User:Kasperi Juntunen: Difference between revisions
(reminder of missing tasks) |
|||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''{{attack|# |You still have some unfinished homework(s). For most people it is just some small thing (or maybe a broken link to an existing work?). But please check it quickly, as the deadline is on Friday. Check the [[Decision_analysis_and_risk_management_2013/Homework#Follow-up_table|follow-up table]]!|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 18:09, 13 February 2013 (EET)}}''' | |||
== Homework 1 == | == Homework 1 == | ||
| Line 31: | Line 33: | ||
{{comment|# |Yes/no questions are possible as well, but might want to come up with a question that looks at actions: what to do if there is a hazard?|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 10:37, 31 January 2013 (EET)}} | {{comment|# |Yes/no questions are possible as well, but might want to come up with a question that looks at actions: what to do if there is a hazard?|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 10:37, 31 January 2013 (EET)}} | ||
:{{comment|# |If Talvivaara mine's waste waters are an environmental hazard, how to prevent it?|--[[User:Niklas|Niklas]] 11:12, 11 February 2013 (EET)}} | |||
====Intended use and users==== | ====Intended use and users==== | ||
| Line 44: | Line 49: | ||
{{comment|# |Why local residents aren´t participants in the assessmnent 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.|--[[User:Juho Kutvonen|Juho Kutvonen]] 12:53, 7 February 2013 (EET)}} | {{comment|# |Why local residents aren´t participants in the assessmnent 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.|--[[User:Juho Kutvonen|Juho Kutvonen]] 12:53, 7 February 2013 (EET)}} | ||
{{comment|# |In the assessment representers of Talvivaara and environmental organizations would give their opinion about waste waters as a hazard. Specialists and neutral researchers would do measurements from water and soil near Talvivaara. Because representers of Talvivaara and environmental organizations have their own intresses so it would be useful to have neutral side so results would be neutral. Neutral researchers could be for example from ELY. Local citizens could participate also but their opinion have also own intress so it should be considered that how much weight it gives to result.|--[[User:Niklas|Niklas]] 11:25, 31 February 2013 (EET)}} | |||
====Scenarios==== | ====Scenarios==== | ||
| Line 63: | Line 70: | ||
{{attack|# |Don't try to jump to results before any work. Instead, try to describe what does the result look like when you're done, e.g. what is the structure of your result table.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 10:37, 31 January 2013 (EET)}} | {{attack|# |Don't try to jump to results before any work. Instead, try to describe what does the result look like when you're done, e.g. what is the structure of your result table.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 10:37, 31 January 2013 (EET)}} | ||
{{comment|# |What kind of results the could be possible to achieve by doing assessment, what use the results have?|--[[User:Jukka Hirvonen|Jukka Hirvonen]] 20:19, 11 February 2013 (EET)}} | |||
====Conclusion==== | ====Conclusion==== | ||
| Line 69: | Line 78: | ||
{{attack|# |Same as with results: instead of trying to say what the conclusion is, describe what kind of conclusion you will have.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 10:37, 31 January 2013 (EET)}} | {{attack|# |Same as with results: instead of trying to say what the conclusion is, describe what kind of conclusion you will have.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 10:37, 31 January 2013 (EET)}} | ||
{{comment|# |How does results lead to conclusion, what has actually achieved for doing assessment?|--[[User:Jukka Hirvonen|Jukka Hirvonen]] 20:20, 11 February 2013 (EET)}} | |||
===Rationale=== | ===Rationale=== | ||
| Line 125: | Line 136: | ||
| Interaction | | Interaction | ||
| | | | ||
*Mainly the interaction is between experts, waste management and energy companies and government. Public will be informed about assessment and decision options. They can say their opinion and they will be considered in assessment, but they are not so relevant. | *Mainly the interaction is between experts, waste management and energy companies and government. Public will be informed about assessment and decision options. They can say their opinion and they will be considered in assessment, but they are not so relevant. {{comment|# |Well described. Which of the example categories (modes of interaction) would you say is most descriptive for this draft assessment?|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 19:15, 10 February 2013 (EET)}} | ||
