User:Sam0911
⇤--#: . 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. Check the follow-up table! --Jouni 18:11, 13 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
Homework 1
1. Purpose of environmental health risk assessment
- So as to provide vital information for decision makers.
- So as to assess the characteristics of human activity.
2.What is impact assessment
- The process of evaluating potential impacts for example in the society i,e health, environment, or economy.
3.What is collaboration
- It is a process of sharing ones (idea, potential, or interest) to other. ----#: . In fact not just sharing, but also working on achieving something together with others. Of course, sharing knowledge, views etc. is essential in making it possible. --Mikko Pohjola 11:05, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
←--#: . Good answers. --Mikko Pohjola 11:05, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
Homework 2
What are s4 class object?
Homework 3
Assessment draft based on the application of compound x on vegetable Y as fertilizer
⇤--#: . The topic is not one of the three: Talvivaara, metal mines, or climate change policies in cities. Find a topic within these boundaries. --Jouni 06:36, 21 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
⇤--#: . It was difficult to evaluate this homework because the topic was not one of those three. --Salla 12:01, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ←--#: . Of-course you can assess the idea,any ways , I have already put the whole home work assignment 3 based on climate change programmme in Rotterdam city and its health impact connected to PM10, see at end,you can find the whole package --Sam0911 20:14, 11 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) 1.Scope
----#: . Here could be a short definition about that why this assessment is done. --Salla 10:48, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
1.1 question
What the negative impact of compound x on vegetable Y
----#: . If x is fertilizer, we expect positive impacts. --Jouni 06:36, 21 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
----#: . The question could be "what kind of impacts does compound x cause on vegetable y?" There could be added also a question like "Does the possible impacts restrict the use of the vegetable?" --Salla 10:52, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
1.2 Who is responsible for the result
----#: . Rather use term "Intended user". --Jouni 06:36, 21 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
The company who supply compound x
----#: . Here could be also farmers that use the compound, the consumers and EVIRA. And also a description how we expect intended users to use the information that we get from the assessment. --Salla 10:56, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
1.3 Participant
Expert in the toxicology of compounds
----#: . Why are you planning an assessment with one participant only? Why do you leave others out? --Jouni 06:36, 21 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
----#: . Here could be also, EVIRA and farmers and consumers. --Salla 11:00, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)----#: . The company that produces the compound could be excluded because it might be partial. --Salla 11:02, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
⇤--#: . You could add here a scenario about decisions and decision options. --Salla 11:04, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ⇤--#: . You could add here analyses that are needed to be able to produce results that are useful for making conclusions about the question. --Salla 11:05, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
1.4 Decisions
Alternative compound will substituted according to the severity of the problem.
----#: . Are those other compounds known? They should be listed here. --Jouni 06:36, 21 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
2 Answers
2.1 Result
Low impact observed according to the analysis
⇤--#: . We cannot know the results and conclusions before the analysis is done. --Jouni 06:36, 21 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
2.2 Conclusion
Compound x is suitable for vegetable Y
3 Rationale
According to the intensive field and lab work by our experts,we found that the application of compound x is suitable for vegetable y besides compound x found that ,environmentally friend.
----#: . Assessments are about using all available information, not just performing a single new study. --Jouni 06:36, 21 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
⇤--#: . Where are your other homework answers? If they are on someone else's userpage, please add links here so they can be found. --Mikko Pohjola 11:05, 28 January 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
Homework 3 corrected
Last time I discussed out of range,now I would like focus on the climate change policy on Rotterdam city.
Scope
To examine the health impact due to the activities based on climate change tackling programme in Rotterdam city , in connection to the level of PM.Since the programme includes building various infrastructures,it expected the rise of particulate matter in the city.
Question
What are the level of particulate matter(PM) in the city since the climate change tackling programme started? This can be done by taking data from various station(that measure PM) in the city.
Intended use and users?
- The city council of of Rotterdam,
- Ministry of Environment of Netherlands,
- Ministry of Health of Netherlands
These agents will organize the information they got from the assessment and act according to it,this can be considered as a decision.
Participants
Experts from...Environmental health area, Environmental authority of the city, Citizen of the City, Representatves from the climate change tackling programme section.
