User:Soroushm: Difference between revisions

From Opasnet
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(16 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''{{attack|# |You still have some unfinished homework(s). For most people it is just some small thing (or maybe a broken link to an existing work?). But please check it quickly, as the deadline is on Friday. Check the [[Decision_analysis_and_risk_management_2013/Homework#Follow-up_table|follow-up table]]!|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 18:11, 13 February 2013 (EET)}}'''
== Homework 1 ==
== Homework 1 ==


Line 66: Line 68:


* Can be install on the hill side
* Can be install on the hill side
{{comment|# |There have been some investigations about were are the most windy places in Northern Savo area. There are quite alot of information about wind speeds and weather. You could take Finnish Meteorogical Institute as a participant.|--[[User:Sami Rissanen|Sami Rissanen]] 22:56, 15 February 2013 (EET)}}


'''Analyses'''
'''Analyses'''
Line 141: Line 145:


Soroush Majlesi- Adnan Khan Ahmad
Soroush Majlesi- Adnan Khan Ahmad
{{comment|# |*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?|--[[User:Adedayo|Adedayo]] 21:09, 11 February 2013 (EET)}}


===homework4===
===homework4===


Groupwork with Adnan Ahmad [[http://en.opasnet.org/w/User:Adnank
Groupwork with Adnan Ahmad [[http://en.opasnet.org/w/User:Adnank]]
 
===homework5===
 
Groupwork with Adnan Ahmad [[http://en.opasnet.org/w/User:Adnank]]
 
===homework9===
===''Assessment of Homework 3 of Stefania [[http://en.opasnet.org/w/User:Stefania#Homework_3]]===
(Groupwork of Stefania and Isabell Rumrich)
 
 
'''Knowledge-policy interaction'''
 
{|{{prettytable}}
|+ '''Characterization of knowledge-policy interaction
! Attribute
! characterization
|-----
| Impacts
| climate change due to the GHG emission from public transport and traffic.
|-----
| Causes
| using current fuels in vehicles will help the climate change and large amount of GHG.
|-----
| Problem owner
| city council and environmental companies are responsible for assessment and also public transport companies can help this process by giving them some ideas to reduce the emissions and make some decisions to change the fuel.
 
|-----
| Target
| city council or local government can use the result but also industries and energy companies can use them to produce a cleaner energy.
|-----
| Interaction
| the assessment interact with other participant because it's an open assessment and they can share their ideas and understandings and put them in action.
|}
 
 
{|{{prettytable}}
|+ '''Characterization of the dimensions of openness.
! Dimension
! Characterization
|-----
| Scope of participation
| All people and stakeholders can take part because it's an open assessment
 
|-----
| Access to information
| actions and decisions can be given to people to be aware of the outcomes.
|-----
| Timing of openness
| All the participants can take part in this process but it isn't mentioned when they are allowed to do so. {{comment|# |The default, unless otherwise mentioned and reasoned, in open assessment is continuous openness.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 16:11, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
| Scope of contribution
| it is an open assessment and all the stakeholders and people are allowed to participate. 
 
|-----
| Impact of contribution
| the participants have considerable impact on this assessment but it has not been specified exactly but because of the openness of this assessment their roles are important.
|}
 
 
Explanations of categories of interaction within the knowledge-policy interaction framework.
 
:It can be concluded this assessment is shared because as it's been mentioned earlier everyone could take part and share their ideas.
 
 
 
'''Evaluation of the assessment draft'''
 
{|{{prettytable}}
|+ '''Evaluation according to the properties of good assessment
! Attribute
! Score
! Explanation
|-----
| Quality of content
| 4
| generally questions and answers are relevant and it's been tried to give the clear answers but because it is an open assessment it is some how difficult to specify all the details. other than that endpoints and variables explained clearly. {{comment|# |Open assessment considers how an assessment is made, openly. However, the contents of an open assessment can and should be exactly defined and described.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 16:11, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
 
