User:Isabell Rumrich

Isabell Rumrich
Student - Masters Degree Program Environmental Health Risk Assessment
University of Eastern Finland

DARM course 2013 – Homework 1

What is the main purpose of environmental health assessment?

How human health is affected by the characteristics of our living environment is the main focus of environmental health assessment. It´s main purpose is to improve the decision making for desired outcomes by influencing the decisions based on detailed knowledge. This may be in policy or the decision making of individuals.

What are the dimensions of openness?

• Scope of participation: Who is allowed to participate?
• Access to information: What information are made available to participants?
• Timing of openness: When do participants join?
• Scope of contribution: What issue or aspect are participants allowed to contribute to?
• Impact of contribution: How big is the extent of influence of the participants?

What is the role of modelling in assessment and policy making?

In assessment, modeling is always involved by at least using conceptual models. Models are used to describe reality in the assessment and it serves the needs of practical decision-making in policy making. The models can be developed and used by different experts. Those may be federal agencies, academic researchers or independent consultants. Models should not be used for some “useless” research or just to support some decision, which was made. Each modeled need to be assessed, whether it from good quality and suitable for the study question. Modelling and assessment can be considered as the same issue of support to decision making in environmental health. ----#: . modeling can be done also in research without any direct connection to policy or some other practical use. It is not necessary "useless", but from the point of view of assessment it probably does not make much difference (at least in short term) --Mikko Pohjola 10:01, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

←--#: . Good answers. --Mikko Pohjola 10:01, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

DARM course 2013 - Homework 2

Is the structure and vocabulary of used in an assessment always like explained in the lecture and in Opasnet or do other institutions do it different?

DARM course 2013 - Homework 3

Groupwork with Stefania Caporaso [[1]]

SCOPE

The purpose of the assessment is to support decision making on issues of societal relevance, in our specific case on climate change polities in cities by working on the emissions of public transport.

Question

If we analyze the problem of GHG emissions by sector, we can see how relevant traffic is. We choose public transport as part of the traffic sector, because the city can have direct influence on that as being the owner of the company. Therefore, because we are interested in supporting policy making, our question will be the following: “Which fuel can be used in public transport in order to reduce GHG emissions in the sector of traffic?” 1) BAU 2) Electric 3) Bio-fuel

Intended Use And Users

Different users are supposed to need the assessment: - the city - public transport company - consumers - car/bus industry Everyone expects to use the information in different ways: the city and the firms are interested to know the costs of the fuel; consumers are interested to know the impact on health; the car/bus industry has to develop new techniques for better use of the fuels or can give limitation to what is doable.

Participants

DARM participants, transport company, manufacturer industry, city and everyone can participate to make the assessment a well-balanced and well-informed work. There is no reason for which someone is not allowed to participate, because it is an open assessment, and the basic idea is collaboration and sharing information.

Scenarios

Fuel Options: 1) BAU; 2) Electric; 3) Bio-fuel

Boundaries

Time: Year 2013 – 2023 possible technical limitations Emissions important only in the city, not in the whole country

Analyses

Different analyses are needed to be able to produce results that are useful for making conclusions: concentration of emissions and health impacts, number of cars, Kilometers driven, life cycle and costs.

ANSWER

Results

Fuel	km driven	number of cars	€/KM	Emissions [y T/a CO2e]	DALY	overall price (*)
BAU
Electric
Biofuel

(*) includes costs for DALYs, emissions, the fuel itself and the new techniques in the vehicles

Conclusion

The best option is fuel …, because …

RATIONALE

Endpoints

The stakeholders that we should consider are the citizens, the city, the transport company, environmental congregations. In particular, each stakeholder is interested in a specific endpoints: the city and the transport firm are interested in the costs of the fuel, the citizens in heath impact, environmental congregations in GHG emissions.

Variables

The issues that should be looked at to be able to understand the outcomes of the decision options can be: 1) the costs of fuel; 2) the GHG emissions; 3) the health impact; 4) the life cycle impact; 5) the cost for developing the technique or to use it in the vehicles Typically, with health impact assessments, we need to consider some emissions (CO2, NOx, PMx, etc) and some cardiovascular diseases, pulmonary diseases, well-being and exposures. Therefore, dose-response data of the emissions and the endpoints need to be available. Different population subgroups should be considered: children and elderly individuals are in general more sensitive to health outcomes of air pollution. Furthermore the drivers of the public transport might have higher and longer exposure to the emission due to their work.

