisms of operation of the mine to cut down metal emissions.   
| Interaction
|----
| •
| Local residents living nearby lakes to document first had experience.
|----
| •
|  Communication and public relations out fits is responsible for the communication of recommendations
|----
| Interaction  
| They provided a very direct and specific scope of participation and a good knowledge and policy interaction framework as indicated in their detailed draft,  in my opinion.
| They provided a very direct and specific scope of participation and a good knowledge and policy interaction framework as indicated in their detailed draft,  in my opinion.
|----
|}
|}


{|{{prettytable}}
|+ '''Characterization of the dimensions of openness.
! Dimension
! Characterization
|-----
| Scope of participation
| They provided the following participants: ELY centre, Local residents living nearby lakes, SYKE, and added that Talvivaara mine is excluded because it may be partial.  I think they did a good job by providing a detail account of participants and also providing reasons why Talvivaara mine is excluded.
|-----
| Access to information
| Their draft gave enough information concerning this aspect. {{comment|# |But what did the draft say about it? The idea is not to point out if this issue was addressed or not, but to find out what is said about it.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
| Timing of openness
|They provided detailed accounts here. {{comment|# |see above comment.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
| Scope of contribution
| They gave enough information on the intended users specific roles each will play. {{comment|# |see above comment.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
| Impact of contribution
| There was a good number of specific participants: ELY centre, local residents living nearby lakes and SYKE,
|}


Attribute characterization
Explanations of categories of interaction within the knowledge-policy interaction framework.
Impacts The effects of metals on lake water as domestic water as a result metal emissions from the Talvivaara mine


Causes Present metal emission from the Talvivaara mine negatively affecting the feasibility of nearby lake water as domestic water.
:I believe their draft was well thought out and carefully planned. It contained clear information regarding specific participants and their corresponding roles.  
Problem owner • Local residents who experiences the impacts 
• Environmental authorities, who provide metal emission restrictions to Talvivaara mine.  
• Talvivaara mine experts and engineers to review designing structures to ensure that the metal emissions could be reduced.  
Target • The city council can use the results to give recommendations or guidelines for proper mechanisms of operation of the mine to cut down metal emissions. 
• Local residents living nearby lakes to document first had experience.
• Communication and public relations out fits is responsible for the communication of recommendations


Interaction They provided a very direct and specific scope of participation and a good knowledge and policy interaction framework as indicated in their detailed draft,  in my opinion.


'''Evaluation of the assessment draft'''


{|{{prettytable}}
|+ '''Evaluation according to the properties of good assessment
! Attribute
! Score
! Explanation
|-----
| Quality of content
| 3
| The draft was clear and concise containing relevant information. {{comment|# |Relevance relates to Relevance. Consider here is the draft internally coherent.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
| Applicability: Relevance
| 3
| As mentions earlier the draft contained some practical and workable ideas. {{comment|# |But does it address user needs?|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
| Applicability: Availability
| 3
|In summary,I would say it was a well thought out draft. They seem to understand the situation on the ground. {{comment|# |But how would the planned assessment provide information to its participants and possibilities to contribute to the assessment?|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET)}}
|----
| Applicability: Usability
| 4
| For similar reason, because it was well thought out, it scores also good marks as far as usability is concerned in my opinion. {{comment|# |Would the planned assessment also help in practice, in addition to possibly being relevant in principle, the intended users in their decisions and actions?|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
| Applicability: Acceptability
| 2
|  The participants who were involved in the assessment will find it a bit easy to accept it. {{comment|# |Why? How about those would not get to participate.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
| Efficiency
| 3
| Good attempt as it sought to solicit for ideas from several participants. The information was organised in small workable units. {{comment|# |But would the planned assessment produce good results with regard to the amount of work it would require?|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET)}}
|}




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


In general they seem to have clear understanding and first hand information on the issue they were tackling. I will only congratulate them for a good work done.


