User talk:Thomasa

⇤--#: . You still have some unfinished homework(s). For most people it is just some small thing (or maybe a broken link to an existing work?). But please check it quickly, as the deadline is on Friday. Because of your absence in seminars, you also have extra homework: it is the same work as HW6, but with new pages. Check the follow-up table! --Jouni 18:12, 13 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

----#: . 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?

⇤--#: . 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)

HOMEWORK 3

⇤--#: . This is homework 3. --Mikko Pohjola 10:56, 14 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

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

⇤--#: . Looks like some improvement has been made, but please update your old answers according to your new thoughts instead of just adding new text. Also some important comments have been left unanswered. --Mikko Pohjola 08:35, 16 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

----#: . 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: comment)

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

This answer addresses issues of climate change, its mitigation and adaptation for a sustainable environment. ----#: . Does this mean:"Helsinki region climate adaptation strategy"? --Mikko Pohjola 08:35, 16 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

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)←--#: . updated --Thomasa 16:49, 17 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
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)←--#: . updated --Thomasa 16:49, 17 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

- To mitigate emission of GHGs

• preparing for the impacts of climate change in our context means that putting proactive measures, policies and structures in place to handle the negative impacts of climate change.

• reducing vulnerability also means minimising the susceptibility of the citizens and other structures from the negative impacts of climate for example green economy.

----#: . 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)

The parts of the strategy that relate to securing the well-being of the citizens is related under the healthcare and social services and also somehow under reduce services and safety sections of the document

⇤--#: . 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)←--#: . updated --Thomasa 16:49, 17 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Organisations that would benefit include,for example;officials of Helsinki metropolitan area and that is to help them to make good decisions on managing the risks of weather events and climate change.

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)

What should be done Under land for example, -Take care of the efficiency of ecosystem services and preservation of biodiversity -Take into accounts climate variation, extreme weather events and climate change into account during planning work of municipalities.

• Under traffic and technical networks

-Take into account the major risks posed by extreme weather events, sea level rise in planning public transport -check

• Building and climate proof local environment

-participate in a project studying the scenarios of sea rise and their probabilities -check the minimum heights for construction based on updated sea level scenarios and guidelines.

• water and waste management

-work to reduce overflows from mixed water sewers -Take into account risk impacts of extreme weather events and climate change to check the dimensioning principles for waste water management

• Resue services and safety

-prepare in advance for the risk taking into account extreme weather events and climate change risks -Rescue services should be kept up to date information about collaborating organisations and resources that may be needed should the problems occur

• Health care and social services

-study vulnerable groups and identify their needs - start urban survival project, prepare citizens for climate change and extreme weather events

• cooperation in the production of and distribution of information

-study international best practices and experiences of adaptation of urban regions and distribute information about them to cities -Take part in co-operative networks on national and regional levels in order to distribute experiences and information

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;

The health impacts are more than economical, social, climate, other environmental 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 since at the end of the day,the strategy will work in a way to reduce climate change negative impacts though not completely eradicating them.

⇤--#: . 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)←--#: . updated --Thomasa 16:49, 17 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

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

ANSWER:

What needs and aims are going to be achieved under the Helsinki Metropolitan Area Climate Change Adaptation Strategy?

----#: . 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)←--#: . updated --Thomasa 16:49, 17 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

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 5

⇤# The main participants of the assessment are Helsinki metropolitan area (city of Helsinki), the city of Espoo, The City of Kauniainen, The City of Vantaa, The City of Helsinki Rescue Department, West Uusimaa Rescue Department, Central Uusimaa Rescue Department, The Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities, Ministry of the Interior, The Ministry of the Environment, HSL Helsinki Region Transport, HSY Helsinki Region Environmental Services Authority, Ramboll Finland Oy: --Thomasa 00:07, 10 February 2013 (EET) {{{3}}}

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

• HSY coordinated the strategy preparation or did the preparatory work
• All the other participants contributed by giving comments on the strategy draft by the board of HYS
• All the other participants other than HYS and Ramboll Finland oy monitor the implementation of agreed policies and changes to the operating environment.
• An impact assessment of the adaptation strategy was done by Ramboll Finland Oy --Thomasa 00:07, 10 February 2013 (EET) ⇤--#: . You should specify the roles per participant. E.g. "City administration has roles of decision maker and executor." --Marjo 14:15, 14 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ←--#: . Enter your defending argumentation between these two bars --Thomasa 16:43, 17 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence){{defend|# |."|--[[User:Thomasa - updated |--Thomasa 16:43, 17 February 2013 (EET)}}

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

• All the cities (city planning), have relevant knowledge in climate variation,extreme weather events and climate and land use.

• Cities (city planning, technical services, environment centre)and Forestry Development Centre Tapio Uudenmaan liitto also have knowledge in the efficiency of ecosystem services and the preservation of biodiversity by developing ecological contacts and a greenbelt network.

• The Finnish Transport Agency ,the Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment have knowledge in preparing and

planning for public transport, prepare for traffic management in cases of disruption and emergency.

• Rescue departments have knowledge on how to act during extreme weather events.

