User:Joshuan

⇤# : You still have some unfinished homework(s). For most people it is just some small thing (or maybe a broken link to an existing work?). But please check it quickly, as the deadline is on Friday. Because of your absence in seminars, you also have extra homework: it is the same work as HW6, but with new pages. Check the follow-up table! --Jouni 18:09, 13 February 2013 (EET)

Home Work 1

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

My answer: The main purpose of environmental health assessment is to to improve deliberate plans of actions that guide decisions aiming for desired outcomes (cf. Jones 2009). Its could also serve to provide provide science-based support to decisions on issues of societal relevance. It also aims at helping knowledge-based decisions and actions in business and among individual members of the society.

2. What is pragmatism?

My answer: In this context,pragmatism briefly means that theory and practice are not separate entities, but are deeply intertwined. Pragmatism in this context, could therefore be said to mean the combination of knowledge (theory) and practice solely on their practical influence on issues of the environment and health.

7.What is impact assessment?

My answer: Health Impact Assessment is a combination of procedures, methods and tools for judging the potential health effects of a policy, program or project on a population, particularly on vulnerable or disadvantaged groups(World Health Organization 1999, http://www.who.int/hia/en/. The purpose of Health impact assessment is to inform decision makers about the potential health effects of a policy, program or project, particularly on vulnerable or disadvantaged population groups, and to provide recommendations for maximizing the proposal’s positive and minimizing the negative health effects. It also aims at addressing inequalities in the potential health impacts and to promote joined-up working and participation. --# : Yes, this is how WHO defines HEALTH impact assessment. More generally, impact assessment considers and estimates all kinds of impacts, and the problem at hand then determines which impacts, e.g. health, environment, economic, are of interest. --Mikko Pohjola 10:22, 28 January 2013 (EET)

←# : Good answers. --Mikko Pohjola 10:22, 28 January 2013 (EET)
⇤# : Where are all other homework answers? If they are on someone else's user page(s), add links here. --Mikko Pohjola 10:22, 28 January 2013 (EET)

Homework 9

--# : Partly quite good, partly not. Not OK in current form. --Mikko Pohjola 09:17, 16 February 2013 (EET)
The old version, copied directly from a word document, was removed and can be found from page history.

Assessment of Homework 3 of Assessment of Homework 3 of Juho Kutvonen

(Groupwork of Juho Kutvonen and Salla)
Knowledge-policy interaction

Characterization of knowledge-policy interaction
Attribute characterization

Impacts The effects of metals on lake water as domestic water as a result metal emissions from the Talvivaara mine

Causes Present metal emission from the Talvivaara mine negatively affecting the feasibility of nearby lake water as domestic water.

Problem owner
Local residents who experiences the impacts

Environmental authorities, who provide metal emission restrictions to Talvivaara mine.

Talvivaara mine experts and engineers to review designing structures to ensure that the metal emissions could be reduced.

Target
The city council can use the results to give recommendations or guidelines for proper mechanisms of operation of the mine to cut down metal emissions.

Local residents living nearby lakes to document first had experience.

Communication and public relations out fits is responsible for the communication of recommendations

Interaction They provided a very direct and specific scope of participation and a good knowledge and policy interaction framework as indicated in their detailed draft, in my opinion.

Characterization of the dimensions of openness.
Dimension Characterization

Scope of participation They provided the following participants: ELY centre, Local residents living nearby lakes, SYKE, and added that Talvivaara mine is excluded because it may be partial. I think they did a good job by providing a detail account of participants and also providing reasons why Talvivaara mine is excluded.

Access to information Their draft gave enough information concerning this aspect. --# : But what did the draft say about it? The idea is not to point out if this issue was addressed or not, but to find out what is said about it. --Mikko Pohjola 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET)

Timing of openness They provided detailed accounts here. --# : see above comment. --Mikko Pohjola 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET)

Scope of contribution They gave enough information on the intended users specific roles each will play. --# : see above comment. --Mikko Pohjola 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET)

Impact of contribution There was a good number of specific participants: ELY centre, local residents living nearby lakes and SYKE,

Explanations of categories of interaction within the knowledge-policy interaction framework.

I believe their draft was well thought out and carefully planned. It contained clear information regarding specific participants and their corresponding roles.

