User:Isabell Rumrich
Isabell Rumrich
Student - Masters Degree Program Environmental Health Risk Assessment
University of Eastern Finland
DARM course 2013 – Homework 1
What is the main purpose of environmental health assessment?
- How human health is affected by the characteristics of our living environment is the main focus of environmental health assessment. It´s main purpose is to improve the decision making for desired outcomes by influencing the decisions based on detailed knowledge. This may be in policy or the decision making of individuals.
What are the dimensions of openness?
- Scope of participation: Who is allowed to participate?
- Access to information: What information are made available to participants?
- Timing of openness: When do participants join?
- Scope of contribution: What issue or aspect are participants allowed to contribute to?
- Impact of contribution: How big is the extent of influence of the participants?
What is the role of modelling in assessment and policy making?
- In assessment, modeling is always involved by at least using conceptual models. Models are used to describe reality in the assessment and it serves the needs of practical decision-making in policy making. The models can be developed and used by different experts. Those may be federal agencies, academic researchers or independent consultants. Models should not be used for some “useless” research or just to support some decision, which was made. Each modeled need to be assessed, whether it from good quality and suitable for the study question. Modelling and assessment can be considered as the same issue of support to decision making in environmental health. ----#: . modeling can be done also in research without any direct connection to policy or some other practical use. It is not necessary "useless", but from the point of view of assessment it probably does not make much difference (at least in short term) --Mikko Pohjola 10:01, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
←--#: . Good answers. --Mikko Pohjola 10:01, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
DARM course 2013 - Homework 2
Is the structure and vocabulary of used in an assessment always like explained in the lecture and in Opasnet or do other institutions do it different?
DARM course 2013 - Homework 3
Groupwork with Stefania Caporaso User:Stefania
SCOPE
The purpose of the assessment is to support decision making on issues of societal relevance, in our specific case on climate change polities in cities by working on the emissions of public transport.
Question
If we analyze the problem of GHG emissions by sector, we can see how relevant traffic is. We choose public transport as part of the traffic sector, because the city can have direct influence on that as being the owner of the company. Therefore, because we are interested in supporting policy making, our question will be the following: “Which fuel can be used in public transport in order to reduce GHG emissions in the sector of traffic?” 1) BAU 2) Electric 3) Bio-fuel
----#: . Think about criteria for your question: how do you know that a fuel can or cannot be used? Is this a cost issue, health-driven, technical feasibility, all of them, or what? --Jouni 16:40, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
----#: . Of course the fuel needs to be technical feasible to be used. Moreover, the decision about the fuel should consider both the costs and the health impact. In the best case, the fuel is cheap and has a low impact on human health and the environment. --Isabell Rumrich 09:49, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
----#: . In this assessment you could take account how wide support EU gives for each fuel type. And are these supporting rules going to change in near future. --Sami Rissanen 22:31, 15 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Intended Use And Users
Different users are supposed to need the assessment: - the city - public transport company - consumers - car/bus industry Everyone expects to use the information in different ways: the city and the firms are interested to know the costs of the fuel; consumers are interested to know the impact on health; the car/bus industry has to develop new techniques for better use of the fuels or can give limitation to what is doable.
Participants
DARM participants, transport company, manufacturer industry, city and everyone can participate to make the assessment a well-balanced and well-informed work. There is no reason for which someone is not allowed to participate, because it is an open assessment, and the basic idea is collaboration and sharing information.
----#: . You allow participation, but are you planning to actively include someone? Who and why? --Jouni 16:40, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
----#: . We are planning to actively include first of all the DARM participants, because they are experts in open assessment and know how the assessment should be done. We also actively include the transport company, because they are the stakeholders and need to implement the outcome of the assessment. The manufacturer industry is included actively, because they are experts in the technical details and can judge whether the fuel options are technical feasible. The city is actively included, too, because it is the owner of the transport company and makes the decision about the fuel in the end. To include the citizens, a public hearing will be organized, where they can give their opinions and concerns. --Isabell Rumrich 09:59, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Scenarios
Fuel Options: 1) BAU; 2) Electric; 3) Bio-fuel
Boundaries
Time: Year 2013 – 2023 possible technical limitations Emissions important only in the city, not in the whole country
Analyses
Different analyses are needed to be able to produce results that are useful for making conclusions: concentration of emissions and health impacts, number of cars, Kilometers driven, life cycle and costs.
Overall, we measure the emissions of each fuel and the developing costs of it. Furthermore, we use the emissions to estimate human exposure and health impacts. If environmental impacts become obvious, we consider them, too. Statistical analysis will be done to gain information about the uncertainties in the calculations.
⇤--#: . Analyses are (statistical) descriptions about how you can produce a result from the data you have. --Jouni 16:40, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
----#: . We tried to add a description of how we produce the results. --Isabell Rumrich 10:24, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
ANSWER
Results
| Fuel | km driven | number of cars | €/KM | Emissions [y T/a CO2e] | DALY | overall price (*) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BAU | ||||||
| Electric | ||||||
| Biofuel |
(*) includes costs for DALYs, emissions, the fuel itself and the new techniques in the vehicles
←--#: . This is nice and clear way to show what you intend to do. --Jouni 16:40, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
Conclusion
The best option is fuel …, because …
RATIONALE
Endpoints
The stakeholders that we should consider are the citizens, the city, the transport company, environmental congregations. In particular, each stakeholder is interested in mainly specific endpoints: the transport firm is interested in the costs of the fuel, the citizens in heath impact, environmental congregations in GHG emissions. The city is interested in the overall costs. The costs include the costs for the fuel and the technical changes in the buses, as well as the costs for medical service and health care, if the fuel has a greater impact on health than the current on. Therefore, the city is also interested in health and environmental impacts of the fuel.
