User:Juho Kutvonen: Difference between revisions

From Opasnet
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(66 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 12: Line 12:


{{defend|# |Very good, to the point, answers.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 10:26, 28 January 2013 (EET)}}
{{defend|# |Very good, to the point, answers.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 10:26, 28 January 2013 (EET)}}
== Homework 2==
What is R-code and how does it work?


== Homework 3 ==
== Homework 3 ==
Line 19: Line 23:
==Homework 4.Helsinki Metropolitan Area Climate Strategy to the Year 2030 Summary==
==Homework 4.Helsinki Metropolitan Area Climate Strategy to the Year 2030 Summary==


* What are the aims/goals of the strategy/program, i.e. what are the desired impacts and outcomes striven for?
'''What are the aims/goals of the strategy/program, i.e. what are the desired impacts and outcomes striven for?
 
The aims of the strategy are:
# to reduce the per capita carbon dioxide emissions of the Helsinki Metropolitan Area by 39 per cent of the 1990 level by the year 2030
# to create a common vision and appreciation of operating policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area
# to ensure that greenhouse gas emission cuts become a consistent element in the objectives imposed by various city agencies for their own operations.
 
{{comment|# |Aims 2 and 3 look like additional aims supporting the main aim 1. As such, very clear aim. I'm just wondering if the strategy specifies any secondary goals like enhancing green technology business, improving health or social well-being etc. at the same time as it progresses (hopefully) towards its main aim of reducing GHG emissions? |--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET)}}
 
'''Who are those that benefit if the aims/goals of the strategy/program are reached? How?
 
*City residents since the air quality is better due to reduction private vehicles and due to increase of public transport (less pollutants in the air) {{attack_invalid|# | Hopefully so. Is it explicit that it would happen if the strategy is realized? What about the possible effect of biomass burning for energy production?|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET)}}{{attack|# |In total, the net effect to air quality can be zero after actions made. This is because although air quality enhances due to increased use of public transport, air quality may most likely decrease since increased biomass burning causes PM2,5 emissions.|--[[User:Salla|Salla]] 10:41, 4 February 2013 (EET)}}
*Energy companies because consumers may appreciate energy companies which consider environmental values in energy production. {{comment|# |Does this result from the strategy? |--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET)}} {{comment|# |This is not mentioned in the strategy but may happen in reality.|--[[User:Salla|Salla]] 11:38, 4 February 2013 (EET)}}
*People who use public transport since when public transport is trying to be made more popular, ticket prices will decline. {{comment|# |Yes, potentially at least. Also the quality of public transport may improve. Is this explicit in the strategy?|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET)}}{{defend|# |Yes, this scenario was presented in the strategy.|--[[User:Salla|Salla]] 10:57, 4 February 2013 (EET)}}
*Helsinki Region Transport because it will have more passengers due to ticket price reduction. {{comment|# |And lower revenues (or bigger losses) due to lower ticket prices. Someone pays the cost of public transport in a way or another anyway. Of course increased attention on /use of public transport may may make it more efficient and better quality. |--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET)}}
*Cyclists if bike roads are enhanced by land use. {{defend|# |Resulting possibly also in improved health, lower healthcare costs etc., but also possibly higher exposures to ambient air pollutants acusing adverse health effects… |--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET)}}
 
What are the actions that are needed/intended to take in order to progress towards the aims/goals?
 
*Development of public transport by increasing frequency in bus turns, dropping ticket prices and ensuring rapid connections. This is because public transport produces less CO2 emissions than private motoring.
*Land use: bikeroad network is enhanced by planning.
*Reduction of energy consumption by economical incentatives.
*Enhancements in energy production:
*# energy efficiency can be improved by increasing the efficiency of energy generating, reducing transmission losses and utilising district heating losses return flows more effectively.
*# increase of renewable energy sources in energy production.
*Influencing national and international policy making
*Establishing collaborative practices between various administrative branches to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and improving co-operation between the city and the region.
 
{{comment|# |OK, but looks more like a list of policies to be considered than actions that either reduce GHG emissions or actions that produce less GHG emissions than the in the current situation. Think about how the world will need to be different if the goal of GHG emission reduction is going to be true someday.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET)}}
 
'''Who are those that actually realize these actions?
 
*Helsinki city council (land use, zoning, influence to policy making, development of public transport).
*Helsingin Energia (choice of fuel in energy production).
*Helsinki Regional Transport(development of public transport).
*Citizens in traffic as well realize these actions by using more and more public transport.
*Residents are able to change their electricity consumption by decreasing it, for example switching the unnecessary lights off.
 
{{attack|# |How about citizens in traffic, residents etc.? |--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET)}}
:{{defend|# |Citizens in traffic as well realize these actions by using more and more public transport. Residents are able to change their electricity consumption by decreasing it, for example switching the unnecessary lights off.|--[[User:Salla|Salla]] 10:45, 4 February 2013 (EET)}}
::{{defend|# |Makes sense. Please modify your answer accordingly.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 12:39, 6 February 2013 (EET)}}
 
'''What are the decisions that are needed to make in order to enable/promote the actions?
 
*Development of public transport: Helsinki city and Helsinki Regional Transport must create a contract concerning enhancement of public transport.
*Consumption of energy: a joint program meant to decrease energy consumption in households, companies and energy companies.
*Bikeroad network: decisions concerning changes in land use.
*Increased use of renewable energy sources in energy productions: decisions about what kind of renewable energy source is used
 
'''Who are the decision makers?
 
*Helsinki city council
*Helsingin Energia
*Helsinki Regional Transport
*Citizens can make decisions by supporting public transport.
*Residents are able to choose an efficiency house when buying one
 
{{attack|# |Do experts really decide on anything (except as common citizens on their own everyday life activities? |--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET)}}
:{{attack_invalid|# |Experts do not make decisions but they can influence decision makers.|--[[User:Salla|Salla]] 10:50, 4 February 2013 (EET)}}
::{{attack|# |So they are not really decision makers, but may have a secondary role in guiding decisions. Please modify your answer accordingly.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 12:39, 6 February 2013 (EET)}}
 
{{attack|# |Again, how about citizens in choosing the mode of transport, as considering energy efficiency renovations, as heating their homes, ...? |--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET)}}
:{{defend|# |Citizens can make decisions by supporting public transport. Residents are able to choose an efficiency house when buying one. In addition, residents can can renovate their heating system. |--[[User:Salla|Salla]] 10:50, 4 February 2013 (EET)}}
::{{defend|# |Makse sense. Please modify your answer accordingly|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 12:39, 6 February 2013 (EET)}}
 
{{comment|# |Consider the comments on decisions and actions try to think over what are the actions and decision that could/should cause Helsinki region GHG emissions to reduce as intended. Who are those involved in deciding upon actions and making them happen in reality?|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET)}}


The aims of the strategy are: 1) to reduce reduce the per capita carbon dioxide emissions of the Helsinki Metropolitan Area by 39 per cent of the 1990 level by the year 2030, 2) to create a common vision and appreciation of operating policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area, 3) to ensure that greenhouse gas emission cuts become a consistent element in the objectives imposed by various city agencies for their own operations.
'''What direct or indirect health impacts, positive or negative, these decisions and actions (may) have?