{{comment|# |In the assessment the emission of different fuels and their costs have been measured. also different options for using fuels presented in order to choose the best option to reduce the GHG emissions. In the assessment the role of participants are considered carefully and it's a collaborative work to make the assessment well-organized.|--[[User:Soroushm|Soroushm]] 20:54, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
| Applicability: Relevance
| 4
| outputs and results are helpful to make a good conclusion and make this process closer to its goals.
|-----
| Applicability: Availability
| 3
| all the information is not available and it wasn't mentioned which kind of energy can be used and it needs further development. {{comment|# |Think here "what would available for different participants if the drafted assessment were made?". Your point seems to relate perhaps more to the quality of content or usability.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 16:11, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
 
{{comment|# |It is an open assessment and as a result it is feasible that information and outcomes are given to participants to decide which kind of fuel must be used to reduce the GHG emission because here all the participants can share their ideas so that the result is published |--[[User:Soroushm|Soroushm]] 20:54, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
| Applicability: Usability
| 4
| overall the information which given is clear and the objectives have been set in details so this is easy for everyone to follow.
|-----
| Applicability: Acceptability
| 4
| This is very feasible that the information and assessment accepted by the users because it's an open assessment and all participants are allowed to involve and share their ideas. {{defend|# |At least a potential for good acceptability exists. In reality, of course much would depend also on the success of executing the planned assessment.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 16:11, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
| Efficiency
| 4
| perhaps the area of assessment is very broad and time-taking but it considers all aspects of climate change as a result in long term the emissions would be reduced and the investment in the assessment will pay off in the future by saving money on health impacts and reducing the emissions.
|}
 
 
'''Comments and ideas how to improve the draft'''
 
The strategy and analyses of assessment could be explained in details and in some cases the scope of assessment is wide which makes the process more complicated and confusing. Also it would be better to specify which fuels can or cannot be used and how participants can have a direct effect on the assessment.
 
{{defend|# |Good. Please add these recommendations as arguments in the draft assessment text.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 16:11, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
 
{{comment|# |I added them|--[[User:Soroushm|Soroushm]] 20:18, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
 
===''Assessment of Homework 3 of Thomasa [[http://en.opasnet.org/w/User:Thomasa#Homework_3]]===
 
 
'''Knowledge-policy interaction'''


Q1. What are the aims/goals of the strategy/program, i.e. what are the desired impacts and outcomes striven for?
{|{{prettytable}}
The main goal was to assess the impacts of climate change in the area and to prepare for the impacts of climate change and extreme weather events. This can be done by reducing the vulnerabilities of the area to climate change. The aim of the strategy was well-being of citizens and functioning of cities in changing climate.
|+ '''Characterization of knowledge-policy interaction
! Attribute
! characterization
|-----
| Impacts
| reduction of GHG emissions in Ghana due to the climate change
|-----
| Causes
| the information is not enough but it seems that GHG emissions are the most concerned issue especially from vehicles.
|-----
| Problem owner
| schools and NGOs as well as the government in Ghana are responsible to carry out the assessment.


Q2. Who are those that benefit if the aims/goals of the strategy/program are reached? How?
|-----
Society and following organizations and government ministries will be most benefited if the strategy is achieved because the impacts of climate change will cause a lot of damage. Cities of Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa and Kauniainen, HSY, HSL, Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of the Interior, Rescue services, Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities- Other interest groups: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Ministry of Transport and Communications, Uusimaa ELY Centre- Research institutes.
| Target
| the government of Ghana and NGOs are the main policy and decision makers and transportation companies collaborate to use the better the fuel and reduce the emission.
|-----
| Interaction
| It is not clear how the assessment interact with users. it is difficult to understand the exact role of the intended users.
|}


Q3. What are the actions that are needed/intended to take in order to progress towards the aims/goals? Background studies were done in order to collect data about the regional climate and sea level scenarios, modeling of river floods in climate change conditions and a survey of climate change impacts in the region. Existing programmes, legislation, research and studies concerning adaptation were collected.
Interaction: dimension of openness:
All the people could take part in the assessment as well as NGOs, transportation companies, Ghana government but it's not clear how and when the information given to participant. but there are just some education for better understanding of people to reduce the emissions because the roles of all participants are not clear however the tasks and duties of organizations and NGOs defined.


