User talk:Thomasa

From Opasnet
Revision as of 20:38, 10 February 2013 by Stefania (talk | contribs) (→‎HOMEWORK 3)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

----#: . You could consider moving the answers to the actual user page (this is the related discussion page). --Mikko Pohjola 11:29, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

HOMEWORK 1

6. What is impact assessment?

Is a combination of procedures, methods and tools for judging the potential health effects of a policy, program or project on a population, particularly on vulnerable or disadvantaged groups. Hence, it is a tool to dynamically improve health and well-being across sectors. ----#: . This looks like coming from the definition of HEALTH impact assessment by WHO. More generally, impact assessments can look into many kinds of impacts. The problem at hand determines, which impacts are of interest. --Mikko Pohjola 11:29, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

11. What is the trialogical approach to knowledge creation and learning?

It is an approach to knowledge creation and learning which is applied especially in the context of computer-supported collaborative learning. It emphasizes the role of collaborative development and reconstruction of concrete, shared artefacts in mediating knowledge creation, as well as reflecting and transforming knowledge practices, the ways of collaboratively working with knowledge, with supporting processes, and executing knowledge tasks.

2. What is pragmatism?

It is a collective knowledge creation process where issues of knowledge, innovation and practice are integrated through participation. This is achieved by continuously construct and re-construct the social meanings that shape our thoughts and actions. ----#: . Right, but perhaps more characteristic for the trialogical approach than the underlying concept of pragmatism. More generally it could be said that the main idea of pragmatism is that knowledge and action can not be separated. --Mikko Pohjola 11:29, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

←--#: . Good answers. --Mikko Pohjola 11:29, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

HOMEWORK 2

Question

What factors or parameters are going to be put in place to make sure that other neighbouring countries also reduce or minimize their emissions, since emissions from other neignbouring countries can get into Kuopio to worsen the situation irrespective of the 40 percent emission reduction in Kuopio?

HOMEWORK 3

⇤--#: . The answers below could use some tidying up and technical editing for better readability. --Mikko Pohjola 11:29, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

----#: . You may want to use headings and subheadings to improve the clarity of your page. Read Help:How to edit wikipages for instructions. --Jouni 10:42, 24 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

----#: . I agree, t would be nice if you would structure the assessment clearer. --Isabell Rumrich 18:33, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
←--#: . True. It would be clearer if you present your assessment using headings and subheadings. You should emphasize the three main points of an assessment: SCOPE, ANSWER, RATIONAL. --Stefania 22:38, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)


Question What climate change policies are worth adopting by Ghana to reduce GHG emissions? 


Scope

Question What are the potential climate policies that reach the greenhouse emission targets in Ghana for years 2013-2040? What are some of the impacts or effects on agriculture, health, resources, well-being etc. and what recommendations can be suggested based on these? The national greenhouse emission target is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 10 % between 2000 and 2030. Boundaries • Time: Year 2013-2040

Scenarios •Factories in various cities can reduce GHG emissions by or continue business as usual. •Schools and NGOs can organize sensitization programs and create awareness at local and national level on climate change issues, or continue business as usual. Intended users • Ghana • Other neighbouring countries • EPA, Ghana Participants EPA, Ghana Universities, Research institutions and groups and NGOs Municipal and District Assemblies (MDAs)

----#: . In theory, your participation list sounds great, but it may be difficult to get all those groups interested. --Jouni 10:42, 24 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) ←--#: . Yes, the idea to allow to participate so much people, companies, and institutions is very difficult to carry out, because too much generic. It should be better to focus on some specific groups, explaining what could be their contributions. It is very important to also think what knowledge, expertise, opinions etc. is needed and to target efforts to obtaining those. --Stefania 22:38, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

----#: . It is very nice that you consider neighboring countries and acknowledge that GHG emissions do not stay in one country and the emissions produced in Ghana effect other countries, too. --Isabell Rumrich 18:33, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) }

Rationale

Policies Promote the use of biofuels to generate energy Cut down the use of firewood/charcoal

----#: . How can you reduce firewood and increase biofuels at the same time? What other biofuels are there? --Jouni 10:42, 24 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

----#: . The actions to take into account are so wide. It should be better to specified them (for example, how firewood/charcoal could be exactly reduced, which is precisely the role of participants in the achievement of the actions) --Stefania 22:38, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Mass education of the populace Reduce illegal logging Collaborate in international strategies, policies and action plan to reduce GHG emissions in transport and housing Adopt and promote renewable energy options Specific actions - real and potential Energy production Cut down the use of charcoal and firewood Promote or speed up the work at Aboadze thermal plant to supplement Akosombo hydro-electric power plant Utilize the tropical weather to venture into renewable energy sources, eg. Solar energy Enhancement of dispersed energy production with biofuels

----#: . - You only include two power plants in your assessment. Maybe you can transfer your ideas to smaller power plants, too. --Isabell Rumrich 18:33, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Transport Redesign of infrastructure and measures to mitigate emissions from vehicles through cleaner technologies and adapting human behavior.