DARM course 2013 - Homework 4

Groupwork with Stefania Caporaso [[2]]

Ireland at Risk - Critical Infrastructure - Adaptation for Climate Change [[3]]

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

The Irish Academy of Engineering agreed on adaptations to the impacts of climate change. Therefore the engineering profession will take a leading role in identifying the challenges and proposing adaptation measures, which are appropriate and cost-effective.

The goal of this program is to ensure the best contribution of the engineering profession in policies and in planning of future scenarios. It focuses on three key infrastructural areas: water supply, flood alleviation and energy infrastructure. ⇤--#: . Is the goal really to "ensure the best contribution of the engineering profession.."? I think the strategy intends to help in delivering the contributions of engineers to policies and planning related to the focus areas, which the goals actually relate to. --Mikko Pohjola 13:24, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

The first area considers water supply. We know how water is essential to survive, but also to industry, business and farming. The principal aims are to review the design standards and amend these as greater certainty about climate change parameter. Additionally, research should be done to minimize the uncertainties in future climate change and the prognosis of extreme weather events. Plans have to developed, how water supply can be guaranteed, although the climate changes.

The program states not only goals for the climate change, but also for the working process: Experts with different backgrounds should work together in a better way, to ensure decisions are not restricted.

The second area that we have to take into account in order to progress towards the goals is the flood alleviation, considering that the cities and towns of Ireland are nearly all located by the coast and/or on a large river. The actions intended to take in this sector concerns 1) assess flood risk; 2) delineate flood plains; 3) implement coastal protection plans; 4) manage and control development; 5) improve flood warnings; 6) review of design standards.

⇤--#: . Altogether, this is already quite good, but focuses too much on the making of and resources behind the strategy. What (in practical terms, if possible) is foreseen to be different if/when the strategy is implemented as in comparison to not being implemented. What will happen with/without the strategy? E.g. what does it mean to "implement coastal protection plans"? What is the difference that such a protection plan would bring about? --Mikko Pohjola 13:24, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

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

The citizens of Ireland are the ones that benefit most, if the goals are reached. But they are not the only ones. Also the State of Ireland will be able to take advantage of this strategy. In fact, the benefits will be both in the social and economic sector.

----#: . In relation to above comment, you can try to think what kinds of effects, will/will not take place with/without the strategy? How do they relate to different populations, sub-groups,organizations, businesses? --Mikko Pohjola 13:24, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

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

The working group decided on various actions, which needed to be done:

1) All-island statutory plan: an existing government department or agency in each jurisdiction is taking the lead to coordinate all actions and policies. Furthermore, those agencies should agree together on one all-island adaption plan.

2) Establish an adaption framework: Each agency should establish a framework for the upcoming work. It has to define, identify and map the elements of critical infrastructure.

3) Review engineering design standards: Engineers and climate change researcher should work together to identify the most important climate parameters, that are critical.

4) Co-ordinate Research: Two lead agencies should take the overall lead and coordinate the work and the funding.

5) Research for infrastructure: research for the designing, planning and producing policy for new infrastructures need to be done in short- and medium-term.

6) Link research and implementation: the dialogue between different experts needs to be improved.

7) Establish research priorities: the research should focus on the current information gaps.

8) Establish observational networks: Networks need to be built to collect data across a range of parameters.

9) Learn from others: Countries, which have the same climate conditions as Ireland, should be identified to share knowledge and experience.

10) Establish Water Resource Authorities: The Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland should establish a Water Resource Authority, which work together and control the available water resources, prepare policy and strategy as well as manage.

11) Plan for competing demands: Priorities need to be established in order to deal with equitably with competing demands for scare water resources.

12) Plan for future water supplies: planning of how water will be harvested, managed and distributed to meet society´s future needs.

13) Investigate future water sources: Search for new water sources and adopt a balanced approach for future water supply schemes.

14) Survey groundwater resources: Investigate groundwater resources to identify them for further development.

15) Investigate water supply sustainability: The changed pattern of rainfall and low flows affect the quantity and quality of available water. Those changed must be investigated.

16) Complete water quality risk assessment and contingency planning: The present sewerage infrastructure and the traditional storm-water drainage systems are not built for extreme weather conditions. The risks of that need to be known.

17) Review flow options: New strategies for low flow situations need to be developed.