Q4. Who are those that actually realize these actions?
Explanations of categories of interaction within the knowledge-policy interaction framework
the assessment could be shared activity because everyone has right to take part and give their ideas so that all the participant have responsibilities.


The work was carried out with close cooperation with the experts of themetropolitan area cities, regional emergency services, Ministry of the Environment, Helsinki Region TransportAuthority and other regional organizations.
{{comment|# |Seems like it could be. On the other hand the draft assessment does not contain much information that it also would be. Hard to say with limited information.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 16:19, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}


Q5. What are the decisions that are needed to make in order to enable/promote the actions?
Some of the decisions that might improve the actions would be assessment of air quality, health impacts, biodiversity, economic impacts and greenhouse emissions.


Q6. Who are the decision makers? Organizations like the environment ministry, board of HSY, Government or other local organizations.
'''Evaluation of the assessment draft'''


Q7. What direct or indirect health impacts, positive or negative, these decisions and actions (may) have?
{|{{prettytable}}
Climate change causes adverse effects mostly such as effects in drinking water, air quality, food chain which most of them are negative. Also flood risk and thunderstorms could be the other indirect problems in other words natural disasters could be another indirect factor.
|+ '''Evaluation according to the properties of good assessment
! Attribute
! Score
! Explanation
|-----
| Quality of content
| 3
| the assessment does not give the clear idea on how the the GHG emissions can be reduced and the roles of all participants are not defined.
|-----
| Applicability: Relevance
| 4
| the activites are in the line with the purposes and goals but some of them may not be used when they go into action.
|-----
| Applicability: Availability
| 2
| it hasn't been mentioned how the information is going to be used by participants because they don't have all the data required for the assessment.
|-----
| Applicability: Usability
| 3
| the information is very wide and not specified how they going to be used but the idea is understandable.
|-----
| Applicability: Acceptability
| 3
| the application can be planned in some aspects to reduce the emission but the scope of activity is too wide and some of them need a lot of time and investment and cannot be done in real life.
|-----
| Efficiency
| 3
| the assessment requires a great efforts and it is time taking. also there are alot of participants but the outcome is well-organized and can be used in all aspects of assessment.
|}


Q8. Where and how do these impacts take place, who are those that face these health impacts in practice?
The community,the citizens, both of them can be affected by negative results of climate change but the level of exposure for people can be higher because due to the disaster and natural hazards, the injuries and disease will affect the people and also communications, heating, water supply and traffic and food system will be disturbed.


Q9. Are the health impacts big or small in relation to other impacts (e.g. economic, social, climate, other environmental ...)?
'''Comments and ideas how to improve the draft'''
Economic, social and environmental impacts are much bigger than health impacts because they will be long lasting.


Q10. Do the intended policies result in win-win, win-lose, lose-win, or lose-lose situations with regard to health and other impacts?
The general idea for assessment is logical and can be done in other areas but it is very wide and therefore it's not possible to use all the information in one process so it would be better to specifies the actions and role of participants in details and make the policy clear for participants. in addition some of the activities requires measurements to be understood but the whole idea is practical.
The storms of recent years have demonstrated the vulnerability of the Finnish society to natural hazards and the importance of preparing for them. Our society is very dependent on electricity, and long-lasting power cuts can have a significant impact on such things as communications, heating, water supply and traffic. The significance of co-operation between authorities and other actors in the prevention of natural disasters and in the recovery of them is now being highlighted. Preparing in advance for disasters and their consequences is worth doing, as it reduces the damages and costs that arise from them. And in my opinion this is a lose-win situation as the Finnish authorities have learnt from the previous disasters and have planned the strategies for any upcoming natural disaster.


Q11. Formulate a plausible and meaningful specific assessment question that takes account of (some of) the aspects considered in above questions?
{{defend|# |Good recommendations. Add them as arguments to the corresponding draft assessment text.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 16:19, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
What other alternatives are available to cope up with the disasters resulting from climate change?