*Who are those that benefit if the aims/goals of the strategy/program are reached? How?
*Improvement of public transport decreases amount of air pollutants and since air is cleaner, morbidity is lesser.
**City residents since the air quality is better due to reduction private vehicles and due to increase of public transport (less pollutants in the air)
*Increased use of biomass in energy production may slightly increase morbidity due to PM2.5 emissions.
**Energy companies because consumers may appreciate energy companies which consider environmental values in energy production.
*Due to enhanced bikeroad network people have a better possibility to do exercise and hence people feel better.
**People who use public transport since when public transport is trying to be made more popular, ticket prices will decline.
**Helsinki Region Transport because it will have more passengers due to ticket price reduction.
**Cyclists if bike roads are enhanced by land use.


*What are the actions that are needed/intended to take in order to progress towards the aims/goals?
{{defend|# |Yes. These are probably the most significant ones. Of course if one believes that the actions of Helsinki region will have also effect on the GHG emissions of the world and thereby mitigation of climate change, also the direct and indirect health effects of climate change can be reduced. |--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET)}}
**Development of public transport by increasing frequency in bus turns, dropping ticket prices and ensuring rapid connections. This is because public transport produces less CO2 emissions than private motoring.
:{{comment|# |Possible increase of heavy traffic due to biomass delivery to Helsinki region energy plants also has potential health impacts. |--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET)}}
**Land use: bikeroad network is enhanced by planning.
::{{defend|# |That is correct.|--[[User:Salla|Salla]] 10:57, 4 February 2013 (EET)}}
**Reduction of energy consumption by economical incentatives.
**Enhancements in energy production: 1)energy efficiency can be improved by increasing the efficiency of energy generating, reducing transmission losses and utilising district heating losses return flows more effectively. 2) increase of renewable energy sources in energy production.
**Influencing national and international policy making
**Establishing collaborative practices between various administrative branches to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and improving co-operation between the city and the region.


*Who are those that actually realize these actions?
'''Are the health impacts big or small in relation to other impacts (e.g. economical, social, climate, other environmental, ...)?
**Helsinki city council (land use, zoning, influence to policy making, development of public transport).
**Helsingin Energia (choice of fuel in energy production).
**Helsinki Regional Transport(development of public transport).


* What are the decisions that are needed to make in order to enable/promote the actions?
In our opinion the health impacts are quite small in relation to other impacts since for example slightly increased PM2.5 concentration due to biomass fuel does not cause significant impacts, in other words we consider for instance the economical effects greater than the health effects.
**Development of public transport: Helsinki city and Helsinki Regional Transport must create a contract concerning enhancement of public transport.
**Consumption of energy: a joint program meant to decrease energy consumption in households, companies and energy companies.
**Bikeroad network: decisions concerning changes in land use.
**Increased use of renewable energy sources in energy productions: decisions about what kind of renewable energy source is used


* Who are the decision makers?
{{comment|# |Clear reasoning. However, comparing health impacts and economical impacts is a difficult case, as the economic value of life or health is difficult to estimate so that everyone would accept it. Does the strategy provide any kind of estimates of the direction and/or magnitude of economical impacts or health impacts of the strategy? Generally, the potential adverse health impacts related to biomass burning are considered significant by environmental health experts.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET)}}
**Helsinki city council
:{{comment|# |The strategy did not provide any kind of estimates of the direction and/or magnitude of economical impacts or health impacts.|--[[User:Salla|Salla]] 11:45, 4 February 2013 (EET)}}
**Helsingin Energia
:{{comment|# |It may also be questioned, whether biomass burning really reduces GHG emissions other than theoretically. |--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET)}}
**Helsinki Regional Transport
**Experts


* What direct or indirect health impacts, positive or negative, these decisions and actions (may) have?
'''Do the intended policies result in win-win, win-lose, lose-win, or lose-lose situations with regard to health and other impacts?
**Improvement of public transport decreases amount of air pollutants and since air is cleaner, morbidity is lesser.
**Increased use of biomass in energy production may slightly increase morbidity due to PM2.5 emissions.
**Due to enhanced bikeroad network people have a better possibility to do exercise and hence people feel better.


* Are the health impacts big or small in relation to other impacts (e.g. economical, social, climate, other environmental, ...)?
*Development of public transport results in win-win situation because air quality is better due to lower emissions and bus company (Helsinki Regional Transport) benefits as well since more people travel by bus due to lower ticket prices. {{comment|# |In addition to above comments, also the bus fleet (and other public transport vehicles) makes a difference. Diesel bus emissions tend to be bigger than in private cars, but the emission/passenger may be lower. |--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET)}}
*Use of biomass in energy production may on the other hand result in lose-win situation because morbidity may slightly increase due to PM 2.5 emissions but in the same time fewer CO2 emissions are produced in energy production.


In our opinion the health impacts are quite small in relation to other impacts since for example slightly increased PM2.5 concentration due to biomass fuel does not cause significant impacts, in other words we consider for instance the economical effects greater than the health effects.
{{comment|# |How about light traffic increase? Also you can consider if the proposed actions truly reduce GHG and are they really sufficient in realizing the goal. |--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET)}}


* Do the intended policies result in win-win, win-lose, lose-win, or lose-lose situations with regard to health and other impacts?
'''Formulate a plausible and meaningful specific assessment question that takes account of (some of) the aspects considered in above questions.
**Development of public transport results in win-win situation because air quality is better due to lower emissions and bus company (Helsinki Regional Transport) benefits as well since more people travel by bus due to lower ticket prices.
**Use of biomass in energy production may on the other hand result in lose-win situation because morbidity may slightly increase due to PM 2.5 emissions but in the same time fewer CO2 emissions are produced in energy production.


*Formulate a plausible and meaningful specific assessment question that takes account of (some of) the aspects considered in above questions.
What kind of positive health effects will occur due to development of public transport?
What kind of positive health effects will occur due to development of public transport?


*Extra question: In what ways your answers do or do not represent "shared understanding"? (The climate program/strategy can be considered a compilation of contributions by many experts and attempting to reflect the views and needs of different decision makers and stakeholders).it conforms to the decision,aims and strategies.
{{comment|# |This is an interesting question and some related research has been done recently. However, as for an assessment, it would be good to tie the decision options directly in to the question. Also it is probably not necessary to limit the assessment to only consider positive health effects. You could try to formulate something like "which decision option (from a finite set of alternatives) regarding the development of Helsinki region public transport has the greatest net benefit (regarding which impacts?, needs to be specified) |--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET)}}
Our answers represent shared understanding in a way that different stakeholders and decision makers in collaboration are trying to meet the goals described in the climate strategy report.
 
'''Extra question: In what ways your answers do or do not represent "shared understanding"? (The climate program/strategy can be considered a compilation of contributions by many experts and attempting to reflect the views and needs of different decision makers and stakeholders).
 
Our answers do not represent shared understanding because perhaps the co-operation between stakeholders and decision makers is not yet sufficient enough to reach the goals set in the strategy. Hence, we consider that co-operation should be enhanced by creating a working group which would enhance the co-operation. After this they should aim at reaching the goals.
 
{{attack|# |Are they? Provide some reasoning why your statement should be considered representative of reality.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET)}}
 
{{defend|# |Perhaps the co-operation between stakeholders and decision makers is not yet sufficient enough to reach the goals set in the strategy. Hence, we consider that co-operation should be enhanced by creating a working group which would enhance the co-operation. After this they should aim at reaching the goals.|--[[User:Salla|Salla]] 11:56, 4 February 2013 (EET)}}
:{{comment|# |OK. You could modify the answer accordingly.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 12:39, 6 February 2013 (EET)}}


==Homework 5. ==
==Homework 5. ==
Line 81: Line 137:
** Helsingin energia
** Helsingin energia
** Helsinki Regional Transport
** Helsinki Regional Transport
** Experts
** Experts {{comment|# |Can you specify the experts, who they are?|--[[User:Marjo|Marjo]] 12:54, 5 February 2013 (EET)}}{{comment|# |Experts from THL. Zoning experts regarding land use.|--[[User:Juho Kutvonen|Juho Kutvonen]] 12:13, 6 February 2013 (EET)}}
* What roles the different participants (may) take in the assessment?
* What roles the different participants (may) take in the assessment?
** Helsinki city council (Decision makers and executors; sources of information)
** Helsinki city council (Decision makers and executors; sources of information)
Line 97: Line 153:
** Helsinki Regional Transport ( Aims: increased use of public transport by development of public transport. Needs: assessments; plans )
** Helsinki Regional Transport ( Aims: increased use of public transport by development of public transport. Needs: assessments; plans )
** Experts ( Aims: positive health effects /lack of negative health effects. Needs: Data; Financial support for studies )
** Experts ( Aims: positive health effects /lack of negative health effects. Needs: Data; Financial support for studies )
 
{{defend|# |5A: Clear and concise answers. Excellent.|--[[User:Marjo|Marjo]] 12:54, 5 February 2013 (EET)}}
'''part B:'''
'''part B:'''
* How could the relevant participants be involved in the assessment in an effective way?
* How could the relevant participants be involved in the assessment in an effective way?
Line 110: Line 166:
* How can you ensure that the outcomes are useful for the users?
* How can you ensure that the outcomes are useful for the users?
**Before excecuting the decicions resulting certain outcome, citizens´ feedback about planned decisions will be evaluated.
**Before excecuting the decicions resulting certain outcome, citizens´ feedback about planned decisions will be evaluated.
 
{{defend|# |5B: Good, useful ideas.|--[[User:Marjo|Marjo]] 12:54, 5 February 2013 (EET)}}
'''part C:'''
'''part C:'''
Prepare following tables from the climate programme of your selection. Instructions for table structures can be found at [[Training assessment]].
Prepare following tables from the climate programme of your selection. Instructions for table structures can be found at [[Training assessment]].
Line 124: Line 180:
| Reduction of GHG emissions
| Reduction of GHG emissions
| Climate strategy programm
| Climate strategy programm
| Exposure
| Exposure to PM 2.5
|-----
|-----
| Helsingin energia
| Helsingin energia
| Efficiency in energy production and increased use of renewable energy sources
| Efficiency in energy production  
| Reduction of GHG emissions
| Reduction of GHG emissions
| Technical costs
| Technical costs
|-----
| Helsingin energia
| Increased use of renewable energy sources
| Reduction of GHG emissions
| Fuel
|-----
| Helsinki Public Transport
| Enhanced frequency in turns
| Marketing of public transport
| Number of turns
|-----
|-----
| Helsinki Public Transport
| Helsinki Public Transport
| More passangers in public transport
| Reduction of bus ticket prices
| Reduction of bus ticket prices and enhanced frequency in turns
| Marketing of public transport
| Number of passangers
| Number of passengers
|-----
|-----
| Experts
| Experts
Line 140: Line 206:
| Increased health education
| Increased health education
| Education costs
| Education costs
|-----
| Experts
| Prevention of health impacts
| Increased health education
| Awareness
|}
*{{attack invalid|# |Exposure to what? If the explanation is too long, it can be given below table. However, e.g. "exposure to agent xx" fits well into table.|--[[User:Marjo|Marjo]] 14:27, 5 February 2013 (EET)}}
*{{attack|# |"More passangers in public transport" sounds more like an aim than a decision. What might be the respective decision?|--[[User:Marjo|Marjo]] 14:27, 5 February 2013 (EET)}}
:{{attack|# |Comments have been considered in the table.|--[[User:Juho Kutvonen|Juho Kutvonen]] 12:13, 6 February 2013 (EET)}}
{{attack|# |It seems that you have put together separate decisions as if they were one, e.g. Helsingin energia can decide about energy efficiency improvements separately from fuel sources, right? If this is the case, make two decisions on two rows.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 15:26, 6 February 2013 (EET)}}
{{attack|# |Also consider if there are several changes from one action, e.g. health education hopefully leads to changes in e.g. awareness, not only to costs.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 15:26, 6 February 2013 (EET)}}
{{attack|# |The ''Endpoints'' table describes the things (usually more than one per stakeholder) that are of primary interest to different stakeholders. Do experts only care about costs? |--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 14:39, 6 February 2013 (EET)}}
{{defend|# |Comments have been considered.|--[[User:Juho Kutvonen|Juho Kutvonen]] 10:03, 7 February 2013 (EET)}}


|}
*Endpoints table
*Endpoints table


Line 150: Line 232:
| Helsinki city council
| Helsinki city council
| Exposure
| Exposure
|-----
| Helsinki city council
| Amount of GHG emissions
|-----
|-----
| Helsingin energia
| Helsingin energia
| Technical costs
| Technical costs
|-----
| Helsingin energia
| Availability of fuel
|-----
|-----
| Helsinki Public Transport
| Helsinki Public Transport
| Number of passangers
| Number of passangers
|-----
| Helsinki Public Transport
| Environmental friendly fuel
|-----
|-----
| Experts
| Experts
| Education costs
| Education costs
|-----
| Experts
| Decreased morbidity
|-----
|-----
| Citizens
| Citizens
| Health impact
| Health impact
|-----
| Citizens
| Supply of public transport
|}
==Homework 6==
Fuels used by Haapaniemi energy plant [http://en.opasnet.org/w/Fuels_used_by_Haapaniemi_energy_plant] in collaboration with Salla
Climate change policies in Thessaloniki [http://en.opasnet.org/w/Climate_change_policies_in_Thessaloniki] in collaboration with Salla
Järvisedimenttien metallipitoisuudet [http://fi.opasnet.org/fi/J%C3%A4rvisedimenttien_metallipitoisuudet] in collaboration with Salla
==Homework 7==
Contribution to the structured discussion on the Environmental impact assessment directive[http://en.opasnet.org/w/Talk:Environmental_impact_assessment_directive]
==Homework 8==
ERFs for IEQ factors[http://en.opasnet.org/w/Indoor_environment_quality_%28IEQ%29_factors#Rationale]in collaboration with Salla
== Homework 9 ==
{{comment|# |Please see [[User:Isabell Rumrich#DARM course 2013 – Homework 9]] for an example how to present the characterizations and evaluations in three tables for easier reading and commenting. I recommend everyone to present their answers in this kind of format. You can do it e.g. by copying the tables as such and just replacing their contents.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 09:53, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
:{{comment|# |Will get back to evaluating the contents later.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 09:53, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
==='''''Evaluated draft assessment of Jukka Hirvonen'''''[http://en.opasnet.org/en-opwiki/index.php?title=User:Sami_Rissanen&oldid=28302]===
(Jukka Hirvonen and Sami Rissanen)
{|{{prettytable}}
|+ '''Characterization of knowledge-policy interaction
! Attribute
! characterization
|-----
| Impacts
| Primarily health impacts caused by mineral dust ( PM 2.5 and PM10 ) from rock crushing amongst mine workers and residents nearby the mine. In addition leakages to natural water.
|-----
| Causes
| Rock crushing plant of Talvivaara mine produces mineral dust (PM2.5 and PM10 emissions).
|-----
| Problem owner
|
* TTL, Talvivaara mine and the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (FANC) have the interest to assess the issue. TTL and Talvivaara are interested in health of mine workers and FANC is interested in environmental problems caused by the mine.
* Talvivaara mine has the main responsibility to assess the issue since their activity is the problem. In addition, I find ELY center responsible as well to assess the issue as a local authority. {{defend|# |Good point.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 23:00, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
* TTL and ELY center have the proper means to assess the issue. {{comment|# |Perhaps THL and/or FMI could be asked to help as well.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 23:00, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}{{defend|# |Yes, especially THL.|--[[User:Juho Kutvonen|Juho Kutvonen]] 10:31, 11 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
| Target
|
* Intended users of assessment results are Talvivaara mine, ELY center and TTL.
* Stakeholders who need the assessment results are mine workers, Talvivaara mine, residents nearby the mine and perhaps TTL as well.
* Talvivaara mine and ELY center can make use of the assessment results. {{comment|# |In addition I believe AVI also engages in taking these actions, but following ELY center's advice.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 23:00, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
| Interaction
|
* Openness is a bit restricted since local residents aren´t mentioned as participants in the draft assessment.
* I´d say that I would consider this as category "informing" in categories of interaction within the knowledge-policy interaction framework. This is because different stakeholders provide information but mainly receive the information. However, it is difficult to categorize the draft to the categories since the draft assessment lacks information.
|}
{|{{prettytable}}
|+ '''Characterization of the dimensions of openness.
! Dimension
! Characterization
|-----
| Scope of participation
| A consultant to measure air quality, Company, ELY-keskus, DARM group, Regional TTL and FANC are allowed to participate in the assessment.
|-----
| Access to information
| Not mentioned in the draft.
|-----
| Timing of openness
| Not mentioned in the draft.
|-----
| Scope of contribution
| Mine workers and residents nearby the mine are interviewed in order to investigate the mineral dust issue.
|-----
| Impact of contribution
| Not possible to evaluate based on the draft assessment. {{defend|# |It is often very difficult to evaluate, and also rarely properly addressed.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 23:00, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
|}
{|{{prettytable}}
|+ '''Evaluation according to the properties of good assessment
! Attribute
! Score
! Explanation
|-----
| Quality of content
| 4
| I find ideas represented in the assessment quite specific and useful. In my opinion, there isn´t anything unnecessary.
|-----
| Applicability: Relevance
| 4
| The assessment address the intended needs of the users well since the dust problem is a signicant problem induced by Talvivaara mine. The assessment question fits well to the purpose of the assessment
|-----
| Applicability: Availability
| 0
| Currently it is not mentioned in the draft assessment where and how information provided by the assessment is given. In my opinion, every stakeholder should have an access to the information. Especially local residents need this information. There assessment should be kept for example in town hall so that everybody has the access to it. {{comment|# |How about in the internet?|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 23:00, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}{{defend|# |Yes, you are right since most people have access to Internet and it would be even easier for citizens.|--[[User:Juho Kutvonen|Juho Kutvonen]] 09:16, 11 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
| Applicability: Usability
| 4
| Intended users can benefit from the assessment since for instance, mine workers need to know whether working safety due to PM 2.5 emissions must be enhanced. Both residents and mine workers are able to understand what the assessment is all about since dust problem is well known issue area nearby the mine. {{comment|# |Do you also think that, based on the draft, the assessment would have the capacity to live up to this expectation?|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 23:00, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
| Applicability: Acceptability
| 3
| I think it is difficult for Talvivaara to accept the expected results since they should invest probably big amounts of money to reduce their dust emissions. On the contrary, local residents would we satisfied if the dust problem could be solved. {{comment|# |It is easy to not accept something where one has not been involved in.{{defend|# |That is a good point which I didn´t come up with.|--[[User:Juho Kutvonen|Juho Kutvonen]] 09:59, 11 February 2013 (EET)}} Do you think the planned making of the assessment would be such that would make it hard for e.g. Talvivaara (or other participants) to not accept the results in the end?|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 23:00, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
| Efficiency
| 4
| I think the assessment is worth making since the working conditions of the mine workers can be enhanced if the dust concentrations are proven to be too high and thus creating a health hazard. If Talvivaara won´t willingly reduce the dust emissions by tehcnical solutions, ELY center may force Talvivaara to take some actions. {{comment|# |Any other possible situations where these results could be made use of?{{defend|# |Perhaps the results could be used in a study where association between outdoor air PM2.5 concentration and adverse health effects in mineworkers would be examined.|--[[User:Juho Kutvonen|Juho Kutvonen]] 09:59, 11 February 2013 (EET)}} Would the information be available to those who could make use of it?|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 23:00, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
|}
{{attack|# |Formulate some recommendations to improve the draft further and write them as arguments on the corresponding assessment draft page|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 23:00, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
'''Comments and ideas how to improve the draft'''
*Local residents should have a chance to participate the assessment because they face the dust problem in their every day life.
*Overall I find the draft assessment quite profound since a lot of effort has been put to the draft.
==='''''Evaluated draft assessment of Kasperi Juntunen''''' [http://en.opasnet.org/en-opwiki/index.php?title=User:Kasperi_Juntunen&oldid=28249]===
{|{{prettytable}}
|+ '''Characterization of knowledge-policy interaction
! Attribute
! characterization
|-----
| Impacts
| The most significant impacts addressed in the assessment are health and environmental impacts. Waste waters can namely end up in groundwater which people may use.
|-----
| Causes
| Talvivaara mine produces waste waters in their activity.
|-----
| Problem owner
|
* Talvivaara has the responsibility to assess to issue since their waste waters are due to metal mining.
* Local residents living next to lake are perhaps most interested in assessing the issue since they are the ones whom the impacts affect.
* Of course environmental organizations and Ministry of environment are as well interested in the assessment.
|-----
| Target
|
* Intended users of the assessment results are Ministry of environment, representers of Talvivaara company, citizens living nearby Talvivaara, environmental organizations.
* All the users need the assessment results. First of all, citizens want to know if waste water causes any adverse health effects since they may use the water. Talvivaara need to know if waste water causes adverse health effects. If so, Talvivaara may need to do something concerning waste water problem if ELY center says so.
|-----
| Interaction
|
*I´d say that the assessment belongs to the category Informing in the interaction category. This is because not all important stakeholders are not allowed to take part in the assessment (at least they are not mentioned in the assessment as participants).
*Degree of of openness is not the best possible since local residents are missing in participants which in my opinion is a remarkable weakness regarding openness.
|}
{|{{prettytable}}
|+ '''Characterization of the dimensions of openness.
! Dimension
! Characterization
|-----
| Scope of participation
| Representers of Talvivaara, representers of environmental organizations, especially neutral researchers and specialists are allowed to participate in the assessment.
|-----
| Access to information
| Not mentioned in the draft.
|-----
| Timing of openness
| Not mentioned in the draft.
|-----
| Scope of contribution
| Not mentioned in the draft.
|-----
| Impact of contribution
| Not mentioned in the draft.
|}
|}
{|{{prettytable}}
|+ '''Evaluation according to the properties of good assessment
! Attribute
! Score
! Explanation
|-----
| Quality of content
| 3
| Ideas presented in the assessment are rather good and explicit. However, not all important issues are addressed in the assessment, e.g. local residents are missing from participants. {{comment|# |Inclusion of local resident relates maybe more to the making of the assessment than the contents of assessment (of course the making then influences the contents). I think it remains quite unclear what kind of results the assessment aims to deliver.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 23:00, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
| Applicability: Relevance
| 4
| The assessment address the intended needs of the users well since residents living next to the lake are worried of the impacts Talvivaara mine has caused, especially those waste water emissions and their effect to water and even to human health.
|-----
| Applicability: Availability
| 0
| Not possible to evaluate based on the draft assessment.
|-----
| Applicability: Usability
| 4
| I think intended users would understand what the assessment is about since Talvivaara and problems caused by it are well recognized in the area. Since local residents are aware of the problem, the assessment thus can be considered useful for them.
|-----
| Applicability: Acceptability
| 2
| If local residents aren´t given a chance to participate to the assessment, I think assessment isn´t made acceptably since they after all face the waste water problem in their life. Talvivaara may not accept the results unless Talvivaara doesn´t need to take up some actions since these actions would require huge investments to waste water purification techniques.  {{comment|# |See the comment on Acceptability in the above evaluation.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 23:00, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
| Efficiency
| 3
| The assessment is worth making since in the best scenario Talvivaara must reduce its waste water emissions if they are found too high. Most likey much work will be needed in the assessment since studying waste water may be laborous.
|}
{{attack|# |Formulate some recommendations to improve the draft further and write them as arguments on the corresponding assessment draft page|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 23:00, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
'''Comments and ideas how to improve the draft'''
*Local residents should be participants as well in the assessment since they live close to the lakes where the waste waters end up and local residents are after all intended users of the assessment. What is more, I would include local ELY center to the participants since ELY center is the authority in controlling the environmental permit.
*Somehow I feel that the draft assessment could be more profound.

Latest revision as of 20:51, 11 February 2013

Homework 1

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

The main purpose of environmental health assessment is to assess and control environmental factors which can cause adverse health effects. In other words, its purpose is to ensure that people live in health-supporting environment.

6. What is benefit-risk assessment?

Benefit-risk assessment is a certain kind of assessment type in which pros (benefits) and cons (risks) of a phenomenon are weighed. For example, fish contains valuable nutrients (vitamin D, soft fats) but as well it often contains environmental pollutants such as PCB compounds. In benefit-risk assessment it is weighed if the benefits are bigger than the possible risk.

15. What is collaboration?

Collaboration means working together in order to create something. In environmental health assessments collaboration between e.g. scientists and decision-makers is vital since without it it´s difficult to get desired results improving human health.

←--#: . Very good, to the point, answers. --Mikko Pohjola 10:26, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Homework 2

What is R-code and how does it work?

Homework 3

Homework 3 can be found from Salla's page.

Homework 4.Helsinki Metropolitan Area Climate Strategy to the Year 2030 Summary

What are the aims/goals of the strategy/program, i.e. what are the desired impacts and outcomes striven for?

The aims of the strategy are:

  1. to reduce the per capita carbon dioxide emissions of the Helsinki Metropolitan Area by 39 per cent of the 1990 level by the year 2030
  2. to create a common vision and appreciation of operating policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area
  3. to ensure that greenhouse gas emission cuts become a consistent element in the objectives imposed by various city agencies for their own operations.

----#: . Aims 2 and 3 look like additional aims supporting the main aim 1. As such, very clear aim. I'm just wondering if the strategy specifies any secondary goals like enhancing green technology business, improving health or social well-being etc. at the same time as it progresses (hopefully) towards its main aim of reducing GHG emissions? --Mikko Pohjola 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Who are those that benefit if the aims/goals of the strategy/program are reached? How?

  • City residents since the air quality is better due to reduction private vehicles and due to increase of public transport (less pollutants in the air) ⇤--#: . Hopefully so. Is it explicit that it would happen if the strategy is realized? What about the possible effect of biomass burning for energy production? --Mikko Pohjola 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)⇤--#: . In total, the net effect to air quality can be zero after actions made. This is because although air quality enhances due to increased use of public transport, air quality may most likely decrease since increased biomass burning causes PM2,5 emissions. --Salla 10:41, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
  • Energy companies because consumers may appreciate energy companies which consider environmental values in energy production. ----#: . Does this result from the strategy? --Mikko Pohjola 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) ----#: . This is not mentioned in the strategy but may happen in reality. --Salla 11:38, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
  • People who use public transport since when public transport is trying to be made more popular, ticket prices will decline. ----#: . Yes, potentially at least. Also the quality of public transport may improve. Is this explicit in the strategy? --Mikko Pohjola 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)←--#: . Yes, this scenario was presented in the strategy. --Salla 10:57, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
  • Helsinki Region Transport because it will have more passengers due to ticket price reduction. ----#: . And lower revenues (or bigger losses) due to lower ticket prices. Someone pays the cost of public transport in a way or another anyway. Of course increased attention on /use of public transport may may make it more efficient and better quality. --Mikko Pohjola 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
  • Cyclists if bike roads are enhanced by land use. ←--#: . Resulting possibly also in improved health, lower healthcare costs etc., but also possibly higher exposures to ambient air pollutants acusing adverse health effects… --Mikko Pohjola 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

What are the actions that are needed/intended to take in order to progress towards the aims/goals?

  • Development of public transport by increasing frequency in bus turns, dropping ticket prices and ensuring rapid connections. This is because public transport produces less CO2 emissions than private motoring.
  • Land use: bikeroad network is enhanced by planning.
  • Reduction of energy consumption by economical incentatives.
  • Enhancements in energy production:
    1. energy efficiency can be improved by increasing the efficiency of energy generating, reducing transmission losses and utilising district heating losses return flows more effectively.
    2. increase of renewable energy sources in energy production.
  • Influencing national and international policy making
  • Establishing collaborative practices between various administrative branches to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and improving co-operation between the city and the region.

----#: . OK, but looks more like a list of policies to be considered than actions that either reduce GHG emissions or actions that produce less GHG emissions than the in the current situation. Think about how the world will need to be different if the goal of GHG emission reduction is going to be true someday. --Mikko Pohjola 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Who are those that actually realize these actions?

  • Helsinki city council (land use, zoning, influence to policy making, development of public transport).
  • Helsingin Energia (choice of fuel in energy production).
  • Helsinki Regional Transport(development of public transport).
  • Citizens in traffic as well realize these actions by using more and more public transport.
  • Residents are able to change their electricity consumption by decreasing it, for example switching the unnecessary lights off.

⇤--#: . How about citizens in traffic, residents etc.? --Mikko Pohjola 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

←--#: . Citizens in traffic as well realize these actions by using more and more public transport. Residents are able to change their electricity consumption by decreasing it, for example switching the unnecessary lights off. --Salla 10:45, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
←--#: . Makes sense. Please modify your answer accordingly. --Mikko Pohjola 12:39, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

What are the decisions that are needed to make in order to enable/promote the actions?

  • Development of public transport: Helsinki city and Helsinki Regional Transport must create a contract concerning enhancement of public transport.
  • Consumption of energy: a joint program meant to decrease energy consumption in households, companies and energy companies.
  • Bikeroad network: decisions concerning changes in land use.
  • Increased use of renewable energy sources in energy productions: decisions about what kind of renewable energy source is used

Who are the decision makers?

  • Helsinki city council
  • Helsingin Energia
  • Helsinki Regional Transport
  • Citizens can make decisions by supporting public transport.
  • Residents are able to choose an efficiency house when buying one

⇤--#: . Do experts really decide on anything (except as common citizens on their own everyday life activities? --Mikko Pohjola 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . Experts do not make decisions but they can influence decision makers. --Salla 10:50, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
⇤--#: . So they are not really decision makers, but may have a secondary role in guiding decisions. Please modify your answer accordingly. --Mikko Pohjola 12:39, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . Again, how about citizens in choosing the mode of transport, as considering energy efficiency renovations, as heating their homes, ...? --Mikko Pohjola 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

←--#: . Citizens can make decisions by supporting public transport. Residents are able to choose an efficiency house when buying one. In addition, residents can can renovate their heating system. --Salla 10:50, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
←--#: . Makse sense. Please modify your answer accordingly --Mikko Pohjola 12:39, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

----#: . Consider the comments on decisions and actions try to think over what are the actions and decision that could/should cause Helsinki region GHG emissions to reduce as intended. Who are those involved in deciding upon actions and making them happen in reality? --Mikko Pohjola 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

What direct or indirect health impacts, positive or negative, these decisions and actions (may) have?

  • Improvement of public transport decreases amount of air pollutants and since air is cleaner, morbidity is lesser.
  • Increased use of biomass in energy production may slightly increase morbidity due to PM2.5 emissions.
  • Due to enhanced bikeroad network people have a better possibility to do exercise and hence people feel better.

←--#: . Yes. These are probably the most significant ones. Of course if one believes that the actions of Helsinki region will have also effect on the GHG emissions of the world and thereby mitigation of climate change, also the direct and indirect health effects of climate change can be reduced. --Mikko Pohjola 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

----#: . Possible increase of heavy traffic due to biomass delivery to Helsinki region energy plants also has potential health impacts. --Mikko Pohjola 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
←--#: . That is correct. --Salla 10:57, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Are the health impacts big or small in relation to other impacts (e.g. economical, social, climate, other environmental, ...)?

In our opinion the health impacts are quite small in relation to other impacts since for example slightly increased PM2.5 concentration due to biomass fuel does not cause significant impacts, in other words we consider for instance the economical effects greater than the health effects.

----#: . Clear reasoning. However, comparing health impacts and economical impacts is a difficult case, as the economic value of life or health is difficult to estimate so that everyone would accept it. Does the strategy provide any kind of estimates of the direction and/or magnitude of economical impacts or health impacts of the strategy? Generally, the potential adverse health impacts related to biomass burning are considered significant by environmental health experts. --Mikko Pohjola 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

----#: . The strategy did not provide any kind of estimates of the direction and/or magnitude of economical impacts or health impacts. --Salla 11:45, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
----#: . It may also be questioned, whether biomass burning really reduces GHG emissions other than theoretically. --Mikko Pohjola 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Do the intended policies result in win-win, win-lose, lose-win, or lose-lose situations with regard to health and other impacts?

  • Development of public transport results in win-win situation because air quality is better due to lower emissions and bus company (Helsinki Regional Transport) benefits as well since more people travel by bus due to lower ticket prices. ----#: . In addition to above comments, also the bus fleet (and other public transport vehicles) makes a difference. Diesel bus emissions tend to be bigger than in private cars, but the emission/passenger may be lower. --Mikko Pohjola 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
  • Use of biomass in energy production may on the other hand result in lose-win situation because morbidity may slightly increase due to PM 2.5 emissions but in the same time fewer CO2 emissions are produced in energy production.

----#: . How about light traffic increase? Also you can consider if the proposed actions truly reduce GHG and are they really sufficient in realizing the goal. --Mikko Pohjola 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Formulate a plausible and meaningful specific assessment question that takes account of (some of) the aspects considered in above questions.

What kind of positive health effects will occur due to development of public transport?

----#: . This is an interesting question and some related research has been done recently. However, as for an assessment, it would be good to tie the decision options directly in to the question. Also it is probably not necessary to limit the assessment to only consider positive health effects. You could try to formulate something like "which decision option (from a finite set of alternatives) regarding the development of Helsinki region public transport has the greatest net benefit (regarding which impacts?, needs to be specified) --Mikko Pohjola 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Extra question: In what ways your answers do or do not represent "shared understanding"? (The climate program/strategy can be considered a compilation of contributions by many experts and attempting to reflect the views and needs of different decision makers and stakeholders).

Our answers do not represent shared understanding because perhaps the co-operation between stakeholders and decision makers is not yet sufficient enough to reach the goals set in the strategy. Hence, we consider that co-operation should be enhanced by creating a working group which would enhance the co-operation. After this they should aim at reaching the goals.

⇤--#: . Are they? Provide some reasoning why your statement should be considered representative of reality. --Mikko Pohjola 15:49, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

←--#: . Perhaps the co-operation between stakeholders and decision makers is not yet sufficient enough to reach the goals set in the strategy. Hence, we consider that co-operation should be enhanced by creating a working group which would enhance the co-operation. After this they should aim at reaching the goals. --Salla 11:56, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

----#: . OK. You could modify the answer accordingly. --Mikko Pohjola 12:39, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Homework 5.

part A:

  • Who are the relevant participants of the assessment?
    • Helsinki city council
    • Helsingin energia
    • Helsinki Regional Transport
    • Experts ----#: . Can you specify the experts, who they are? --Marjo 12:54, 5 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)----#: . Experts from THL. Zoning experts regarding land use. --Juho Kutvonen 12:13, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
  • What roles the different participants (may) take in the assessment?
    • Helsinki city council (Decision makers and executors; sources of information)
    • Helsingin energia (executors; sources of information)
    • Helsinki Regional Transport (executors; sources of information)
    • Experts (Experts in human health effects; facilitators)
  • What kind of relevant knowledge they (may) have regarding the assessment?
    • Experts: knowledge on health effects, sources of renewable energy, effective land using
    • Helsinki Regional Transport: knowledge on the most run bus turns, how to run a bus company
    • Helsingin Energia: knowledge on how much Helsinki Metropolitan area needs energy, how to produce energy, emission calculations
    • Helsinki city council: knowledge on decision making
  • What needs and aims do they represent in the assessment?
    • Helsinki city council ( Aims: reduction of GHG emissions by different actions. Needs: scientific knowledge and assessments )
    • Helsingin energia (Aims: efficiency of energy production and increased use of renewable energy sources. Needs: assessments )
    • Helsinki Regional Transport ( Aims: increased use of public transport by development of public transport. Needs: assessments; plans )
    • Experts ( Aims: positive health effects /lack of negative health effects. Needs: Data; Financial support for studies )

←--#: . 5A: Clear and concise answers. Excellent. --Marjo 12:54, 5 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) part B:

  • How could the relevant participants be involved in the assessment in an effective way?
    • Certain area of responsibility should be given to a certain relevant participant (no overlap)
    • Regardless of different areas of responsibility there should be discussion where every participant takes part.
  • How can the quality of an assessment be assured if anyone can participate?
    • Everybody is heard but only reasonable comments will be taken into account.
  • How can you prevent malevolent contributions where the purpose is to vandalise the process?
    • to give every person participating the assessment an authorized access (username and password)
  • How can you make the outcome converge to a conclusion, because all issues are uncertain and controversial?
    • All point of views will be taken care of and realistic alternatives will be considered.
  • How can you ensure that the outcomes are useful for the users?
    • Before excecuting the decicions resulting certain outcome, citizens´ feedback about planned decisions will be evaluated.

←--#: . 5B: Good, useful ideas. --Marjo 12:54, 5 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) part C: Prepare following tables from the climate programme of your selection. Instructions for table structures can be found at Training assessment.

  • Decisions table
Decision maker Decision Option Variable
Helsinki city council Reduction of GHG emissions Climate strategy programm Exposure to PM 2.5
Helsingin energia Efficiency in energy production Reduction of GHG emissions Technical costs
Helsingin energia Increased use of renewable energy sources Reduction of GHG emissions Fuel
Helsinki Public Transport Enhanced frequency in turns Marketing of public transport Number of turns
Helsinki Public Transport Reduction of bus ticket prices Marketing of public transport Number of passengers
Experts Prevention of health impacts Increased health education Education costs
Experts Prevention of health impacts Increased health education Awareness
  • ⇤--#: . Exposure to what? If the explanation is too long, it can be given below table. However, e.g. "exposure to agent xx" fits well into table. --Marjo 14:27, 5 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
  • ⇤--#: . "More passangers in public transport" sounds more like an aim than a decision. What might be the respective decision? --Marjo 14:27, 5 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
⇤--#: . Comments have been considered in the table. --Juho Kutvonen 12:13, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . It seems that you have put together separate decisions as if they were one, e.g. Helsingin energia can decide about energy efficiency improvements separately from fuel sources, right? If this is the case, make two decisions on two rows. --Jouni 15:26, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . Also consider if there are several changes from one action, e.g. health education hopefully leads to changes in e.g. awareness, not only to costs. --Jouni 15:26, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . The Endpoints table describes the things (usually more than one per stakeholder) that are of primary interest to different stakeholders. Do experts only care about costs? --Jouni 14:39, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

←--#: . Comments have been considered. --Juho Kutvonen 10:03, 7 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

  • Endpoints table
Stakeholder Variable
Helsinki city council Exposure
Helsinki city council Amount of GHG emissions
Helsingin energia Technical costs
Helsingin energia Availability of fuel
Helsinki Public Transport Number of passangers
Helsinki Public Transport Environmental friendly fuel
Experts Education costs
Experts Decreased morbidity
Citizens Health impact
Citizens Supply of public transport

Homework 6

Fuels used by Haapaniemi energy plant [1] in collaboration with Salla

Climate change policies in Thessaloniki [2] in collaboration with Salla

Järvisedimenttien metallipitoisuudet [3] in collaboration with Salla

Homework 7

Contribution to the structured discussion on the Environmental impact assessment directive[4]

Homework 8

ERFs for IEQ factors[5]in collaboration with Salla

Homework 9

----#: . Please see User:Isabell Rumrich#DARM course 2013 – Homework 9 for an example how to present the characterizations and evaluations in three tables for easier reading and commenting. I recommend everyone to present their answers in this kind of format. You can do it e.g. by copying the tables as such and just replacing their contents. --Mikko Pohjola 09:53, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

----#: . Will get back to evaluating the contents later. --Mikko Pohjola 09:53, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)


Evaluated draft assessment of Jukka Hirvonen[6]

(Jukka Hirvonen and Sami Rissanen)

Characterization of knowledge-policy interaction
Attribute characterization
Impacts Primarily health impacts caused by mineral dust ( PM 2.5 and PM10 ) from rock crushing amongst mine workers and residents nearby the mine. In addition leakages to natural water.
Causes Rock crushing plant of Talvivaara mine produces mineral dust (PM2.5 and PM10 emissions).
Problem owner
  • TTL, Talvivaara mine and the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (FANC) have the interest to assess the issue. TTL and Talvivaara are interested in health of mine workers and FANC is interested in environmental problems caused by the mine.
  • Talvivaara mine has the main responsibility to assess the issue since their activity is the problem. In addition, I find ELY center responsible as well to assess the issue as a local authority. ←--#: . Good point. --Mikko Pohjola 23:00, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
  • TTL and ELY center have the proper means to assess the issue. ----#: . Perhaps THL and/or FMI could be asked to help as well. --Mikko Pohjola 23:00, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)←--#: . Yes, especially THL. --Juho Kutvonen 10:31, 11 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
Target
  • Intended users of assessment results are Talvivaara mine, ELY center and TTL.
  • Stakeholders who need the assessment results are mine workers, Talvivaara mine, residents nearby the mine and perhaps TTL as well.
  • Talvivaara mine and ELY center can make use of the assessment results. ----#: . In addition I believe AVI also engages in taking these actions, but following ELY center's advice. --Mikko Pohjola 23:00, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Interaction
  • Openness is a bit restricted since local residents aren´t mentioned as participants in the draft assessment.
  • I´d say that I would consider this as category "informing" in categories of interaction within the knowledge-policy interaction framework. This is because different stakeholders provide information but mainly receive the information. However, it is difficult to categorize the draft to the categories since the draft assessment lacks information.


Characterization of the dimensions of openness.
Dimension Characterization
Scope of participation A consultant to measure air quality, Company, ELY-keskus, DARM group, Regional TTL and FANC are allowed to participate in the assessment.
Access to information Not mentioned in the draft.
Timing of openness Not mentioned in the draft.
Scope of contribution Mine workers and residents nearby the mine are interviewed in order to investigate the mineral dust issue.
Impact of contribution Not possible to evaluate based on the draft assessment. ←--#: . It is often very difficult to evaluate, and also rarely properly addressed. --Mikko Pohjola 23:00, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)


Evaluation according to the properties of good assessment
Attribute Score Explanation
Quality of content 4 I find ideas represented in the assessment quite specific and useful. In my opinion, there isn´t anything unnecessary.
Applicability: Relevance 4 The assessment address the intended needs of the users well since the dust problem is a signicant problem induced by Talvivaara mine. The assessment question fits well to the purpose of the assessment
Applicability: Availability 0 Currently it is not mentioned in the draft assessment where and how information provided by the assessment is given. In my opinion, every stakeholder should have an access to the information. Especially local residents need this information. There assessment should be kept for example in town hall so that everybody has the access to it. ----#: . How about in the internet? --Mikko Pohjola 23:00, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)←--#: . Yes, you are right since most people have access to Internet and it would be even easier for citizens. --Juho Kutvonen 09:16, 11 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
Applicability: Usability 4 Intended users can benefit from the assessment since for instance, mine workers need to know whether working safety due to PM 2.5 emissions must be enhanced. Both residents and mine workers are able to understand what the assessment is all about since dust problem is well known issue area nearby the mine. ----#: . Do you also think that, based on the draft, the assessment would have the capacity to live up to this expectation? --Mikko Pohjola 23:00, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Applicability: Acceptability 3 I think it is difficult for Talvivaara to accept the expected results since they should invest probably big amounts of money to reduce their dust emissions. On the contrary, local residents would we satisfied if the dust problem could be solved. ----#: . It is easy to not accept something where one has not been involved in.←--#: . That is a good point which I didn´t come up with. --Juho Kutvonen 09:59, 11 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) Do you think the planned making of the assessment would be such that would make it hard for e.g. Talvivaara (or other participants) to not accept the results in the end? --Mikko Pohjola 23:00, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Efficiency 4 I think the assessment is worth making since the working conditions of the mine workers can be enhanced if the dust concentrations are proven to be too high and thus creating a health hazard. If Talvivaara won´t willingly reduce the dust emissions by tehcnical solutions, ELY center may force Talvivaara to take some actions. ----#: . Any other possible situations where these results could be made use of?←--#: . Perhaps the results could be used in a study where association between outdoor air PM2.5 concentration and adverse health effects in mineworkers would be examined. --Juho Kutvonen 09:59, 11 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) Would the information be available to those who could make use of it? --Mikko Pohjola 23:00, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

⇤--#: . Formulate some recommendations to improve the draft further and write them as arguments on the corresponding assessment draft page --Mikko Pohjola 23:00, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

Comments and ideas how to improve the draft

  • Local residents should have a chance to participate the assessment because they face the dust problem in their every day life.
  • Overall I find the draft assessment quite profound since a lot of effort has been put to the draft.

Evaluated draft assessment of Kasperi Juntunen [7]

Characterization of knowledge-policy interaction
Attribute characterization
Impacts The most significant impacts addressed in the assessment are health and environmental impacts. Waste waters can namely end up in groundwater which people may use.
Causes Talvivaara mine produces waste waters in their activity.
Problem owner
  • Talvivaara has the responsibility to assess to issue since their waste waters are due to metal mining.
  • Local residents living next to lake are perhaps most interested in assessing the issue since they are the ones whom the impacts affect.
  • Of course environmental organizations and Ministry of environment are as well interested in the assessment.
Target
  • Intended users of the assessment results are Ministry of environment, representers of Talvivaara company, citizens living nearby Talvivaara, environmental organizations.
  • All the users need the assessment results. First of all, citizens want to know if waste water causes any adverse health effects since they may use the water. Talvivaara need to know if waste water causes adverse health effects. If so, Talvivaara may need to do something concerning waste water problem if ELY center says so.
Interaction
  • I´d say that the assessment belongs to the category Informing in the interaction category. This is because not all important stakeholders are not allowed to take part in the assessment (at least they are not mentioned in the assessment as participants).
  • Degree of of openness is not the best possible since local residents are missing in participants which in my opinion is a remarkable weakness regarding openness.


Characterization of the dimensions of openness.
Dimension Characterization
Scope of participation Representers of Talvivaara, representers of environmental organizations, especially neutral researchers and specialists are allowed to participate in the assessment.
Access to information Not mentioned in the draft.
Timing of openness Not mentioned in the draft.
Scope of contribution Not mentioned in the draft.
Impact of contribution Not mentioned in the draft.


Evaluation according to the properties of good assessment
Attribute Score Explanation
Quality of content 3 Ideas presented in the assessment are rather good and explicit. However, not all important issues are addressed in the assessment, e.g. local residents are missing from participants. ----#: . Inclusion of local resident relates maybe more to the making of the assessment than the contents of assessment (of course the making then influences the contents). I think it remains quite unclear what kind of results the assessment aims to deliver. --Mikko Pohjola 23:00, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Applicability: Relevance 4 The assessment address the intended needs of the users well since residents living next to the lake are worried of the impacts Talvivaara mine has caused, especially those waste water emissions and their effect to water and even to human health.
Applicability: Availability 0 Not possible to evaluate based on the draft assessment.
Applicability: Usability 4 I think intended users would understand what the assessment is about since Talvivaara and problems caused by it are well recognized in the area. Since local residents are aware of the problem, the assessment thus can be considered useful for them.
Applicability: Acceptability 2 If local residents aren´t given a chance to participate to the assessment, I think assessment isn´t made acceptably since they after all face the waste water problem in their life. Talvivaara may not accept the results unless Talvivaara doesn´t need to take up some actions since these actions would require huge investments to waste water purification techniques. ----#: . See the comment on Acceptability in the above evaluation. --Mikko Pohjola 23:00, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Efficiency 3 The assessment is worth making since in the best scenario Talvivaara must reduce its waste water emissions if they are found too high. Most likey much work will be needed in the assessment since studying waste water may be laborous.

⇤--#: . Formulate some recommendations to improve the draft further and write them as arguments on the corresponding assessment draft page --Mikko Pohjola 23:00, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

Comments and ideas how to improve the draft

  • Local residents should be participants as well in the assessment since they live close to the lakes where the waste waters end up and local residents are after all intended users of the assessment. What is more, I would include local ELY center to the participants since ELY center is the authority in controlling the environmental permit.
  • Somehow I feel that the draft assessment could be more profound.
Retrieved from "https://en.opasnet.org/index.php?title=User:Juho_Kutvonen&oldid=28959"