{{comment|# |The idea is not to give congratulations, but useful comments for improving the draft further. Think of such and write to them as arguments on the corresponding user page.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET)}}


===''Assessment of Homework 3 of Sami Rissanen ===


Characterization of the dimensions of openness.
(Groupwork of Sami Rissanen & Jukka Hirvonen)
Dimension Characterization
Scope of participation They provided the following participants: ELY centre, Local residents living nearby lakes, SYKE, and added that Talvivaara mine is excluded because it may be partial.  I think they did a good job by providing a detail account of participants and also providing reasons why Talvivaara mine is excluded.
Access to information Their draft gave enough information concerning this aspect.
Timing of openness They provided detailed accounts here.
Scope of contribution They gave enough information on the intended users specific roles each will play.
Impact of contribution • There was a good number of specific participants: ELY centre, local residents living nearby lakes and  SYKE,
 
 
Explanations of categories of interaction within the knowledge-policy interaction framework.
I believe their draft was well thought out and carefully planned. It contained clear information regarding specific participants and their corresponding roles.
Evaluation of the assessment draft
Evaluation according to the properties of good assessment
Attribute Score Explanation
Quality of content 3 The draft was clear and concise containing relevant information.
Applicability: Relevance 3 As mentions earlier the draft contained some practical and workable ideas.
 
Applicability: Availability 3 In summary,I would say it was a well thought out draft. They seem to understand the situation on the ground.
Applicability: Usability 4 For similar reason, because it was well thought out, it scores also good marks as far as usability is concerned in my opinion. 
Efficiency 3 Good attempt as it sought to solicit for ideas from several participants. The information was organised in small workable units. 


Comments and ideas how to improve the draft
In general they seem to have clear understanding and first hand information on the issue they were tackling. I will only congratulate them for a good work done.
Assessment of Homework 3 of Sami Rissanen
(Groupwork of Sami Rissanen & Jukka Hirvonen)
NOTE: Incidentally, the two grouped I evaluated worked on local Finnish issues. They worked on Talvivaara mine and its environmental concerns . Both groups seem to have a full understanding and first hand information about the concern they addressed in their drafts. For this reason, most of my evaluations are similar.  
NOTE: Incidentally, the two grouped I evaluated worked on local Finnish issues. They worked on Talvivaara mine and its environmental concerns . Both groups seem to have a full understanding and first hand information about the concern they addressed in their drafts. For this reason, most of my evaluations are similar.  
Knowledge-policy interaction
Characterization of knowledge-policy interaction
Attribute characterization
Impacts The effects of  mineral dust (PM10 and PM2,5) from the Talvivaara mine that is present in air of mining and working area where workers are exposed to different heavy metal types: t.ex: copper, nickel, kobolt etc.


Causes Hazards of fine particle emissions (PM10, PM2,5) from the Talvivaara mine to mine workers and people who live nearby mine or work nearby mine area
'''Knowledge-policy interaction'''


Problem owner Talvivaara mining company Kainuun ELY-keskus (Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment)  
{|{{prettytable}}
Regional TTL (Työterveyslaitos)
|+ '''Characterization of knowledge-policy interaction
! Attribute
! characterization
|-----
| Impacts
| The effects of  mineral dust (PM10 and PM2,5) from the Talvivaara mine that is present in air of mining and working area where workers are exposed to different heavy metal types: t.ex: copper, nickel, kobolt etc.
|-----
| Causes
| Hazards of fine particle emissions (PM10, PM2,5) from the Talvivaara mine to mine workers and people who live nearby mine or work nearby mine area
|-----
| Problem owner
|
* Talvivaara mining company Kainuun ELY-keskus (Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment)  
* Regional TTL (Työterveyslaitos)
|-----
| Target
|
* Mine workers and people who live nearby mine or work nearby mine area
* Talvivaara mining company wants to know is the air quality in acceptable level
* ELY-keskus needs to know is the air quality legal and safe to workers
|-----
| Interaction
| They provided a very direct and specific scope of participation and a good knowledge on what each participant offers as indicated in their detailed draft, in my opinion. They however did not mention local residents who I consider as important.
|}