----#: . - You came up with many possible ways to decrease the GHG. Nice! (Although some might be not very realistic, it stills shows that you put a lot of thinking into it.) --Isabell Rumrich 18:33, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

----#: . Are all these actions realistic? Think from the point of view of your key user (Ghana): what are the actions that can actually be taken? --Jouni 10:42, 24 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)


Indicators

• Well- being ----#: . - How do you plan to measure wellbeing? --Isabell Rumrich 18:33, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) • Cardiovascular mortality • Low crop yields in agriculture 

      Assessment-specific data

Received • National plan on public transport • Fuels and emissions by Aboadze power plant • Use of good farming practices To be gathered • Updated data on fuels and emissions of Aboadze thermal power plant • Updated transport system • Number of good farming practices

----#: . - You do not include all your options and indicators in the data you need. For example you want to use cardiovascular mortality as an indicator, but you do not list it as needed information in your assessment-specific data. --Isabell Rumrich 18:33, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Answer

Conclusions

Results

----#: . Different options should be proposed and the conclusion should recommend one specific option and should explain the choice. Often it is reasonable to try to identify and drop out bad options instead of trying to find the best option. If it is easier to know about disadvantages (points against) of the different options chosen rather than advantages (points in favor) it could give interesting results and allow to better support decision makers. --Stefania 22:38, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)


----#: . The Rationale part with endpoints and variables is not clearly mentioned. --Isabell Rumrich 18:33, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) ←--#: . Totally agree. Endpoints and variables miss. --Stefania 22:38, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

----#: . The general idea for assessment is logical and can be done in other areas but it is very wide and therefore it's not possible to use all the information in one process so it would be better to specifies the actions and role of participants in details and make the policy clear for participants. in addition some of the activities requires measurements to be understood but the whole idea is practical. --Soroushm 20:16, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

HOMEWORK 4

⇤--#: . Did you have a pair or a group co-operating with you on this exercise? Please add names here. Also ask your pair/group mates to check that they have links to this answer on their user page(s) as well as in the follow-up table on the homework page. --Mikko Pohjola 10:30, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . Indicate clearly which strategy/program this answer addresses. --Mikko Pohjola 10:30, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

1. What are the aims/goals of the strategy/program, i.e. what are the desired impacts and outcomes striven for? Who are those that benefit if the aims/goals of the strategy/program are reached? How?

Aims/ goals:

  1. To assess the consequences of climate change on the region. ----#: . This looks more like an aim for making the strategy, not so much a goal of the strategy itself. --Mikko Pohjola 10:30, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
  2. To prepare for the impacts of climate change and extreme weather events.
  3. To reduce the vulnerability of the region to climate variation and change, in order to safeguard the well-being of inhabitants and the functioning of the cities even in changing conditions.

⇤--#: . Goals 2 and 3 look sensible, but are quite vague (like they often are in strategies). See if these top-level goals are (or can be) broken down into more detailed and concrete goals. What does "preparing for impacts of climate change…" and "reducing vulnerability…" mean in practical terms? What kind of change (or avoidance of change) does the strategy try to invoke? --Mikko Pohjola 10:30, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

----#: . Based on this answer I assume your answers are based on the Helsinki Region climate change adaptation strategy. Many comments below are based on that understanding. If your material was something else, try to adapt my comments accordingly. --Mikko Pohjola 10:30, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Beneficiaries of the aims of the strategy.

The citizens of Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa and Kauniainen. To secure the well-being of the citizens and the functioning of the cities in the changing climate condition.

----#: . Referring to above comment: What are the parts of the strategy that relate to "securing the well-being…"? --Mikko Pohjola 10:30, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

⇤--#: . Any organizations (public, administrative, private business, etc.) or particular population subgroups that would have clear benefits (or avoidance of risks/costs) from successful realization of the strategy? Who? In which ways? --Mikko Pohjola 10:30, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)


2. What are the actions that are needed/intended to take in order to progress towards the aims/goals? Who are those that actually realize these actions?