18) Use technology to capture data: The collection of data needs to be improved using modern technology.

19) Review the desalination option: A comparison between desalination and other options needs to be reviewed, taking environmental impacts and energy use into account.

20) Implement universal water charging: The high quantities of used water in Ireland can lead to water shortage in the future. Demand management and pricing of water need to be evaluated.

21) Asses flood risk: The flood risk need to be assessed in order to identify and prioritise adaption measures. National agreement on standards, methodologies and actions are needed for that.

22) Complete flood risk maps and management plans: Progress in meeting the requirements of EU Floods Directive is needed.

23) Delineate flood plains: A robust and acceptable methodology to delineate flood plains needs to be developed.

24) Manage and control developments: Guidelines to support planning need to be implemented and followed strictly. This should be monitored by the Government.

25) Identify significant flood defences: Major flood defence assets must be identified and recorded in order to protect and develop them.

26) Control the removal of flood defences: The removal of flood defences, even in private ownership needs to be approved after careful analysis of the impact.

27) Implement coastal protection plans: Protections plans for all areas at risk from erosion or flooding need to be developed.

28) Improve flood forecasting and warning: A system for forecasting surges and issuing coastal flood warnings is needed.

29) Install a tide gauge network: A tide gauge network needs to be established. I should have quality-controlled data processing and archiving.

30) Review the effectiveness of mitigation measures: Land use management and forestry practice need to be part of flood mitigation measures in order to male them sustainable and successful.

31) Increase public awareness: To ensure public support for flood protection measures and controls, the public awareness of the risks of flooding needs to be increased.

32) Produce asset risk registers: A preliminary climate change risk analysis needs to be done by all owners of energy infrastructure. Moreover, a risk register suing climate change parameters needs to be prepared.

33) Review plant output: A preliminary report needs to be done with the expected changes in the output of power plants caused by the climate change.

34) Review power plant requirements: An increase in energy need is expected due to the additional pumping of water supplies, wastewater disposal, agricultural irrigation and air conditioning. A report needs to be done about how climate change could increase the energy demand.

35) Review water impoundment standards: The standards for water impoundment need to be review by the owners, so that operating and maintenance procedures take climate change scenarios into account.

36) Review wave energy issues: In the planning and designing wave energy plants the possible raise in sea level and other climate change scenarios need to be taken into account.

37) Implement coastal protection measures: Coastal protection measures need to be implemented for all kind of sensitive installations like oil refinery and storage installation, gas and other pipelines, power generating stations and electricity substations.

----#: . A long and detailed list of actions, but looks to me that quite many of them relate more into administration of the implementation of the strategy than practical actions through which the desired changes (or non-changes) take place. On the other hand, it is typical for strategy and program papers that they list tasks or actions without explication of what is it that they should deliver. Are able to identify what (some of) these intend to deliver in relation to the general aims discussed above? --Mikko Pohjola 13:24, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Who are those that actually realize these actions?

First of all, the Government has to adopt the proposed actions and force the implementation of it. Additionally, governmental agencies will be responsible for the controlling of the actions. ⇤--#: . So government will have to DECIDE on acceptance of the strategy, implementation of proposed action etc., right? --Mikko Pohjola 13:24, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

The proposed actions should be mainly realized by Engineers and climate change researchers. ----#: . Engineers and researchers are working on the strategy, but do they also engage in actual realization of the action points? --Mikko Pohjola 13:24, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

If all proposed actions are implemented, the owners of sensitive installations, flood defences and energy plants need to take actions, depending on what the guidelines require. ←--#: . Good point. Much of the actual realization often ends up as a responsibility of other than those who came up with a strategy, policy etc., in this case it's the owners, whether organizations or individuals. Anything that would fall on other subgroups or the common citizen to be taken care of? --Mikko Pohjola 13:24, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

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

All actions presented in this framework are only proposals so far. Therefore, the Government has to evaluate all proposed actions and adopt them for implementation. The proposed actions are not very detailed, that is why concrete decisions cannot be identified.

----#: . Look at the comments above, and maybe think over the difference between deciding and taking action. Maybe choose one or two specific action point(s) and try to think who decides which aspects related to it, and who in the end does something about it. --Mikko Pohjola 13:24, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Who are the decision makers?

Again, the Government is the decision maker. Partly, engineers and researcher are able to make minor decisions.

