Main Page

(Groupwork of Juho Kutvonen and Salla) ----#: . I collected the answers into three tables for easier reading and commenting. You could do the same for the other characterization/evaluation below, e.g. by copying the tables as such and replacing their contents (I recommend doing the same to everyone else as well). --Mikko Pohjola 09:44, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

----#: . Will get back to comment the contents later. --Mikko Pohjola 09:51, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Knowledge-policy interaction

Characterization of knowledge-policy interaction

Attribute	characterization
Impacts	The effects of metals on lake water as domestic water as a result metal emissions from the Talvivaara mine
Causes	Present metal emission from the Talvivaara mine negatively affecting the feasibility of nearby lake water as domestic water.
Problem owner	Local residents who experiences the impacts • Environmental authorities, who provide metal emission restrictions to Talvivaara mine. • Talvivaara mine experts and engineers to review designing structures to ensure that the metal emissions could be reduced.
Target	• The city council can use the results to give recommendations or guidelines for proper mechanisms of operation of the mine to cut down metal emissions. • Local residents living nearby lakes to document first had experience. • Communication and public relations out fits is responsible for the communication of recommendations
Interaction	They provided a very direct and specific scope of participation and a good knowledge and policy interaction framework as indicated in their detailed draft, in my opinion. Characterization of the dimensions of openness. Dimension Characterization Scope of participation They provided the following participants: ELY centre, Local residents living nearby lakes, SYKE, and added that Talvivaara mine is excluded because it may be partial. I think they did a good job by providing a detail account of participants and also providing reasons why Talvivaara mine is excluded. Access to information Their draft gave enough information concerning this aspect. Timing of openness They provided detailed accounts here. Scope of contribution They gave enough information on the intended users specific roles each will play. Impact of contribution • There was a good number of specific participants: ELY centre, local residents living nearby lakes and SYKE, Explanations of categories of interaction within the knowledge-policy interaction framework. I believe their draft was well thought out and carefully planned. It contained clear information regarding specific participants and their corresponding roles. Evaluation of the assessment draft Evaluation according to the properties of good assessment Attribute Score Explanation Quality of content 3 The draft was clear and concise containing relevant information. Applicability: Relevance 3 As mentions earlier the draft contained some practical and workable ideas. Applicability: Availability 3 In summary,I would say it was a well thought out draft. They seem to understand the situation on the ground. Applicability: Usability 4 For similar reason, because it was well thought out, it scores also good marks as far as usability is concerned in my opinion. Applicability: Acceptability 2 The participants who were involved in the assessment will find it a bit easy to accept it. Efficiency 3 Good attempt as it sought to solicit for ideas from several participants. The information was organised in small workable units. Comments and ideas how to improve the draft In general they seem to have clear understanding and first hand information on the issue they were tackling. I will only congratulate them for a good work done. (Groupwork of Sami Rissanen & Jukka Hirvonen) NOTE: Incidentally, the two grouped I evaluated worked on local Finnish issues. They worked on Talvivaara mine and its environmental concerns . Both groups seem to have a full understanding and first hand information about the concern they addressed in their drafts. For this reason, most of my evaluations are similar. Knowledge-policy interaction Characterization of knowledge-policy interaction Attribute characterization Impacts The effects of mineral dust (PM10 and PM2,5) from the Talvivaara mine that is present in air of mining and working area where workers are exposed to different heavy metal types: t.ex: copper, nickel, kobolt etc. Causes Hazards of fine particle emissions (PM10, PM2,5) from the Talvivaara mine to mine workers and people who live nearby mine or work nearby mine area Problem owner Talvivaara mining company Kainuun ELY-keskus (Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment) Regional TTL (Työterveyslaitos) Target Mine workers and people who live nearby mine or work nearby mine area Talvivaara mining company wants to know is the air quality in acceptable level ELY-keskus needs to know is the air quality legal and safe to workers Interaction They provided a very direct and specific scope of participation and a good knowledge on what each participant offers as indicated in their detailed draft, in my opinion. They however did not mention local residents who I consider as important. Characterization of the dimensions of openness. Dimension Characterization Scope of participation They provided the following participants: A consultant to measure air quality. Company, ELY-keskus, DARM group, Regional TTL, The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (FANC). However, they left out local residents who are also important. Also, I don’t understand how they seem to project that the company will be biased. Access to information Their draft gave enough information concerning this aspect. Timing of openness They provided detailed accounts here. Scope of contribution They gave enough information on the intended users specific roles each will play Impact of contribution There was a good number of specific participants: A consultant to measure air quality. Company, ELY-keskus, DARM group, Regional TTL, The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (FANC). Explanations of categories of interaction within the knowledge-policy interaction framework. I believe their draft was well thought out and carefully planned. It contained clear information regarding specific participants and their corresponding roles. Evaluation of the assessment draft Evaluation according to the properties of good assessment Attribute Score Explanation Quality of content 3 The draft was clear and concise containing relevant information. Applicability: Relevance 3 As mentions earlier the draft contained some practical and workable ideas. Applicability: Availability 3 In summary, I would say it was a well thought out draft. They seem to understand the situation on the ground. Applicability: Usability 3 For similar reason, because it was well thought out, it scores also good marks as far as usability is concerned in my opinion. Applicability: Acceptability 2 The participants who were involved in the assessment will find it a bit easy to accept it. Efficiency 3 Good attempt as it sought to solicit for ideas from several participants. The information was organised in small workable units. Comments and ideas how to improve the draft In general they seem to have clear understanding and first hand information on the issue they were tackling. I will only congratulate them for a good work done. Both group did very well and I am impressed with their work as beginners but with time it could be further improved with much detail and specific actions since some aspects were vague and broad. Information about Opasnet Opasnet is a wiki-based website and workspace for helping societal decision making. The website collects, synthesises, and distributes people's values and scientific information. Opasnet welcomes anyone who wants to promote science-based decision-making in any field. The speciality is that the information is structured for both scientific scrutiny and for policy use at the same time. In practice, you can do original research, store data, make models, and perform policy assessments and discuss all of that work in one workspace. Originally, the developers of Opasnet came from the environmental health, i.e. a research field that studies the impacts of environment on human health. We are actively working, among other things, on climate change and air pollution, but you can also start a new assessment about a decision of your own interest, or participate in an existing assessment. Anyone can solve common problems. Opasnet is the web workspace for solving them by you, and by us together. Learn from and participate in Opasnet Welcome to Opasnet Opasnet Open assessment What is improved by Opasnet and open assessment? Contributing to Opasnet Frequently asked questions about Opasnet Databases and modelling in Opasnet We can only help decision making if a large group of people participate in the work. Find your own ways to contribute and act! Recent recommendations Swine flu vaccination in Finland was better than not vaccinating anyone even when narcolepsy is included in the assessment Most likely you should not take iodine tablets because of Fukushima nuclear accident Fish is healthy despite persistent pollutants in it Radon in indoor air is a major health problem. If living in certain areas, you should consider actions. See more recommendations Portals By topic: Portal:Climate change Portal:Persistent pollutants Portal:Air pollution Portal:Urgenche, a project on impacts of city-level climate policies By user: Portal:Open Assessors' Network By information type: Portal:Open assessments Portal:Variables (science-based answers to any questions) Portal:Data (data about several topics for modelling) Current issues A Tutorial on R Fukushima nuclear accident studies Decision analysis and risk management course (28 Feb - 12 Apr 2011) Opasnet wins WSA Finland award in e-Government & Institutions category Burden of disease by environmental stressors in Europe (EBoDE) Burden of disease in Finland (Seturi) Active assessments Assessments that need new participants Benefit-risk assessment of Baltic herring and salmon intake (2020-08-12 15:39:42) File:Use of risk assessment in the society.pptx (2019-12-11 17:39:58) Tendering process for pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (2019-12-11 16:25:59) Emission trade or carbon tax? (2019-12-07 05:14:10) Congestion charge (2019-07-03 08:12:39) Helsinki energy decision 2015 (2019-04-28 16:11:47) File:Use of risk assessment in the society.ppt (2019-02-01 06:56:28) Category:Causal diagram (2019-01-02 14:06:09) Carbon neutral Helsinki 2035 (2018-12-07 02:25:27) Cost-benefit assessment on composite traffic in Helsinki (2018-01-12 07:13:35) Assessment on the government program 2011 in Finland (in Finnish) Assessment on progressive value added tax (in Finnish) Information policy of a research institute (in Finnish) Nuclear energy in Finland (in Finnish) Show all