--Thomasa 00:07, 10 February 2013 (EET) ⇤--#: . You should specify the knowledge type per participant. E.g. "Rescue departments have knowledge on how to act during extreme weather events." --Marjo 14:15, 14 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) {{defend|# User:Thomasa]] updated

What needs and aims do they represent in the assessment?

• Their needs and aims are all geared towards;

    •Climate change can be mitigated by reducing greenhouse gas emissions 
    •Adapting to the impacts of climate change
    .focuses on the adaptation of the built and urban environment to a changing climate 
     .to prepare for the impacts of climate change and extreme weather events and to reduce the vulnerability of the region to climate variation and change, in order to safeguard the well-being of the region’s inhabitants and the functioning of the cities even in changing conditions

⇤--#: . Again, needs and aims should be expressed per participant. --Marjo 14:15, 14 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)←--#: . updated --Thomasa 16:43, 17 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

--Thomasa 00:07, 10 February 2013 (EET)

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?

* The relevant participants could be involved effectively in the assessment by; 

  - clearly specifying each participant roles to play to avoid conflicts of interest and responsibilities
  - checks and balances should be put in place to monitor each participant roles for effective involvement
  - Time frame could be set for the participants to do its work or deliver its role so that effectiveness could be achieved. 

⇤# --Thomasa 00:07, 10 February 2013 (EET)⇤--#: . You are not really answering the question. --Marjo 14:15, 14 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)←--#: . updated --Thomasa 16:43, 17 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

How can the quality of an assessment be assured if anyone can participate? 
 * proper guidelines should be outlined based on the aims and the needs of the assessment so that participants comments and contributions would be accepted based on the stipulated guidelines. In this way, quality assessment would be assured.
⇤#  --Thomasa 00:07, 10 February 2013 (EET)⇤--#: . Answer the question! --Marjo 14:15, 14 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)←--#: . updated --Thomasa 16:43, 17 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

How can you prevent malevolent contributions where the purpose is to vandalise the process?
 ⇤# : •	Though people are encouraged to give contributions and comments, it is also important to edit and refine various contributions appropriately --Thomasa 00:07, 10 February 2013 (EET)←--#: . Good, although you could specify who should edit and refine contributions. --Marjo 14:15, 14 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
How can you make the outcome converge to a conclusion, because all issues are uncertain and controversial?
 ⇤# : •	Current, practical and relevant comments and contributions from various participants can be put together to make a good conclusions --Thomasa 00:07, 10 February 2013 (EET)←--#: . Good. --Marjo 14:15, 14 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
How can you ensure that the outcomes are useful for the users? 
⇤# : •	By making sure that the outcomes address the practical concerns and issues of the users.

•outcomes should be clear, concise and concrete to prevent ambiguity .←--#: . Good. --Marjo 14:15, 14 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

--Thomasa 00:07, 10 February 2013 (EET) Homework 5, part C: Prepare following tables from the climate programme of your selection. Instructions for table structures can be found at Training assessment.

Decisions table 

Endpoints table ⇤--#: . Add tables. --Marjo 14:15, 14 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

HOMWORK 6

http://en.opasnet.org/w/Energy_transformations http://en.opasnet.org/w/Concentration-response_to_PM2.5 http://en.opasnet.org/w/Energy_consumption_and_GHG_emissions_in_Kuopio_by_sector

HOMEWORK 7

EIA directive works mostly very well.⇤# : This directive works but not as perfectly as expected, because amendments might not necessary solve a particular problem at the time the amendment is done and this will call for constant or regular review of the various components of the directive --Thomasa 23:49, 9 February 2013 (EET)

The participation process required in the EIA directive is useless.⇤# : The participation process required in the EIA directive is not useless at all since active and maximum participation process will create a good platform for concerned citizens to come out willingly with their views and concerns on the directive which will go a long way to help planners to come out with concrete, precise and practical directive --Thomasa 23:49, 9 February 2013 (EET)

The current proposal does not leave enough flexibility to member states.it only set limits and guidelines on how member states need to go about projects affecting the environment,this ndoes not necessarily means no enough flexibility to member states.⇤# : The current proposal really gives even more than enough flexibility to member states since some member states do not strictly adhere to some of the measures and requirements in the EIA directive --Thomasa 23:49, 9 February 2013 (EET)

Accredited quality controllers will not improve the EIA process. On the contrary, they will reduce the transparency and thus possibilities to participate.⇤# : Even though accredited quality controllers in one way or the other limit participation and openness, they help by making sure that quality EIA directive is attained. This is made possible by making sure that the directive meets their standards and regulations, and when these standards are met, the directive will now be seen as authenticated and authoritative where all the member states can now go by it and trust it --Thomasa 23:49, 9 February 2013 (EET)

A national authority giving environmental permissions.Should the principles underlying the issue of permissions be breached upon,sanction must be applied {{attack|# |I think sanctions should be applied on those who will go contrary to the underlying principles so that the EIA directive can serve the purpose for which it was made|--Thomasa 23:49, 9 February 2013 (EET

A company applying for a permission for some activity and making an EIA about that.The activity will be in the EIA guideline and also yeild economic returns to benefit the citizens.⇤# : If it will yield good economic returns to benefit the citizens, then, permission would be granted since it is a laudable idea for bringing economic returns --Thomasa 23:49, 9 February 2013 (EET)

A nature conservationist.The directive is most valuable to quantify the cost,benefits and impacts of a project before permiting its execution.