Target Mine workers and people who live nearby mine or work nearby mine area
{|{{prettytable}}
Talvivaara mining company wants to know is the air quality in acceptable level
|+ '''Characterization of the dimensions of openness.
ELY-keskus needs to know is the air quality legal and safe to workers
! Dimension
Interaction They provided a very direct and specific scope of participation and a good knowledge on what each participant offers as indicated in their detailed draft, in my opinion. They however did not mention local residents who I consider as important.  
! Characterization
|-----
| Scope of participation
| They provided the following participants: A consultant to measure air quality. Company, ELY-keskus, DARM group, Regional TTL, The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (FANC). However, they left out local residents who are also important. Also, I don’t understand how they seem to project that the company will be biased.
|-----
| Access to information
| Their draft gave enough information concerning this aspect.
|-----
| Timing of openness
|They provided detailed accounts here.
|-----
| Scope of contribution
|They gave enough information on the intended users specific roles each will play
|-----
| Impact of contribution
| There was a good number of specific participants: A consultant to measure air quality. Company, ELY-keskus, DARM group, Regional TTL, The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (FANC).
|}




Characterization of the dimensions of openness.
Explanations of categories of interaction within the knowledge-policy interaction framework.
Dimension Characterization
Scope of participation They provided the following participants: A consultant to measure air quality.
Company, ELY-keskus, DARM group, Regional TTL, The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (FANC). However, they left out local residents who are also important. Also, I don’t understand how they seem to project that the company will be biased.
Access to information Their draft gave enough information concerning this aspect.
Timing of openness They provided detailed accounts here.
Scope of contribution They gave enough information on the intended users specific roles each will play.
Impact of contribution There was a good number of specific participants: A consultant to measure air quality. Company, ELY-keskus, DARM group, Regional TTL, The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (FANC).


Explanations of categories of interaction within the knowledge-policy interaction framework.
I believe their draft was well thought out and carefully planned. It contained clear information regarding specific participants and their corresponding roles.  
I believe their draft was well thought out and carefully planned. It contained clear information regarding specific participants and their corresponding roles.  
Evaluation of the assessment draft
Evaluation according to the properties of good assessment
Attribute Score Explanation
Quality of content 3 The draft was clear and concise containing relevant information.
Applicability: Relevance 3 As mentions earlier the draft contained some practical and workable ideas.


Applicability: Availability 3 In summary, I would say it was a well thought out draft. They seem to understand the situation on the ground.
'''Evaluation of the assessment draft'''
Applicability: Usability 3 For similar reason, because it was well thought out, it scores also good marks as far as usability is concerned in my opinion. 
Efficiency 3 Good attempt as it sought to solicit for ideas from several participants. The information was organised in small workable units. 


Comments and ideas how to improve the draft
{|{{prettytable}}
In general they seem to have clear understanding and first hand information on the issue they were tackling. I will only congratulate them for a good work done. Both group did very well and I am impressed with their work as beginners but with time it could be further improved with much detail and specific actions since some aspects were vague and broad.
|+ '''Evaluation according to the properties of good assessment
Assessment of Homework 3 of Joshua Nartey
! Attribute
(Groupwork of Joshua Nartey & Thomas Agyei)
! Score
 
! Explanation
Knowledge-policy interaction
|-----
Characterization of knowledge-policy interaction
| Quality of content
Attribute characterization
| 3
Impacts Climate Change due to GHG emissions in general.  
| The draft was clear and concise containing relevant information.
Causes We did not give much detail on sources of the GHG emissions. From what we have learnt from the course so far, we are equipped for an excellent work later.
|-----
Problem owner • The city government is responsible for implementation of laws, guidelines and recommendation.
| Applicability: Relevance
• The owner of industries makes decisions about how to handle their emissions.
| 3
• Energy production, transport and all other GHG producing groups are responsible for their emissions.  
|As mentions earlier the draft contained some practical and workable ideas.
• The citizens are responsible for their actions and awareness of the climate change
|-----
Target • Intended users: Ghana, other neighbouring countries, EPA, Ghana
| Applicability: Availability
• All intended users and the citizens can use the results.
| 3
• Universities, Research institutions and groups and NGOs Municipal and District Assemblies (MDAs).
|In summary, I would say it was a well thought out draft. They seem to understand the situation on the ground.  
Interaction The drafted assessment can be categorized as a shared knowledge-interaction framework. Different groups of participants contribute to the assessment and have their specific roles and responsibilities. We were however criticised on how difficult to get a all participants on board.  
|-----
 