Scenarios
Exposure to PM10,
Climate change tackling programmes,
Potential health impact,
City of Rotterdam
Analysis
Bases on exposure modelling
Results
Level of PM matter that can be inhale-able/respirable PM10 data
Conclusion
The activity of climate change programme in the city , can or can not have the potential impact, on the health based on the data of PM10
Rationale
End points,
- City council of Rotterdam
- Ministry health of Netherlands
In this case they will get the final PM10 level especially with the limit value of exposure set by standard organizations( like WHO)
Variables
- Particulate matter exposure data VS
- Respiratory infection
- The level of PM and expected infection in the respiratory system
- Mainly children and elderly people considered as a special condition because of susceptible issue but all the population in the city also involved in the assessment of the health.
Homework 4
←--#: . This is quite good now → OK. --Mikko Pohjola 22:41, 15 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
based on the Rotterdam Climate Proof Adaptation Program-me,2010
⇤--#: . Write your comments out into your actual answers. Also clean up the page. In its current form it is completely unreadable. If your answers are not presented properly, their content will not even be considered for evaluation. --Mikko Pohjola 11:02, 14 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)←--#: . I tried my best,I hope it is ok but still I needed to removes box like structures from my answer but it is difficult for me --Sam0911 20:18, 15 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
⇤--#: . Please add here which climate strategy you consider in below answers. Also do some editing to make the text more readable. --Mikko Pohjola 06:43, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)←--#: . based on the Rotterdam Climate Proof Adaptation Program-me,2010 --Sam0911 23:19, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
1.What are the aims/goals of the strategy/program, i.e. what are the desired impacts and outcomes striven for?
- The main goal is to make Rotterdam city, a place to joy, work, invest, in general, to make the future bright city. Since the country situated in the low delta, there is a threat from rising sea level and fluctuation of river discharge, and by tackling these problems, the above goal can be maintained.
- To make the city , a knowledge/example for climate and water management.
- The citizen is the ultimate beneficiary because the threat from climate change converted to an opportunity.
- The expected benefit of the strategy if I get your point actually based on various adaptation program-mes, like ,flood management ,urban planning(which includes adaptive building),knowledge generating at the university level.
----#: . Quite well described aims. How are the expected benefits of the strategy distributed? --Mikko Pohjola 06:43, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
2.What are the actions that are needed/intended to take in order to progress towards the aims/goals?
Based on different adaptive measures
- 2.1. Flood management:
- 2.2 Accessibility:
- 2.3. Adaptive building:
- 2.4 Urban water system:
- 2.5 Urban climate:
3.Who are actually realize these actions?
Joint action from:The municipal public work department
- The municipal housing and planning department
- Rotterdam development corporation
- The city council of Rotterdam
Since the program-me is informative, citizen and various corporate centers, they will be informed on the solution that climate Rotterdam proof is preparing and implementing even today when it comes to the extreme downpours, flooding, and heat stress.So they can realize the action,this implies the city council report to the citizens about the solution proposed or prepared when ,for instance ,if a flood comes from the east direction we have this and that kind of plan to tackle ,so the citizens also have a potential to realize the actions.
3.What are the decisions which enable to action?
- Building green roofs
- Building additional water storage space
- To design and build connection
- To design and build adaptive buildings
- Spatial planning and socioeconomic tasks
- Investing on knowledge development based on research
4.Who are the decision makers
Joint action from
- The municipal public work department
- The municipal housing and planning department
- Rotterdam development corporation
- The city council of Rotterdam
Actually these are not the decision makers, except the the city council of Rotterdam ,besides,the RCI(Rotterdam Climate Initiative)board, one of the participant in the decision making process.
----#: . Are these the decision makers for the above mentioned decisions? --Mikko Pohjola 06:43, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)|
4.What are the direct /indirect health impacts Positive/negative these decision or action bring?
- positive impacts
- stress will minimize across the nations because of the actions taken by the city so as tackle the problem,besides,in general since there are various measured also taken to adjust the urban climate,like minimizing heat waves,so physical pressure will be declined which facilitate the health ,but I don't get any information related to physical exercise or improvement of air quality.
----#: . Nothing else? Anything to do e.g. with increased physical exercise or improvements in indoor air quality or...? --Mikko Pohjola 06:43, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Negative health impacts:
- Since the solutions proposed for the problems; involves building various infrastructures, so exposure from PM (particulate matter) is one of the risk.besides,Since there is various infrastructures involves,the risk of noise and traffic incidence is there
----#: . No other negative effects? E.g. noise or traffic accident risk or...? --Mikko Pohjola 06:43, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
- But form the angle of saving Rotterdam city from the threat of climate change; the negative impacts from economic, health, environment are not that much plausible.
