User:Johnagyemang

From Opasnet
Revision as of 06:44, 25 April 2013 by Jouni (talk | contribs) (→‎Homework 9)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

⇤--#: . 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 18:08, 13 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

DARM HOME WORK 1

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

To improve delibrate plan of actions that guide decisions aiming for desired outcomes.

2.What is pragmatism?

Applying scientific knowledge and means for supporting the practical needs of decision making upon socially relevant issues related to environment and health. ----#: . Yes, this is actually the interpretation of pragmatism in the context of environmental health assessment/policy. More generally, pragmatism means that knowledge and the use of knowledge can not be separated. --Mikko Pohjola 10:14, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

5.What are the main differences between open assessment and most other assessment approaches?

It considers assessment as open collaborative process of creating shared knowledge and understanding.

←--#: . Nice clear and brief answers. --Mikko Pohjola 10:14, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Homework 2

  • what does the validity of contributions made in trialogue depends on?

Homework 3

----#: . - Try to structure your assessment more obvious (eg follow the example assessment and state clearly the sope with question, the answer and the rationale.). Using Headings like on the example draft would give it more structure, too. It is very hard to follow your draft. Moreover the draft is too vague as a total. --Isabell Rumrich 13:21, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

----#: . - It would be nice if you would write in whole sentences and in a fluent text. It would make it easier to read. --Isabell Rumrich 13:21, 9 February 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,

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?

⇤--#: . The question is very vague. You should be more specific about which issues and decisions to look at. You cannot cover everything in one assessment. --Jouni 16:50, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

----#: . - I agree, the question is very open and makes the assessment very hard. Maybe you can focus on one city and one small part of your current assessment (eg transport or energy production). --Isabell Rumrich 13:21, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)


Boundaries

2012-2020

Intended users

----#: . - The listed intended users are a good start, but not enough regarding your open question --Isabell Rumrich 13:21, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

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

----#: . It is difficult to evaluate the list of users, because the question is not clear. This applies to other parts of the assessment as well. --Jouni 16:50, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)


Participants

Open to All stake holders with environmental concerns

----#: . Who should you include and why, if you want to make a successful assessment? --Jouni 16:50, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

----#: . - Are the stakeholders all participants you need for the assessment? Do you not consider inviting experts for the evaluation of the options and so on? --Isabell Rumrich 13:21, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Decisions

----#: . - The decision should be something like: Option x is the recommended, because… --Isabell Rumrich 13:21, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Effective transport plan

Option: which will include provision for extra safer bicycle lane

City energy efficiency plan

Option:

----#: . - Overall your options are good. It would be nice though, if you would explain them a little better. --Isabell Rumrich 13:21, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

  • Decreasing greenhouse gas emissions ⇤--#: . How? --Jouni 16:50, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
  • General awareness
  • Rationale ⇤--#: . What does this mean? --Jouni 16:50, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
  • 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. ⇤--#: . Too vague. --Jouni 16:50, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

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'

⇤--#: . - The rationale is missing nearly completely. You do not mention endpoints and variables. --Isabell Rumrich 13:21, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)


JOHN BRIGHT AGYEMANG AND EMMANUEL ABU-DANSO

⇤--#: . Please edit the text a bit for better readability. --Mikko Pohjola 10:09, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . It seems that the rest of the assessment has not yet been described. E.g. variables and types of conclusions you expect are missing. --Jouni 16:50, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

Homework 4

⇤--#: . Since you have been working on this exercise in pair with User talk:Phatman, 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 (or merge if there are any differences between the versions) 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)

Integrated Climate Protection and Energy Strategy for Ludwigsburg


Questions:

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

Landmark projects,optimisation of energy,independent and decentralised energy supply, energy savings in transport,In general, the aim is to start today using the available capital and manpower to reduce the current energy demand and increase the range of renewable energy in the future. It is about investing in a climate compatible future.

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

The community.

How? It reduces the negative health impacts on the citizens.

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

Status Quo Expert and Public Participation Measures Integrated Scenario Analysis Action Plan Continuation: Monitoring, Evaluation and Follow-up

    • Who are those that actually realize these actions?
  • What are the decisions that are needed to make in order to enable/promote the actions?

Intensive public relations and counselling services ,Energy optimisation,Landmark projects,Energy savings in transport,Renewable energy carriers, energy services and innovative energy technologies,

    • Who are the decision makers?

Experts from the city(administration,utilities,expert panel) and community

  • 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?The community,the citizens,
    • Are the health impacts big or small in relation to other impacts (e.g. economical, social, climate, other environmental, ...)?
    • Do the intended policies result in win-win, win-lose, lose-win, or lose-lose situations with regard to health and other impacts? win-lose.
  • Formulate a plausible and meaningful specific assessment question that takes account of (some of) the aspects considered in above questions.what are the health impacts of energy related CO2.
  • 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).it conforms to the decision,aims and strategies.

Homework 5

Homework 5, part A: Questions about identifying roles and participation:

  • Who are the relevant participants of the assessment?

important stakeholders in Ludwigsburg, as well as the City administration and the City utilities of Ludwigsburg, and the climate protection and energy agency of Baden-Württemberg,the expert participation and the citizens. ⇤--#: . Can you specify who the experts are? --Marjo 16:35, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ←--#: . experts involved in the strategy include; for purposes of administrative procedures city administration,Institute of Energy Economics and the Rational Use of Energy of the city of Ludwigsburg, the academia, the city"s public utilities regulatory unit, relevant energy institutes since the plan is to decentralize energy --emmanuel 21:46, 31 March 2013 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

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

the city councils participated at the Round Table and the Energy Futures Conference.

Expert The work progress and, in particular, the development and assessment of the and measures and steps towards implementation of climate protection, sustainable public energy use, security of supply, and regional value added in Ludwigsburg were participation developed as a discursive process together with experts from the city (administration, utilities, expert panel) and the community. Ludwigsburg Energy Agency (LEA)developed an appropriate retrofit strategy specific to the building typology in Ludwigsburg The task of the Ludwigsburg stakeholders and the City of Ludwigsburg is to support and accelerate this process, ⇤--#: . Please edit the text a bit for better readibility. --Marjo 16:35, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)←--#: . Experts monitor work progress and in particular, the development and assessment of the measures and steps towards implementation of climate protection, sustainable public energy use, security of supply, and regional value added in Ludwigsburg. The participation were developed as a discursive process together with experts from the city (administration, utilities, expert panel) and the community. LEA developed an appropriate retrofit strategy specific to the building typology in Ludwigsburg The task of the Ludwigsburg stakeholders and the City of Ludwigsburg is to support and accelerate this process, --emmanuel 22:04, 31 March 2013 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

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

The citizens have knowledge on the impacts ,the expert have knowledge on technical measures,City administration provides financial support for the budget.----#: . More precisely, citizens have knowledge on how the probable impacts would affect their living conditions and lives. --Marjo 16:43, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

  • What needs and aims do they represent in the assessment?

, the aim is to start today using the available capital and manpower to reduce the current energy demand and increase the range of renewable energy in the future. It is about investing in a climate compatible future. ----#: . The idea is to specify the aims and needs per participant. For example, city administration may have an aim of reducing GHG emissions of the city. --Marjo 16:35, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

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?

Collaboration and discussion of contributions in decision making. ←--#: . Good. --Marjo 16:43, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

  • How can the quality of an assessment be assured if anyone can participate?

It should be guided by the specific S.M.A.R.T objectives.----#: . Can you explain this a bit more in detail? What are the specific S.M.A.R.T objectives you would suggest to be used? --Marjo 16:43, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)←--#: . For transparency and acceptance of decisions the community was made to have a stronger identification with and responsibility for the Overall Energy Strategy and its implementation as a discursive process together with experts, however every step of the project was steered through the expert panel to realize the specific goals of the strategy --emmanuel 12:48, 1 April 2013 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

  • How can you prevent malevolent contributions where the purpose is to vandalise the process?

By formulating and implementing policies to guide the process.

  • How can you make the outcome converge to a conclusion, because all issues are uncertain and controversial?

All contributions must be given equal attention.----#: . Yes, but after that? --Marjo 16:43, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)←--#: . After building on the round table discussions with the experts and from the Future Conference on Energy with the community according to the City Development Strategy, the proposed measures are developed further and brought into a final format by the experts after taking all inputs into account. An integrated scenario analysis is carried out to estimate the future development of energy demand and the energy related CO2 emissions for Ludwigsburg. The task of the Ludwigsburg stakeholders and the City of Ludwigsburg is then limited to support and acceleration of this process --emmanuel 12:13, 1 April 2013 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

  • How can you ensure that the outcomes are useful for the users?

By effective implentation,monitoring of the outcome.

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

⇤--#: . Your tables are still completely missing. The Decisions table describes what actions can be taken and by whom. The column Variable describes the primary targets of these actions, i.e. things that are changed by actions. In contrast, the Endpoints table describes the things that are of primary interest to different stakeholders. It is unlikely that the Variable columns would contain same things in both tables. --Jouni 14:39, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)←--#: . Enter your defending argumentation between these two bars --emmanuel 23:29, 31 March 2013 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Decisions table

Decision maker Decision Option Variable
The city of Ludwigsburg administration/Ludwigsburg city council Take decisions on which principles and strategic objectives would govern the 11 thematic areas of the City Development Strategy set up the necessary input for the program This will have benefits for the general climate development and the local air quality of the City of Ludwigsburg
Energy Economics and the Rational Use of Energy of the city of Ludwigsburg Take decisions on which principles and strategic objectives would govern energy distribution of the strategy Monitor the decentralization of energy of the City Development Strategy This will result in relatively cheap and efficient energy for the City
The academia Take decisions on the foundations during the development of the measures Make inputs on which part of the strategy is t proceed at which point Forms the basis of an academic curriculum for the research institutes in the City of Ludwigsburg


Endpoint table

Stakeholder Variable
Various corporate sectors Employment and investment oppurtunities
Citizens Improved quality of life
The city Cleaner air

Emmanuel

Homework 9

----http://en.opasnet.org/w/Decision_analysis_and_risk_management_2013/Homework#Homework_9:_Evaluation_of_assessment_of_hwk_3_of_Emma_A: . (EET) {{{3}}} (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

WITH THOMASA

Homework 9: Evaluation of assessment of hwk 3 of Emma A

Table A. Framework for characterizing the settings for health, safety and environmental assessments relevant to materials processing and related public policy.
Attribute Example categories Guiding questions
Impacts The impacts addressed include environment,health and Agriculture.
  • Environment
  • Health
  • Agriculture.
  • Which impacts are addressed in assessment?

environment,health and Agriculture

  • Which impacts are most significant?

Environment and Health

  • Which impacts are most relevant for the intended use?

Environmental impacts. 

Causes
  • Which causes of impacts are recognized in assessment?
 .
  • Which causes of impacts are most significant?
 .
  • Which causes of impacts are most relevant for the intended use?
  • Policy maker
  • Industry, Business
  • Expert
  • Consumer
  • Public
 Policy makers, Public,industry, EPA, policy makers and public are to ensure it.
Target public,policy makers and every one interested in climate change. public,policy makers and every one interested inclimate change
Interaction (see tables B and C for advice)
  • Isolated
  • Informing
  • Participatory
  • Joint
  • Shared
 it is informing and participatory,it also direct guidelines and possible alternatives.

In order to identify the last point in table A, mode of interaction that the draft assessment builds on, characterize the dimensions of openness in the assessment explained in table B. The example categories for interaction mentioned in table A are explained in table C.

Table B. Dimensions of openness.
Dimension Description
Scope of participation ----- Access to information ----- Timing of openness ----- Scope of contribution ----- Impact of contribution All contributions were considered and addressed equally.
Table C. Explanations of categories of interaction within the knowledge-policy interaction framework.
Category Explanation
Isolated ----- Informing ----- Participatory ----- Joint ----- Shared collaboration and open sharing of information.

Second, evaluate the assessment drafts according to the (slightly modified) Properties of good assessment framework. Base your evaluation on the characterization you have made. The things to consider in the evaluation are listed and explained in the table D below. For each attribute (i.e. an aspect to consider) give a numerical evaluation on a 1-5 scale (1 = poor, 5 = excellent). Also briefly write down your reasoning for each numerical evaluation. If something seems completely missing or not possible to evaluate, the numerical evaluation is 0 (also write down your reasoning why the particular aspect of the draft assessment deserves an evaluation of 0).

Table D. A slightly modified version of the properties of good assessment framework.
Category Description Guiding questions
Quality of content 2|----- 3| 2.| 2|----- 2|----- 1.|----- 2 |----- 1. | 3
Retrieved from "https://en.opasnet.org/index.php?title=User:Johnagyemang&oldid=29800"