User:Matthew: Difference between revisions

From Opasnet
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 23: Line 23:


== Homework 9 ==
== Homework 9 ==
===''Assessment - Homework 3 of Adnank [[http://en.opasnet.org/w/User:Adnank#Homework_3]]===
'''Knowledge-policy interaction'''
{|{{prettytable}}
|+ '''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.
|}
{|{{prettytable}}
|+ '''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 {{comment|# |But which parts of the assessment can they (try to) influence?|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 16:36, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
| Impact of contribution
| The public's contribution will be taken into account also contribution from the energy companies {{comment|# |Hopefully will at least. Does the draft assessment state this explicitly?|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 16:36, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
|}
'''Evaluation of the assessment draft'''
{|{{prettytable}}
|+ '''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. {{comment|# |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.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 16:36, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
| 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. {{defend|# |Good point.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 16:36, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
| 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. {{comment|# |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.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 16:36, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
| 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. {{comment|# |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?|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 16:36, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
|}
'''Comments and ideas how to improve the draft'''
*Specify the role of the University of Eastern Finland in the assessment.
{{comment|# |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.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 16:36, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}

Revision as of 04:38, 11 February 2013

Homework 1

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

The main purpose of environmental health assessments is to implement scientific base actions and support decisions on various issues relating to the environment and health.

2. What is impact assessment?

This can be defined as a structured process aimed identifying, evaluating, and considering impacts of developed policies.

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

answer: they can produce results for both past, future and alternative scenerios, they are cheap and faster than measurements.

←--#: . Good brief and clear answers. --Mikko Pohjola 10:45, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Homework 2

1. In open assessments, To what extent is value judgement and scentific claims involve in decision making if they are both subjected to open criticism.

2. What is the role of decisions in causal diagrame. At what point can a decision maker modify or influence the causal diagramme.


⇤--#: . Where can your other homework answers be found. If they are on someone else's user page(s), add links here so they can be found. --Mikko Pohjola 10:45, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ←--#: . what is the meaning of the term intentional artifacts in result of an assessement --Matthew 10:35, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

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 ----#: . 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. ----#: . 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.

----#: . 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)