Q12. 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).
{{comment|# |I added them|--[[User:Soroushm|Soroushm]] 20:17, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
Shared understanding probably points out in here because the ideas and thoughts of City of Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa and Kauniainen, HSY, HSL, Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of the Interior, Rescue services, Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities- Other interest groups: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Ministry of Transport and Communications, Uusimaa ELY Centre- Research institutes and experts are gathered together in order to make the best decisions however some changes might be required to modify and update the information but all the comments from the interviews are collected so that a better source of data will be available.

Latest revision as of 20:56, 15 February 2013

⇤--#: . You still have some unfinished homework(s). For most people it is just some small thing (or maybe a broken link to an existing work?). But please check it quickly, as the deadline is on Friday. Check the follow-up table! --Jouni 18:11, 13 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

Homework 1

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

environmental health assessment is a tool which is used for decision making in order to analyse environmental issues and model those factors which affect the human health. in other words environmental assessment talks about actions and decisions that required to be done by decision makers to carry out the appropriate scientific knowledge and has got the a big impact on the environment health.

2. What is pragmatism?

is an idea which is used in environmental health risk assessment to merge the knowledge, innovation and practice according to people' thoughts and ideas in order to decide what actions have to be taken. in fact it is one part of the social process to use the knowledge in our everyday life. ----#: . Good interpretation of the concept in the context of environmental health assessment/policy. More generally pragmatism, means that knowledge and action can not be separated from each other. --Mikko Pohjola 11:15, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

7. What is impact assessment?

evaluation of all environmental factors that can have a big impact on the environment as well as living creatures and vegetation called impact assessment. in this topic social as well as economic factors must be taken into account. when some projects are about to be implemented decision makers and environmentalist must consider these factors to make sure that there is no threat for human and environment health and for society. ----#: . In principle, impact assessments can look at any kinds of impacts. It is the problem at hand that determines, which impacts, e.g. health, environment, economic, are of interest. There are specific approaches developed to health, environmental and other impact assessment, but in principle the basic idea is usually the same. --Mikko Pohjola 11:15, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

←--#: . Good answers. --Mikko Pohjola 11:15, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)


Homework 2

Are the methods and solutions which are used for Kuopio climate change by 2020 sufficient to challenge against possible climate change and reduce them to the safe level and if not what other methods required to be taken into account because at the moment 13 coal sites still active in Finland?

Homework 3

... User:Adnank

Scope:

To reduce the emissions by minimizing the use of fossil fuels by adopting to Wind energy.


Question

How can we obtain the efficient amount of energy for kuopio from wind power ?

----#: . You can leave the alternatives open and go for any emission reduction techniques. But then the scope of your assessment is very large and it will be difficult to leave anything out, causing a lot of work. --Jouni 06:55, 21 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)----#: . We have improved our scope and question --Soroushm 11:06, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Intended use and users

1. City of kuopio

2. Stakeholders

3. Citizens of kuopio

4. Energy companies

It is important for people of kuopio to know about ongoing project in their city for public. also city of kuopio requires to know the information regarding the use of the energy sources because they need to invest money and satisfy the public. participation

←--#: . Awareness of people about the assessment is an important point. --Jouni 06:55, 21 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Participants

1. University of Eastern Finland

2. Citizens

3. Energies companies

4. Adnan and Soroush


Scenarios

  • Public opinion
  • Public awareness regarding efficient use of energy
  • Wind mills can be installed in the open fields
  • Can be install on the hill side

----#: . There have been some investigations about were are the most windy places in Northern Savo area. There are quite alot of information about wind speeds and weather. You could take Finnish Meteorogical Institute as a participant. --Sami Rissanen 22:56, 15 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Analyses

There are some statistical programs like R-tool and SPSS are used to get good information.

----#: . The question here is, what statistical analyses you will do with your data, not what software you will use. --Jouni 06:55, 21 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Answer

Results

By adopting to wind energy, we can minimize the use of fossil fuels and reduce emissions up to ........