| Applicability: Usability
Characterization of the dimensions of openness.
| 3
Dimension Characterization
| For similar reason, because it was well thought out, it scores also good marks as far as usability is concerned in my opinion.
Scope of participation Many different groups and agencies are allowed to participate. The scope is very wide. This was considered a good point of our draft.  
|----- 
Access to information The many groups who will participate in the assessment will have to access all information of the assessment and also disseminate it.  
| Applicability: Acceptability
Timing of openness Honestly a more excellent and specific work should be done on this area. 
| 2
Scope of contribution There was a wide scope of contribution and scope of participation is very wide for effective contribution of all participants in a bid to prevent the idea of imposition on people what they should do.
|  The participants who were involved in the assessment will find it a bit easy to accept it.  
Impact of contribution The draft gave a  rather general information about the impact of contribution.  
|-----
| Efficiency
| 3
| Good attempt as it sought to solicit for ideas from several participants. The information was organised in small workable units.
|}


Explanations of categories of interaction within the knowledge-policy interaction framework.
The drafted assessment can be categorized as a shared knowledge-interaction framework. Different groups of participants contribute to the assessment and have their specific roles and responsibilities.
Evaluation of the assessment draft
Evaluation according to the properties of good assessment
Attribute Score Explanation
Quality of content 4 The question is very open and have a global appeal with broad participants for their diverse opinions. 
Applicability: Relevance 4 The question and the assessment are both relevant, practical and realistic to our current global needs.
Applicability: Availability 3 The diverse groups acting as participants of the assessment, will have all available data already during the assessment.
Applicability: Usability 4 It will very usable because of the diverse participation which would subsequently lead to clear understanding and commitment.
Applicability: Acceptability 4 It is well planned and involves more people, institutions and interest groups so it very likely to be accepted.
Efficiency 3 We admit that though it was a high point to involve so many participants, it efficiency will also be difficult to be achieved as common with working with more people.


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


Comments and ideas how to improve the draft
In general they seem to have clear understanding and first hand information on the issue they were tackling. I will only congratulate them for a good work done. Both group did very well and I am impressed with their work as beginners but with time it could be further improved with much detail and specific actions since some aspects were vague and broad.
In general it was a well thought out draft which involves a lot of participants. It stated ways to reduce emission of GHGs, and it is very important to mention neighboring countries since GHG emissions could negative affect other countries as well. We however, acknowledge that we should have used headings and subheadings to improve the clarity.
-

Latest revision as of 07:17, 16 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. Because of your absence in seminars, you also have extra homework: it is the same work as HW6, but with new pages. Check the follow-up table! --Jouni 18:09, 13 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

Home Work 1

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

My answer: The main purpose of environmental health assessment is to to improve deliberate plans of actions that guide decisions aiming for desired outcomes (cf. Jones 2009). Its could also serve to provide provide science-based support to decisions on issues of societal relevance. It also aims at helping knowledge-based decisions and actions in business and among individual members of the society.

2. What is pragmatism?

My answer: In this context,pragmatism briefly means that theory and practice are not separate entities, but are deeply intertwined. Pragmatism in this context, could therefore be said to mean the combination of knowledge (theory) and practice solely on their practical influence on issues of the environment and health.

7.What is impact assessment?