|} | |} | ||
| Line 147: | Line 158: | ||
|----- | |----- | ||
| Impact of contribution | | Impact of contribution | ||
| Public’s contribution will be considered but energy and waste management companies have must more weight in the assessment. | | Public’s contribution will be considered but energy and waste management companies have must more weight in the assessment. {{comment|# |They probably have a big interest, but why should their opinions or factual statements be valued higher than public opinion? |--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 19:15, 10 February 2013 (EET)}} | ||
|} | |} | ||
| Line 180: | Line 191: | ||
| Efficiency | | Efficiency | ||
| 4 | | 4 | ||
| The assessment will have good efficiency. It will improve waste management and energy production at the same time. | | The assessment will have good efficiency. It will improve waste management and energy production at the same time. {{comment|# |How about the making of the assessment? How much effort would need to be spent to get sufficiently good quality and applicable results?|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 19:15, 10 February 2013 (EET)}} | ||
|} | |} | ||
| Line 186: | Line 197: | ||
'''Comments and ideas how to improve the draft''' | '''Comments and ideas how to improve the draft''' | ||
*Energy companies should be considered in incineration, update the question so it considers also about health effects if they are included in assessment. | *Energy companies should be considered in incineration, update the question so it considers also about health effects if they are included in assessment. | ||
{{comment|# |Good recommendation. Add it as a comment to the draft assessment page. Any other comments you could think of?|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 19:15, 10 February 2013 (EET)}} | |||
===''Assessment - Homework 3 of Phatman [[http://en.opasnet.org/w/User_talk:Phatman#Homework_3]]=== | ===''Assessment - Homework 3 of Phatman [[http://en.opasnet.org/w/User_talk:Phatman#Homework_3]]=== | ||
{{comment|# |It would have been ok also to evaluate your own hw3, but this is fine too.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 19:29, 10 February 2013 (EET)}} | |||
'''Knowledge-policy interaction''' | '''Knowledge-policy interaction''' | ||
| Line 216: | Line 231: | ||
| Interaction | | Interaction | ||
| | | | ||
*Interaction should be open to everyone. Assessment has many participants and the discussion should be open to everyone and they should share their knowledge. | *Interaction should be open to everyone. Assessment has many participants and the discussion should be open to everyone and they should share their knowledge. {{comment|# |The draft seems to indicate something like this, but how much is it actually explicitly described in the draft assessment text? Consider also the dimensions of openness characterzations below from this perspective.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 19:29, 10 February 2013 (EET)}} | ||
|} | |} | ||
| Line 226: | Line 241: | ||
|----- | |----- | ||
| Scope of participation | | Scope of participation | ||
City councils, transportation, energy production and building experts, public, energy plant production | | City councils, transportation, energy production and building experts, public, energy plant production | ||
|----- | |----- | ||
| Access to information | | Access to information | ||
| Line 235: | Line 250: | ||
|----- | |----- | ||
| Scope of contribution | | Scope of contribution | ||
| Environment experts, power plant experts, transportation and building experts | | Environment experts, power plant experts, transportation and building experts {{comment|# |But which parts of the assessment are given a opportunities to contribute to?|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 19:29, 10 February 2013 (EET)}} | ||
|----- | |----- | ||
| Impact of contribution | | Impact of contribution | ||
| Line 263: | Line 278: | ||
| Applicability: Usability | | Applicability: Usability | ||