- Besides the program-me performed with the cooperation to the ministry of health,so there is a possibility to minimize the risk,but,depending on the size of the project it requires multiple effort to reduce the risk.
----#: . Why not? It must be very expensive endeavor to undertake the program and the climate risks, incl. health risks, compared with no strategy and foreseen outcomes of the strategy must be huge. --Mikko Pohjola 06:43, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
5.Do the intended policies result in win-win, win-lose, lose-win, or lose-lose situations with regard to health and other impacts?
- The intended polices rely on win-win approach by considering various aspects; from the citizen security and from sustainable country economy point of view.
- Actually to achieve a win-win program-me, it requires extensive effort,so it depends on their commitment.
----#: . They probably want win-win, but is it sure it always results in win-win? --Mikko Pohjola 06:43, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
6.Formulate a plausible and meaningful specific assessment question that takes account of (some of) the aspects considered in above questions
What are the impacts on; economy, health, and environment, based on the actions which are carried out to tackle climate change?
- What are the health impacts on the dweller of Rotterdam city,based on the adaptive program-me which are carried out by the city council, to tackle climate change?
⇤--#: . This is a sensible approach, but too unfocused for an assessment question. Try to be more specific about which actions and impacts to be considered. also think of what is the answer you would like such an assessment to provide and then think of what is the question to be asked to get that kind of an answer. --Mikko Pohjola 06:43, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
Homework 5
5A
⇤--#: . In order to increase clarity in both 5A and 5B, please write each question first and the answer after that. --Marjo 17:31, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)←--#: . --Sam0911 22:08, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)←--#: . to be honest it was vague previously but now it looks fine --Sam0911 17:10, 13 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
1.What are the relevant participant of the assessment?
- City of Rotterdam,
- Ministry of housing, spatial planning
- Ministry of Water institutes
- Knowledge institutes
2.What are the Roles of the Different participants?
- Participant from City of Rotterdam(Decision makers)=Assessing the task in general,specifically,Since the ambition of the programme is so high, which require decisiveness, knowledge development, space to test and experiment, and new partnership and alliance, so the city has decided to adopt a clever way of combining policy and implementation, consideration and execution.
- Participant from the Ministry of housing, spatial planning and Environment Directorate(Implement/executive department)=to assess the adaptive building strategy, city network.
- Participant from the Ministry of Water(Implement/executive department)=to assess water management approach
- Participant from the University Members(Experts)=Expert judgment,knowledge development
⇤--#: . In addition to what you have done, specify more clearly the roles per participant, such as expert, decision maker, executor... --Marjo 17:31, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)←--#: . Corrected according to the comment --Sam0911 17:08, 13 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
3. What Kind of knowledge that they may or have regarding the assessment.?
- Decision maker(The city of Rotterdam)=have a knowledge with related to policies and implementation connected to the climate change program-me.
- Executive department(Ministry of water)=have a knowledge connected to the water management issues.
- Executive department(Ministry of urban housing and spatial planning)=have a knowledge connected to the design,mapping of space or houses
- Experts(University members)=development of research on climate change issues,expert judgements.
⇤--#: . You should specify which participant has which knowledge. --Marjo 17:31, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ←--#: . corrected according to the comment --Sam0911 17:08, 13 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
3.what need or aim represent in the assessment?
In general they represent(all the departments, decision maker,executives,and experts) based on tackling climate change consequence from mitigation and adaptation sense.
City council(decision maker).....TO have a future city
- Executive department(Ministry of water)=Flood management.
- Executive department(Ministry of urban housing and spatial planning)=Better layout/out look of the city
- Experts(University members)=generating knowledge .
⇤--#: . Aims and needs should be specified per participant. --Marjo 17:31, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)←--#: . Coreected --Sam0911 22:08, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)←--#: . corrected according to the comment --Sam0911 17:08, 13 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
Homework 5B
1,How be the relevant participant be involved in the assessment in an-effective way ?
- Actually it depends on the knowledge they contribute to the assessment but all in all they should understand the main agenda or goal of the programme. |--Marjo 17:31, 12 February 2013 (EET)}}←--#: . see the amendement --Sam0911 17:08, 13 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
2.How can the quality of an assessment be assured if any one is participate?
