User:Joshuan: Difference between revisions

From Opasnet
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 17: Line 17:




==Homework 9==
== Homework 9 ==


{{attack|# |Clean up your answer. If it is not presented properly, it will not even be considered for evaluation.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:05, 14 February 2013 (EET)}}
{{comment|# |Partly quite good, partly not. Not OK in current form.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 09:17, 16 February 2013 (EET)}}


{{attack|# |Also a lot to improve in the content. Read instructions, check the example material, see other student's answers for more examples.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:05, 14 February 2013 (EET)}}
The old version, copied directly from a word document, was removed and can be found from page history.


http://en.opasnet.org/w/File:Darm_9.docx
===''Assessment of Homework 3 of Assessment of Homework 3 of Juho Kutvonen ===


Assessment of Homework 3 of Juho Kutvonen
(Groupwork of Juho Kutvonen and Salla)
Knowledge-policy interaction
Characterization of knowledge-policy interaction
{| {{prettytable}}
| 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.
|----
|}
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.
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.
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. 
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.
Assessment of Homework 3 of Joshua Nartey
(Groupwork of Joshua Nartey & Thomas Agyei)
Knowledge-policy interaction
Characterization of knowledge-policy interaction
Attribute characterization
Impacts Climate Change due to GHG emissions in general.
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.
• The owner of industries makes decisions about how to handle their emissions.
• Energy production, transport and all other GHG producing groups are responsible for their emissions.
• The citizens are responsible for their actions and awareness of the climate change
Target • Intended users: Ghana, other neighbouring countries, EPA, Ghana
• All intended users and the citizens can use the results.
• Universities, Research institutions and groups and NGOs Municipal and District Assemblies (MDAs).
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.
Characterization of the dimensions of openness.
Dimension Characterization
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.
Timing of openness Honestly a more excellent and specific work should be done on this area. 
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. 
Impact of contribution The draft gave a  rather general information about the impact of contribution.
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
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. 
{|===''Assessment of Homework 3 of Assessment of Homework 3 of Juho Kutvonen ===
(Groupwork of Juho Kutvonen and Salla)
(Groupwork of Juho Kutvonen and Salla)
{{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 215: Line 42:
| 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.  
* 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.  
* Talvivaara mine experts and engineers to review designing structures to ensure that the metal emissions could be reduced.  
 
|-----
|-----
| Target
| 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.   
* 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.
* Local residents living nearby lakes to document first had experience.
Communication and public relations out fits is responsible for the communication of recommendations
* Communication and public relations out fits is responsible for the communication of recommendations
 
|-----
|-----
| Interaction
| 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}}
{|{{prettytable}}
Line 239: Line 65:
|-----
|-----
| Access to information
| Access to information
| Their draft gave enough information concerning this aspect.  
| 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
| Timing of openness
|They provided detailed accounts here.  
|They provided detailed accounts here. {{comment|# |see above comment.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
| Scope of contribution
| Scope of contribution
|They gave enough information on the intended users specific roles each will play.  
| 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
| Impact of contribution
| There was a good number of specific participants: ELY centre, local residents living nearby lakes and SYKE,  
| 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.
Explanations of categories of interaction within the knowledge-policy interaction framework.
Line 264: Line 92:
| Quality of content
| Quality of content
| 3
| 3
| The draft was clear and concise containing relevant information.
| 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
| Applicability: Relevance
| 3
| 3
| As mentions earlier the draft contained some practical and workable ideas.
| 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
| Applicability: Availability
| 3
| 3
|In summary,I would say it was a well thought out draft. They seem to understand the situation on the ground.  
|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
| Applicability: Usability
| 4
| 4
| For similar reason, because it was well thought out, it scores also good marks as far as usability is concerned in my opinion.
| 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
| Applicability: Acceptability
| 2
| 2
|  The participants who were involved in the assessment will find it a bit easy to accept it.  
|  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
| Efficiency
| 3
| 3
| Good attempt as it sought to solicit for ideas from several participants. The information was organised in small workable units.
| 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'''


'''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.