⇤# : I solidly support the idea of considering the cost, benefits and impacts of the project since when considered,the directive can be executed without failure in the future --Thomasa 23:49, 9 February 2013

A local politician interested in both nature and local economy.The economic returns of projects are valuable but must be match with strict measures to minimise environmental effects.

⇤# : Even though the economic returns of the projects might be valuable, strict measures should be made to reduce environmental stress drastically. This is because, if we don't have environment or don't conserve nature, good economy is useless. If we don't have environment,then, we don't have anything or we are doomed --Thomasa 23:49, 9 February 2013 (EET)

A citizen.

⇤# : As a citizen,i will endeavour to do everything within my means to preserve, conserve, guide and protect the EIA directive so that collectively we can boast of a good environment that can be handed to posterity --Thomasa 23:49, 9 February 2013 (EET)

Question

What established or possible indoor environment quality (IEQ) factors exist? What kind of dose-responses have been defined for them?

Answer

User talk:Thomasa(-)

Obs	Exposure metric	Response	Response metric	Exposure route	Exposure unit	ERF parameter	ERF	Significance	Description/Reference
1	Visible dampness and/or mold or mold odor	Respiratory health effect		Inhalation	yes/no	OR	several, see Note 1		Note 1
2	Dampness and/or mold	General health problem		perception	yes/no	increased risk of health problems %	64%		Evans et al (2000)
3	Dampness and/or mold	Mental health problems		perception	yes/no	OR	1.39(1.44-2.78)		Shenassa et al. 2007
4	Dampness and/or mold	Self-assessed health poorer		Inhalation, Other?					Note 2
5	Dampness and/or mold	Mental health problems		Inhalation, dermal and ingestion	yes/no	OR	1.76 (1.17-2.66)		Hopton and Hunt (1996)
6	Chronic illness	Mental health problems		not applicable	yes/no	OR	1.99 (1.32-3.02)		Hopton and Hunt (1996)
7	Living with children under 16 y	Mental health problems		not applicable	yes/no	OR	1.75 (1.15-2.68)		Hopton and Hunt (1996)
8	Living in a low income household	Mental health problems		not applicable	yes/no	OR	1.61 (1.06-2.44)		Hopton and Hunt (1996)
9	Respondent unemployed	Mental health problems		not applicable	yes/no	OR	1.55 (0.99-2.42)		Hopton and Hunt (1996)
10	Living in flat instead of house	Upper respitory infection		Inhalation	yes/no				D.Fanning (1967)
11	Living in flat instead of house	Minor mental health problems		not applicable	yes/no				D.Fanning (1967)
12	Living in flat instead of house	Morbidity		not applicable	yes/no	Increased morbidity (%)	57%		D.Fanning (1967)
13	Living in ground floor	Psychoneurotic disorder		not applicable	yes/no	Increased risk of psychoneurotic disorder (%)	6,3%		D.Fanning (1967)
14	Living in 1st floor	Psychoneurotic disorder		not applicable	yes/no	Increased risk of psychoneurotic disorder (%)	6,7%		D.Fanning (1967)
15	Living in 2nd floor	Psychoneurotic disorder		not applicable	yes/no	Increased risk of psychoneurotic disorder (%)	10,9%		D.Fanning (1967)
16	Living in 3rd floor	Psychoneurotic disorder		not applicable	yes/no	Increased risk of psychoneurotic disorder (%)	12,7%		D.Fanning (1967)
17	Wood smoke	Respiratory health effect		Inhalation					Note 3, Note 4
18	Wood smoke	Irritation of eyes and mucosa
19	Wood smoke	Respiratory health effect		Inhalation
20	Wood smoke	Odour problems		Inhalation
21	Wood smoke	Comfort of housing
22	Wood smoke	Chronic infections		Inhalation
23	Wood smoke	Cancer		Inhalation
24	Tobacco smoke	Respiratory health effect		Inhalation
25	Tobacco smoke	Irritation of eyes and mucosa
26	Tobacco smoke	Respiratory health effect
27	Tobacco smoke	Odour problems		Inhalation
28	Tobacco smoke	Comfort of housing
29	Tobacco smoke	Chronic infections		Inhalation
30	Tobacco smoke	Cancer
31	VOCs	irritation symptoms etc.
32	CO2	headache, tiredness etc.
33	CO	headache, tiredness etc.
34	Insufficient air exchange	Headache
35	Insufficient air exchange	Tiredness
36	Insufficient air exchange	Decreased ability to concentrate
37	Insufficient air exchange	Feeling of fug
38	Thermal conditions; heat	Tiredness
39	Thermal conditions; heat	Decreased ability to concentrate
40	Thermal conditions; heat	Increased respiratory symptoms
41	Thermal conditions; heat	Feeling of dryness
42	Thermal conditions; heat	Comfort of housing
43	Thermal comfort (draught or cold)	Mental health problems							Note 2