My answer: Health Impact Assessment is a combination of procedures, methods and tools for judging the potential health effects of a policy, program or project on a population, particularly on vulnerable or disadvantaged groups(World Health Organization 1999, http://www.who.int/hia/en/. The purpose of Health impact assessment is to inform decision makers about the potential health effects of a policy, program or project, particularly on vulnerable or disadvantaged population groups, and to provide recommendations for maximizing the proposal’s positive and minimizing the negative health effects. It also aims at addressing inequalities in the potential health impacts and to promote joined-up working and participation. ----#: . Yes, this is how WHO defines HEALTH impact assessment. More generally, impact assessment considers and estimates all kinds of impacts, and the problem at hand then determines which impacts, e.g. health, environment, economic, are of interest. --Mikko Pohjola 10:22, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

←--#: . Good answers. --Mikko Pohjola 10:22, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

⇤--#: . Where are all other homework answers? If they are on someone else's user page(s), add links here. --Mikko Pohjola 10:22, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)


Homework 9

----#: . Partly quite good, partly not. Not OK in current form. --Mikko Pohjola 09:17, 16 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

The old version, copied directly from a word document, was removed and can be found from page history.

Assessment of Homework 3 of Assessment of Homework 3 of Juho Kutvonen

(Groupwork of Juho Kutvonen and Salla)

Knowledge-policy interaction

Characterization of knowledge-policy interaction
Attribute characterization
Impacts The effects of metals on lake water as domestic water as a result metal emissions from the Talvivaara mine
Causes Present metal emission from the Talvivaara mine negatively affecting the feasibility of nearby lake water as domestic water.
Problem owner
  • Local residents who experiences the impacts
  • Environmental authorities, who provide metal emission restrictions to Talvivaara mine.
  • Talvivaara mine experts and engineers to review designing structures to ensure that the metal emissions could be reduced.
Target
  • The city council can use the results to give recommendations or guidelines for proper mechanisms of operation of the mine to cut down metal emissions.
  • Local residents living nearby lakes to document first had experience.
  • Communication and public relations out fits is responsible for the communication of recommendations
Interaction They provided a very direct and specific scope of participation and a good knowledge and policy interaction framework as indicated in their detailed draft, in my opinion.
Characterization of the dimensions of openness.
Dimension Characterization
Scope of participation They provided the following participants: ELY centre, Local residents living nearby lakes, SYKE, and added that Talvivaara mine is excluded because it may be partial. I think they did a good job by providing a detail account of participants and also providing reasons why Talvivaara mine is excluded.
Access to information Their draft gave enough information concerning this aspect. ----#: . But what did the draft say about it? The idea is not to point out if this issue was addressed or not, but to find out what is said about it. --Mikko Pohjola 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Timing of openness They provided detailed accounts here. ----#: . see above comment. --Mikko Pohjola 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Scope of contribution They gave enough information on the intended users specific roles each will play. ----#: . see above comment. --Mikko Pohjola 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Impact of contribution There was a good number of specific participants: ELY centre, local residents living nearby lakes and SYKE,

Explanations of categories of interaction within the knowledge-policy interaction framework.

I believe their draft was well thought out and carefully planned. It contained clear information regarding specific participants and their corresponding roles.


Evaluation of the assessment draft

Evaluation according to the properties of good assessment
Attribute Score Explanation
Quality of content 3 The draft was clear and concise containing relevant information. ----#: . Relevance relates to Relevance. Consider here is the draft internally coherent. --Mikko Pohjola 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Applicability: Relevance 3 As mentions earlier the draft contained some practical and workable ideas. ----#: . But does it address user needs? --Mikko Pohjola 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Applicability: Availability 3 In summary,I would say it was a well thought out draft. They seem to understand the situation on the ground. ----#: . But how would the planned assessment provide information to its participants and possibilities to contribute to the assessment? --Mikko Pohjola 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Applicability: Usability 4 For similar reason, because it was well thought out, it scores also good marks as far as usability is concerned in my opinion. ----#: . Would the planned assessment also help in practice, in addition to possibly being relevant in principle, the intended users in their decisions and actions? --Mikko Pohjola 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Applicability: Acceptability 2 The participants who were involved in the assessment will find it a bit easy to accept it. ----#: . Why? How about those would not get to participate. --Mikko Pohjola 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Efficiency 3 Good attempt as it sought to solicit for ideas from several participants. The information was organised in small workable units. ----#: . But would the planned assessment produce good results with regard to the amount of work it would require? --Mikko Pohjola 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)