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)}}


{{attack|# |The mess below is what you had saved on Opasnet Main page.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 08:44, 16 February 2013 (EET)}}
===''Assessment of Homework 3 of Sami Rissanen ===


{|===''Assessment of Homework 3 of Sami Rissanen ===
(Groupwork of Sami Rissanen & Jukka Hirvonen)
(Groupwork of Sami Rissanen & Jukka Hirvonen)


Line 305: Line 137:
| Impacts
| 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.
| 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
| 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
| 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
| Problem owner
Talvivaara mining company Kainuun ELY-keskus (Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment)  
|
Regional TTL (Työterveyslaitos)
* Talvivaara mining company Kainuun ELY-keskus (Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment)  
 
* Regional TTL (Työterveyslaitos)
|-----
|-----
| Target
| 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
* Mine workers and people who live nearby mine or work nearby mine area
ELY-keskus needs to know is the air quality legal and safe to workers  
* 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
| 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.  
| 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.
|}
 
{|{{prettytable}}
|+ '''Characterization of the dimensions of openness.
|+ '''Characterization of the dimensions of openness.
! Dimension
! Dimension
Line 326: Line 162:
|-----
|-----
| Scope of participation
| Scope of participation
They provided the following participants: A consultant to measure air quality.  
| 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.
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
| Access to information
| Their draft gave enough information concerning this aspect.  
| Their draft gave enough information concerning this aspect.  
 
|-----
| Timing of openness
| Timing of openness
|They provided detailed accounts here.  
|They provided detailed accounts here.  
|-----
| Scope of contribution
| Scope of contribution
|They gave enough information on the intended users specific roles each will play
|They gave enough information on the intended users specific roles each will play
|-----
| Impact of contribution
| 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).  
| 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).
|}




Line 355: Line 193:
| 3
| 3
| The draft was clear and concise containing relevant information.
| The draft was clear and concise containing relevant information.
|-----
| Applicability: Relevance
| Applicability: Relevance
| 3
| 3
|As mentions earlier the draft contained some practical and workable ideas.
|As mentions earlier the draft contained some practical and workable ideas.
|-----
| Applicability: Availability
| Applicability: Availability
| 3
| 3
|In summary, I would say it was a well thought out draft. They seem to understand the situation on the ground.  
|In summary, I would say it was a well thought out draft. They seem to understand the situation on the ground.  
|-----
| Applicability: Usability
| Applicability: Usability
| 3
| 3
| For similar reason, because it was well thought out, it scores also good marks as far as usability is concerned in my opinion.   
| 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
| Applicability: Acceptability
| 2
| 2
|  The participants who were involved in the assessment will find it a bit easy to accept it.  
|  The participants who were involved in the assessment will find it a bit easy to accept it.  
|-----
|-----
| Efficiency
| Efficiency
| 3
| 3
| Good attempt as it sought to solicit for ideas from several participants. The information was organised in small workable units.  
| 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'''
'''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 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.
 
| style="border: 1px solid rgb(180, 180, 181); margin: 0pt 0pt 0.7em; vertical-align: top; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 253); width: 50%; height: 100%; padding-left:5px;padding-right:5px;" |
<h2 style='height: 30px; line-height: 30px; padding: 0 0 0 6px; border: solid 1px #faa; background-color: #fcc; margin-top: 4px;'>Information about Opasnet</h2>
 
'''Opasnet''' is a wiki-based website and workspace for helping societal decision making. The website collects, synthesises, and distributes people's values and scientific information. Opasnet welcomes anyone who wants to promote science-based decision-making in any field. The speciality is that the information is structured for both scientific scrutiny and for policy use at the same time. In practice, you can do original research, store data, make models, and perform policy assessments and discuss all of that work in one workspace. Originally, the developers of Opasnet came from the environmental health, i.e. a research field that studies the impacts of environment on human health. We are actively working, among other things, on climate change and air pollution, but you can also start a new assessment about a decision of your own interest, or participate in an existing assessment.
 