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

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

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

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

The report does not specify health impacts caused by the proposed actions. It only refers to general health impacts caused by climate change.

However, analyzing the impacts of climate change on water quality, some health impacts can be deduced. One of the most critical concerns surely polluted drinking water, which is likely to cause acute health effects.

The citizens are those that face these health impacts. However, these health impacts are small in relation to other impacts, above all environmental impacts. The environmental impacts may include the erosion of coastal areas, flood events, changing of environmental conditions due to changes in rain pattern. Overall, the proposed actions result in a win-win situation, because not only the citizens, but also the environment, benefit of it. The costs might be high, but in the long term it may save a lot of money.

----#: . Great health impacts can be related to water supply, particularly drinking water supply. There are also other major impacts related e.g. to water supply to industries. I would not say that the health impacts caused by contaminated drinking water that can be avoided with a good climate change adaptation policy are small. Instead I would call them big. --Mikko Pohjola 13:24, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

----#: . You could elaborate a bit more on the win-win(-win) situation. Does your statement apply to all actions in the strategy? Do all actions result only in beneficial environmental impacts? Are there only health benefits related? Is it clear that the costs of all actions will be payed off and overcompensated by future savings? --Mikko Pohjola 13:24, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

----#: . You can pick a few as examples, no need to consider every single one. --Mikko Pohjola 13:24, 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.

Which are the strategies needed for critical instructions in order to allow Ireland to adapt to the impact climate change in the sectors of energy supply, water services and flood alleviation?

⇤--#: . I'm not sure I fully get the point of the question. "Could it be something like which actions (in the Ireland climate change adaptation strategy) addressing energy supply, water services and flood alleviation are most effective (in what way, health, environment, economy, …?)? Is the idea to assess which actions should be chosen (would make sense, but not sure if this is what you mean)? --Mikko Pohjola 13:24, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

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.

The given answers present limited shared understanding. All relevant aspects have been described in detail, but decision maker´s decision criteria have not been described very well. ←--#: . Good point! How can you tell if a planned action is good if its not clear, what is aimed at? Relates also to the assessment question formulation above. Maybe Ireland should really try to assess which proposed actions are worth implementing, which not. This would probably result in much clearer presentation of the whole strategy. --Mikko Pohjola 13:24, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

DARM course 2013 – Homework 5

Groupwork with Stefania Caporaso [[4]]

Ireland at Risk - Critical Infrastructure - Adaptation for Climate Change [[5]]

Homework 5, part A: Questions about identifying roles and participation:

Who are the relevant participants of the assessment?

Different types of participants have contributed to develop the assessment: technical experts (such as Consulting Engineers; Irish Academy of Engineering); research experts (such as University College Dublin, University College Cork); environment agencies and departments; local government and the office of public works; eventually also the citizens.

What roles the different participants (may) take in the assessment?

The main role of the different participants that take in the assessment is to ensure that aims of decision makers, impact on Irish people’s life, and scientific input of experts are taken in consideration in order to facilitate the decision process. In particular, technical and research experts have to ensure that scientific knowledge is taken into account when decisions are made and so they have to understand the scientific input. Their role is mainly a role of facilitators. Environment agencies and departments represent a source of information, while local government should have the role of decision maker and executor.

What kind of relevant knowledge they (may) have regarding the assessment?

The knowledge that they may have regarding the assessment is different from different types of participants. Technical and research experts have a background necessary to work to the assessment and, more generally, to the project working. Environment agencies and departments have knowledge about environmental impacts and effects, but they can also provide some data necessary for the assessment. Finally, citizens know needs and wishes about their living environment.

What needs and aims do they represent in the assessment?

Technical and research experts need data and their aim is to prevent negative effects and to ensure practical feasibility, while environment agencies and departments need scientific knowledge and assessment in order protect the environment and to prevent disasters. The citizens need to know the plans, because these plans can have a big impact on their lives.

Homework 5, part B: Consider also the following questions about facilitating collaboration:

How could the relevant participants be involved in the assessment in an effective way?

Since all participants have different backgrounds and knowledge about climate change and the associated problems, an important first step is to gain a shared understanding about the topic. After this, experts could work in smaller groups to work on more detailed problem and agree on the most important facts. In this way, all available knowledge will be used and no opinion or information will be missed, because too many individuals discuss at the same time.

All kind of data and scenarios are needed to be known for a good assessment. Therefore the experts, who work on gaining these data, need enough time and good conditions to do so. The expert have to work together to figure out what data are needed and what is the best way to get the data. Moreover, experts both from outside and the actual working group can be asked for advice, if a similar assessment is already done in another country for example.

After all data are available and the expert groups reach some kind of contempt, they could share their results with all the other groups, experts and layman. Those results could be discussed and used for further decision making.

Smaller discussion groups can be formed of experts of one field who search for all possible options related to the study questions. In one big discussion the options can be shared between the different groups so that all different backgrounds and opinions are heard and considered in the assessment and decision making.

How can the quality of an assessment be assured if anyone can participate?

It is important that one person keeps an overview what is going on in the assessment, for example like in Opasnet the moderator of a page.

All participants can express their opinion and share facts, but a fair discussion must be possible. If someone disagrees with an argument and gives facts against it, then the argument is invalid.

If any research is done to obtain data, it is important to be able to see, what was done, when and how. In this way, shared understanding is possible and other experts of that field can identify possible mistakes or uncertainties.

In the end, every participant should be responsible enough to do the best to increase the quality of the assessment and be willing to learn or to help to improve the methods or knowledge, if any kind of critics is appropriate.

How can you prevent malevolent contributions where the purpose is to vandalize the process?

If the assessment is an open one and everyone can participate, it can be difficult to prevent malevolent contributions. One option may be that all contributions are marked with the real name of the person, who shared it. Even in Opasnet the Username can be the real name. Most people think twice about vandalizing, if it is obvious, who is responsible for it.

Moreover, it has to be possible to exclude someone from the participation, if it is obvious, that that individual is only aiming at vandalizing the process. Assurance, that no one is excluded because he expressed an unwanted opinion, has to be made. One idea is that people can be warned three times before the exclusion. Additionally, only the moderator can exclude one person, not other participants. Other participants can only complain about one person to the moderator.

How can you make the outcome converge to a conclusion, because all issues are uncertain and controversial?

If the uncertainty and the controversy are too high, it might not be possible to converge to a conclusion with the available data. Then, it has to be said like that and more research has to be done to get better knowledge of the topic. The conclusion can be in that case, that all options, which were discussed, are of equal quality or outcome. Experts, who were not participating in the assessment, can be asked for their input about the topic.

In discussions there are certain rules, which can help all discussion inputs to converge in one resolution or conclusion. An attack of an argument is always thought to be stronger than a defense. So if all defending arguments can be attacked, the source statement is invalid.

How can you ensure that the outcomes are useful for the users?

The users can be participants in the assessment process. In that way they can stop outcome directly, if they are not useful for them. Moreover, the study question can already partly ensure the usefulness of an outcome for the intended users. If the study question is detailed enough and meets the needs of the user, the answer to this questions, which equals the outcome of the assessment, is useful for the users.

Before the study question in formulated, it should be carefully considered, what the user wants and what is useful or impossible for the user. Options, which are impossible to meet by the user, can be eliminated right away and be excluded from the assessment.

Homework 5, part C: Prepare following tables from the climate program of your selection. Instructions for table structures can be found at Training assessment.

Decisions

Decisions(-)

Obs	Decisionmaker	Decision	Option	Variable	Cell	Change	Unit	Amount	Description
1	Lead Government	Funding of research	Different research groups	costs
2	Government	Water availability	Harvesting	impact
3	Government	Water availability	Management	impact
4	Government	Water availability	Distribution	impact
5	Government	Risk plans	BAU	costs/impact					energy and sewage infrastructure
6	Government	Risk plans	Improve	costs/impact					energy and sewage infrastructure
7	Government	Desalination	BAU	costs/impact
8	Government	Desalination	Improve	costs/impact
9	Government	Flood defences	BAU	costs/impact
10	Government	Flood defences	Improve	costs/impact
11	Government	Public Training	yes/no	costs/impact					Awareness of importance of water

Endpoints

Endpoints(-)

Obs	Stakeholder	Variable	Cell	Model	Result	Description
1	Lead Agencies	research costs
2	Government	water availability
3	Sewage owners	safety
4	Government	costs/environment impact				Desalination
5	Government	impact				Flood defences
6	Private owners	impact				Flood defences
7	Government	costs				Public awareness/training
8	Energy infrastructure owners	impact
9	Risk installation owners	protection measures				oil refinery/storage installations; gas/other pipelines; power generating stations; electricity substations