44	Thermal comfort (heat or cold)	Depression							Note 2
45	Thermal comfort (heat or cold; general perception of thermal problems)	Self-assessed health poorer							Note 2
46	Thermal conditions (cold)	Feeling of draught
47	Thermal conditions (cold)	Comfort of housing
48	Noise	Hearing injury
49	Noise	Sleep disturbance
50	Noise	Stress
51	Noise	Comfort of housing
52	Proximity to traffic	Mortality(?)
53	Radon	Lung cancer							Note 5
54	Relative humidity
55	PM	mortality							Note 3
56	PM	chronic bronchitis
57	PM	lung cancer
58	Reduced space (house/flat)	Depression							Note 2
59	Reduced space (house/flat)	Mental health problems							Note 2
60	Reduced space (house/flat)	Self-assessed health poorer							Note 2
61	Garden	Depression							Note 2
62	Floor level	Mental health problems							Note 2
63	Overcrowding	Mental health problems							Note 2
64	Overcrowding	Self assessed health poorer							Note 2
65	Sensory IAQ	Various health and well-being parameters
66	Maternal employment	Maltreatment of Children		Other	no/yes	OR	2.82 (1.59-5.00)		Sidebotham et al. 2002
67	No. of house moves in previous 5 years	Maltreatment of Children		Other	2-3 vs. 0-1	OR	1.32 (0.77-2.27)		Sidebotham et al. 2002
68	No. of house moves in previous 5 years	Maltreatment of Children		Other	4 or more vs. 0-1	OR	2.81 (1.59-4.96)		Sidebotham et al. 2002
69	Overcrowed accomodation	Maltreatment of Children		Other	yes/no	OR	2.16 (1.27-3.70)		Sidebotham et al. 2002
70	Accomodation	Maltreatment of Children		Other	Council vs. owned/mortgarged	OR	7.65 (3.30-17.75)		Sidebotham et al. 2002
71	Accomodation	Maltreatment of Children		Other	Rented vs. owned/mortgarged	OR	4.47 (1.82-10.98)		Sidebotham et al. 2002
72	Social Network Score < 21	Maltreatment of Children		Other	yes/no	OR	3.09 (1.84-5.19)		Sidebotham et al. 2002
73	Paternal employement	Maltreatment of Children		Other	no/yes	OR	2.33 (1.43-3.77)		Sidebotham et al. 2002
74	Car use	Maltreatment of Children		Other	no/yes	OR	2.33 (1.41-3.83)		Sidebotham et al. 2002
75	No. of deprivation indicators	Maltreatment of Children		Other	1 vs. 0	OR	9.58 (2.64-34.81)		Note6; Sidebotham et al. 2002
76	No. of deprivation indicators	Maltreatment of Children		Other	2 vs. 0	OR	23.44 (6.61-83.15)		Note6; Sidebotham et al. 2002
77	No. of deprivation indicators	Maltreatment of Children		Other	3 vs. 0	OR	59.30 (17.52-200.76)		Note6; Sidebotham et al. 2002
78	No. of deprivation indicators	Maltreatment of Children		Other	4 vs. 0	OR	111.36 (32.31-383.801)		Note6; Sidebotham et al. 2002
79	House dampness	Smoking	38.2	Inhalation other	yes/no				Packer et al. 1994
80	House dampness	use of low fat milk	40.0	Digestion, other	yes/no				Packer et al. 1994
81	House dampness	Exercise 3 last week	15.4	Other	yes/no				Packer et al. 1994
82	House dampness	Body mass index >25	34.2	Other	yes/no				Packer et al. 1994
83	House dampness	Alcohol over limit	14.3	Drinking	yes/no				Packer et al. 1994
84	House dampness	Energy	38.5	Other	yes/no				Packer et al. 1994
85	House dampness	Social isolation	22.7	Other	yes/no				Packer et al. 1994
86	House dampness	Sleep	40.5	Other	yes/no				Packer et al. 1994
87	House dampness	Emotional reactions	39.5	Other	yes/no				Packer et al. 1994
88	House dampness	Physical mobility	16.7	other	yes/no				Packer et al. 1994
89	House dampness	Pain	14.4	other	yes/no				Packer et al. 1994
90	Smoking	chronic respiratory disease		Inhalation	yes/no	OR	4.36(2.46-7.74)		Blackman et al. (2001)
91	Dampness	chronic respiratory disease		Inhalation	yes/no	OR	2.10(1.36-3.50)		Blackman et al. (2001)
92	Unwaged household	chronic respiratory disease		other	yes/no	OR	1.73(1.24-2.41)		Blackman et al. (2001)
93	Unsafe neighborhood	mental health problems		other	yes/no	OR	2.35(1.41-3.92)		Blackman et al. (2001)
94	Chronic respiratory problems	mental health problems		other	yes/no	OR	2.35(1.50-3.69)		Blackman et al. (2001)
95	Draughts	mental health problems		other	yes/no	OR	2.28(1.41-3.69)		Blackman et al. (2001)
96	Rehousing	palpitation/breathlessness	0.8	other	yes/no		-7.8		Pettricrew et al. 2009
97	Rehousing	persistence cough	-11.0	Inhalation	yes/no		-2.1		pettricrew et al. 2009
98	Rehousing	painful joint	32.9	Inhalation	yes/no		-8.7		Pettricrew et al. 2009
99	Rehousing	faints/dizziness	12.6	not applicable	yes/no		-5.7		Pettricrew et al. 2009
100	Rehousing	difficulty in sleeping	8.6	not applicable	yes/no		-17.4		Pettricrew et al. 2009
101	Rehousing	sinus trouble/catarh	-0.3	Other	yes/no		-4.7		Pettricrew et al. 2009