<center>'''Anyone can solve common problems.'''
[[File:Main page picture.png|200px]]
 
 
[[Opasnet]] is the web workspace for solving them by you, and by us together. </center>
 
 
<h2 style='height: 30px; line-height: 30px; padding: 0 0 0 6px; border: solid 1px #afa; background-color: #cfc; margin-top: 4px;'>Learn from and participate in Opasnet</h2>
 
* [[Welcome to Opasnet]]
* [[Opasnet]]
* [[Open assessment]]
* [[What is improved by Opasnet and open assessment?]]
* [[Contributing to Opasnet]]
* [[Frequently asked questions about Opasnet]]
* [[Opasnet Base|Databases]] and [[Opasnet modelling environment|modelling]] in Opasnet
 
We can only help decision making if a large group of people participate in the work. Find your own ways to contribute and act!
 
| style="border: 1px solid rgb(180, 180, 181); margin: 0pt 0pt 0.7em; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 253); vertical-align: top; width: 50%;padding-left:5px;padding-right:5px;" |<h2 style='height: 30px; line-height: 30px; padding: 0 0 0 6px; border: solid 1px #dd0; background-color: #ffc; margin-top: 4px;'>Recent recommendations</h2>
 
* [[Assessment of the health impacts of H1N1 vaccination|Swine flu vaccination in Finland was better than not vaccinating anyone even when narcolepsy is included in the assessment]]
* [[Should I take iodine tablets?|Most likely you should not take iodine tablets because of Fukushima nuclear accident]]
* [[Benefit-risk assessment on farmed salmon|Fish is healthy despite persistent pollutants in it]]
* [[Health impact of radon in Europe|Radon in indoor air is a major health problem]]. If living in certain areas, you should consider actions.
 
<small>[[List of page summaries|See more recommendations]]</small>
<h2 style='height: 30px; line-height: 30px; padding: 0 0 0 6px; border: solid 1px #afa; background-color: #cfc; margin-top: 4px;'>Portals</h2>
 
* '''By topic:
** [[Portal:Climate change]]
** [[Portal:Persistent pollutants]]
** [[Portal:Air pollution]]
** [[Portal:Urgenche]], a project on impacts of city-level climate policies
* '''By user:
** [[Portal:Open Assessors' Network]]
* '''By information type:
** [[Portal:Open assessments]]
** [[Portal:Variables]] (science-based answers to any questions)
** [[Portal:Data]] (data about several topics for modelling)
 
<h2 style='height: 30px; line-height: 30px; padding: 0 0 0 6px; border: solid 1px #aaf; background-color: #ccf; margin-top: 4px;'>Current issues</h2>
 
* [[A Tutorial on R]]
* [[Fukushima nuclear accident studies]]
* [[Decision analysis and risk management|''Decision analysis and risk management'' course (28 Feb - 12 Apr 2011)]]
* [http://www.mindtrek.org/2010/wsa Opasnet wins WSA Finland award in ''e-Government &amp; Institutions'' category]
* [[EBoDE|Burden of disease by environmental stressors in Europe (EBoDE)]]
* [[SETURI: National estimates of DALY of environmental risks|Burden of disease in Finland (Seturi)]]
 
 
<h2 style='height: 30px; line-height: 30px; padding: 0 0 0 6px; border: solid 1px #aaf; background-color: #ccf; margin-top: 4px;'>Active assessments</h2>
 
* '''[[:Category:Participants needed|Assessments that need new participants]]'''
<dpl>
category = Assessments
notnamespace =Template
mode = ordered
format = ,\n* [[%PAGE%]] (%DATE%)
ordermethod=lastedit
order = descending
count = 10
addlasteditor = true
addeditdate = true
</dpl>
 
* [[:op_fi:Suomen hallitusohjelma 2011|Assessment on the government program 2011 in Finland]] (in Finnish)
* [[:op_fi:Verovähennyskortti|Assessment on progressive value added tax]] (in Finnish)
* [[:op_fi:Tutkimuslaitoksen tietopolitiikka|Information policy of a research institute]] (in Finnish)
* [[:op_fi:Hyöty-riskiarviointi ydinvoimasta Suomessa|Nuclear energy in Finland]] (in Finnish)
 
<small>[[:Category:Assessments|Show all]]</small><br>
|}
 
__NOTOC__
 
 
[[op fi:Etusivu|op fi:Etusivu]] [[heande:Main Page|heande:Main Page]]

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.