User talk:Phatman

⇤--#: . 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 18:10, 13 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

Homework 1

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

It forms a basis in characterization of our living environments.

It analyses and models how our living environments affect human health.

It considers how different decisions and actions influence the environment-health relationships.

Information gathered from environmental health assessment is intended to support knowledge-based decisions and actions particularly in public policy and also by decision-makers in business and individual members of the society.

2. What is pragmatism?

As referred to in the thesis is the knowledge-practice interaction or the practicality of applying scientific knowledge and means for supporting the needs of decision making upon societal relevant issues related to environment and health from the reports of environmental health assessment. ----#: . This can be considered as the interpretation of pragmatism in the context of environmental health assessment/policy. More generally, pragmatism means that knowledge (e.g. knowledge underlying a policy decision) and action (e.g. policy decision) can not be separated from each other. --Mikko Pohjola 10:59, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

3. What is benefit-risk assessment?

As referred to in the thesis give guidance in decision situations where benefits do not clearly prevail over risks with the aim of increased engagement and communication between assessors, managers, and stakeholders. ----#: . This is what BRA is needed for. Generally speaking, benefit-risk assessment considers and weighs both benefits and risks of something. --Mikko Pohjola 10:59, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

←--#: . Good answers. --Mikko Pohjola 10:59, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Homework 2

Are there plans by city of Kuopio in particular or Finland in general to go into production of for example automobiles that run on alternative fuel in order to maintain the level of the current GHG emission since population will increase anyway and a the populace may prefer a faster and cleaner alternative form of transport

⇤--#: . Some technical editing for improved readability would be good for the answers below. --Mikko Pohjola 10:59, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

Homework 3

----#: . Please do some technical editing. Now the content is difficult to read. --Jouni 10:59, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Scope Current trends in environmental change demands that issues of climate change be critically assessed. Recent environmental catastrophes have been attributed to global warming as a result of basically the increase in the production of ghg. This work is a strategic plan for cities to reduce ghg emissions to meet both Kyoto standards and EU objectives by the 2020 and the efforts for sustainable management of nature and environment,

----#: . Scope is well motivated but it is extremely large. Do you think this is manageable, or should you think of a narrower scope? --Jouni 10:59, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Question From the status quo in European cities such as emissions from transport and major power plants and compiling a list of existing activities with relevance to climate protection, what are the policies towards adapting to climate change or a greener environment? Boundaries 2012-2020

Intended users City councils To source for funding For the enforcement and implementation of recommendations Energy production units For the assessment of their current levels of ghg emissions and usage of best practices as well as efficient machinery to possibly reduce ghg Transport commissions To possibly look at the production of alternative source of fuel Communication and public relations out fits To communicate in the appropriate but effective manner recommendations Building and construction out fits Designing structures that are line with energy conservation to reduce energy demand Participants Open to All stake holders with environmental concerns

----#: . Do you have plans about how to get stakeholders involved? --Jouni 10:59, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Decisions Effective transport plan Option: which will include provision for extra safer bicycle lane

City energy efficiency plan

Option: Decreasing greenhouse gas emissions General awareness Rationale Policies

Transport commissions Obligatory CO₂ standards for road transport.

Investing into the attractive means of public transport and into the non-motorised forms of transport.
Influencing the necessity of mobility by infrastructure planning

Building and construction out fits Energetics coding and certifications for buildings. Financial incentives for thermotechnical development projects. City councils Development of an appropriate legal/economic system. Energy production units Better supply and distribution efficiency;

Decentralisation of energy generation;
Improved energy efficiency;

New gas power stations with high coefficient of efficiency; Renewable heat and other energy (solar, wind, geothermal and bioenergy);

Communication and public relations out fits Strengthening social awareness raising. Indicators Leaf necrosis Early plant senescence

Assessment of data Budgeting Inventory of means of transport CO₂ emission and forms of transport. Registry of state of buildings Fuel type in power plants Emmanuel Abu-Danso and JOHN BRIGHT AGYEMANG.

⇤--#: . You have a lot of good ideas here, but you should try to structure it more. For example, think of a manageable amount of decisions (maybe 1-3 most important) and 2-3 options for each. --Jouni 10:59, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . Think also about the rest of the assessment: variables, endpoints, types of results and conclusions you expect to have, ... --Jouni 10:59, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

Homework 4

⇤--#: . Since you have been working on this exercise in pair with User:Johnagyemang, please agree with your pair which version, this or the one on his page is the version to be commented, improved and eventually evaluated. Accordingly, delete the other one and replace with a link to the remaining version. For each group/pair there should be only one answer for each homework. Each member will be evaluated equally. --Mikko Pohjola 10:27, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

----#: . Only this version commented. --Mikko Pohjola 23:13, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

⇤--#: . Please add here, which strategy you consider here. Apparently it is the Ludwigsburg strategy, but better you write it down instead of me guessing it. --Mikko Pohjola 23:13, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

What are the aims/goals of the strategy/program, i.e. what are the desired impacts and outcomes striven for?

The goals of this program is to develop an integrated climate protection and energy strategy, against the background of the present climate change, finite resources and increasing energy prices to ensure sustainable use of available energy with issues of energy supply security and the efforts for sustainable management of nature and environment as the basis of the strategy.

----#: . Surely the aim for those involved in making the strategy was to come up with a strategy. But what are the aims of the strategy itself? How will the world be different as a result of this strategy in comparison to if this strategy did not exist and were not implemented? --Mikko Pohjola 23:13, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Who are those that benefit if the aims/goals of the strategy/program are reached? How?

For an entire city of Ludwigsburg and the benefit through the design of the strategy “Overall Energy Strategy Ludwigsburg” which will serve as the blue print for sustainable environment with emphasis on thematic areas of the blue print.

⇤--#: . What does this actually mean? A strategy can be called a blue print for development, the question is what kind of development it invokes, and what benefits it should bring about? Is there anything that could be beneficial for industries and other businesses, public services, other organizations, specific sub-populations etc.? --Mikko Pohjola 23:13, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

What are the actions that are needed/intended to take in order to progress towards the aims/goals?

Following specific objectives of the thematic areas of the “Overall Energy Strategy Ludwigsburg” which include;

Landmark projects are implemented in the field of renewable energy, especially efficient equipment and examples of energy saving measures in new and existing buildings.
The optimisation of energy is an important foundation for building plans and also for routine city building plans.
The Overall Energy Strategy is implemented and regularly monitored and developed further for its performance.
The independent and decentralised energy supply from the city utility reinforces the regional form.
Intensive publicity und consultation opportunities for citizens and commerce are a natural part of the sustainable use of energy.
The options for renewable energy carriers, energy services and innovative energy technologies from the region are extensive and an important location factor for Ludwigsburg.
Through integrated city and transport planning, behavioural changes and alternative engine technologies, significant energy savings in transport are achieved. Thereby also considerably reducing the noise and toxic pollutant impact in the city.

----#: . These points make the case a bit more concrete. However, they still mostly remain on the level of strategical themes (perhaps deserving to be mentioned in the aims of the strategy) instead of practical actions. How do these themes transform into everyday events that manifest the aims of the strategy? --Mikko Pohjola 23:13, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Who are those that actually realize these actions?

Important stakeholders in the city of Ludwigsburg who are in heating, electricity, building construction, industry and transport in relation to energy efficiency and climate protection as well as the city administration.

⇤--#: . What kind of stakeholders? Which actions (or themes) do different stakeholders relate to? Do the citizens of Ludwigsburg have a role? --Mikko Pohjola 23:13, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

What are the decisions that are needed to make in order to enable/promote the actions?

Enforcements such as;

Energy savings and rational energy use:

Building insulation, heating exchange, passive energy technologies, lighting, energy saving household appliances, urban planning, information distribution events about energy savings.

Potential and use of renewable energy: Bio-energy, solar energy, wind and hydropower, geothermal, heat pumps, heat recovery, combined hot/chilled water and steam power, waste management, waste water and landfill gas use.
Optimisation of the generation structure, adoption of new energy technologies:

power plants and heating supply (based on fossil and renewable energy carriers), local and district heating networks, gas networks, air conditioning, process optimisation.

Alternative fuels development for transport services.

----#: . This is a quite nice breakdown of the identified topics requiring action. Perhaps you could pick one or two as examples, and consider them in more detail in terms of which practical actions (could) relate to them and who actually make them happen? --Mikko Pohjola 23:13, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Who are the decision makers?

Experts from the City (administration, utilities, expert participation) and the citizens in a workshops in the form of a Round table discussions

⇤--#: . Does a citizens go to a workshop when he/she decides upon installing solar energy panels on the roof of the house? Think about the decisions and actions that turn the ideas of the strategy into reality. (Not who participated in preparing the strategy. --Mikko Pohjola 23:13, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

What direct or indirect health impacts, positive or negative, these decisions and actions (may) have?

The strategy involves plan of designing safer lanes for bicycle users and encourage the use of bicycles and the use of alternative and efficient use of fuel for transport and power plants this is sure to provide a cleaner air.

⇤--#: . Is it so sure? How about e.g. increased air pollution due to increased biomass burning and/or increased personal exposures to air pollution from increased cycling/walking among motorized traffic. --Mikko Pohjola 23:13, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

----#: . Perhaps picking one or two specific actions as examples would help to make the case more concrete. --Mikko Pohjola 23:13, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

'Where and how do these impacts take place, who are those that face these health impacts in practice?

The impact of this strategy will be felt in the environment and it will improve the health of the population in that it will provide cleaner air and improve the cardiovascular capabilities of users.

----#: . See above comment. --Mikko Pohjola 23:13, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

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

The health impacts are of the same magnitude because it is the same resource that will implement the strategies to achieve the desired results

⇤--#: . Every action in the strategy results in exactly same impacts and all kinds of impacts are always of equal importance? Doesn't sound like making much sense, does it? --Mikko Pohjola 23:13, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

----#: . Again, focusing on some specific examples would probably make this question easier to address. --Mikko Pohjola 23:13, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

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

In the short term there could be win-lose in terms of sudden attitudinal change, but in the long term it is win-win situation when the policies have been well communicated

⇤--#: . Win in terms of what, lose in terms of what? Explain a little bit please. --Mikko Pohjola 23:13, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

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

In the event where the goal(s) of specific assessment strategy produces adverse effect on the supposed beneficiaries, what is the next line of action?

----#: . Not sure if I get the point right. Perhaps you mean "specific action implementing the strategy produces adverse effects…" and then the question would be to find an alternative course of action? An interesting and important point of view. A bit difficult and open-ended formulation for an assessment question. I would probably try to adjust the perspective to assessing what actually are the (estimated) impacts of a strategical action point, compare them with some identified alternative action options. Then the point would be to see if the impacts are beneficial like expected, and if not, would there be better alternatives available. --Mikko Pohjola 23:13, 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).

The major theme of strategies to ensure clean environment often takes into account issues and policies on climate change and mitigation measures these answer though could be different with another individual the general basic goal of policies to achieve a “cleaner air”

←--#: . Right. For example bioenergy in general and biofuels in particular are often debated whether they really at all what is expected from them and if so, under which preconditions. --Mikko Pohjola 23:13, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Emmanuel and Bright

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 09:57, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Assessment of Homework 3 of Salla [[1]]

(Groupwork of Salla and Juho Kutvonen)

←--#: . The evaluation of Juho's and Salla's homework 3 is OK. --Mikko Pohjola 08:20, 16 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

←--#: . Also evaluation of Sam0911's homework 3 is OK (although handed in a bit late). --Mikko Pohjola 12:43, 18 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Knowledge-policy interaction

**Characterization of knowledge-policy interaction**
Attribute	characterization
Impacts	The impacts addressed by the assessment are environmental health and human health and the most relevant impact is human health since the assessment is to determine the level of heavy metal deposition in to the lake by the Talvivaara mine.
Causes	What is recognized is pollution of a water body by deposition of metals from production from a mine. For the intended user
Problem owner	Local residents who have direct interaction with the lake. It does not go further beyond this point (this from the answer given for intended users in the work).
Target	Environmental authorities, local residents, Talvivaara mine and SYKE-for monitoring of lakes (From the assessment given )
Interaction	Scope of participation covered ELY center, Local residents living nearby lakes, SYKE. Talvivaara mine is excluded because it may be partial. Degree of openness is practicable since Ministry of Social Affairs and Health concerning quality requirements and quality analysis concerning domestic water will be aware of the status of the lake and the deposition level.

**Characterization of the dimensions of openness.**
Dimension	Characterization
Scope of participation	Stakeholders who would be concern about the pollution of a water body will go beyond what is stated in the assessment; conspicuously missing is the city administration.
Access to information	The assessment does not say or describe how and when information about the assessment can be available generally and no time limits are stated for the assessment.
Timing of openness	The assessment does not state at which point a stakeholder can make an input or at which point they can join in the assessment or at which point their contribution is invited.
Scope of contribution	The scope of contribution is not well defined from the analysis, it can then be assumed that participants have equal contribution but then again if the assessment requires expert contribution then to what extent can non-experts contribute.
Impact of contribution	Impact of contribution is difficult to measure however SYKE and ELY center since they are experts in lake monitoring could have a greater impact

Evaluation of the assessment draft

**Evaluation according to the properties of good assessment**
Attribute	Score	Explanation
Quality of content	2	The content of the document as presented is a bit vague. Although the issue for the assessment is clearly defined, the document in its entirety is not comprehensive enough.
Applicability: Relevance	3	It did not raise questions such as the future direction and plans to maintain the stability of the lake
Applicability: Availability	4	The assessment as presented will be problematic, however, on the basis of expert participants, applicability is good
Applicability: Usability	3	Again I will base my usability ranking on expert knowledge, although there is a problem with elaborate plan
Applicability: Acceptability	3	Since the participants who sat to design the assessment are stakeholders, there should be a degree of Acceptability
Efficiency	2	The assessment described in the draft will not be efficient in the sense that it has no time limit, there is no monitoring mechanism and channels of communication is not elaborate or well thought out

⇤--#: . The evaluation of Sam0911's homework 3 is missing. --Mikko Pohjola 08:20, 16 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . Added. --Mikko Pohjola 12:43, 18 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

Assessment of Homework 3 of Sam0911

(Work of Sam0911)