ANSWER:

  1. The regional climate and sea level scenarios,
  2. Modeling of river floods in climate change conditions and a survey of climate change impacts in the region.
  3. Existing programmes, legislation, research and studies concerning adaptation were collected.

⇤--#: . These points all relate to getting the understanding about what could and should be done, but as such they do not tell anything about what should/needs to be done according to the strategy. Please look into the material again and try to identify recommendations for actions in order to reach the goals of the strategy. --Mikko Pohjola 10:30, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

2.B. Who are those that actually realize these actions?

ANSWER:

Those who realized the actions are ;

  • Experts from the cities in the Helsinki metropolitan area, regional rescue services, the Ministry of the Environment, Helsinki Region Transport (HSL) and the Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities have participated in the strategic work at many stages.

⇤--#: . Looks like a list of those were involved in preparing the strategy. Probably many of them also have some kind of roles in realizing the strategy, but not necessarily. After having identified recommended actions in the strategy (see above), think also who are those that actually are involved in making those actions. --Mikko Pohjola 10:30, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

3. What are the decisions that are needed to make in order to enable/promote the actions? Who are the decision makers?

ANSWER:

  1. Preparing in advance for natural hazards to significantly reduce the damages and costs that arise from them. ⇤--#: . Too vague! Looks more like a general (vaguely presented) aim for the whole strategy. You need to think (based on the strategy) of what kind of decisions and by who are such that can make this aim come true. Should become clearer after having worked on the comments above. --Mikko Pohjola 10:30, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
  2. Authorities, experts, other actors and the citizens ----#: . Yes, they all probably have an important role. But try to identify which decisions, actions, and aims their roles are related to. --Mikko Pohjola 10:30, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)


4. 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?

ANSWER;

  • The direct or indirect health impacts of these decisions are on vegetation, animals, biodiversity, greenhouse gas emissions and air quality, as well as the impact of noise, the social impact, the impacts on human health and economic impacts.
  • Throughout the world
  • Climate change is caused by emission of greenhouse gases
  • Global citizens of the world

⇤--#: . Looks to me that you have listed impacts of climate change here. Instead you should think of the Helsinki Region climate change adaptation strategy (that's the one addressed here, right?) and consider the health impacts (positive or negative) from the decisions and actions needed to realize the strategy towards its different goals. Are there any mentioned in the strategy paper? If not, can you think of any? --Mikko Pohjola 10:30, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

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

ANSWER;

They are big but as equally important as the other impacts.

⇤--#: . How big? Why? Why equally (not more or less) important as other impacts? Which other impacts? --Mikko Pohjola 10:30, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

----#: . Rethink this answer completely after you have gone through and taken account of the points above. --Mikko Pohjola 10:30, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

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

ANSWER:

Always result in Win- win.

⇤--#: . How and why would it be so? Does improvement in health always come associated with reduced costs, reduced, environmental impacts etc. or vice versa? --Mikko Pohjola 10:30, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

----#: . Rethink also this answer completely after you have gone through and taken account of the points above. --Mikko Pohjola 10:30, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

7. Formulate a plausible and meaningful specific assessment question that takes account of (some of) the aspects considered in above questions.

ANSWER:

What are the potential climate change policies that will reduce the greenhouse emissions to give win-win result?

----#: . This is in principle quite a good formulation, but still a bit vague and unclear. You could improve it by specifying better what you mean by win-win. GHG emission vs. cost (of what) / health impact (of what to whom) / something else? In addition, the question addresses rather the climate change mitigation, not adaptation, as I believe was in focus in the material you have chosen. --Mikko Pohjola 10:30, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

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

ANSWER:

To a high degree, our answers conform to many other climate programs/ strategies. For example, many contributors would agree with us that, a dramatic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would mitigate climate change and its attendant problems. ----#: . Unless I am completely mistaken you have considered an adaptation strategy. Therefore the relationship between GHG emissions and climate change and climate change induced risks and problems is underlying understanding, but the point should rather be on what are the risks (locally, regionally) and how should they be prepared for. Also in case of a climate change mitigation strategy, the point should rather be on what are the actions and decisions and how should they be realized in order to reduce GHG emissions, not just on the basic idea that GHG emission reduction is good. --Mikko Pohjola 10:30, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

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 09:58, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Retrieved from "https://en.opasnet.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Thomasa&oldid=28789"