----#: . Is the city NOT interested in health? Try to be more comprehensive, one stakeholder may find several endpoints important. --Jouni 16:40, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
----#: . Before we had just considered the city as being concerned about the costs of the fuel, because it is a very important aspect for the city and we had just included the main concerns of the participant groups. --Isabell Rumrich 10:07, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Variables
The issues that should be looked at to be able to understand the outcomes of the decision options can be: 1) the costs of fuel; 2) the GHG emissions; 3) the health impact; 4) the life cycle impact; 5) the cost for developing the technique or to use it in the vehicles Typically, with health impact assessments, we need to consider some emissions (CO2, NOx, PMx, etc) and some cardiovascular diseases, pulmonary diseases, well-being and exposures. Therefore, dose-response data of the emissions and the endpoints need to be available. Different population subgroups should be considered: children and elderly individuals are in general more sensitive to health outcomes of air pollution. Furthermore the drivers of the public transport might have higher and longer exposure to the emission due to their work.
If dose-response data and emission data are available, modelling can be done to estimate the health impact of the fuels. It is possible to calculate, with uncertainties of course, how the incidence of diseases change with changing emissions and exposure. It is important that data are available, how the emissions and exposures are connected. Exposure data for all citizens and sub-populations are needed to estimate the impact the emissions can have. If no one is exposed to the emissions, they cannot have an effect on health. If Risk Ratios are available, they can be used to estimate the increase or decrease in risk to develop a certain health endpoint depending on the emissions and exposure of sub-populations. Each health endpoint can be used to estimate DALYs (disability-adjusted life years), which can be used to calculate the costs of medical treatment and a loss of quality in life caused by the disease.
←--#: . This is very good. If you want to improve, describe how you make the connection between the emissions and health. --Jouni 16:40, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
----#: . We tried to describe how a connection between emissions and health can be made. --Isabell Rumrich 10:16, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
----#: . The strategy and analyses of assessment could be explained in details and in some cases the scope of assessment is wide which makes the process more complicated and confusing. Also it would be better to specify which fuels can or cannot be used and how participants can have a direct effect on the assessment. --Soroushm 20:13, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
DARM course 2013 - Homework 4
Groupwork with Stefania Caporaso [[1]]
Ireland at Risk - Critical Infrastructure - Adaptation for Climate Change [[2]]
What are the aims/goals of the strategy/program, i.e. what are the desired impacts and outcomes striven for?
The Irish Academy of Engineering agreed on adaptations to the impacts of climate change. Therefore the engineering profession will take a leading role in identifying the challenges and proposing adaptation measures, which are appropriate and cost-effective.
The goals of this program relate to three areas: water supply, flood alleviation and energy infrastructure. The intention is to support the use of engineering knowledge in policies and in planning of future scenarios, focusing on these three areas.
⇤--#: . Is the goal really to "ensure the best contribution of the engineering profession.."? I think the strategy intends to help in delivering the contributions of engineers to policies and planning related to the focus areas, which the goals actually relate to. --Mikko Pohjola 13:24, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
- ----#: . We tried to develop the answers further. The actual goals are explained in more detail below. --Isabell Rumrich 11:01, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
The program states not only goals for the climate change, but also for the working process: Experts with different backgrounds should work together in a better way, to ensure decisions are not restricted. In particular, relating the first area, the principal aim is to review the design standards and amend these as greater certainty about climate change parameter. We know how water is essential to survive, but also to industry, business and farming. Therefore, research should be done to minimize the uncertainties in future climate change and the prognosis of extreme weather events. Plans have to developed how water supply can be guaranteed, although the climate changes. Specifically, the management of water supply infrastructure, establishing priorities to deal equitably with competing demands for available water resources, planning how water will be harvested, managed and distributed to meet society’s future needs and the implementation of a universal charging policy for all water users are the main goals intended to be developed.
The second area that we have to take into account in order to progress towards the goals is the flood alleviation, considering that the cities and towns of Ireland are nearly all located by the coast and/or on a large river. The climate change causes a rise in sea level and an increase in floods due to the excess of rain. The consequences of those events can have some big impacts on the citizens’ life and economic implications. The actions intended to take in this sector concerns 1) assess flood risk; 2) delineate flood plains; 3) implement coastal protection plans; 4) manage and control development; 5) improve flood warnings; 6) review of design standards.
These strategies intend to reduce the possible impacts of flood events. The flood risk assessment will bring information about possible future flood scenarios. Delineate flood plains will minimize the damage in sensitive areas in the case of a flood, because areas will be established which can be flooded without causing damage. The implementation of a coastal protection plan will conserve the cost in a natural state to diminish erosion and establish open space, where the water during flood events cannot cause disasters. The improvement of flood warnings and the review of design standards can lead to a decrease in damages and effects on human health caused by floods, because people can be warned about a flood earlier and buildings and other installations might be stable enough to overcome the flood.
Finally, modern life is not possible without electric supply anymore. Climate change can present risks to the energy infrastructure. In this sense, a high-quality energy infrastructure is necessary for Ireland to attract and retain high-tech industry. Moreover, the development has to be well balanced all over the country. In particular, energy infrastructure owners have to prepare a risk register by the end of 2010, in order to get some information about the effects of climate change on infrastructures. Power requirements need to be reviewed to be able to forecast future needs.
⇤--#: . Altogether, this is already quite good, but focuses too much on the making of and resources behind the strategy. What (in practical terms, if possible) is foreseen to be different if/when the strategy is implemented as in comparison to not being implemented. What will happen with/without the strategy? E.g. what does it mean to "implement coastal protection plans"? What is the difference that such a protection plan would bring about? --Mikko Pohjola 13:24, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
- ⇤--#: . The Strategy itself does not give much information about the changes it could bring, so we tried to think about some impacts ourselves. --Isabell Rumrich 11:01, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
- ----#: . Indeed, the strategy seems to mostly deal with "how to prepare Ireland for the implementation of the strategy". --Mikko Pohjola 13:10, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Who are those that benefit if the aims/goals of the strategy/program are reached?
The citizens of Ireland are the ones that benefit most, if the goals are reached. But they are not the only ones. Also the State of Ireland will be able to take advantage of this strategy. In fact, the benefits will be both in the social and economic sector.
Without the strategy, Ireland would be unprepared to future scenarios and effects of climate change would have a great impact on all the country. The citizens experiencing a flood might be harm physically or lose all their belongings. If it is possible to improve the preparation to those events and decrease the impact they can have, the risk for each citizen will decrease.
Businesses and industry are strongly depending on water and energy supply. If the supply is not guaranteed, big economic losses are the consequence. This will indirectly cause economic losses on the state level. The establishment of the strategy and the following decrease in risk of impacts of climate change will give safety to those sub-groups.
Overall, the strategy can provide good preparation to the possible future scenarios
----#: . In relation to above comment, you can try to think what kinds of effects, will/will not take place with/without the strategy? How do they relate to different populations, sub-groups,organizations, businesses? --Mikko Pohjola 13:24, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
- ----#: . We developed the answer further. --Isabell Rumrich 11:01, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
What are the actions that are needed/intended to take in order to progress towards the aims/goals?
The working group decided on various actions, which needed to be done:
1) All-island statutory plan: an existing government department or agency in each jurisdiction is taking the lead to coordinate all actions and policies. Furthermore, those agencies should agree together on one all-island adaption plan.
2) Establish an adaption framework: Each agency should establish a framework for the upcoming work. It has to define, identify and map the elements of critical infrastructure.
3) Review engineering design standards: Engineers and climate change researcher should work together to identify the most important climate parameters, that are critical.
4) Co-ordinate Research: Two lead agencies should take the overall lead and coordinate the work and the funding.
5) Research for infrastructure: research for the designing, planning and producing policy for new infrastructures need to be done in short- and medium-term.
6) Link research and implementation: the dialogue between different experts needs to be improved.
7) Establish research priorities: the research should focus on the current information gaps.
8) Establish observational networks: Networks need to be built to collect data across a range of parameters.
9) Learn from others: Countries, which have the same climate conditions as Ireland, should be identified to share knowledge and experience.
10) Establish Water Resource Authorities: The Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland should establish a Water Resource Authority, which work together and control the available water resources, prepare policy and strategy as well as manage.
11) Plan for competing demands: Priorities need to be established in order to deal with equitably with competing demands for scare water resources.
12) Plan for future water supplies: planning of how water will be harvested, managed and distributed to meet society´s future needs.
13) Investigate future water sources: Search for new water sources and adopt a balanced approach for future water supply schemes.
14) Survey groundwater resources: Investigate groundwater resources to identify them for further development.
15) Investigate water supply sustainability: The changed pattern of rainfall and low flows affect the quantity and quality of available water. Those changed must be investigated.
16) Complete water quality risk assessment and contingency planning: The present sewerage infrastructure and the traditional storm-water drainage systems are not built for extreme weather conditions. The risks of that need to be known.
17) Review flow options: New strategies for low flow situations need to be developed.
18) Use technology to capture data: The collection of data needs to be improved using modern technology.
19) Review the desalination option: A comparison between desalination and other options needs to be reviewed, taking environmental impacts and energy use into account.
20) Implement universal water charging: The high quantities of used water in Ireland can lead to water shortage in the future. Demand management and pricing of water need to be evaluated.
21) Asses flood risk: The flood risk need to be assessed in order to identify and prioritise adaption measures. National agreement on standards, methodologies and actions are needed for that.
22) Complete flood risk maps and management plans: Progress in meeting the requirements of EU Floods Directive is needed.
23) Delineate flood plains: A robust and acceptable methodology to delineate flood plains needs to be developed.
24) Manage and control developments: Guidelines to support planning need to be implemented and followed strictly. This should be monitored by the Government.
25) Identify significant flood defences: Major flood defence assets must be identified and recorded in order to protect and develop them.
26) Control the removal of flood defences: The removal of flood defences, even in private ownership needs to be approved after careful analysis of the impact.
27) Implement coastal protection plans: Protections plans for all areas at risk from erosion or flooding need to be developed.
28) Improve flood forecasting and warning: A system for forecasting surges and issuing coastal flood warnings is needed.
29) Install a tide gauge network: A tide gauge network needs to be established. I should have quality-controlled data processing and archiving.
30) Review the effectiveness of mitigation measures: Land use management and forestry practice need to be part of flood mitigation measures in order to male them sustainable and successful.
31) Increase public awareness: To ensure public support for flood protection measures and controls, the public awareness of the risks of flooding needs to be increased.
32) Produce asset risk registers: A preliminary climate change risk analysis needs to be done by all owners of energy infrastructure. Moreover, a risk register suing climate change parameters needs to be prepared.
33) Review plant output: A preliminary report needs to be done with the expected changes in the output of power plants caused by the climate change.
34) Review power plant requirements: An increase in energy need is expected due to the additional pumping of water supplies, wastewater disposal, agricultural irrigation and air conditioning. A report needs to be done about how climate change could increase the energy demand.
35) Review water impoundment standards: The standards for water impoundment need to be review by the owners, so that operating and maintenance procedures take climate change scenarios into account.
36) Review wave energy issues: In the planning and designing wave energy plants the possible raise in sea level and other climate change scenarios need to be taken into account.
37) Implement coastal protection measures: Coastal protection measures need to be implemented for all kind of sensitive installations like oil refinery and storage installation, gas and other pipelines, power generating stations and electricity substations.
The above list consists of more detailed actions, which can be established to reach the aimed goals of the strategy. The Strategy mostly states, that the current knowledge and methods need to be reviewed and the listed actions give hints on how to review them or how to improve the methods. The points 1 to 9 of the list give actions how to establish the strategy. Points 10 to 20 are related to water supply, whereas the points 21 to 31 are part of the flood alleviation. The last points on the list refer to the energy infrastructure.
----#: . A long and detailed list of actions, but looks to me that quite many of them relate more into administration of the implementation of the strategy than practical actions through which the desired changes (or non-changes) take place. On the other hand, it is typical for strategy and program papers that they list tasks or actions without explication of what is it that they should deliver. Are able to identify what (some of) these intend to deliver in relation to the general aims discussed above? --Mikko Pohjola 13:24, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
- ----#: . We tried to identify some of these in relation to the general aims. --Isabell Rumrich 11:29, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Who are those that actually realize these actions?
First of all, the Government has to adopt the proposed actions and force the implementation of it. Additionally, governmental agencies will be responsible for the controlling of the actions.
⇤--#: . So government will have to DECIDE on acceptance of the strategy, implementation of proposed action etc., right? --Mikko Pohjola 13:24, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
- ←--#: . Right, the Government has to decide about it all. --Isabell Rumrich 11:29, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
The proposed actions should be mainly realized by Engineers and climate change researchers. Engineers and climate change researchers engage partly in the realization of the actions points. For example in the following actions:
8) Establish observational networks: Networks need to be built to collect data across a range of parameters.
19) Review the desalination option: A comparison between desalination and other options needs to be reviewed, taking environmental impacts and energy use into account.
21) Asses flood risk: The flood risk need to be assessed in order to identify and prioritise adaption measures. National agreement on standards, methodologies and actions are needed for that.
Whereas the following actions are engaged only by the Government:
10) Establish Water Resource Authorities: The Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland should establish a Water Resource Authority, which work together and control the available water resources, prepare policy and strategy as well as manage.
20) Implement universal water charging: The high quantities of used water in Ireland can lead to water shortage in the future. Demand management and pricing of water need to be evaluated.
24) Manage and control developments: Guidelines to support planning need to be implemented and followed strictly. This should be monitored by the Government.
----#: . Engineers and researchers are working on the strategy, but do they also engage in actual realization of the action points? --Mikko Pohjola 13:24, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
- ----#: . We added some examples for actions, where engineers and researcher can engaged in realization, and some, where they cannot engage in the realization. --Isabell Rumrich 11:29, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
If all proposed actions are implemented, the owners of sensitive installations, flood defences and energy plants need to take actions, depending on what the guidelines require.
←--#: . Good point. Much of the actual realization often ends up as a responsibility of other than those who came up with a strategy, policy etc., in this case it's the owners, whether organizations or individuals. Anything that would fall on other subgroups or the common citizen to be taken care of? --Mikko Pohjola 13:24, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
- ----#: . The common citizen can think about the water consumption and try to reduce it, to make a contribution in guarantee water availability. The same is possible for energy consumption. --Isabell Rumrich 11:29, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
- ←--#: . OK. You could write this also in the answer. --Mikko Pohjola 13:10, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
What are the decisions that are needed to make in order to enable/promote the actions?
All actions presented in this framework are only proposals so far. Therefore, the Government has to evaluate all proposed actions and adopt them for implementation. The proposed actions are not very detailed, that is why concrete decisions cannot be identified.
Examples:
19) Review the desalination option: A comparison between desalination and other options needs to be reviewed, taking environmental impacts and energy use into account.
In case of desalination of sea water, researchers have to develop possible scenarios and methods for desalination. The Government has to decide if any of these options is used in bigger scale. If so, engineers have to plan the actual facilities.
29) Install a tide gauge network: A tide gauge network needs to be established. I should have quality-controlled data processing and archiving.
In case of a tide gauge network the Government has to decide where the network is installed. This might be done with support of researchers. Engineers have to plan and build the network.
----#: . Look at the comments above, and maybe think over the difference between deciding and taking action. Maybe choose one or two specific action point(s) and try to think who decides which aspects related to it, and who in the end does something about it. --Mikko Pohjola 13:24, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
- ----#: . We added two specific points as examples. --Isabell Rumrich 11:57, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Who are the decision makers?
Again, the Government is the decision maker. Partly, engineers and researcher are able to make minor decisions.
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?
The report does not specify health impacts caused by the proposed actions. It only refers to general health impacts caused by climate change.
However, analyzing the impacts of climate change on water quality, some health impacts can be deduced. One of the most critical concerns surely polluted drinking water, which is likely to cause acute health effects.
The citizens are those that face these health impacts. However, these health impacts are small in relation to other impacts, above all environmental impacts.
The environmental impacts may include the erosion of coastal areas, flood events, changing of environmental conditions due to changes in rain pattern.
Overall, the proposed actions result in a win-win situation, because not only the citizens, but also the environment, benefit of it. The costs might be high, but in the long term it may save a lot of money.
It is hard to elaborate the impacts of the strategy on human health and the environment, because the actions are not described in detail. Therefore, it is not clear how the actions are realized in detail.
Examples:
20) Implement universal water charging: The high quantities of used water in Ireland can lead to water shortage in the future. Demand management and pricing of water need to be evaluated.
If an universal water charge is implemented, it means economic loss, for all who have to pay. This can be the citizens as well as the industry. This is lose-win situation. Everyone who has to pay is losing, but the state is winning by earning more money.
27) Implement coastal protection plans: Protections plans for all areas at risk from erosion or flooding need to be developed.
The implementation of coastal protection plans can result in a win-win situation for everyone. The risk of damages caused by flood events is decreasing, which is good for everyone. Additionally, the environment is winning, because the coastal protection areas are not allowed to be used in any way and the nature is not affected by human activities so much. The citizens are winning, because the protection of flood is increased and the area can present a good leisure-time and recreation opportunity.
----#: . Great health impacts can be related to water supply, particularly drinking water supply. There are also other major impacts related e.g. to water supply to industries. I would not say that the health impacts caused by contaminated drinking water that can be avoided with a good climate change adaptation policy are small. Instead I would call them big. --Mikko Pohjola 13:24, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
----#: . You could elaborate a bit more on the win-win(-win) situation. Does your statement apply to all actions in the strategy? Do all actions result only in beneficial environmental impacts? Are there only health benefits related? Is it clear that the costs of all actions will be payed off and overcompensated by future savings? --Mikko Pohjola 13:24, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
- ----#: . You can pick a few as examples, no need to consider every single one. --Mikko Pohjola 13:24, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
- ----#: . We added some examples. --Isabell Rumrich 11:59, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Formulate a plausible and meaningful specific assessment question that takes account of (some of) the aspects considered in above questions.
Which are the strategies needed for critical instructions in order to allow Ireland to adapt to the impact climate change in the sectors of energy supply, water services and flood alleviation?
The strategies are aimed to protect the well-being of citizens and to prevent economic losses due to effects of climate change on the three areas. All options should be assessed related to how well they can be implemented.
Which are the best ways for protection against flood events in means of costs, safety and environmental impact? Options for flood protection are assessment of the flood risk, delineation of flood plains, flood defences and implementation of coastal protection plans.
More specific questions can be: Will the delineation of flood plains be useful in terms of protection of citizens and industry? and applicable in means of costs and environmental impact? Are the present flood defences of good quality? Is there a need of additional flood defences? How effective are they in terms of protection of the citizens and industry, costs and environmental impacts?
⇤--#: . I'm not sure I fully get the point of the question. "Could it be something like which actions (in the Ireland climate change adaptation strategy) addressing energy supply, water services and flood alleviation are most effective (in what way, health, environment, economy, …?)? Is the idea to assess which actions should be chosen (would make sense, but not sure if this is what you mean)? --Mikko Pohjola 13:24, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
- ----#: . We added an explanation of the study question. --Isabell Rumrich 11:58, 1 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
- ----#: . OK, clearer. There's still some space for more specific formulation. E.g. in terms of how better implementability is defined and what does well-being cover. On the other hand, also the distance from "instructions" to something actually happening is so big, that it would probably be easier to assess some specific actions instead (e.g. building a dam for flood protection vs. a recommendation to improved flood protections in a strategy protection). --Mikko Pohjola 13:10, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
- ----#: . We added a more specific question. --Isabell Rumrich 09:33, 7 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
- ----#: . OK, clearer. There's still some space for more specific formulation. E.g. in terms of how better implementability is defined and what does well-being cover. On the other hand, also the distance from "instructions" to something actually happening is so big, that it would probably be easier to assess some specific actions instead (e.g. building a dam for flood protection vs. a recommendation to improved flood protections in a strategy protection). --Mikko Pohjola 13:10, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
(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.
The given answers present limited shared understanding. All relevant aspects have been described in detail, but decision maker´s decision criteria have not been described very well.
←--#: . Good point! How can you tell if a planned action is good if its not clear, what is aimed at? Relates also to the assessment question formulation above. Maybe Ireland should really try to assess which proposed actions are worth implementing, which not. This would probably result in much clearer presentation of the whole strategy. --Mikko Pohjola 13:24, 31 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
DARM course 2013 – Homework 5
Groupwork with Stefania Caporaso [[3]]
Ireland at Risk - Critical Infrastructure - Adaptation for Climate Change [[4]]
Homework 5, part A: Questions about identifying roles and participation:
Who are the relevant participants of the assessment?
Different types of participants have contributed to develop the assessment: technical experts (such as Consulting Engineers; Irish Academy of Engineering); research experts (such as University College Dublin, University College Cork); environment agencies and departments; local government and the office of public works; eventually also the citizens.
What roles the different participants (may) take in the assessment?
The main role of the different participants that take in the assessment is to ensure that aims of decision makers, impact on Irish people’s life, and scientific input of experts are taken in consideration in order to facilitate the decision process. In particular, technical and research experts have to ensure that scientific knowledge is taken into account when decisions are made and so they have to understand the scientific input. Their role is mainly a role of facilitators. Environment agencies and departments represent a source of information, while local government should have the role of decision maker and executor.
What kind of relevant knowledge they (may) have regarding the assessment?
The knowledge that they may have regarding the assessment is different from different types of participants. Technical and research experts have a background necessary to work to the assessment and, more generally, to the project working. Environment agencies and departments have knowledge about environmental impacts and effects, but they can also provide some data necessary for the assessment. Finally, citizens know needs and wishes about their living environment.
What needs and aims do they represent in the assessment?
Technical and research experts need data and their aim is to prevent negative effects and to ensure practical feasibility, while environment agencies and departments need scientific knowledge and assessment in order protect the environment and to prevent disasters. The citizens need to know the plans, because these plans can have a big impact on their lives.
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?
Since all participants have different backgrounds and knowledge about climate change and the associated problems, an important first step is to gain a shared understanding about the topic. After this, experts could work in smaller groups to work on more detailed problem and agree on the most important facts. In this way, all available knowledge will be used and no opinion or information will be missed, because too many individuals discuss at the same time.
All kind of data and scenarios are needed to be known for a good assessment. Therefore the experts, who work on gaining these data, need enough time and good conditions to do so. The expert have to work together to figure out what data are needed and what is the best way to get the data. Moreover, experts both from outside and the actual working group can be asked for advice, if a similar assessment is already done in another country for example.
After all data are available and the expert groups reach some kind of contempt, they could share their results with all the other groups, experts and layman. Those results could be discussed and used for further decision making.
Smaller discussion groups can be formed of experts of one field who search for all possible options related to the study questions. In one big discussion the options can be shared between the different groups so that all different backgrounds and opinions are heard and considered in the assessment and decision making.
How can the quality of an assessment be assured if anyone can participate?
It is important that one person keeps an overview what is going on in the assessment, for example like in Opasnet the moderator of a page.
All participants can express their opinion and share facts, but a fair discussion must be possible. If someone disagrees with an argument and gives facts against it, then the argument is invalid.
If any research is done to obtain data, it is important to be able to see, what was done, when and how. In this way, shared understanding is possible and other experts of that field can identify possible mistakes or uncertainties.
In the end, every participant should be responsible enough to do the best to increase the quality of the assessment and be willing to learn or to help to improve the methods or knowledge, if any kind of critics is appropriate.
How can you prevent malevolent contributions where the purpose is to vandalize the process?
If the assessment is an open one and everyone can participate, it can be difficult to prevent malevolent contributions. One option may be that all contributions are marked with the real name of the person, who shared it. Even in Opasnet the Username can be the real name. Most people think twice about vandalizing, if it is obvious, who is responsible for it.
Moreover, it has to be possible to exclude someone from the participation, if it is obvious, that that individual is only aiming at vandalizing the process. Assurance, that no one is excluded because he expressed an unwanted opinion, has to be made. One idea is that people can be warned three times before the exclusion. Additionally, only the moderator can exclude one person, not other participants. Other participants can only complain about one person to the moderator.
How can you make the outcome converge to a conclusion, because all issues are uncertain and controversial?
If the uncertainty and the controversy are too high, it might not be possible to converge to a conclusion with the available data. Then, it has to be said like that and more research has to be done to get better knowledge of the topic. The conclusion can be in that case, that all options, which were discussed, are of equal quality or outcome. Experts, who were not participating in the assessment, can be asked for their input about the topic.
In discussions there are certain rules, which can help all discussion inputs to converge in one resolution or conclusion. An attack of an argument is always thought to be stronger than a defense. So if all defending arguments can be attacked, the source statement is invalid.
How can you ensure that the outcomes are useful for the users?
The users can be participants in the assessment process. In that way they can stop outcome directly, if they are not useful for them. Moreover, the study question can already partly ensure the usefulness of an outcome for the intended users. If the study question is detailed enough and meets the needs of the user, the answer to this questions, which equals the outcome of the assessment, is useful for the users.
Before the study question in formulated, it should be carefully considered, what the user wants and what is useful or impossible for the user. Options, which are impossible to meet by the user, can be eliminated right away and be excluded from the assessment.
←--#: . Comments on 5A and B: Good work! It seems that you have understood the idea of this homework in an excellent way and have done in-depth work. --Marjo 16:13, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
Homework 5, part C: Prepare following tables from the climate program of your selection. Instructions for table structures can be found at Training assessment.
- Decisions
| Obs | Decisionmaker | Decision | Option | Variable | Cell | Change | Unit | Amount | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lead Government | Funding of research | Different research groups | Projects get funding or not | |||||
| 2 | Government | Water availability | Harvesting | Increase in harvesting or decrease | |||||
| 3 | Government | Water availability | Management | Fees for water, regulation of water use | |||||
| 4 | Government | Water availability | Distribution | New networks | |||||
| 5 | Government | Risk plans | Improve | Increase of cost for plans; higher safety | energy and sewage infrastructure | ||||
| 6 | Government | Desalination | Improve | Costs of methods; amount of water made available | |||||
| 7 | Government | Flood defences | Improve | Costs for building; how much protection would it bring? | |||||
| 8 | Government | Public Training | yes/no | Costs for the training; impact on behavior/water use | Awareness of importance of water |
----#: . There is not need to list BAU options, because they are always there. --Jouni 15:14, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
----#: . Is there a difference between "Lead Government" and "Government"? Are there any other decisionmakers? --Jouni 15:14, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
⇤--#: . Column Variable should describe what thing changes when the decision option is implemented. Be more specific than just costs/impact. This also applies to the table below. --Jouni 15:14, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
- Endpoints
| Obs | Stakeholder | Variable | Cell | Model | Result | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lead Agencies | research costs | Lead Agency are responsible for implementation of strategy; are not formed yet, but should be existing government department or agency (only proposal of strategy) | |||
| 2 | Government | water availability for citizens and industry | ||||
| 3 | Sewage owners | Safety of sewage installations against climate change impacts; safety of citizens | ||||
| 4 | Government | Costs of methods; environmental impact; impact on water availability | Desalination | |||
| 5 | Government | Impact on safety of flood defences; protection of citizens; impact on environment | Flood defences | |||
| 6 | Private owners | Impact on safety of flood defences; protection of citizens; impact on environment | Flood defences | |||
| 7 | Government | Costs for training; impact on behavior and water use | Public awareness/training | |||
| 8 | Energy infrastructure owners | Economic impact; environmental impact; resistance against climate change | ||||
| 9 | Risk installation owners | protection measures | oil refinery/storage installations; gas/other pipelines; power generating stations; electricity substations |
- ⇤--#: . You should specify variables a bit e.g. impact, safety etc. Impact on what? Whose safety? If you feel that the the explanations are too long to be included into the table, write them below it. --Marjo 15:46, 5 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
- ----#: . Jouni might give further comments on 5C. --Marjo 12:22, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
----#: . We tried to include your comments to our answers. --Isabell Rumrich 09:43, 7 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
DARM course 2013 Homework 6
ERF of indoor dampness on respiratory health effects [[5]]
Climate change policies in Kuopio [[6]]
Climate change policies and health in Kuopio [[7]]
DARM course 2013 Homework 7
Contribution to the structured discussion on the Environmental impact assessment directive [[8]]
DARM course 2013 Homework 8
ERFs for IEQ factors [[9]]
DARM course 2013 – Homework 9
Assessment of Homework 3 of Johnagyemang [[10]]
(Groupwork of John Bright Agyemang and Emmanuel Abu-Danso)
----#: . 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
| Attribute | characterization |
|---|---|
| Impacts | Climate Change due to GHG emissions of transport and power plants. |
| Causes | Present fuels used for transport and power production emit large amounts of greenhouse gases, which play a major role in climate change. |
| Problem owner |
|
| Target |
|
| Interaction | The scope of participation is very open, because all stakeholders with environmental concerns are allowed to participate. Based on the assessment draft it is very difficult to group the draft into one category of interaction within the knowledge-policy interaction framework, because the draft gives not enough details to do so.
⇤--#: . Try to pick one (or two if necessary) of the example categories that you think mostly resembles the type of interaction the draft assessment would promote or aim for. --Mikko Pohjola 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ----#: . I picked the examples categories, which mostly resemble the type of interaction in my opinion. --Isabell Rumrich 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
| Dimension | Characterization |
|---|---|
| Scope of participation | All stakeholders are allowed to participate. However no detailed information are given who is considered as a stakeholder with environmental concerns.
----#: . all with "environmental concerns" is a broad group of stakeholders, but a bit vaguely expressed in terms of who are the stakeholders that get or don't get to participate. --Mikko Pohjola 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) ----#: . I added a short explanation. --Isabell Rumrich 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
| Access to information | The assessment draft gives no information about it. It only states that the public awareness should be strengthened. |
| Timing of openness | The draft only states stakeholders as participants. It does not give information whether other parties are invited at some point. The stakeholders have to participate from the beginning on. |
| Scope of contribution | The draft allows public participation. However, no detailed information are given whether te participation is limited in any way.
⇤--#: . Looks to me that almost anyone would get to participate, at least in principle (see scope of participation), but I'm not sure based on the description. This attribute considers what aspects could the participants address. Little can be said about that based on the draft assessment, but one could guess that perhaps the intended users would have certain specific parts to contribute to, but this is just guessing, since it is not described. --Mikko Pohjola 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ----#: . I corrected the answer. --Isabell Rumrich 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
| Impact of contribution | There is only one group of participants: the stakeholders. |
Explanations of categories of interaction within the knowledge-policy interaction framework.
- It is very difficult to categorize this draft of an assessment into one of the categories, because the draft it too vague and only includes stakeholders as participants. It does not include enough information about other participants or details.
- Isolated: The assessment is not isolated at all if it is done as the draft describes it. The stakeholders are the only participants, which makes in impossible that they do not interfere with making the assessment.
- Informing: Again, the draft only includes the stakeholders as participants. The city council and other groups are only named as intended user. That way it does not seem very realistic, that the assessment will be done according to gaining the best outcome for all intended users.
- Participatory: The allowed participation is very narrow and limited.
- Joint: The draft gives no clear information about planned information or data exchange. But due to the list of possible options to answer the study question, there needs to be data and information sharing among the intended users. Management and follow-up are not included in the draft.
- Shared: Open collaboration is not intended at any point.
----#: . The explanations for the example categories for "Interaction" are just to help you choose the one that most closely describes the type of interaction indicated by the draft assessment you have looked at. No need to make any further analysis according to them. --Mikko Pohjola 09:39, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Evaluation of the assessment draft
| Attribute | Score | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Quality of content | 1 | The complete draft it very vague. The assessment question is already. It does not state a specific city or mentions specific actions taken into account in the assessment. It is a very open question because the way it is written it has to include all European cities and actions taken there. Moreover, important parts of the assessment are missing totally. The variable and the results are not included. All in all it seems like not much effort was put into the draft. The whole concept of open assessment was not used for it and no details about the options considered in the assessment are mentioned. Furthermore, including only the stakeholders as participants would not work in a real assessment. |
| Applicability: Relevance | 1 | The draft does not contain any information about how the results are communicated and who is allowed to use them. The time framework is until 2020. All in all, if the draft is developed further, the results could be available for all important groups within a limited period of time (maybe months to a year). The outcomes of the assessment, if it is improved and further developed, can be of a use for the intended users. The assessment can give good advice, how the GHG emissions can be decreased.
⇤--#: . Perhaps the communication issue relates more to availability and usability. Although the question and the description overall is quite vague, it seems that the intended users could have a real need for the results such an assessment could bring (if improved sufficiently). --Mikko Pohjola 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ----#: . I made small changes in the answer. --Isabell Rumrich 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
| Applicability: Availability | 0 | The draft does not contain any information about how the results are communicated and who is allowed to use them. The time framework is until 2020. All in all, if the draft is developed further, the results could be available for all important groups within a limited period of time (maybe months to a year). It depends on how the assessment is done and on which data it is based. It has good potential to have a useable outcome, though.
----#: . This is hard to evaluate due to limited information. If e.g. Opasnet were used in making the assessment, it would increase at least the potential of availability. Again based on guessing. --Mikko Pohjola 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) ----#: . I made small changes in the answer. --Isabell Rumrich 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
| Applicability: Usability | 2 | If the assessment is not developed further, the output of the assessment would be very limited, because the stakeholders are the only ones participating in the assessment and their knowledge is limited in assessment. If the draft is developed further and the study question is more limited, there is potential that the assessment might have a useful outcome, which can be understood by the stakeholders, the city and the public. Therefore, the output might be useable for them. ←--#: . Good. I agree, there is potential and reasonable thinking behind, but should be developed further. --Mikko Pohjola 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) |
| Applicability: Acceptability | 0 | Again, the draft is too vague to be able to evaluate this. In the current state the assessment would not be accepted by anyone, I guess, because too many information are missing. The draft does not even give an idea about the expected results. The fact, that the scope of participation is very broad, can be seen as a good aspect for the acceptability of the assessment. I guess, all groups, who participated in the assessment, will accept the outcome in the end.
----#: . I see broad openness, which seems like a good thing. On the other hand, very little is said about how the assessment would be done and kind of knowledge it would be based on, so hard to say. --Mikko Pohjola 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) ----#: . I added an explanation. --Isabell Rumrich 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
| Efficiency | 1 | The assessment described in the draft, would not be efficient. The question is so open that it would be very expensive and time consuming to answer it, if it is possible to find an answer. The whole assessment can be divided into smaller assessment so that more things can be done in the same time and more people can work on it. The different options need different expert knowledge so that it would make sense to assess them in different groups. Of course, the different expert groups would need to share knowledge and data, in order to make the assessment good as a whole. It is a matter of shared understanding.
----#: . On the other hand, practical problems typically requires many kinds of experts and non-experts to co-operate. Good reasoning still. --Mikko Pohjola 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) ----#: . I added an explanation. --Isabell Rumrich 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
----#: . If something is very difficult to evaluate based on the given information, also 0 can be given as score for that attribute. --Mikko Pohjola 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Comments and ideas how to improve the draft
- The structure of the assessment should be more obvious (eg like the example assessment clearly stated the scope with question, the answer and the rationale.). It is very hard to follow draft with the current structure. Moreover the draft is too vague as a total. There are no details mentioned at all, which would be needed to be able to evaluate the draft.
- The question is very open and makes the assessment very hard. Maybe it would be better to focus on one city and one small part of your current assessment (eg transport or energy production.
- It would be nice if it would be written in whole sentences and in a fluent text. It would make it easier to read. ----#: . Also use of headings, lists, indents an other kinds of technical editing would be helpful. --Mikko Pohjola 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
- The listed intended users are a good start, but not enough regarding your open question.
- The stakeholders as only participants seems unrealistic. Inviting experts and the public for the evaluation of the options and so on should be considered?
- The decision should be something like: Option x is the recommended, because…
- Overall the options are good. It would be nice though, if they would explained them a little better.
- The rationale is missing nearly completely. Endpoints and variables are not mentioned at all.
←--#: . Good recommendations. Please add them as arguments to the draft assessment description text. --Mikko Pohjola 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
- ----#: . I added the recommendations to the draft assessment description text. --Isabell Rumrich 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Assessment of Homework 3 of Joshuan [[11]]
(Groupwork of Joshuan and Thomasa)
←--#: . Well done. --Mikko Pohjola 15:09, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
Knowledge-policy interaction
| Attribute | characterization |
|---|---|
| Impacts | Climate Change due to GHG emissions in general.. |
| Causes | The draft does not mention a scope. Therefore, it does not give clear reasons or sources of the GHG emissions. |
| Problem owner |
|
| Target |
|
| Interaction | The drafted assessment can be categorized as a shared knowledge-interaction framework. Different groups of participants contribute to the assessment and have their specific roles and responsibilities. |
| Dimension | Characterization |
|---|---|
| Scope of participation | Many different groups and agencies are allowed to participate. The scope is very wide. |
| Access to information | The assessment draft gives no information about it. But since many groups participate in the assessment, they should be able to access all information of the assessment. |
| Timing of openness | The assessment does not give any information about the timing of openness. |
| Scope of contribution | The scope of contribution is very wide, because the scope of participation is very wide and all participants are allowed to contribute ----#: . On the other hand, little is said about which parts of the assessment would be open for different participants' contributions. --Mikko Pohjola 15:09, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
| Impact of contribution | The draft does not give information about the impact of contribution. |
Explanations of categories of interaction within the knowledge-policy interaction framework.
- The drafted assessment can be categorized as a shared knowledge-interaction framework. Different groups of participants contribute to the assessment and have their specific roles and responsibilities.
Evaluation of the assessment draft
| Attribute | Score | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Quality of content | 3 | The questions is very open, but draft still shows a good way to answer it. The list of participants and the different option might be a little unrealistic, but it would be good, if it would be possible to do it as the draft says. Much important information are given and no big mistakes or missing information can be found. |
| Applicability: Relevance | 4 | The question and the assessment are both relevant, but it is unsure, whether the assessment can be done as drafted because it needs many different groups as participants and considers many different options. The different options can give good outcome for the question of which options are worth adopting |
| Applicability: Availability | 3 | The draft gives no information about the planned sharing of information or when information made available for which group. But since many groups are already participants of the assessment, they require to have all available data already during the assessment |
| Applicability: Usability | 3 | The output of the assessment will be understandable from everyone and will be useable for all important parties, because they are already participating in the assessment |
| Applicability: Acceptability | 3 | The assessment seems to be planned well and it seems to include all important users and options. Therefore it should be accepted by everyone. If the assessment is done as well as the planning, the output should be accepted, too, although it is possible that some options, which are recommended as being worth adopting, might be difficult to implement. |
| Efficiency | 3 | The assessment would need a lot of effort because many options from different fields are included and many different participants need to work together. It will be high in costs and time needed. Moreover the communication between the different participants needs to be planned well and has to be efficient. The output of this assessment might be useful or transferable to other countries with similar or related conditions. |
Comments and ideas how to improve the draft
- It would be nice if the draft would be structures clearer.
- It is very nice that neighboring countries are considered and that it is acknowledge that GHG emissions do not stay in one country and the emissions produced in Ghana effect other countries, too.
- Only two power plants are included in the assessment. Maybe the ideas for options can be transfer to smaller power plants, too.
- Many possible ways to decrease the GHG are mentioned. That is very nice, although some might be not very realistic. It shows that a lot of thinking was put into it.
- How is wellbeing planned to be measured?
- Not all options and indicators are included in the data, which are needed. For example the cardiovascular mortality is planned to be usedas an indicator, but it is not list as needed information in your assessment-specific data.
- The Rationale part with endpoints and variables is not clearly mentioned.
DARM course 2013 - Seminar
You can find the seminar presentation from the link below.
[[12]]