Note 1 ERF of indoor dampness on respiratory health effects

Note 2 WP6 well-being report (password-protected)

Note 3 ERF of PM2.5 on mortality in general population

Note 4 Concentration-response to PM2.5

Note 5 Health impact of radon in Europe

Note 6 Indicators of deprication: overcrowded accommodation, accomodation ownership, paternal employment, car use

⇤--#: . Comments on Hopton and Hunt (1996):

• Row 5: Are you sure that the only possible exposure route is inhalation?
• Rows 6 to 9: Instead of "no", exposure route should be "not applicable".
• Rows 5 to 9: Use periods instead of commas as decimal points. --Marjo 10:22, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

←--#: . Comments have been considered. --Juho Kutvonen 13:52, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

⇤--#: . Comments on Sidebotham et al. (2002)

• Rows 59, 66 and 67 are filled correctly. What comes to rows 60 to 65, small but essential changes should be done in columns "exposure metric" and "exposure unit". An example: "exposure metric" of row 60 should be "2 to 3 house moves in previous 5 years" and the respective "exposure unit" should be "medium vs. low". Based on this example, can you figure out the correct structures of rows 61 to 65? --Marjo 10:41, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

←--#: . Good revisions, you have the right idea. However, some minor modifications would be appropriate: in row 62 "exposure unit" can simply be "yes/no", as the accomodation either is overcrowded or is not; no other possibilities exist. In row 65 the "exposure metric" should be "Social network score < 21" and "exposure unit" again simply "yes/no". --Marjo 15:44, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

⇤--#: . Comments on Packer et al. (1994)

• In the paper of Packer et al. (1994) no ORs are given. Instead, they have measured prevalences. Therefore, "response metric" should be "prevalence" and "ERF parameter" should be "percentage unit change".
• Row 69: According the Table 4, "exposure metric" is damp housing and "response" is "smoking". Based on this, can you figure out the correct structures of rows 70 to 73? --Marjo 11:05, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

----#: . we updated the data --Soroushm 23:25, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) ⇤--#: . I see that you have updated the data using the table 1. Unfortunately, that is not correct. You should update the data using tables 4 and 8, where relationships of dampness and various health-related endpoints are shown. --Marjo 15:27, 11 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)----#: . Table updated --Adnank 10:19, 13 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

⇤--#: . Comments on Blackman et al. (2001)

• "Response metric" should describe how the response was measured: number of cases, incidence, prevalence,... I see that you have filled "response metric" boxes according earlier versions of this table, unfortunately, "response metric" was not used correctly there. The information you now have in boxes "response" and "response metric" all belongs to "response". You could do the following: decide and formulate the most accurate responses and put them into "response" -boxes and empty the "response metric" -boxes. If you can define the response metric, i.e. number of cases, incidence, prevalence etc.. used in the article, you can put it into "response metric" box. --Marjo 14:39, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . Don´t you think that the most likely exposure route in case of smoking and chronic respiratory disease as well as in case of dampness and chronic respiratory disease would be inhalation? --Marjo 16:31, 7 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

----#: . Data tables updated, and correct, most likely exposure route to those exposure metrics would be inhalation --Jukka Hirvonen 09:11, 11 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

⇤--#: . Comments on Fanning (1967)

• This article does not express ORs, which makes it a bit tricky in terms of this exercise. Anyhow, the idea is to find numerical value for ERF to be added into table. At least for morbidity a numerical value can be found in the article, although it is not OR. Can you find it?
• If no numerical value can be found for the two other responses, they should be removed. Instead, you could try to put the data of Table VIII of the article into the IEQ table.
• Exposure route can not be "neurosis" or "common sickness". I suggest exposure route in these cases is "not applicable". --Marjo 17:29, 8 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

←--#: . I see that you have made good corrections in the IEQ table. Still something:

• "ERF parameter" should be "percentage unit change" in all cases.
• Use periods instead of commas as decimal separator. --Marjo 16:13, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

⇤--#: . Comments on Petticrew et al. 2009

• You have both incorrect and correct parts here. Your "exposure metrics" are mostly wrong. I admit, this is tricky, as what you have written as "exposure metrics" could well be that. However, here "exposure metric" in all cases is "rehousing" for which a number of "responses" are described in tables 3,4,5 and 6. As there are so many responses, I suggest that you select only 6 of them to be included into the IEQ table above. Select those 6 responses you consider most interesting.
• Your article does not express ORs, instead prevalences and changes in them are given. Therefore, the "response metric" is here "prevalence" and "ERF parameter" is "percentage unit change". --Marjo 17:34, 11 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

