User:Matthew: Difference between revisions

From Opasnet
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(reminder of missing tasks)
 
(17 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 10: Line 12:
:answer: they can produce results for both past, future and alternative scenerios, they are cheap and faster than measurements.
:answer: they can produce results for both past, future and alternative scenerios, they are cheap and faster than measurements.


Homework 2
{{defend|# |Good brief and clear answers.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 10:45, 28 January 2013 (EET)}}
 
== 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.
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.
2. What is the role of decisions in causal diagrame. At what point can a decision maker modify or influence the causal diagramme.
{{attack|# |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.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 10:45, 28 January 2013 (EET)}}
{{defend|# |what is the meaning of the term intentional artifacts in result of an assessement|--[[User:Matthew|Matthew]] 10:35, 31 January 2013 (EET)}}
== Homework 9 ==
===''Assessment - Homework 3 of Niklas [[http://en.opasnet.org/w/User:Kasperi_Juntunen#Homework_3]]===
'''Knowledge-policy interaction'''
{|{{prettytable}}
|+ '''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 {{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)}}
|-----
| 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. {{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)}}
|}
{|{{prettytable}}
|+ '''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.
{{comment|# |though the following contributions was not stated|--[[User:Matthew|Matthew]] 17:43, 11 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
| 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'''
{|{{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.
{{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)}}
===''Assessment - Homework 3 of Phatman [[http://en.opasnet.org/w/User:Phatman#Homework_3]]===
'''Knowledge-policy interaction'''
{|{{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'''
The assessments is void of the improtant stakeholders and their well defined rolls. thus this can be poorly evaluated
{|{{prettytable}}
|+ '''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
{{comment|# |Add, your comments to the draft assessment text as arguments.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:31, 12 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"