Comments and ideas how to improve the draft

In general they seem to have clear understanding and first hand information on the issue they were tackling. I will only congratulate them for a good work done.

----#: . The idea is not to give congratulations, but useful comments for improving the draft further. Think of such and write to them as arguments on the corresponding user page. --Mikko Pohjola 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Assessment of Homework 3 of Sami Rissanen

(Groupwork of Sami Rissanen & Jukka Hirvonen)

NOTE: Incidentally, the two grouped I evaluated worked on local Finnish issues. They worked on Talvivaara mine and its environmental concerns . Both groups seem to have a full understanding and first hand information about the concern they addressed in their drafts. For this reason, most of my evaluations are similar.

Knowledge-policy interaction

Characterization of knowledge-policy interaction
Attribute characterization
Impacts The effects of mineral dust (PM10 and PM2,5) from the Talvivaara mine that is present in air of mining and working area where workers are exposed to different heavy metal types: t.ex: copper, nickel, kobolt etc.
Causes Hazards of fine particle emissions (PM10, PM2,5) from the Talvivaara mine to mine workers and people who live nearby mine or work nearby mine area
Problem owner
  • Talvivaara mining company Kainuun ELY-keskus (Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment)
  • Regional TTL (Työterveyslaitos)
Target
  • Mine workers and people who live nearby mine or work nearby mine area
  • Talvivaara mining company wants to know is the air quality in acceptable level
  • ELY-keskus needs to know is the air quality legal and safe to workers
Interaction They provided a very direct and specific scope of participation and a good knowledge on what each participant offers as indicated in their detailed draft, in my opinion. They however did not mention local residents who I consider as important.
Characterization of the dimensions of openness.
Dimension Characterization
Scope of participation They provided the following participants: A consultant to measure air quality. Company, ELY-keskus, DARM group, Regional TTL, The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (FANC). However, they left out local residents who are also important. Also, I don’t understand how they seem to project that the company will be biased.
Access to information Their draft gave enough information concerning this aspect.
Timing of openness They provided detailed accounts here.
Scope of contribution They gave enough information on the intended users specific roles each will play
Impact of contribution There was a good number of specific participants: A consultant to measure air quality. Company, ELY-keskus, DARM group, Regional TTL, The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (FANC).


Explanations of categories of interaction within the knowledge-policy interaction framework.

I believe their draft was well thought out and carefully planned. It contained clear information regarding specific participants and their corresponding roles.

Evaluation of the assessment draft

Evaluation according to the properties of good assessment
Attribute Score Explanation
Quality of content 3 The draft was clear and concise containing relevant information.
Applicability: Relevance 3 As mentions earlier the draft contained some practical and workable ideas.
Applicability: Availability 3 In summary, I would say it was a well thought out draft. They seem to understand the situation on the ground.
Applicability: Usability 3 For similar reason, because it was well thought out, it scores also good marks as far as usability is concerned in my opinion.
Applicability: Acceptability 2 The participants who were involved in the assessment will find it a bit easy to accept it.
Efficiency 3 Good attempt as it sought to solicit for ideas from several participants. The information was organised in small workable units.


Comments and ideas how to improve the draft

In general they seem to have clear understanding and first hand information on the issue they were tackling. I will only congratulate them for a good work done. Both group did very well and I am impressed with their work as beginners but with time it could be further improved with much detail and specific actions since some aspects were vague and broad.

Retrieved from "https://en.opasnet.org/index.php?title=User:Joshuan&oldid=29285"