⇤--#: . The results are not known before the assessment is done. You can describe here, what kind of results you expect. --Jouni 06:55, 21 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)----#: . We have changed our results --Soroushm 11:06, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Conclusion

By using renewable energy sources like wind energy, the amount of emissions and use of fossil fuels can be reduced.

Rationale


Endpoints

1. Health impacts

2. Environmental impacts

3. Cost


⇤--#: . These are not endpoints. Endpoints are things that the decision maker is interested in, such as health impacts, costs, and GHG emissions. Also, "Endpoints" is about how to compare these things. --Jouni 06:55, 21 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)----#: . End points corrected --Soroushm 11:06, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

What are the endpoints that a stakeholder is interested in? How would the stakeholder summarise the endpoints to derive an overall preference ranking for outcomes of decision options? Think about this separately for each stakeholder. stakeholders interested in reduction of the emissions because the physical and mental well being of the city will be increased.

Variables

  • Cost
  • Emissions
  • Health impacts
  • Environmental impacts


----#: . It's a good start, but try to be more specific and comprehensive. --Jouni 06:55, 21 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

What emissions and exposures should be considered?

  • Traffic emissions
  • Emissions from industries
  • Emissions from construction sites and burning activities

What health endpoints should be considered?

  • lung cancer
  • Terminal disease
  • Asthma
  • Eye irritation

What exposure-response functions should be considered?

Noise from wind turbine should be taken into account.

----#: . How would you use the safe level in an assessment? --Jouni 06:55, 21 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

What population subgroups should be considered?

Public opinion should be taken before installing a wind milll in some area

----#: . What about other groups, such as the whole population? --Jouni 06:55, 21 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Soroush Majlesi- Adnan Khan Ahmad ----#: . *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? --Adedayo 21:09, 11 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

homework4

Groupwork with Adnan Ahmad [[1]]

homework5

Groupwork with Adnan Ahmad [[2]]

homework9

Assessment of Homework 3 of Stefania [[3]]

(Groupwork of Stefania and Isabell Rumrich)


Knowledge-policy interaction

Characterization of knowledge-policy interaction
Attribute characterization
Impacts climate change due to the GHG emission from public transport and traffic.
Causes using current fuels in vehicles will help the climate change and large amount of GHG.
Problem owner city council and environmental companies are responsible for assessment and also public transport companies can help this process by giving them some ideas to reduce the emissions and make some decisions to change the fuel.
Target city council or local government can use the result but also industries and energy companies can use them to produce a cleaner energy.
Interaction the assessment interact with other participant because it's an open assessment and they can share their ideas and understandings and put them in action.


Characterization of the dimensions of openness.
Dimension Characterization
Scope of participation All people and stakeholders can take part because it's an open assessment
Access to information actions and decisions can be given to people to be aware of the outcomes.
Timing of openness All the participants can take part in this process but it isn't mentioned when they are allowed to do so. ----#: . The default, unless otherwise mentioned and reasoned, in open assessment is continuous openness. --Mikko Pohjola 16:11, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Scope of contribution it is an open assessment and all the stakeholders and people are allowed to participate.
Impact of contribution the participants have considerable impact on this assessment but it has not been specified exactly but because of the openness of this assessment their roles are important.


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

It can be concluded this assessment is shared because as it's been mentioned earlier everyone could take part and share their ideas.


Evaluation of the assessment draft

Evaluation according to the properties of good assessment
Attribute Score Explanation
Quality of content 4 generally questions and answers are relevant and it's been tried to give the clear answers but because it is an open assessment it is some how difficult to specify all the details. other than that endpoints and variables explained clearly. ----#: . Open assessment considers how an assessment is made, openly. However, the contents of an open assessment can and should be exactly defined and described. --Mikko Pohjola 16:11, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

----#: . In the assessment the emission of different fuels and their costs have been measured. also different options for using fuels presented in order to choose the best option to reduce the GHG emissions. In the assessment the role of participants are considered carefully and it's a collaborative work to make the assessment well-organized. --Soroushm 20:54, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Applicability: Relevance 4 outputs and results are helpful to make a good conclusion and make this process closer to its goals.
Applicability: Availability 3 all the information is not available and it wasn't mentioned which kind of energy can be used and it needs further development. ----#: . Think here "what would available for different participants if the drafted assessment were made?". Your point seems to relate perhaps more to the quality of content or usability. --Mikko Pohjola 16:11, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