There should be some expert group who control those activities and to get the best of it.
3. How can you prevent malevolent contributions where the purpose is to vandalise the process?
Again there should be some expert groups in the program-me who control those kind of malevolent contribution and act according to it,of-course, leave it on the trash.If there is no such a kind of special group,it is a threat for the whole process.
4.How can you make the outcome converge to a conclusion, because all issues are uncertain and controversial?
Application of expert knowledge helps to convert to a good conclusion,or in other word there should be some kind of evaluation approach to remove the controversy.
5.How can you ensure that the outcomes are useful for the users?
Actually based on the quality of the assessment,does it include the proper decision,knowledge,action.besides careful examination and evaluation of the whole programme will help to ensure the outcome is useful for the users. ----#: . Last four answers reflect correct points. However, a bit more thorough considerations of these issues would be wished. --Marjo 17:31, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)←--#: . see the amendement --Sam0911 17:08, 13 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
⇤--#: . Decision and endpoint tables are completely missing. --Marjo 17:31, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)←--#: . you can find the tables now --Sam0911 17:08, 13 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
Home work 5c
Prepare following tables from the climate program of your selection. Instructions for table structures can be found at Training assessment.
Decisions table
| Decision maker | Decision | Option | Variable |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rotterdam City Council | Set up the time requirement to achieve the adaptation program-me | set up the necessary input for the program-me | Timing of the programme |
| Climate change experts | Set up the structure of adaptive program-me | Facilitating the adaptive program-mes | adaptive buildings,water plazas,green roofs |
| Knowledge institutes. | Knowledge | Research proposals on climate change. | Accuracy of the programme |
⇤--#: . Try to make your Decisions table more clear and concise. The general instruction is: "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." --Marjo 15:15, 14 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)←--#: . Amended according to the comment --Sam0911 20:16, 15 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
←--#: . I find your Endpoint table fine. --Marjo 15:15, 14 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
Endpoints table
| Stakeholder | Variable |
|---|---|
| Various corporate sectors | Place to work and invest |
| Citizens | Bright future |
| The city | Opportunity for everyone |
Homework 9
----#: . Please amend your actual answers, where necessary, according to comments and new ideas. --Mikko Pohjola 22:23, 15 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
9A Based on Sami Rassanen task
| Attribute | characterization |
|---|---|
| Impacts | It will show the talvivara mine plant,its potential health impact in the near by society and company worker-er. |
| Causes | Emission and leakage from the plant. |
| Problem owner |
|
| Target |
|
| Interaction | The interaction that I expected a among the target agents,like company owner,city council and environmental authorities.Besides the citizen who live in the near by the mine plant. |
| Dimension | Characterization |
|---|---|
| Scope of participation | It seems the scope of participation is wide because it includes companies,environmental authorities and experts like DARM groups ----#: . On the other hand, e.g. no local citizens are included. --Mikko Pohjola 15:53, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)----#: . accepted --Sam0911 20:48, 15 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
| Access to information | .It is not mentioned specifically |
| Timing of openness | It is pretty good because the assessment draft try to include neutral participants like from TTL,ELY,DARM. ----#: . Does this really have to do with the timing? I would say the draft does not contain (much) information about this thing. --Mikko Pohjola 15:53, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)----#: . accepted --Sam0911 21:42, 15 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
| Scope of contribution | The whole assessment cycle because they are experts from different institutes/places.⇤--#: . The point here is to think which parts of the assessment would the particpants ghave possibility to influence. --Mikko Pohjola 15:53, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)----#: . corrected --Sam0911 21:42, 15 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
| Impact of contribution | I think to higher extent because they are various experts from different fields⇤--#: . And the point here is to consider how much can the participants influence the results of the assessment and the related decisions. --Mikko Pohjola 15:53, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)----#: . corrected --Sam0911 21:42, 15 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
Explanations of categories of interaction within the knowledge-policy interaction framework.
