User:Matthew: Difference between revisions

From Opasnet
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 116: Line 116:




===''Assessment - Homework 3 of EmmaA [[http://en.opasnet.org/w/User:EmmaA#Homework_3]]===  
===''Assessment - Homework 3 of Phatman [[http://en.opasnet.org/w/User:Phatman#Homework_3]]===  


'''Knowledge-policy interaction'''
'''Knowledge-policy interaction'''
Line 126: Line 126:
|-----
|-----
| Impacts
| Impacts
| Greenhouse gas emissions from traffic
| Health and environmental impact of GHG  emssion {{comment|# |this is not clearly stated|--[[User:Matthew|Matthew]] 01:26, 12 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
|-----
| Causes
| Causes
| The emissions considered are mainly from public transportation within the city.
| emissions from public transportation and power plant within the city.
|-----
|-----
| Problem owner
| Problem owner
|
|
* The city council-ensuring more environmental friendly traffic options.
* The city council-ensuring implementation of recommendations
* The bus company on improving services to attract more customers.
  Energy production experts assessments of GHG amd mitigatiion
  Transpoet commissions to sight for alternative fuel options
  public relation experts to disseminate informations about the GHG to the citizens
|-----
|-----
| Target
|  
|  
* The bus company in Kuopio in making some business decisions such as pricing and number of buses.
* The city council of Kuopio will make recommendations and policies for emissions of GHG from traffic.
* The city council of Kuopio for making recommendations for emissions of GHG from traffic.
* Transport commisions for making adequate CO2 emission standard for road transport
* The inhabitants of Kuopio for knowledge on their contribution to GHG emission from their cars
|-----
|-----
| Interaction
| Interaction
|  
|  
*The assessment resembles the informing interaction framework {{comment|# |To me it seems that the information about interaction is quite limited. Could be informing, but I can imagine it becoming more collaborative as well.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 16:45, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}{{defend|# |I agree that interaction will be collaborative|--[[User:Adedayo|Adedayo]] 21:06, 11 February 2013 (EET)}}
*In the assessments, information about interaction is quite limited and not well defined. It can be seen as more of collaborative.
|}
|}


Line 154: Line 154:
|-----
|-----
| Scope of participation
| Scope of participation
| All intended users are mentioned in the scope of participation, however their roles in the participation is not clearly defined. {{comment|# |And only the intended users are mentioned, but no one else. Experts, citizens, ...?|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 16:45, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
| All intended users are mentioned in the scope of participation, however their roles in the participation is not clearly defined.{{comment|Intended users such as citizens and environmental experts is not stated|--[[User:Matthew|Matthew]] 01:26, 12 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
|-----
| Access to information
| Access to information
| The assessment does not address how its information will be shared and who will have access to it
| The assessment information will be shared by the public relaton experts but information on who will have access to it is not clerly stated
|-----
|-----
| Timing of openness
| Timing of openness
Line 163: Line 163:
|-----
|-----
| Scope of contribution
| Scope of contribution
| The public - financial, the bus company - financial and organisational aspects, the city council-GHG emissions and employees within the city of Kuopio are the contributors {{comment|# |Again, which parts of the assessment could they contribute to?|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 16:45, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
| This is not clearly stated however {{comment|# |This should be more of collaborative|--[[User:Matthew|Matthew]] 01:26, 12 February 2013 (EET)}}
|-----
|-----
| Impact of contribution
| Impact of contribution
Line 170: Line 170:


'''Evaluation of the assessment draft'''
'''Evaluation of the assessment draft'''
The assessments is void of the improtant stakeholders and their well defined rolls. thus this can be poorly evaluated


{|{{prettytable}}
{|{{prettytable}}
Line 179: Line 180:
| Quality of content
| Quality of content
| 3
| 3
| The content of the assessment is clear and concise. Important parts of the assessment question are addressed. However the option of cars using cleaner (renewable fuel) was not mentioned within.
| The content of the assessment is clear and concise. Important parts of the assessment question are addressed but not clearly stated. but  However the option of improve energy efficiency (renewable fuel) is taken into account
|-----
|-----
| Applicability: Relevance
| Applicability: Relevance
| 4
| 4
| The needs of intended users are met in the assessment, since different transport scenarios are espoused. The purpose of the assessment is quite duly met.
| The needs of intended users are not met but suggestions about other public transport means is stated in the assessment|-----
|-----
| Applicability: Availability
| Applicability: Availability
| 3
| 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.
| The availability of the assessment is not mentioned within it, In my opinion however, the assessment should be available to every inhabitant who is interested in it.
|-----
|-----
| Applicability: Usability
| Applicability: Usability
| 4
| 4
| The assessment can be used by the bus company and city of Kuopio, its use among the people who live and work too will be easy since they have some idea of the contents
| The assessment can be used by the bus company and city its use among the people who live and work too will be easy since they have some idea of the contents
|-----
|-----
| Applicability: Acceptability
| Applicability: Acceptability
| 4
| 4
| Since all intended users participate in the assessment process and their contributions are integrated, the assessment should be accepted. {{defend|# |Good point.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 16:45, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
| Since all intended users do not participate in the assessment process and their contributions can't be incorporated in the assessment so the assessments shouldn't be accepted.
|-----
| Efficiency
| Efficiency
| 3
| 3
| Participation in this will bring about diverse thoughts as it might require behavioural change especially from car owners and users, so a lot of work has to go into it. The assessment is quite efficient in its makeup and can be adopted by other cities {{comment|# |Yes, a lot of work may be required to implement the decisions, but how about the making of the assessment and making use of the assessment results? Efficient or not?|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 16:45, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}
| The assessmnets is not efficient enough as intended users do not fully Participated, this will bring about diverse thoughts as it might require behavioural change especially from car owners and users, so a lot of work has to go into it.
|}
 
 
'''Comments and ideas how to improve the draft'''
'''Comments and ideas how to improve the draft'''
* Renewable fuels should be included as part of the scenarios - I fancy car owners will propose that option as it keeps their cars on the road and the environment doesn't suffer.
* Renewable fuels should be included as part of the scenarios - This reduce emissions and keep the environment safe
* In renewable fuels are considered, fuel companies will have to be considered in the assessment too
* In renewable fuels are considered, fuel companies will have to be considered in the assessment too
{{comment|# |OK. Add your comments to the draft assessment text.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 16:45, 10 February 2013 (EET)}}

Revision as of 23:26, 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 Niklas [[1]]

Knowledge-policy interaction

Characterization of knowledge-policy interaction
Attribute characterization
Impacts Environmental and health Impacts from Talvivaara mining company
Causes waste water from talvivaara mining processes pose a huge environmetal issues
Problem owner
  • The Ministry of environment can make decisions on where the mining company can be sited
  • Representatives from talvivaara can adopt a new mining waste water discharge option
  • Engineers to evaluate, design, recommend a new technology with less hazardous waste discharge.
Target
  • The ministry of environment can use assesments to make recommendations on mining sites.
  • The talvivaara mining represesatives can change to environmental friendly waste water discharge options
  • Enginners can use the assessments to develop a new less mining waste water technology
Interaction
  • The assessment interacts with intended users of the assessment as it will drive action.The assessment interacts with the citizens of Talvivaara as it will give information on mining waste water hazards - resembles shared knowledge interaction framework.


Characterization of the dimensions of openness.
Dimension Characterization
Scope of participation citizens who live around talvivaara mining are excluded from participattion, talvivaara mining representatives, representatives from environmental organisations (neutral resserchers and specialist)
Access to information The assessment dose not state that there will be public awareness on effects of the mining waste water discharge.
Timing of openness Timing of participation by different stakeholders is not clearly stated, their participation and roles are defined.
Scope of contribution The citizens contribution is not defined since their participating is excluded, the mining company representatives and environmetal specialist will involve in providing mining waste discharge options therefore reducing hazards.

----#: . though the following contributions was not stated --Matthew 17:43, 11 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Impact of contribution The public's contribution is not stated to be relevant to be taken into account but health impact on the citizen is considered which is assume to useful in the future

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 not clear and not well defined. The important issues are not addressed such as the main health and environmental effect of the waste mining water to the citizens of talvivaara.
Applicability: Relevance 4 The needs of intended users are not clearly stated to be met as scenerio are not well defined. however dose response level of exposure needed to be identified.
Applicability: Availability 3 The availability of the assessment is not mentioned, In my opinion however, the assessment should be available to every citizens living around the talvivaara who are interested in the assessments .
Applicability: Usability 4 The intended users may not have a full benefit of the assessment as it dose not provide adequate information on the talvivaara mining company.
Applicability: Acceptability 4 The assessment should be rejected by the mining representative and by other stakeholders more importantly since there is no clear participation of the citizens of the talvivaara in other to study if they have been affected by the waste mining water discharge in lakes. Broad and explicit collaboration is probably the right way to go if one wants acceptance to the assessment evaluation
Efficiency 4 Though a lot of effort will be required in doing this assessment so as to make it efficient, but in this case, the assessment is not efficient as it needs the citizens of talvivaara participation, environmental experts, governments and other important stakeholders.


Comments and ideas how to improve the draft adequate collabortion is needed especially from the stakeholders. citizens contributions, environmental experts, government and others.


Assessment - Homework 3 of Phatman [[2]]

Knowledge-policy interaction

Characterization of knowledge-policy interaction
Attribute characterization
Impacts Health and environmental impact of GHG emssion ----#: . this is not clearly stated --Matthew 01:26, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Causes emissions from public transportation and power plant within the city.
Problem owner
  • The city council-ensuring implementation of recommendations
 Energy production experts assessments of GHG amd mitigatiion
 Transpoet commissions to sight for alternative fuel options
 public relation experts to disseminate informations about the GHG to the citizens
  • The city council of Kuopio will make recommendations and policies for emissions of GHG from traffic.
  • Transport commisions for making adequate CO2 emission standard for road transport
Interaction
  • In the assessments, information about interaction is quite limited and not well defined. It can be seen as more of collaborative.


Characterization of the dimensions of openness.
Dimension Characterization
Scope of participation All intended users are mentioned in the scope of participation, however their roles in the participation is not clearly defined.----Intended users such as citizens and environmental experts is not stated: . --Matthew 01:26, 12 February 2013 (EET) {{{3}}} (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Access to information The assessment information will be shared by the public relaton experts but information on who will have access to it is not clerly stated
Timing of openness Timing of participation by different participants is not clearly defined, their participation are just mentioned.
Scope of contribution This is not clearly stated however ----#: . This should be more of collaborative --Matthew 01:26, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Impact of contribution There is no information on the impact of contribution in the assessment

Evaluation of the assessment draft The assessments is void of the improtant stakeholders and their well defined rolls. thus this can be poorly evaluated

Evaluation according to the properties of good assessment
Attribute Score Explanation
Quality of content 3 The content of the assessment is clear and concise. Important parts of the assessment question are addressed but not clearly stated. but However the option of improve energy efficiency (renewable fuel) is taken into account
Applicability: Relevance 4 ----- 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 who is interested in it.
Applicability: Usability 4 The assessment can be used by the bus company and city its use among the people who live and work too will be easy since they have some idea of the contents
Applicability: Acceptability 4 Since all intended users do not participate in the assessment process and their contributions can't be incorporated in the assessment so the assessments shouldn't be accepted. Efficiency 3 The assessmnets is not efficient enough as intended users do not fully Participated, this will bring about diverse thoughts as it might require behavioural change especially from car owners and users, so a lot of work has to go into it.

Comments and ideas how to improve the draft

  • Renewable fuels should be included as part of the scenarios - This reduce emissions and keep the environment safe
  • In renewable fuels are considered, fuel companies will have to be considered in the assessment too
Retrieved from "https://en.opasnet.org/index.php?title=User:Matthew&oldid=28984"