----#: . It is an open assessment and as a result it is feasible that information and outcomes are given to participants to decide which kind of fuel must be used to reduce the GHG emission because here all the participants can share their ideas so that the result is published --Soroushm 20:54, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Applicability: Usability 4 overall the information which given is clear and the objectives have been set in details so this is easy for everyone to follow.
Applicability: Acceptability 4 This is very feasible that the information and assessment accepted by the users because it's an open assessment and all participants are allowed to involve and share their ideas. ←--#: . At least a potential for good acceptability exists. In reality, of course much would depend also on the success of executing the planned assessment. --Mikko Pohjola 16:11, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
Efficiency 4 perhaps the area of assessment is very broad and time-taking but it considers all aspects of climate change as a result in long term the emissions would be reduced and the investment in the assessment will pay off in the future by saving money on health impacts and reducing the emissions.


Comments and ideas how to improve the draft

The strategy and analyses of assessment could be explained in details and in some cases the scope of assessment is wide which makes the process more complicated and confusing. Also it would be better to specify which fuels can or cannot be used and how participants can have a direct effect on the assessment.

←--#: . Good. Please add these recommendations as arguments in the draft assessment text. --Mikko Pohjola 16:11, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

----#: . I added them --Soroushm 20:18, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Assessment of Homework 3 of Thomasa [[4]]

Knowledge-policy interaction

Characterization of knowledge-policy interaction
Attribute characterization
Impacts reduction of GHG emissions in Ghana due to the climate change
Causes the information is not enough but it seems that GHG emissions are the most concerned issue especially from vehicles.
Problem owner schools and NGOs as well as the government in Ghana are responsible to carry out the assessment.
Target the government of Ghana and NGOs are the main policy and decision makers and transportation companies collaborate to use the better the fuel and reduce the emission.
Interaction It is not clear how the assessment interact with users. it is difficult to understand the exact role of the intended users.

Interaction: dimension of openness: All the people could take part in the assessment as well as NGOs, transportation companies, Ghana government but it's not clear how and when the information given to participant. but there are just some education for better understanding of people to reduce the emissions because the roles of all participants are not clear however the tasks and duties of organizations and NGOs defined.

Explanations of categories of interaction within the knowledge-policy interaction framework the assessment could be shared activity because everyone has right to take part and give their ideas so that all the participant have responsibilities.

----#: . Seems like it could be. On the other hand the draft assessment does not contain much information that it also would be. Hard to say with limited information. --Mikko Pohjola 16:19, 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 3 the assessment does not give the clear idea on how the the GHG emissions can be reduced and the roles of all participants are not defined.
Applicability: Relevance 4 the activites are in the line with the purposes and goals but some of them may not be used when they go into action.
Applicability: Availability 2 it hasn't been mentioned how the information is going to be used by participants because they don't have all the data required for the assessment.
Applicability: Usability 3 the information is very wide and not specified how they going to be used but the idea is understandable.
Applicability: Acceptability 3 the application can be planned in some aspects to reduce the emission but the scope of activity is too wide and some of them need a lot of time and investment and cannot be done in real life.
Efficiency 3 the assessment requires a great efforts and it is time taking. also there are alot of participants but the outcome is well-organized and can be used in all aspects of assessment.


Comments and ideas how to improve the draft

The general idea for assessment is logical and can be done in other areas but it is very wide and therefore it's not possible to use all the information in one process so it would be better to specifies the actions and role of participants in details and make the policy clear for participants. in addition some of the activities requires measurements to be understood but the whole idea is practical.

←--#: . Good recommendations. Add them as arguments to the corresponding draft assessment text. --Mikko Pohjola 16:19, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

----#: . I added them --Soroushm 20:17, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Retrieved from "https://en.opasnet.org/index.php?title=User:Soroushm&oldid=29273"