←--#: . Correct parts include:

• "exposure unit"
• many of the responses and their values, however these values should be moved to column "ERF". For example, "painful joint" is a correct response, its "ERF parameter" is -8.7 as you have stated (but move this to the right place!). However, the respective exposure is not "housing dampness", instead it is here "rehousing", since the values are given in relation to it (table 5). --Marjo 17:34, 11 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)----#: . table updated --Matthew 13:12, 13 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Rationale

An example for RefTag functionality: Pope et al. (2002)

Thomasa and Joshuan Evans et al. (2000).

john agyemang and emmanuel Shenassa et al. (2007).

Juho Kutvonen and Salla Mönkkönen Hopton and Hunt (1996)

Isabell Rumrich and Stefania Caporaso Sidebotham et al. (2002)

Soroush Majlesi and Adnan Ahmad Packer et al. (1994)

Jukka Hirvonen and Sami Rissanen Blackman et al. (2001)

Niklas Holopainen and Kasperi Juntunen Fanning D. M. et al. (1967)

Matthew Adeboye and Adedayo Mofikoya Petticrew et al. (2009)

Precision and Plausability of Hopton and Hunt (1996)

- Reporting bias: Perhaps ít´s difficult to use subjective data due to reporting bias. This is because people may answer in different ways or they don´t answer at all. In addition, people experience household conditions differently.←--#: . Good points. --Marjo 14:50, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

- Possible confounding variables were controlled. ----#: . Can you give examples of the confounding variables mentioned in the paper? --Marjo 14:50, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)←--#: . Sociodemographic and economic variables, e.g. age and income. --Juho Kutvonen 12:23, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

- Selection bias: The sample is clearly not representative of the general population and therefore the analysis focuses on differences within the sample. Thus it´s worth considering if the results can be generalized to whole population.←--#: . Good points. --Marjo 14:50, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Precision and Plausability of Sidebotham et al. (2002)

- Maltreatment is defined and measured as registration for physical injury, neglect, sexual abuse, emotional abuse. That way all maltreatments, which are not registred are not taken into account.

- The measurement of the social class is not too accurate, because no allowance for nonworking mothers and no parental social class allocated for single mothers can be applied.

- The nature of relationship with child maltreatment is complex (confounder, cultural values, etc). That causes problems finding an association or causality between an exposure factor and maltreatment. Moreover, maltreatment has different definition in different cultural groups.

- The parental income is not measured directly, but car ownership as a proxy indicator and the receipt of welfare payment are used.

- Controlling for social factors was done.

- Large amount of prospectively data are collected and used in in the study, which is a clear strength.

- The participation is lower among the maltreated group, which might influence the outcome of the statistical analysis or bias the results of the study.

- The risk of social bias and no way of measuring the effect of such bias. A social bias can be defined as a prejudgement of a specific social group. In this case, it might be that those, who collected the data might have expectations, that parents which lower or higher social background are more prone to maltreat their child and let this expectation influence their interpretation of the results. This is not very likely here, though, because all parameters which were used for the analysis can me measured and there is not much freedome for interpretation.

----#: . You have listed correct points that may affect precision and plausibility of the ERF; well done. However, it would be easier for the reader if you would use full sentences or otherwise would explain a bit more in detail how these issues affect the precision and plausibity of ERF.

• What is meant with "social bias" here? --Marjo 15:06, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

----#: . We added explanations. --Isabell Rumrich 09:58, 7 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Precision and Plausability of Packer et al. (1994)

- health problems: possibility of headache, mental problems, emotional reactions, social isolation and pain.

- social factors: unemployment, single parent, lone adult and unemployment with sickness or disability

- lifestyle: consumption of alcohol and smoking

----#: . It might be helpful for the reader if you would use full sentences in order to explain how the above issues affect the precision and plausibility of ERF. --Marjo 15:28, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

- it is still difficult to understand the housing condition because none of the studies are complete and detailed so that direct comparison with the questions cannot be made and measurements of parameters, potential confounding factors as well as clear dose-response relationship should be adjusted for example physical effect of damp is responsible for muscle tension, backache and headache but on the other hand the study poins out that there is a strong relationship between damp housing and adverse health impact. ----#: . I see that the two last points are in concordance with each other. --Marjo 15:28, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Precision and Plausability of Blackman et al. (2001)

- Bias in respondents answers to realistically evaluate their and family members health.←--#: . Good. --Marjo 16:25, 7 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

- Some housings that where targets on first survey were demolished during second survey.

- No data from comparison neighbourhood without renewal to back up observed health changes after renewal program. ←--#: . Good point. --Marjo 16:25, 7 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

- Relationship between dampness, draughts and mental health is uncertain, because the mechanism is unknown.←--#: . Again good, although you could specify this. Is it so that associations have been found but the mechanisms are unclear? --Marjo 16:25, 7 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

- Multivariate analysis using regression model was used to control variables, such as economic, housing, respiratory and mental health related to increase plausability----#: . So in contrast to the previous points, this increases the plausibility of ERF, is this what you mean? --Marjo 16:25, 7 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

----#: . Precisions and plausabilities updated --Jukka Hirvonen 09:30, 11 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Precision and Plausability of D. Fanning (1967)

- The study is so old that the exposures and responses are real but the accuracy is quite poor. The basics are almost same as today but measurement techniques are so old that the results are not comparable to modern results. ⇤--#: . Which specific measurement techniques do you mean? For example, they have measured first attendances by general practitioners, and I don´t think the accuracy of counting has changed significantly. --Marjo 18:08, 8 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)←--#: . However, I agree with you that the oldness of study is a bit striking. Probably today many other parameters in addition to those used in the article would be measured when conducting this kind of study. --Marjo 18:08, 8 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

- The study has considered the difference between children and adults.←--#: . Good point. --Marjo 18:08, 8 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

- The study has not considered the differences between different flats and houses. They have only categories for houses and flats but the differences between houses are not considered. This causes bias to the study.----#: . Well, it is possible. However, it is always a question of e.g. resources how specific and detailed a study can be. Maybe they could more apparently mention whether there were any significant dissimilarities between houses. --Marjo 18:08, 8 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Precision and Plausability of Petticrew et al. (2009)

- Data collection at the three occassions in the intervention group before moving, one year after moving and 2 years after moving to the social housing gives strenght to the study in analysing changes in the housing circumstances and in neighbourhood.

- Recruitment into the study was discussed by the landlord to the tenant once they have accepted the housing offer which dosn't gives the RSL direct contact with the participant though this serves as a way of good recruitments but it dose not guarantee the authenticity of the data collected. e.g RSL couldn't supply the number of people who refuse to participate in the study to the SHARP research team.

- Broad range of adult household categories in the intervention group which was used as a base for recruiting the comparism group stenghthen the study. (family households, with children under age of sixteen years, older households where the respondents and adult members of the households were of pensionable age, and adult households with a combination of relationships, including parents with children atleast 16 years of age, people unrelated to one and another and couples )

- Qualitative and quantitative findings were only presented for 1 year(wave 2) in the study which dose not proof if the effects are sustained and probabely if differences in health outcomes occur at two years in the intervention and comparism groups.

- recollection bias may occur during interview if participant in the groups if they can not recall adequately past occurences relating to health, housing and neighbourhood questions after one year and two years of movement to the new house.

- Bias in subsequent analysis can also occur if there is any significant changes in the groups associated with self reported health.

←--#: . Good points and thorough work! By checking the spelling you could increase the elegancy of your work. --Marjo 17:46, 11 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)----#: . updated --Matthew 12:43, 13 February 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)

DARM course 2013 – Homework 9

←--#: . Good work. This clearly of acceptable quality and is considered as OK. --Mikko Pohjola 06:07, 15 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Assessment of Homework 3 http://en.opasnet.org/w/User:Adedayo#Homework_3:_Draft_of_an_assessment

----#: . 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	Waste management plan impact on climate change. ----#: . Also health impacts, other environmental impacts and costs. --Mikko Pohjola 06:07, 15 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Causes	Poor waste management plans ----#: . Poor or not, all waste management has some kind of impacts. --Mikko Pohjola 06:07, 15 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Problem owner	The state government. Waste management companies. General public.
Target	The state government is responsible for coming out with good policies on waste management Waste management companies can also adapt to new ways of managing waste. Individuals or the general public can help in their own ways to manage waste in their homes.
Interaction	The scope of participation is very open, the state government, waste management companies and the general public are all participating. From the assessment draft it is very difficult to categorise it into various components since enough details were not given.

Characterization of the dimensions of openness.

Dimension	Characterization
Scope of participation	Environmentalists, state government engineers and the community were mentioned as participants, which is very good but their various specific roles they played or the way they participated was not categorically mentioned.In all, it was a good attempt to involve many participants like that.
Access to information	The assessment draft does not talk about accessibility of information. It only tells us that the government will use the information in policy formulation.
Timing of openness	The draft only makes mention of participants but a mention was not made of the time they are to participate.
Scope of contribution	The draft assessment allows public participation but information was not given whether the participation is limited.
Impact of contribution	There will be some sort of impact from the contribution though it is not clearly stated as to how the contribution got impact on the issue.

Explanations of categories of interaction within the knowledge-policy interaction framework.

It would be very difficult to categorize this draft into various categories since the draft is too broad and vague.

• Isolated: The draft assessment is not isolated at all since the participants are at the same time serving as stakeholders.if it is done as the draft describes it.

users.

• Participatory: The allowed participation is not all that narrow and limited since the state government, companies and the public are mentioned as participants.

• Shared: Open collaboration is not categorically mentioned.

Evaluation of the assessment draft

Evaluation according to the properties of good assessment

Attribute	Score	Explanation
Quality of content	2	The complete draft is good but some portions were broad and also missing. specific roles of participants too were conspicuouosly missing and some modification should be done about the work. Good conclusions were made that form the population of Lagos state, landfill would help in terms of waste management.
Applicability: Relevance	1	The draft is devoid of information about how the results are disseminated to the relevant users.The draft needs a brief modification. ----#: . But do you think the question addressed in the assessment is relevant for the intended users? --Mikko Pohjola 06:07, 15 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Applicability: Availability	0	Again the draft does not contain any clear information on how the results are going to be relayed to its intended users as well as other users who are interested to make use of the results from the draft.
Applicability: Usability	1	The assessment should be amended and modified so that it can meet the expected outcomes. Variables and results should be made clear so that stakeholders and participants can make good use of the outcomes of the draft. If this is not done, it will look like only the participants can make use of it,which is not suppose to so.
Applicability: Acceptability	1	In the draft, there are so many things which need to be developed further before it can be accepted. Some portions like, specific participatory roles of the participates,means of making the outcomes accessible to users and the rest are to be developed well. Again only one solution was suggested, landfill, which to me is not good, since there are more other ones which can be mentioned.
Efficiency	1	The assessment draft would not be efficient since specific roles and usage of the outcomes were not clear.

Comments and ideas how to improve the draft

• The structure of the assessment should be more elaborate, spelling out the necessary or relevant parameters.
• stakeholders and participants should be merge as one. ----#: . It varies how these terms are used. with a broad perspective, both the stakeholders and participants can mean practically anyone,, including also decision makers and experts etc. Typically they, however, mean some people or organizations who do not have formal role in making the assessment or decisions. --Mikko Pohjola 06:07, 15 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

----#: . Write your recommendations as arguments to the corresponding draft assessment. --Mikko Pohjola 06:07, 15 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Assessment of Homework 3 of Soroushm [#HOMEWORK_3]

(Groupwork of Adnak and Soroushm)

Knowledge-policy interaction

Characterization of knowledge-policy interaction

Attribute	characterization
Impacts	Impacts of fossil fuels on emissions. ----#: . What impacts do the fossil fuel emissions have? --Mikko Pohjola 06:07, 15 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Causes	The draft mentions fossil fuels as the causes of emissions in the scope.
Problem owner	The city of Kuopio is responsible for making good policies on emissions citizens of Kuopio need to abide by the policies so as to reduce emissions The stakeholders also contribute their quota in the decision making process. The energy companies should also start making use of wind energy and show it to the rest of the citizens
Target	Intended users: Ghana,Kuopio city, citizens of Kuopio, energy companies and stakeholders ----#: . Was Ghana mentioned too? --Mikko Pohjola 06:07, 15 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Interaction	The drafted assessment can be categorized as a shared knowledge-interaction framework since various groups of participants specifically mentioned with their specific roles. ----#: . Not very much is said about how the assessment would take place, but perhaps it looks like intimate and organized collaboration that's planned. --Mikko Pohjola 06:07, 15 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Characterization of the dimensions of openness.

Dimension	Characterization
Scope of participation	The scope is very wide since there are many institutions, agencies,even individual participating.
Access to information	The assessment draft mentions no information about it, but, since the participants involved are many, automatically, access to information would be easier. ----#: . It also depends much on the assessors' and decision makers' attitudes on sharing and displaying information. Broad participation does not necessarily guarantee good access. --Mikko Pohjola 06:07, 15 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Timing of openness	No specific time for openness is not mentioned in the draft.
Scope of contribution	The scope of contribution is very wide,since there are many participants ,but nothing is said about how and when their contribution will come.
Impact of contribution	Nothing is said about the impact of contribution. ----#: . Well, at least the public opinions on the possible locations of wind turbines was mentioned specifically. --Mikko Pohjola 06:07, 15 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Explanations of categories of interaction within the knowledge-policy interaction framework.

The assessment can be put into various categories as a shared knowledge-interaction framwork.

Evaluation of the assessment draft

Evaluation according to the properties of good assessment

Attribute	Score	Explanation
Quality of content	4	The questions is very precise, allowed so many participants. Endpoints,variables and conclusions are all there, which is very good. It si a good attempt.
Applicability: Relevance	4	The use of wind energy to substitute fossil fuels will help reduce emissions and since some of the participants' roles are spell out clearly, it will work.
Applicability: Availability	4	Availability of information is not categorically mentioned but with these many participants, information will be readily available.
Applicability: Usability	4	The outcome of the assessment will be usable because the assessment is well drafted and most of the things are in good order.
Applicability: Acceptability	4	The assessment is well planned and drafted since most of the parameters are in order. With this, good results will be obtained which can be used everywhere.
Efficiency	3	The assessment would work efficiently since most of the parameters are in accordance with the work,and that will make efficiency to be high. ----#: . On the other hand, the policy making on the topic could turn out difficult as wind turbines also often face strong resistance as regards their location close to peoples homes (noise, ruining the scenery, ...) --Mikko Pohjola 06:07, 15 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Comments and ideas how to improve the draft

• Everything was clear and not ambiguous
• Variables and endpoints are clearly stated which is good.
• It is a good attempt but more room for improvement

----#: . Add the recommendations as arguments to the draft assessment text. --Mikko Pohjola 06:07, 15 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)