| 5 | | 5 | ||
| Assessment is very usable but hard to accomplish as the whole package. | | Assessment is very usable but hard to accomplish as the whole package. {{comment|# |Considering the very broad scope, do you think the results would be easy to use e.g. in practical decision making in particular cities with their own special characteristics, like in housing development in Kuopio or Rome?|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 19:29, 10 February 2013 (EET)}} | ||
|----- | |----- | ||
| Applicability: Acceptability | | Applicability: Acceptability | ||
| 4 | | 4 | ||
| This assessment is hard to accept. It will need hard work for long time. The change can not happen quickly. Assessment is hard to accept among all participants. It is hard to get results. | | This assessment is hard to accept. It will need hard work for long time. The change can not happen quickly. Assessment is hard to accept among all participants. It is hard to get results. {{comment|# |Think more of the way the assessment is planned to be made. Is the foreseen way of making acceptable?|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 19:29, 10 February 2013 (EET)}} | ||
|----- | |----- | ||
| Efficiency | | Efficiency | ||
| 4 | | 4 | ||
| The assessment will have good efficiency. Even if the assessment does not accomplish as whole entity, some of the information is relevant in other assessments. | | The assessment will have good efficiency. Even if the assessment does not accomplish as whole entity, some of the information is relevant in other assessments. {{defend|# |Probably so. Maybe it could be broken down into a number of city specific sub-assessments sharing certain parts and having own special parts.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 19:29, 10 February 2013 (EET)}} | ||
|} | |} | ||
| Line 277: | Line 292: | ||
'''Comments and ideas how to improve the draft''' | '''Comments and ideas how to improve the draft''' | ||
*Too large entity. Try to be more specific. | *Too large entity. Try to be more specific. | ||
{{comment|# |Try to think of some more comments and write them down as arguments to the corresponding draft assessment page.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 19:29, 10 February 2013 (EET)}} | |||
Latest revision as of 16:09, 13 February 2013
⇤--#: . You still have some unfinished homework(s). For most people it is just some small thing (or maybe a broken link to an existing work?). But please check it quickly, as the deadline is on Friday. Check the follow-up table! --Jouni 18:09, 13 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
Homework 1
1. What is the main purpose of environmental health assessment?
The main purpose of environmental health assessment is to apply information which is provided by environmental researches, to make models and calculations how decisions and actions affect to human health and nature. Environmental health assessment is done to support policy making and to ensure that decisions are knowledge-based and that the outcome is wanted.
2. What is pragmatism?
Pragmatism is that theory and practice are not considered as two different entities but instead we have to think decisions and practices and think if they are sensible. Therefore theory and practice are intertwined.
3. What is benefit-risk assessment?
Benefit-risk assessment is needed when benefits of the decision are not so clearly bigger that risk. Benefit-risk assessment is needed to clear the situation and to weight the benefits and risk that decisions can be made. ----#: . Yes, that is when BRA is needed. Generally, as the name implies, benefit-risk assessments consider and weighs both benefits and risks. --Mikko Pohjola 10:41, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
←--#: . Good answers. --Mikko Pohjola 10:41, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
Homework 2
If the thing which risk assessment deals with is so called hot topic and open assessment includes many participants how we handle situation so that discussion does not ramble? In otherwise, how we keep inrelevant information away?
Homework 3
(Niklas Holopainen, Kasperi Juntunen)'
Scope
- Talvivaara mining company has been mentioned lately in news several times. They have had problems with environmental issues.
Question
- Does waste waters of Talvivaara cause environmental hazard?
----#: . Yes/no questions are possible as well, but might want to come up with a question that looks at actions: what to do if there is a hazard? --Jouni 10:37, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
- ----#: . If Talvivaara mine's waste waters are an environmental hazard, how to prevent it? --Niklas 11:12, 11 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Intended use and users
- Ministry of environment, representers of Talvivaara company, citizens living nearby Talvivaara, environmental organizations
Participants
- Representers of Talvivaara, representers of environmental organizations, especially neutral researchers and specialists
----#: . How could you involve these people and actually get contributions from them? --Jouni 10:37, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
----#: . Does the "neutral researchers" imply that you want to exclude activist researchers? How can you do it and how can you know who is neutral? --Jouni 10:37, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
----#: . Why local residents aren´t participants in the assessmnent 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. --Juho Kutvonen 12:53, 7 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
----#: . In the assessment representers of Talvivaara and environmental organizations would give their opinion about waste waters as a hazard. Specialists and neutral researchers would do measurements from water and soil near Talvivaara. Because representers of Talvivaara and environmental organizations have their own intresses so it would be useful to have neutral side so results would be neutral. Neutral researchers could be for example from ELY. Local citizens could participate also but their opinion have also own intress so it should be considered that how much weight it gives to result. --Niklas 11:25, 31 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Scenarios
- In this present situation the best option would be to close the mine because of so many environmental problems and their impacts to citizens health. Let assume that leak of the waste water pool was the biggest estimation, because we want to see biological and environmental effects. If effects of the leak are significant, actions have to be made, like improve waste water processing and security cautions
----#: . What should be done is not a scenario, that is the question you should try to answer. Scenarios are something that you set beforehand, such as "let's look at the maximally exposed individual instead of average exposure". --Jouni 10:37, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Analyses
- Analysis of biological impacts, health analysis, risk assessment, questionnaires to citizens, economical and financial evaluations.
⇤--#: . Analyses are (statistical) procedures that help you distill the results out of the model and data you have. You should be more specific here to help your statistician. --Jouni 10:37, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
Answer
Results
- Talvivaara mine has major environmental problems and there are also some prove of health impacts to the citizens.
⇤--#: . Don't try to jump to results before any work. Instead, try to describe what does the result look like when you're done, e.g. what is the structure of your result table. --Jouni 10:37, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
----#: . What kind of results the could be possible to achieve by doing assessment, what use the results have? --Jukka Hirvonen 20:19, 11 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Conclusion
- The mine should make some major improvements environmental things, for example to the waste water processing. If the improvements aren’t done, they should consider to close the mine.
⇤--#: . Same as with results: instead of trying to say what the conclusion is, describe what kind of conclusion you will have. --Jouni 10:37, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
----#: . How does results lead to conclusion, what has actually achieved for doing assessment? --Jukka Hirvonen 20:20, 11 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Rationale
Endpoints
- Citizens, The mining company, Ministry of environment, environmental organizations.
- Citizens are interested in their health and biological impacts. They do not care about costs of mining company. Ministry of environment is interested in economical and environmental issues. Mining company is interested in their own economical issues and business. Environmental organizations are interested in environmental issues.
----#: . Can you be more specific about e.g. what these environmental issues are? Water pollution concentrations or fish deaths, or soil contamination, or recreational value of summer cottages, ... --Jouni 10:37, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Variables
- The environmental hazard should be researched by biological and human health analysis. The state of mining company as employer in that area.
- • In this case emissions to lakes should be considered, because they affects to citizens by spoiling the groundwater. The effects of spoiled groundwater to citizen’s health should be considered.
----#: . Try to make a list of issues that you need to look at on a quantitative level. Also, draft causal connections between them. --Jouni 10:37, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Homework 4
User:Niklas#Homework 4. feat Kasperi Juntunen
Homework 5
User:Niklas#Homework 5 feat. Kasperi Juntunen
Homework 9
----#: . Please see User:Isabell Rumrich#DARM course 2013 – Homework 9 for an example how to present the characterizations and evaluations of homework 9 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 09:57, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Assessment - Homework 3 of Adedayo [[1]]
Knowledge-policy interaction
| Attribute | characterization |
|---|---|
| Impacts | Impacts to environment, more specific to climate and health. |
| Causes | Incineration as a waste management plan |
| Problem owner |
|
| Target |
|
| Interaction |
|
| Dimension | Characterization |
|---|---|
| Scope of participation | The citizens of Lagos can participate, government of Lagos, waste management companies |
| Access to information | Public will be informed about assessment and information will be shared to them. The information will be open to all so everybody can follow the process. |
| Timing of openness | Timing is not strictly defined. Open discussion will be open all the time. |
| Scope of contribution | Public, waste management companies |
| Impact of contribution | Public’s contribution will be considered but energy and waste management companies have must more weight in the assessment. ----#: . They probably have a big interest, but why should their opinions or factual statements be valued higher than public opinion? --Mikko Pohjola 19:15, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
Evaluation of the assessment draft
| Attribute | Score | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Quality of content | 3 | The content of the assessment is clear and concise, but in incineration also energy companies should be involved and the question could be better. The question was only about climate change impacts but in draft there were considered also health impacts. |
| Applicability: Relevance | 4 | Assessment fulfill its purpose very well. |
| Applicability: Availability | 3 | The availability to public is very good. Public will be informed so they are aware about assessment and can follow process. |
| Applicability: Usability | 5 | Users will benefit for assessment. With assessment decisions and actions to improve waste management can be done. |
| Applicability: Acceptability | 4 | Everybody should accept the assessment and actions which base on it, mostly public and government. Waste management companies may have to make investments if waste management plan changes so they may not accept it so easily. |
| Efficiency | 4 | The assessment will have good efficiency. It will improve waste management and energy production at the same time. ----#: . How about the making of the assessment? How much effort would need to be spent to get sufficiently good quality and applicable results? --Mikko Pohjola 19:15, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
Comments and ideas how to improve the draft
- Energy companies should be considered in incineration, update the question so it considers also about health effects if they are included in assessment.
----#: . Good recommendation. Add it as a comment to the draft assessment page. Any other comments you could think of? --Mikko Pohjola 19:15, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Assessment - Homework 3 of Phatman [[2]]
----#: . It would have been ok also to evaluate your own hw3, but this is fine too. --Mikko Pohjola 19:29, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Knowledge-policy interaction
| Attribute | characterization |
|---|---|
| Impacts | Impacts of climate change and global warming |
| Causes | Green house gas emissions |
| Problem owner |
|
| Target |
|
| Interaction |
|
| Dimension | Characterization |
|---|---|
| Scope of participation | City councils, transportation, energy production and building experts, public, energy plant production |
| Access to information | Public would be informed about assessment. All the information is open to every participant. |
| Timing of openness | Timing is not strictly defined. Open discussion will be open all the time. |
| Scope of contribution | Environment experts, power plant experts, transportation and building experts ----#: . But which parts of the assessment are given a opportunities to contribute to? --Mikko Pohjola 19:29, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
| Impact of contribution | Because of many participants all can not be satisfied but the result should be done so that all agrees it. Public’s opinion is considered but it does not effect so much to result. |
Evaluation of the assessment draft
| Attribute | Score | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Quality of content | 3 | The content and question is too wide. It should be more specific question. Content is on common level and no details. |
| Applicability: Relevance | 2 | Assessment is relevant but very hard to do because of big entity. It is hard to accomplish. |
| Applicability: Availability | 3 | The availability to public is very good but how many in the public will participate it. Subject demands knowledge about subject. Availability is good for everyone. |
| Applicability: Usability | 5 | Assessment is very usable but hard to accomplish as the whole package. ----#: . Considering the very broad scope, do you think the results would be easy to use e.g. in practical decision making in particular cities with their own special characteristics, like in housing development in Kuopio or Rome? --Mikko Pohjola 19:29, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
| Applicability: Acceptability | 4 | This assessment is hard to accept. It will need hard work for long time. The change can not happen quickly. Assessment is hard to accept among all participants. It is hard to get results. ----#: . Think more of the way the assessment is planned to be made. Is the foreseen way of making acceptable? --Mikko Pohjola 19:29, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
| Efficiency | 4 | The assessment will have good efficiency. Even if the assessment does not accomplish as whole entity, some of the information is relevant in other assessments. ←--#: . Probably so. Maybe it could be broken down into a number of city specific sub-assessments sharing certain parts and having own special parts. --Mikko Pohjola 19:29, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) |
Comments and ideas how to improve the draft
- Too large entity. Try to be more specific.
----#: . Try to think of some more comments and write them down as arguments to the corresponding draft assessment page. --Mikko Pohjola 19:29, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)