User:Tine Bizjak

From Opasnet
Jump to: navigation, search

Decision analysis and risk management 2017

Tine's useful links to navigate the Opasnet in the DARM 2017 course
Homeworks: Homework 1 · Homework 2 · Homework 3 · Homework 4 · Homework 5 · Homework 6 · Homework 7 · Homework 8 · Homework 9
Homework instructions: Homework 1 · Homework 2 · Homework 3 · Homework 4 · Homework 5 · Homework 6 · Homework 7 · Homework 8 · Homework 9

Homework 1

←--#: . Very good! --Jouni (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Homework 1a: Open policy practice

2. What is shared understanding?

Shared understanding is achieved when all participants of a decision making process understand:

  • considered decision options and their outcomes,
  • pursued objectives,
  • existing facts, opinions and disagreements and
  • selection of particular decision option.

Shared understanding is written down and shared with everyone.

9. What are the dimensions of openness?

Dimensions of openness can be used to find out if the work deviates from the openness ideal. They can identify how the openness can make a difference. Dimensions of openness include:

  • Scope of participation (who can participate?)
  • Access to information (for participants)
  • Timing of openness (when can participants participate)
  • Scope of contribution (to which parts can participants contribute)
  • Impact of contribution (influence of participants contributions?)

18. What parts does the open policy practice consist of?

Open policy practice consists of:

  • shared understanding – for all participants (the goal of open policy practice)
  • execution (collecting, organising and synthesising scientific knowledge, values); 6 principles (intentionality, causality,critique, shared information objects, openness, reuse)
  • evaluation and management (happening before, during and after execution)
  • co-creation skills and facilitation or interactional expertise (to organization and synthesis of information)

Source: [Open policy practice]

Homework 1b: Learn the terms in Quizlet

Checked all 5 Quizlet topics. I looked at the flashcards, did tests and matched the terms with their meanings.

Homework 1c: Introduction to critical thinking

Checked some of the videos and did excercises.

Homework 1d: Introduction to probabilities

Checked the content on Khan academy.

Homework 2: Basic skills of open policy practice

Skills obtained can be checked at homework page.

Homework 3: Basic concepts of open assessment and co-creation

Task A

Question 1: I have come across the term bootstrap in relation with statistical tests before and am still not sure when this technique is applicable? ----#: . Zahra Shirani also asked about bootstrap, so see my answer to him. This technique is applicable for example estimating confidence intervals based on a single data set. --Jouni (talk) 09:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Question 2: The definition of multinomial is not very clear. Does it refer to animals or individuals that can be classified into categories? ----#: . Multinomial refers to distributions that are an extension to binomial distribution. Binomial distribution describes a process, where you repeat a trial that has exactly two possible outcomes, such as tossing a coin. With n trials and probability of success p, binomial distribution describes how likely it is to get k successes out of n. Multinomial is the same except there are more than two possible outcomes, and each of them has a certain probability to occur. It is like a multi-sided dice. --Jouni (talk) 09:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Task B

←--#: . Great! --Jouni (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

What is co-creation?

Co-creation is describing a process when all or most of the stakeholders are somehow involved in the making of a final “product”. The term can be applied in different areas. In case of a consumer – producer relationship it can describe a process when the consumers actively participate in the product design, development, purpose etc. The company producing a product is not designing it on its own, like it was done traditionally. In co-creation the value creation is done jointly by the company and the customer, which allows the customer to influence the construction so it will suit him better (it does not mean the customer is always right). Furthermore all the problems occurring in the value creation are defined and solved together. Co-creation can finally also lead to a greater variety of products/experiences and doesn’t necessarily end with the market placement of a “product”. Co-creation can help a lot in resolving dissatisfaction of the consumers in regard to certain products or services [1].

What advantage does it bring compared with more traditional decision support processes?

Compared to traditional decision support processes co-creation process actively involves more stakeholders and can consequently identify more valuable points needed for decision making. By involving more people the amount of dissatisfaction about the final product can be lowered significantly [1].

What is the role of a facilitator, and what skills do they need?

Facilitator helps the client to structure and define the problems in specific situations and to support the problems evaluation process and development of future plans. Facilitators support can be especially helpful in resolving complex situations. Four main facilitators skills are:

  1. active listening,
  2. chart-writing,
  3. managing group dynamics and power shifts, and
  4. research closure.

Active listening is describing the ability of the modeller to clarify, develop, summarise and refine participants’ contributions. Active listening and consequent guidance of the discussion can help in avoiding blind spots, keeping track of the discussion, clarifying, getting to common grounds etc. Chart writing is needed especially if no computer support is used. It considers the appropriate writing style and speed of writing and the use of different symbols to represent the information. Managing group dynamics and power shifts is the most important facilitators skill. Difficult group situations can be managed by the facilitator in different ways. One of the most typical ones is to help the group to step back from the content and to focus more on the process. Facilitator needs to identify when in modelling he needs to intervene. Reaching closure skill helps the participants of the group to reach agreements. Facilitator must identify when the discussion about the topic is extensive enough to draw appropriate conclusions. Facilitator may also need to check if the conclusions are sufficent for those with decision making power or if more discussion is necessary [2].


  1. 1.0 1.1 Prahalad, C.K., Ramaswamy, V. 2004. Co-creation experiences: the next practice in value creation. Journal of interactive marketing, 18, 3.
  2. Franco, L. A., Montibeller, G. 2010. Facilitated modelling in operational research. European Journal of Operational Research. 205, 489–500.

Homework 4


←--#: . Very good! --Jouni (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)



Assessment aimes to critically assess the adaptation strategies to climate change in Singapore. Some questions the assessment aims to answer are:

  • Do the climate change adaptation strategies cover the major areas affected by the climate change?
  • Do they identify the actions needed in the specific areas?
  • Are effects of the adaptation strategies realistic and sufficient to efficiently combat the climate change effects?
  • Are the views or opinions of all the stakeholders considered equally in the adaptation strategy?

Intended use and users

Assessment is made for all involved in managing the effects of climate change in Singapore as well as for all that could possibly be affected by the effects of climate change.

It is especially useful for decision makers, who can use the information derived from this assessment for further development, improvement and implementation of climate change adaptation strategies


Independent organisation/working group would need to be created for the assessment purposes – it will be responsible to include other participants eg:

  • The Singapore Government
  • Citizens of Singapore
  • Different working groups: A multiagency Resilience Working Group (RWG) under the auspices of the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change (reviewing existing measures and developing new measures for adaptation to climate change), Meteorological Service Singapore, local research institutions (working on climate change models and coastal protection) - eg. Centre for Climate Research Singapore (CCRS) established by The Meteorological Service Singapore (MSS), the University of Singapore (NUS) and Nanyang Technological University (NTU) have established the following research institutes/centres: The Singapore-Delft Water Alliance (SDWA), Tropical Marine Science Institute (TMSI), Earth Observatory of Singapore (EOS), Institute of Catastrophe Risk Management (ICRM), Maritime Research Centre (MRC), NTU-JTC Industrial Infrastructure Innovation (NTU-JTC I3) Centre; Modelling and simulation is also done by the Institute of High Performance Computing (IHPC) of the Agency of Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR).
  • Other stakeholders


Geographically the assessment is limited by the borders of Singapore.

Decisions and scenarios

Singapore's adaptation strategy identifies 5 main areas needing action. These are presented in the table.

Main areas of Singapore's adaptation strategy
Adaptation area Description
Coastal protection Since rising sea level poses a great threat to Singapore, the coastal protection is of great concern and includes different fields: coastal engineering, wave dynamics, coastal morphology and hydrodynamics. A Risk map study will help with identification of riskier areas and aid in developing different protection strategies of the coastline. A mangrove restoration project is also a suitable option for the creation of a buffer zone in extreme weather condition.
Water resources and drainage Water resource management could become a problem in case of increased rainfall and variable weather conditions. Ensuring a sustainable water supply will be possible through four national taps: local catchment water, imported water from Malaysia, NEWater and desalinated water. NEWater refers to used water that undergoes a treatment process with an advanced dual membrane system and UV purification technologies for the purpose of replacing the need for drinking water in different processes (manufacturing, air-conditioning cooling towers etc.). It was estimated that 2/3 of water demand in Singapore will be replaced by NEWater and desalinated water.

By raising public awareness and introducing other measures, the daily per capita water consumption has already been decreased, however, since water conservation is important, the goal is to decrease the consumption even further.

Developing drainage infrastructure, the flood prone areas will be reduced remarkably.

Biodiversity and greenery Since animal and plant biodiversity will be affected by climate change, Singapore has given great priority in necessary green spaces in the city: extensive tree planting by the roads which decreases temperature in the near areas also parks provide an escape in urban hot temperatures. The species planted in green areas will gain more attention as well as the protection of existing ones by making sure that there are regular checks provided on already existing species.
Public health Rising temperatures can be linked to increase of vector-borne disease such as dengue. In order to minimize the dengue incidence by supressing mosquito population National Environment Agency (NEA) has prepared a programme considering mosquitos, virus and human surveillance and public education and participation, law enforcement and research.

Increased occurrence of heath stress and discomfort (especially among elderly and sick) is also identified as outcomes of more frequent and severe episodes of warm weather.

In collaboration with the Ministry of Health NEA will study the relationship between public health risks and climatic factors. The study will also consider forecasting different disease transmission risks in different scenarios.

Energy demand and urban infrastructure Singapore may experience higher the increase in temperatures not only because of climate change but also because of urban heat island effect.

Although Singapore has energy generation capacity to meet increasing demands due to increased use of air conditioning it is important to consider the increase in carbon emissions because of increased energy production.

Climate change may also affect the winds. The initial phase of the Climate Change Study found that the wind speeds in future should not be higher than the current ones, which means that the structural integrity of the buildings is unlikely to be affected.

Future steps include optimal land use planning and urban design which can help to create cooler environments for people and thus counteract some of the effects of increased temperatures.

The Energy Market Authority and Building and Construction Authority are responsible for studying Singapore's urban temperature profile and energy consumption in order to understand the effect of temperature increase and wind changes.

Urban Redevelopment Authority is working with HDB, NUS and IHPC of A*STAR on a Climatic Mapping Study to find out the effect of built environment and urban greenery on micro-climate to identify hot spots and cooler areas in Singapore and to give recommendations on future planning and design of buidlings and public areas.


Assessment should be conducted over a period or several periods covering the timescale of different adaptation projects. The Assessment should provide sufficient information even before the end of an adaptation project – enabling improvements in the adaptation plan. Secondly the assessment of each project of the adaptation strategy would need to be performed after its end and should consider long-lasting effects of the project. Finally the overall assessment of all the performed actions would need to be performed – this should be done regularly from the start of the adaptation projects and regularly updated with new projects and their outcomes.

----#: . Good thinking related to continuous updates. --Jouni (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

The assessment of the Singapore's adaptation approach could therefore fit into the Resilience framework devised by the Singapore government to guide the efforts to safeguard Singapore against climate change effects over the next 50 to 100 years.



Results of the assessment should be presented for each specific area of the adaptation and as a summary of all concerned areas.


Conclusions should summarize the main advantages and deficiencies of the adaptation strategy programe in each area of adaptation actions. Furthermore possible areas of imporvement may be identified.


CAUSAL DIAGRAM ----#: . This is a mind map rather than a causal diagram. But it is useful for illustrating the assessment contents anyway. --Jouni (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)



  • The Singapore Government
  • Different community stakeholder groups:
  • homes,
  • schools,
  • grassroots organisations,
  • corporate organisations and
  • private individuals.
  • Different enterprises and organisation


Dependencies are described with the help of causal diagram. Different areas identified in the adaptation strategy need to consider different endpoints. For example in the Coastal protection coastal morphology, coastal engineering, wave dynamics and hydrodynamics are endpoints of interests. Coastal protection may also be of interest to other stakeholders due to the importance to tourism, biodiversity protection etc.


The analysis should include different aspects/models of different scenarios, taking into account the benefits of each. Eg. Is it more beneficial to invest a lot of money in mangrove restoration or will the coastal protection need other measure that are more beneficial in the end? Also, more different aspect should be included in each decision such as all the health benefits of the population if a measure is taken etc. The analyses should help in decision making process when deciding the cost-benefit options between the measures taken.


Singapore, adaptation, climate change, assessment


Climate change in Singapore [1]

Related files

Homework 5

Homework done in a pair. See page of Tamara

Homework 6

Collaboration in climate policy assessment

←--#: . Very good thinking. --Jouni (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Homework done in pair with Tamara Gajšt. Answers are based on the National adaptation strategy and Action plans documents that can be obtained from

part A

Questions about identifying roles and participation:

  • Who are the relevant participants of the assessment?

Relevant participants of the assessment are the Swiss Confederation, cantons and other private individuals, Furthermore several federal offices are important: Federal Office for Spatial Development (ARE), Federal Office for Civil Protection (FOCP), Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH), Swiss Federal Office of Energy (SFOE), Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG), Federal Veterinary Office (FVO), Federal Finance Administration (FFA), Federal Office for Meteorology and Climatology (MeteoSwiss) and State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO).

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

Each of the federal offices is responsible for different sectors (eg. Agriculture sector is covered by the Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG); energy sector by Swiss Federal Office of Energy (SFOE); spatial developmnet by Federal Office for Spatial Development (ARE) etc. The sectors ofcourse overlap, so they should take each other into consideration. Then there are the cantons and other private individuals. Cantons govern action on a regional level. Private individuals can represent various stakeholders with different roles in different sectors (eg. Investors, construction workers for the infrastructure, health professionals etc.). Here are a few examples of an actual responsibility a participant might have:

  • FOEN: Lake regulation for flood protection (creation of reservoir capacity), Water management installations in the river/lake zone and flood protection, Conservation of forest structures that provide the filtration required so that groundwater from woodlands can be used as drinking water, International obligations relating to the regulation of water bodies and use of hydropower (transboundary waters)…
  • FOAG: Substance transport via precipitation and irrigation (on the surface; via infiltration), Adaptation of agricultural use to the new hazard situation, Identification and development of instruments to establish a system of agriculture that suits local conditions with appropriate forms of agricultural management and crop systems...
  • FVO: Monitoring of vitality/mortality of temperature-sensitive farm animals, Monitoring, prevention and combating of new species that are harmful to health (and FOAG included), Monitoring, prevention and combating of vectors/host animals that are of significance in the occurrence of new and already known pathogens (including FOPH)…
  • ARE: Securing open spaces and recreation areas, – Implementation of spatial planning that reduces the overheating of residential areas by using green areas of a suitable type, layout and number (guarantee of air circulation/natural cooling in built-up areas), Safeguarding of critical energy supply infrastructures, Maintenance of landscapes with an abundant range of habitats and their ecosystem services as an element in spatial planning (including FOEN)...
  • What kind of relevant knowledge they (may) have regarding the assessment?

Since there are different sectors involved - eg. Water management, agriculture, biodiversity, spatial development etc., each of the participants involved in different sectors has a better understanding of the sector they cover, however, the FOEN is supposed to be responsible in overseeing that the sectors cooperate among themselves, so that another sector is not affected by the measures/decisions taken in one sector.

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

Different federal offices cover the aims and needs of their own sector – eg. FOEN aims at the environmental mesures (and is responsible in coordination of work between the sectors), then SECO is aiming in benefits from and economical perspective and so on. Cantones represent the aims and needs in each of the 26 cantones in Switzerland – they are responsible to represent the aims of the people in each cantone. Private individuals can have a variety of aims depending on their interests. There aims may be economical, health related, environmental protection etc.

part B

Consider also the following questions about facilitating collaboration:

  • How could the relevant participants be involved in the assessment in an effective way?

In order to involve as many particpiants as possible in the assessment in an effective way means of effective communication and transfer of knowledge must be developed. This can be achieved firstly by establishing what already is known about health impacts due to different adaptation to climate change strategies and making sure that this knowledge is distributed to everyone. This can be achieved by different means such as creating web based database that is easy to use, awareness may also be increased by participation of the media, open debate forums can regularly be held etc. Knowledge database must be regularly updated to include the newest discoveries. Secondly there has to be a well organized platform that enables the involvement of all participants. By organization of particpation each participant needs to be aware of his or her roles, rights and participating possibilities.

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

The quality of an assessment can be affected by increased number of participants. In order to maintain the quality a special body needs to be responsible to oversee the assessment process. There has to be a body (like FOEN) that has an overview of all participants and the actions taken in order to assure the quality. Also, there should be a close participation between all the participants, so that everyone has an idea what's happening in other sectors – eg. Using a web portal connecting all the participants.

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

An authoritative organisation should be involved to prevent such case – some kind of policy should be a baseline for all the participants to respect, where it would be clearly stated that malevolent contributions are not tolerable and a penalty of some sort should follow in case of failure to comply with the agreed policy. Different NGOs or individuals may also be able to point out negative contributions of other participants in some cases (i.e. environmental protection groups may point out that interests and aims of private sector/ industry can cause negative effect on the environment and consequently on human helath).

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

The objectives should be clearly defined and the collaboration among the participants should be as good as possible. Different scenarios should be taken into accound by modelling, making it easier to come to a conclusion. Conclusions must always consider a certain degree of uncertainty and can foresee that certain decisions may change completely if newly obtained knowledge requires it.

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

The strategy plan should be as solid as possible from the beginning. Clearly defining goals and measures needed to be taken and all the participants need to be aware of others' contributions. If users know that aims of all participants are taken into consideration they can also find and understand that the outcomes are not excluding anyone.

Homework 7

Talk:Congestion charge

Homework 8

Created variable page - Congestion charge impacts on air quality with Tamara and participation on the Congestion charge assessment page.

Homework 9

Evaluation of assessment

←--#: . Lots of relevant points. --Jouni (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Evaluation of Homework 4

Evaluation of assessment draft by Amr and Ehab.

Table 1. Characterization of the assessment
Attribute Characterization
Impacts Assessment addresses environmental and health impacts due to climate change and consequent adaptation to climate change in Rotterdam. The most significant are environmental impacts (spatial development) which consider several areas that need action plans: flood protection, extreme rainfall protection and protection against drought. All impacts considered are of equal importance for the intended use as identified in the assessment.
Causes Main causes for impacts recognized in the assessment are higher sea and river levels causing floods, more frequent rainfall with heavier downpours that can endanger the water supply, longer drought periods and more frequent periods of high temperatures. In general the most significant causes are related to temperature increase (heat waves, drought) or connected with water levels (floods, drought, heavy rainfall).
Problem owner The assessment is of main interest particularly to the decision makers/authorities such as the Rotterdam City Council. Secondly it is also of interest to wide range of consultants from different businesses and other possible stakeholders or interest groups.

The assessment draft does not identify who could perform the assessment.

The impacts considered in the assessment affect the whole population in the city of Rotterdam, especially those living or working in the affected areas (by floods, etc.) and different enterprises.

Target Assessment results are primarily intended for the local authorities to enable to face the climate change effects in Rotterdam. Besides the authorities the results of the assessment may be of use to other stakeholders as well (e.g. local businesses, inhabitants)
Interaction The draft assessment does not specifically identify who and how will perform it so it is hard to identify the scale of interaction between the different stakeholders that will use its findings and the ones making the assessment. According to the identified participants (Rotterdam City Council, consultants for businesses, stakeholders, interest groups) the assessment may even be considered as shared assessment.

No specific interaction with other actors is considered.

Table 2. Dimensions of openness
Dimension Characterization
Scope of participation Rotterdam City Council, consultants for businesses, stakeholders, interest groups – these categories basically does not exclude anyone.
Access to information Access to information for the participants is not identified.
Timing of openness Since assessment may be considered as shared all the participants are involved from the start.
Scope of contribution The contribution of different participants is not determined – it could be considered that they may contribute equally in making the assessment.
Impact of contribution The boundaries of the assessment are to be made by the Rotterdam City Council which is responsible for supervision and evaluation of implemented measures. Influence of individual contribution of different participants can therefore depend on the assessment limits set by the city council.
Table 3. Evaluation of the assessment by category
Category Evaluation (1-5) Reasoning
Quality of content: Specificity, exactness, corectnss of information. 1 The draft assessment does not identify main questions and does not offer any guidance on how to get the answers to them. It only summarizes different action plans rather than how they could be assessed.
Applicability Relevance: Correspondence between output and its intended use 2 The intended needs of the users could be addressed well since the assessment does not set any limits on who can participate in making it. Assessment draft did not make a good assessment question (for example: Are the Rotterdam adaptation strategies to combat climate change sufficient?).
Availability: Accessibility of the output to users 4 The assessment should be done as soon as possible and results should be used by the authorities to use best possible measures for facing climate change effects.
Usability: Potential of the information in the output to generate understanding among its user(s) 5 Since the assessment includes various participants it should be easy to understand and useful (for all).
Acceptability: Potential of the output being accepted by its users. 4 The acceptability of the assessment results by all the intended users depends on the assessment limits set by the Rotterdam City Council. In principle all participants should agree on results, understand them and should therefore accept them.
Efficiency: Resource expenditure for assessment 1 To include all the participants the assessment may require a lot of effort and big resources. By involving so many in the assessment process it would also be impossible to get results in time to adjust the adaptation measures to combat climate change effects that should be done immediately. The assessment could be done with smaller resources, by less participants (i.e. special working group) – in this was the results obtained by the assessment may be obtained in time to have value for planning adaptation measures.

Suggestions for the improvement of the assessment:

  • assessment needs specific question on what it assesses
  • while it is important to include various participants in adaptation strategy to combat climate change, it is hard to assess these with the same amount of participants, especially if there is a time limit for the assessment results - that are needed to improve the planned adaptation measures

Evaluation of Gasbus assessment

Evaluation of the Gasbus - health impacts of Helsinki bus traffic.

Table 1. Characterization of the assessment
Attribute Characterization
Impacts The main impact of the assessment is PM2.5 induced mortality.
Causes Difference in PM2.5 induced mortality is considered in regard to currently available alternative public bus transportation strategies considered in the Helsinki Metropolitan area.
Problem owner Assessment is interesting especially for the identified intended users: Helsinki Metropolitan area council, Finnish government, scientific community and decision makers at local community level.

Assessment was performed by the moderator (Marko Tainio), scientists ( from KTL, YTV and Joint Research Centre @ European Commission) and by the participants in Kuopio Risk Assessment Workshop 2008. Actions based on the assessment outcomes can be taken by the Helsinki Metropolitan area council, Finnish government and decision makers at local community level. The impacts considered in the assessment affect the whole population in the Helsinki Metropolitan area.

Target The assessment is intended for Helsinki Metropolitan area council, Finnish government, scientific community and decision makers at local community level. The results can be needed for authorities that prepare transportation strategies but can be used in general by scientists or various public or private users.
Interaction The assessment seems to be participatory. Besides the moderator and scientists it also includes various participants of Kuopio Risk Assessment Workshop. The interaction with other actors is not considered in the assessment.
Table 2. Dimensions of openness
Dimension Characterization
Scope of participation Moderator (Marko Tainio), scientists ( from KTL, YTV and Joint Research Centre @ European Commission) and participants in Kuopio Risk Assessment Workshop 2008
Access to information Background material about assessment is available: Media:Tainio Gasbus RiskAnalysis 2004.pdf
Timing of openness Some participants were invited to participate in the assessment during Kuopio Risk Assessment Workshop held from 18.2. to 22.2.2008. The time when other participants contributed to assessment is not defined.
Scope of contribution Besides moderator’s role the contribution of other participants in the assessment making process is not specifically defined.
Impact of contribution Influence of specific participants is not easily identifiable.
Table 3. Evaluation of the assessment by category
Category Evaluation (1-5) Reasoning
Quality of content: Specificity, exactness, corectnss of information. 4 The purpose of the assessment is clearly stated and answered well by the assessment conclusions.
Applicability Relevance: Correspondence between output and its intended use 3 Although the intended users are identified their needs are not clearly considered in the assessment.
Availability: Accessibility of the output to users 3 It is not mentioned how and when the conclusions of the assessment were or will be shared with the intended users.
Usability: Potential of the information in the output to generate understanding among its user(s) 5 The content and conclusions of the assessment are easy to understand and could be useful when preparing transportation strategies for the future, but the significance of its results for transportation planning may be limited due to inconclusive results.
Acceptability: Potential of the output being accepted by its users. 3 The assessment is probably acceptable for the intended users but its value is very limited. The cause (transportation technology) and effect (excess mortality due to PM2.5) considered in the assessment does not consider the effect of confounding factors – there are many other sources of PM2.5 that could affect health.
Efficiency: Resource expenditure for assessment 3 Although the participants of the assessment may have put a lot of effort into making the assessment the results of the assessment may be foreseen. The assessments other value was to introduce new methods in risk assessment during the Kuopio Risk Assessment Workshop.

Suggestions for improvement:

  • Identify how the conclusions of the assessment will be shared with the intended users
  • Create a framework for collaboration of different participants in the assessment making process