- It can be concluded this assessment is shared because as it's been mentioned earlier everyone could take part and share their ideas. ----#: . Does the draft assessment actually contain much support to this statement. Looks to me that it tries to be relatively collaborative, but with some limitations. --Mikko Pohjola 15:53, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
Evaluation of the assessment draft
| Attribute | Score | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Quality of content | 3 | Overall it is good but some how it lacks specificity for example in the question,the draft want to answer health impact close to the mineral plant but how close is it if it define in statics I prefer .Besides the contribution of the participant is not specfic. |
| Applicability: Relevance | 4 | Because there is clear goal,I can say there is good possibility though it needs specificity and clarity. |
| Applicability: Availability | 1 | Not specifically mentioned. ----#: . But how well would the assessment results be available to participants and other members of the society during and after the assessment? --Mikko Pohjola 15:53, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
| Applicability: Usability | 3 | Of-course there is a huge possibility to be used by company owners,city-council,environmental authorities though it the draft require some kind of amendment. ----#: . Do you also think the assessment, as planned, could result in something that the intended users would be able to make use of in practice. --Mikko Pohjola 15:53, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
| Applicability: Acceptability | 4 | Based on the overall assessment why not,because the draft is based on the assessment of the health of the community,which any party interested. |
| Efficiency | 3 | It requires some amendment,for instance,in the analysis section, there is no clear information how to analyze the exposure data,based on what?,In my view the application of exposure modelling is vital in this case.----#: . The point here is to think whether the foreseen results of the assessment would be worth spending the effort, as planned, for getting them. --Mikko Pohjola 15:53, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
9B,Based on Soroushm task
| Attribute | characterization |
|---|---|
| Impacts | Will show alternate energy source which is efficient for kuopio town like wind.(How wind energy is efficient from health,cost,environmental issue point of view) ⇤--#: . Not addressing the right thing. Write here what impacts are considered in the draft assessment? --Mikko Pohjola 16:06, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)←--#: . corrected --Sam0911 21:30, 15 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) |
| Causes | It is not mentioned specifically but I can say any thing which is efficient might be the motivation behind.(Emission and environmental problem of the current energy source) ⇤--#: . Look again in the draft assessment and think over. --Mikko Pohjola 16:06, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)←--#: . corrected --Sam0911 21:30, 15 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) |
| Problem owner |
|
| Target |
|
| Interaction | The interaction that I expected a among the target agents,like Energy companies,stake holders,city councils. ----#: . Which of the example categories (modes of interaction) would be the most descriptive for the assessment, as planned in the draft? Also make use of your dimensions of openness characterizations below. --Mikko Pohjola 16:06, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
| Dimension | Characterization |
|---|---|
| Scope of participation | Wide and commendable,because it includes companies,stakeholders and even citizens. |
| Access to information | It is not mentioned specifically. |
| Timing of openness | It is pretty good because the assessment draft try to include citizens of the town kuopio.----#: . not mentioned specifically --Sam0911 21:30, 15 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) ----#: . does this relate to timing? --Mikko Pohjola 16:06, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)----#: . accepted --Sam0911 21:30, 15 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
| Scope of contribution | From experts/companies to citizens,so it is commendable.(all part of the assessment can be viewed since the participants are experts from various categories so,they can influence the whole part) ⇤--#: . Which parts of the assessment can the participants contribute to? --Mikko Pohjola 16:06, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)←--#: . corrected --Sam0911 21:30, 15 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) |
| Impact of contribution | To some extent. ⇤--#: . Are the expected results worth spending the planned assessment effort? --Mikko Pohjola 16:06, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)←--#: . corrected --Sam0911 21:30, 15 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) |
| Attribute | Score | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Quality of content | 2 | Overall it is good but it lacks specificity and clarity in many cases like there is no information, even the availability of wind datas which can potentially substitute the current energy source in the town . |
| Applicability: Relevance | 2 | Even though there is a clear goal but detail information lack in many aspects for instance how the wind energy efficient from the cost,emission reduction point of view. |
| Applicability: Availability | 1 | It is not clearly stated. ----#: . You can give 0, if not possible to evaluate. --Mikko Pohjola 16:06, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
| Applicability: Usability | 3 | Of-course there is a huge possibility to be used by the,city-council,though detail explanation required.(yes) ----#: . Do you think the assessment could produce results that would be usable in practice by the different intended users? --Mikko Pohjola 16:06, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
| Applicability: Acceptability | 1 | Since the draft assessment lack explanation of core points like how to analyze the data and cost . ----#: . If we assume that necessary analyses were properly made, how would you rate the acceptability of the planned way of making the assessment otherwise? --Mikko Pohjola 16:06, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |
| Efficiency | 3 | If further clarification obtained based on the above comment why not? ----#: . In reference to "would it be worth making?" --Mikko Pohjola 16:06, 12 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |