User:Adedayo

⇤--#: . 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 18:07, 13 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

Homework 1

1. What is the main purpose of environmental health assessment?
   • The main aim of environmental health assessment is to provide science based information in the process of decision making.
2. What is impact assessment?
   • Impact assessment is the assessment of various public and private projects on the environment. It is a framework that serves for the consideration of environmental issues in decisions and activities of wide societal relevance. ----#: . This can be considered true. However, as the name implies, impact assessment considers and estimates all kinds of impacts (in comparison to e.g. risks). It then depends on the kind of problem that impact assessment is applied for, whether the impacts considered relate to e.g environment, health, economy or something else. --Mikko Pohjola 09:45, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
3. What is Pragmatic Knowledge Service?
   • Pragmatic knowledge service represents the practical and conceptual means of implementing the convergence of the three novel means of knowledge services (knowledge, innovation and practice). ----#: . Yes. In short, an information system (or perhaps could also be called a knowledge system) that aims to promote pragmatism, i.e. uniting knowledge and action. In practice it requires that the (human) users of the information system are considered as essential parts of the system itself. Such systems are sometimes referred to as socio-technical hybrids. --Mikko Pohjola 09:34, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

⇤--#: . Only two questions are answered. Pick one more question and find answer to it. I recommend one of the following yet unanswered questions: 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19. --Mikko Pohjola 09:45, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . Three answers now provided. --Mikko Pohjola 09:34, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

←--#: . Good answers! --Mikko Pohjola 09:34, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Homework 2

What is the role of the Nugget in Decision Analysis?

Homework 3: Draft of an assessment

Due date: 21 jan

• Task: With your pair, draft an assessment about the topic agreed on during the lecture. Write the draft assessment on either your or your partner's user page (and put a link to it on the other's user page). Copy the headings and explanations below to the page and use them as template. Choose your specific topic among these areas: a) Talvivaara mine or b) metal mining in general or c) climate change policies in cities.

Scope

Defines the purpose of the assessment: why is it done?

To evaluate the climate change impact of incineration as the main waste management plan within the Lagos metropolis.

Question

A research question that the assessment attempts to answer.

Is there a better waste management plan other than incineration in Lagos?

----#: . This is an open-ended question with infinite amount of alternatives. Try to limit your assessment to a manageable amount of plausible options, and work on those. --Jouni 08:58, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) ←--#: . Is landfill a better environmental friendly method compared to incineration in the Lagos metropolis? --Adedayo 10:01, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Intended use and users

List of users that are supposed to need the assessment. Also, how do we expect them to use the information?

The state government – the government will use the information in policy formulation. Waste management companies – incorporate results into structuring waste management options and methods. General public – get information on climate change and waste disposal effects on the phenomenon

Participants

Who is needed to participate to make the assessment a well-balanced and well-informed work? Also, if specific reasons exists: who is not allowed to participate and why?

Environmentalists State Government Engineers Community

----#: . I would explain better also which is the principal role of each participant in the assessment, how they can give their contributions. In some case, this is specified, in other case no (for example which is exactly the role of engineers?) --Stefania 22:41, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

----#: . Do you expect these people actually to participate? What are you planning to do to get them involved? --Jouni 08:58, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

←--#: . *Environmentalists - to give information comparison of the GHG emissions of both methods, also environmental health effects of these methods.

• Community - to get information on direct human effect of the method, this can include health and social effects --Adedayo 10:11, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

----#: . Might be good to think all possible participants that could have role in assessment and what kind of aspects they could bring in to help assessment process. --Jukka Hirvonen 21:56, 11 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Scenarios

Decisions and decision options considered. Also, if scenarios (defined here as delibarate deviations from the truth) are used, they are described here. For example this is a scenario: "Let's assume that the whole population is exposed as much as the maximally exposed individual, because we want to see if even the worst-case scenario causes concern."

- BAU- Continue to use incineration as the main waste main management plan - Other waste management methods that could be adopted – Landfills, Waste separation (Composting of bio-wastes) ----#: . Be more specific about other methods --Jouni 08:58, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) ←--#: . Landfill is the only other option employed --Adedayo 10:13, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ----#: . Maybe other options could be analyzed to have a better evaluation of what is the best one. --Stefania 22:42, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Analyses

What statistical or other analyses are needed to be able to produce results that are useful for making conclusions about the question?

Compare costs, environmental, social and health effects of the incineration and landfill plans.

Answer

Results

What are the results of the analysis?

Health Effects – Amount of Heavy metals, Respiratory tract infections, Pathogens, Socio-economic Effects – Cost Analysis, Job creation Environmental Effects – Amount and types of GHG emissions.

Conclusion

What is the conclusion about the question based on the results obtained?

Based on the GHG emissions and overall environmental health effects on the population, landfill is the more environmental friendly waste management method for Lagos state

Rationale

Endpoints

Community – The community will be interested in the health impacts and lowest possible costs for waste disposal, while their focus might not necessarily be on climate change, environmental aesthetics will be of concern to them. Waste Management Companies – Scenario that guarantees highest profit. State Government – Most environmentally viable management option.

Variables

• Health effects of the different methods – Respiratory tract infections, Heavy metals. • Emissions – Methane, CO2 • Economics – Costs.

Homework 4: Climate policy decisions and actions

⇤--#: . Add here which climate program/strategy you consider below. --Mikko Pohjola 00:24, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . Added. --Mikko Pohjola 13:11, 5 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

Rotterdam Climate Proof Adaptation Strategy

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

• Landmark projects, optimization of energy, Independent and decentralized energy supply, energy savings in transport, In general, the aim is to start today using the available capital and manpower to reduce the current energy demand and increase the range of renewable energy in the future. It is about investing in a climate compatible future.
• To make the city of Rotterdam climate change resilient by 2025. The big picture involves confronting climate change issues as an opportunity rather than a threat; hence the cities building and structure will be geared towards one that compliments the climate of the future.
• These goals also include 50% reduction of harmful CO2 emissions by the year 2025.

←--#: . Well described aims. --Mikko Pohjola 00:24, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

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

• The beneficiaries are the residence of the city who live and work, businesses and corporations established in the city.

----#: . You could also elaborate a bit on which aims relate to what kinds of benefits and to whom. --Mikko Pohjola 00:24, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

• The populace of the city of Rotterdam will benefit from a general well being from cleaner air as a result of reduction in the CO2 emissions and also lower heat stress, there are also economic benefits due to the amount of investment the strategy will enable the city attract.
• Businesses and Corporations will benefit by setting up shop in one of the most climate friendly states in the world.

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

• Sustainable protection against flooding in the city
• International collaborations which opens Rotterdam to 50% co-finance from other part of the world to meet the adaptation paradigm of the strategy
• Setting up of international knowledge development network called connecting delta cities
• Implementation of the adaptive strategies and a focus to meet changing circumstances ----#: . This is the main point where the actual difference is being made (other points mostly relate to creating a context for implementing the actions of the strategy), Could you open up this point a bit more? What are the action through which the "adaptive strategies" are implemented? --Mikko Pohjola 00:24, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) ----#: . copied the points from a comment below. --Mikko Pohjola 13:11, 5 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
  • Gaining knowledge and insight into the city's climate issues
  • Attracting experiments and expertise
  • Developing innovative solutions for the issues
  • Embedding the innovative solutions into work processes
  • Developing marketability of the climate solutions
• Improving knowledge on water and delta technologies through proactive research knowledge by collaborating with Rotterdam University (water management), Delft University for theoretical knowledge and Erasmus University Rotterdam
• Development of new educational programs incorporated into University curricula that are pro-climate resilience, which gives the younger generation especially the student a sense of belonging in participating in the project.
• Position the city as a world leader in the climate change innovation and marketing its expertise to the world especially to other coastal and delta cities. This involves expos, international conferences among others.

Who are those that actually realize these actions?

• The universities and research centers and climate change experts will implement the aspect of knowledge and insight into the city's climate issues, the corporations and companies will implement the innovation development part and also embedding the solutions into work processes. Developing marketability will be done both by the city and marketing experts.

←--#: . --Adedayo 16:26, 3 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

←--#: . OK. You could write it out in the actual answer above. --Mikko Pohjola 13:11, 5 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

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

• This involves implementation of climate change strategy and proactive marketing of the strategies to other cities and countries especially Delta and coastal cities, strategies made are directed towards:
  • Flood management
  • Accessibility
  • Adaptive building
  • Urban water system
  • The urban climate

----#: . Apparently it is mostly about developing city infrastructure. Anything related to e.g. developing new practices in public services, e.g. health care, rescue services etc.? --Mikko Pohjola 00:24, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

←--#: . Extra points below --Adedayo 09:23, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

• • Updating University Curriculum
  • Connecting with other delta cities for exchange of ideas
  • incorporating clear milestones and a route planner for the different themes of the strategy

Who are the decision makers?

• The city council and government of Rotterdam

----#: . Any role for the common citizen in this strategy? How about industries and other business? --Mikko Pohjola 00:24, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

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

• The health impact includes reduction in the outbreak of respiratory infections and diseases.
• A general improved general health condition as a result of a cleaner and more conducive environment
• Safe and attractive environment which will promote recreational activities and relaxation
• It reduces water related hazards and death
• Reduction in heat stress in the urban city

----#: . Well structured and identified. However, it would be nice to see (above), what are the actions within this strategy which bring about these impacts. --Mikko Pohjola 00:24, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

----#: . No chance of any negative impacts related to implementing the strategy? --Mikko Pohjola 00:24, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Where and how do these impacts take place, who are those that face these health impacts in practice?

Reduction in CO2 emissions will greatly reduce respiratory tract irritations among the population especially the aged and children who are quite susceptible. The reduction of this greenhouse gas will also result in lower heat stress across the whole population.

----#: . Are all health impacts distributed evenly to the whole population? Perhaps taking one or two specific actions as examples and looking into them in more detail would help to concretize this point. --Mikko Pohjola 00:24, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

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

• The health impacts are quite significant because it represents parts of the central objectives on the whole strategy; creating a healthy and conducive environment for the citizens of Rotterdam. Also CO2 reduction by 50% will definitely result in lower respiratory tract irritation especially among the aged and young who are most susceptible.

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

• With regard to health the policies are geared towards a win-win situation as the environment will become safer, the economy bigger and general well-being much better, however there maybe some concerns over hygiene and safety may arise particularly in light of houses intended to be built on water platforms.

⇤--#: . Maybe so, but provide some reasoning to support this statement. Is it surely always win-win? --Mikko Pohjola 00:24, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)----#: . noted and taken --Adedayo 09:22, 11 February 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

• Will the adaptive building have a viable economic advantage for the city of Rotterdam?

----#: . The first one is more like a climate research theme, but I will comment more on the second one. In principle, there is a simple answer to the question: yes. The problem just is, what kind of health impacts they would be, to whom, and caused by what? Therefore, the formulation is too vague to be a good assessment question. Perhaps you could try to focus your question by identifying some actions whose health impacts are to be addressed. Then the interesting thing would be too see if, from a health perspective, they are worth implementing. --Mikko Pohjola 00:24, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)←--#: . Comment noted and taken --Adedayo 09:22, 11 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Homework 5

part A:

• Who are the relevant participants of the assessment?
  • Rotterdam City Council
  • Climate change experts
  • Research Institutes and Universities in Rotterdam

• What roles the different participants (may) take in the assessment?
  • Rotterdam City Council
    • Implementing of different aspects of the policy
    • Getting the community involved in the process and progress of the strategy
  • Climate Change Experts
    • Draw out modalities for the reduction of CO2 emissions in the city.
    • Provide concrete projection of the city’s future climate trends.
  • Universities and Research Institutes in Rotterdam
    • Initiate and implement programmes related to the strategy into the school
    • Being research centres for innovations and technology for delta cities.

• What kind of relevant knowledge they (may) have regarding the assessment?
  • Rotterdam City Council – Knowledge of the city (both the geography and its people)
  • Climate Change Experts – Knowledge of GHG emissions within the city and other climate change triggers
  • Universities and Research Institutes – Knowledge on innovation and technologies in climate adaptation for cities.

• What needs and aims do they represent in the assessment?
  • Rotterdam City Council – Implementing different parts of the strategy
  • Climate Change Experts – Reduction of GHG Emissions, Climate change mitigation
  • University and Research Institutes – Providing the innovation and technology required for strategy.----#: . These seem to be mainly aims - can you define any specific needs of the participants? --Marjo 10:12, 5 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

part B:

• How could the relevant participants be involved in the assessment in an effective way?
  • The relevant participants should be given specific aims and goals within the assessment

• How can the quality of an assessment be assured if anyone can participate?
  • People’s contributions have to be measured against set goals of the strategy i.e. how does Mr A’s contribution enhance or detract the overall goals of the Rotterdam climate strategy.
• How can you prevent malevolent contributions where the purpose is to vandalise the process?
  • Incorporate a contribution-filtering process that will serve to exclude rash contributions that are not logical in the light of the strategy, this contributions can either be pro-strategy or against it. Logical reasoning should be the deciding factor in the filtering process not the contribution’s stand in light of the strategy.
• How can you make the outcome converge to a conclusion, because all issues are uncertain and controversial?
  • Acknowledging and respecting all logical conclusions and proposing conclusions that best resemble the desired goals of the strategy.
• How can you ensure that the outcomes are useful for the users?
  • Simplify outcomes and give an evaluation of decisions.

←--#: . General comments on 5A and B: Good, concise answers in both parts A and B and useful ideas in part B. --Marjo 10:12, 5 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

part C: Prepare following tables from the climate program of your selection. Instructions for table structures can be found at Training assessment.

• Decisions table'

Decision maker	Decision	Option	Variable
Rotterdam City Council	Making Rotterdam a leading city in climate change adaptation and mitigation.	Implementing the climate change strategy	Outlook of the city of Rotterdam
Climate change experts	Reduce CO2 emissions	Proposing clean and green energy methods	Emissions
Universities and Research Institutes in Rotterdam.	Being on the fore-front of climate technology and research.	Climate change programmes in the universities and novel climate innovations from institutes.	Programs and innovation

----#: . Looks quite good. Jouni might give further comments. --Marjo 17:29, 5 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

• Endpoints table

Stakeholder	Variable
Rotterdam city council	Financial costs
Universities and Research Institutes in Rotterdam	Climate change research and innovation
Climate Change Experts	Health and Environmental effects of CO2

⇤--#: . The Decisions table describes what actions can be taken and by whom. The column Variable describes the primary targets of these actions, i.e. things that are changed by actions. In contrast, the Endpoints table describes the things that are of primary interest to different stakeholders. It is unlikely that the Variable columns would contain same things in both tables. --Jouni 14:39, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ----#: . Comment noted and taken --Adedayo 09:24, 11 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Homework 9

Assessment - Homework 3 of Adnank [[1]]

Knowledge-policy interaction

Characterization of knowledge-policy interaction

Attribute	characterization
Impacts	Health and Environmental Impacts from emissions from power generation
Causes	Use of fossil fuels
Problem owner	The city council-ensuring more environmental friendly energy options The energy companies, proposing wind energy as a potential alternative to fossil fuel. Engineers to evaluate, design and propose locations for the wind mills in Kuopio.
Target	The energy companies in Kuopio using assessment for energy options. The city council of Kuopio for making recommendations for emissions of GHG from fossil fuels.
Interaction	The assessment interacts with intended users of the assessment as it will drive action.The assessment interacts with other actors (the citizens of Kuopio) as it will give information on other(probably safer) energy options available to them - resembles shared knowledge interaction framework.

Characterization of the dimensions of openness.

Dimension	Characterization
Scope of participation	The people who live in Kuopio are allowed to participate, also energy companies, the city council and the University of Eastern Finland participate too.
Access to information	The assessment stated that there will be public awareness on energy use efficiency and also public opinion.
Timing of openness	Timing of participation by different stakeholders is not clearly defined, their participation and roles are however defined.
Scope of contribution	The public, the energy company, and the university are the participants, the scope of participation is however not stated ----#: . But which parts of the assessment can they (try to) influence? --Mikko Pohjola 16:36, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Impact of contribution	The public's contribution will be taken into account also contribution from the energy companies ----#: . Hopefully will at least. Does the draft assessment state this explicitly? --Mikko Pohjola 16:36, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

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 clear and concise. Important parts of the assessment question are addressed
Applicability: Relevance	4	The needs of intended users are met in the assessment, since another energy option is proposed. The purpose of the assessment is quite duly met. ----#: . Assuming that the City of Kuopio is interested in replacing other energy production with wind power. Not sure whether this is the case in reality. --Mikko Pohjola 16:36, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Applicability: Availability	3	The availability of the assessment is not mentioned within it, In my opinion however, the assessment should be available to every inhabitant of Kuopio who is interested in it. ←--#: . Good point. --Mikko Pohjola 16:36, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
Applicability: Usability	4	The intended users will benefit from the assessment as it provides information especially the city council and energy company.
Applicability: Acceptability	4	The assessment should be accepted by most parties especially the city of Kuopio and the people who live there. The energy companies might have some concerns in accepting as it will require developing new infrastructure which will have financial consequences. ----#: . Wind power often creates very strong debates e.g. as some people strongly dislike the windmills due to their noise and because they think they ruin the scenery. Broad and explicit collaboration is probably the right way to go if one wants acceptance to the assessment results and related decisions. --Mikko Pohjola 16:36, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Efficiency	4	Though a lot of effort will be required in doing this assessment, it will be worth the effort, the city of Kuopio will particularly find it helpful for their environmental emission policy decisions. However adopting the assessment elsewhere might be difficult as wind energy is dependent on city geography, power generation is however a common theme and this makes the assessment usable in other situations ----#: . If just focusing on the assessment, not expected decisions and outcomes, what would you think of the efficiency? Would the results be usable elsewhere, e.g. in other cities? Why or why not? --Mikko Pohjola 16:36, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Comments and ideas how to improve the draft

• Specify the role of the University of Eastern Finland in the assessment.
• When will the public opinion be taken during the assessment? How do you measure? For/Against?
• Does the city council really contribute to the process or represent a neutral body that just want GHG emissions reduced?

----#: . I think some more comments could be found in the good characterizations above. See if you come up with some more and add your comments as arguments to the draft assessment text. --Mikko Pohjola 16:36, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Assessment - Homework 3 of EmmaA [[2]]

Knowledge-policy interaction

Characterization of knowledge-policy interaction

Attribute	characterization
Impacts	Greenhouse gas emissions from traffic
Causes	The emissions considered are mainly from public transportation within the city.
Problem owner	The city council-ensuring more environmental friendly traffic options. The bus company on improving services to attract more customers.
Target	The bus company in Kuopio in making some business decisions such as pricing and number of buses. The city council of Kuopio for making recommendations for emissions of GHG from traffic. The inhabitants of Kuopio for knowledge on their contribution to GHG emission from their cars
Interaction	The assessment resembles the informing interaction framework ----#: . To me it seems that the information about interaction is quite limited. Could be informing, but I can imagine it becoming more collaborative as well. --Mikko Pohjola 16:45, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)←--#: . I agree that interaction will be collaborative --Adedayo 21:06, 11 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

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. ----#: . And only the intended users are mentioned, but no one else. Experts, citizens, ...? --Mikko Pohjola 16:45, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Access to information	The assessment does not address how its information will be shared and who will have access to it
Timing of openness	Timing of participation by different participants is not clearly defined, their participation are just mentioned.
Scope of contribution	The public - financial, the bus company - financial and organisational aspects, the city council-GHG emissions and employees within the city of Kuopio are the contributors ----#: . Again, which parts of the assessment could they contribute to? --Mikko Pohjola 16:45, 10 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

Evaluation according to the properties of good assessment

Attribute	Score	Explanation
Quality of content	3	The content of the assessment is clear and concise. Important parts of the assessment question are addressed. However the option of cars using cleaner (renewable fuel) was not mentioned within.
Applicability: Relevance	4	The needs of intended users are met in the assessment, since different transport scenarios are espoused. The purpose of the assessment is quite duly met.
Applicability: Availability	3	The availability of the assessment is not mentioned within it, In my opinion however, the assessment should be available to every inhabitant of Kuopio who is interested in it.
Applicability: Usability	4	The assessment can be used by the bus company and city of Kuopio, its use among the people who live and work too will be easy since they have some idea of the contents
Applicability: Acceptability	4	Since all intended users participate in the assessment process and their contributions are integrated, the assessment should be accepted. ←--#: . Good point. --Mikko Pohjola 16:45, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
Efficiency	3	Participation in 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. The assessment is quite efficient in its makeup and can be adopted by other cities ----#: . Yes, a lot of work may be required to implement the decisions, but how about the making of the assessment and making use of the assessment results? Efficient or not? --Mikko Pohjola 16:45, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Comments and ideas how to improve the draft

• Renewable fuels should be included as part of the scenarios - I fancy car owners will propose that option as it keeps their cars on the road and the environment doesn't suffer.
• In renewable fuels are considered, fuel companies will have to be considered in the assessment too

----#: . OK. Add your comments to the draft assessment text. --Mikko Pohjola 16:45, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)