Evaluation of the assessment draft

Evaluation according to the properties of good assessment
Attribute Score Explanation

Quality of content 3 The draft was clear and concise containing relevant information. --# : Relevance relates to Relevance. Consider here is the draft internally coherent. --Mikko Pohjola 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET)

Applicability: Relevance 3 As mentions earlier the draft contained some practical and workable ideas. --# : But does it address user needs? --Mikko Pohjola 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET)

Applicability: Availability 3 In summary,I would say it was a well thought out draft. They seem to understand the situation on the ground. --# : But how would the planned assessment provide information to its participants and possibilities to contribute to the assessment? --Mikko Pohjola 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET)

Applicability: Usability 4 For similar reason, because it was well thought out, it scores also good marks as far as usability is concerned in my opinion. --# : Would the planned assessment also help in practice, in addition to possibly being relevant in principle, the intended users in their decisions and actions? --Mikko Pohjola 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET)

Applicability: Acceptability 2 The participants who were involved in the assessment will find it a bit easy to accept it. --# : Why? How about those would not get to participate. --Mikko Pohjola 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET)

Efficiency 3 Good attempt as it sought to solicit for ideas from several participants. The information was organised in small workable units. --# : But would the planned assessment produce good results with regard to the amount of work it would require? --Mikko Pohjola 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET)

Comments and ideas how to improve the draft
In general they seem to have clear understanding and first hand information on the issue they were tackling. I will only congratulate them for a good work done.
--# : The idea is not to give congratulations, but useful comments for improving the draft further. Think of such and write to them as arguments on the corresponding user page. --Mikko Pohjola 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET)

Assessment of Homework 3 of Sami Rissanen

(Groupwork of Sami Rissanen & Jukka Hirvonen)
NOTE: Incidentally, the two grouped I evaluated worked on local Finnish issues. They worked on Talvivaara mine and its environmental concerns . Both groups seem to have a full understanding and first hand information about the concern they addressed in their drafts. For this reason, most of my evaluations are similar.
Knowledge-policy interaction

Characterization of knowledge-policy interaction
Attribute characterization

Impacts The effects of mineral dust (PM10 and PM2,5) from the Talvivaara mine that is present in air of mining and working area where workers are exposed to different heavy metal types: t.ex: copper, nickel, kobolt etc.

Causes Hazards of fine particle emissions (PM10, PM2,5) from the Talvivaara mine to mine workers and people who live nearby mine or work nearby mine area

Problem owner
Talvivaara mining company Kainuun ELY-keskus (Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment)

Regional TTL (Työterveyslaitos)

Target
Mine workers and people who live nearby mine or work nearby mine area

Talvivaara mining company wants to know is the air quality in acceptable level

ELY-keskus needs to know is the air quality legal and safe to workers

Interaction They provided a very direct and specific scope of participation and a good knowledge on what each participant offers as indicated in their detailed draft, in my opinion. They however did not mention local residents who I consider as important.

Characterization of the dimensions of openness.
Dimension Characterization

Scope of participation They provided the following participants: A consultant to measure air quality. Company, ELY-keskus, DARM group, Regional TTL, The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (FANC). However, they left out local residents who are also important. Also, I don’t understand how they seem to project that the company will be biased.

Access to information Their draft gave enough information concerning this aspect.

Timing of openness They provided detailed accounts here.

Scope of contribution They gave enough information on the intended users specific roles each will play

Impact of contribution There was a good number of specific participants: A consultant to measure air quality. Company, ELY-keskus, DARM group, Regional TTL, The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (FANC).

Explanations of categories of interaction within the knowledge-policy interaction framework.
I believe their draft was well thought out and carefully planned. It contained clear information regarding specific participants and their corresponding roles.
Evaluation of the assessment draft

Evaluation according to the properties of good assessment
Attribute Score Explanation

Quality of content 3 The draft was clear and concise containing relevant information.

Applicability: Relevance 3 As mentions earlier the draft contained some practical and workable ideas.

Applicability: Availability 3 In summary, I would say it was a well thought out draft. They seem to understand the situation on the ground.

Applicability: Usability 3 For similar reason, because it was well thought out, it scores also good marks as far as usability is concerned in my opinion.

Applicability: Acceptability 2 The participants who were involved in the assessment will find it a bit easy to accept it.

Efficiency 3 Good attempt as it sought to solicit for ideas from several participants. The information was organised in small workable units.

Comments and ideas how to improve the draft
In general they seem to have clear understanding and first hand information on the issue they were tackling. I will only congratulate them for a good work done. Both group did very well and I am impressed with their work as beginners but with time it could be further improved with much detail and specific actions since some aspects were vague and broad.

User:Joshuan

Contents

Home Work 1

Homework 9

Assessment of Homework 3 of Assessment of Homework 3 of Juho Kutvonen

Assessment of Homework 3 of Sami Rissanen

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

More

Search

Navigation

Page Tools

Tools

In other websites

Attribute	characterization
Impacts	The effects of metals on lake water as domestic water as a result metal emissions from the Talvivaara mine
Causes	Present metal emission from the Talvivaara mine negatively affecting the feasibility of nearby lake water as domestic water.
Problem owner	Local residents who experiences the impacts Environmental authorities, who provide metal emission restrictions to Talvivaara mine. Talvivaara mine experts and engineers to review designing structures to ensure that the metal emissions could be reduced.
Target	The city council can use the results to give recommendations or guidelines for proper mechanisms of operation of the mine to cut down metal emissions. Local residents living nearby lakes to document first had experience. Communication and public relations out fits is responsible for the communication of recommendations
Interaction	They provided a very direct and specific scope of participation and a good knowledge and policy interaction framework as indicated in their detailed draft, in my opinion.

Dimension	Characterization
Scope of participation	They provided the following participants: ELY centre, Local residents living nearby lakes, SYKE, and added that Talvivaara mine is excluded because it may be partial. I think they did a good job by providing a detail account of participants and also providing reasons why Talvivaara mine is excluded.
Access to information	Their draft gave enough information concerning this aspect. --# : But what did the draft say about it? The idea is not to point out if this issue was addressed or not, but to find out what is said about it. --Mikko Pohjola 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET)
Timing of openness	They provided detailed accounts here. --# : see above comment. --Mikko Pohjola 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET)
Scope of contribution	They gave enough information on the intended users specific roles each will play. --# : see above comment. --Mikko Pohjola 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET)
Impact of contribution	There was a good number of specific participants: ELY centre, local residents living nearby lakes and SYKE,

Attribute	Score	Explanation
Quality of content	3	The draft was clear and concise containing relevant information. --# : Relevance relates to Relevance. Consider here is the draft internally coherent. --Mikko Pohjola 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET)
Applicability: Relevance	3	As mentions earlier the draft contained some practical and workable ideas. --# : But does it address user needs? --Mikko Pohjola 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET)
Applicability: Availability	3	In summary,I would say it was a well thought out draft. They seem to understand the situation on the ground. --# : But how would the planned assessment provide information to its participants and possibilities to contribute to the assessment? --Mikko Pohjola 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET)
Applicability: Usability	4	For similar reason, because it was well thought out, it scores also good marks as far as usability is concerned in my opinion. --# : Would the planned assessment also help in practice, in addition to possibly being relevant in principle, the intended users in their decisions and actions? --Mikko Pohjola 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET)
Applicability: Acceptability	2	The participants who were involved in the assessment will find it a bit easy to accept it. --# : Why? How about those would not get to participate. --Mikko Pohjola 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET)
Efficiency	3	Good attempt as it sought to solicit for ideas from several participants. The information was organised in small workable units. --# : But would the planned assessment produce good results with regard to the amount of work it would require? --Mikko Pohjola 09:15, 16 February 2013 (EET)

Attribute	characterization
Impacts	The effects of mineral dust (PM10 and PM2,5) from the Talvivaara mine that is present in air of mining and working area where workers are exposed to different heavy metal types: t.ex: copper, nickel, kobolt etc.
Causes	Hazards of fine particle emissions (PM10, PM2,5) from the Talvivaara mine to mine workers and people who live nearby mine or work nearby mine area
Problem owner	Talvivaara mining company Kainuun ELY-keskus (Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment) Regional TTL (Työterveyslaitos)
Target	Mine workers and people who live nearby mine or work nearby mine area Talvivaara mining company wants to know is the air quality in acceptable level ELY-keskus needs to know is the air quality legal and safe to workers
Interaction	They provided a very direct and specific scope of participation and a good knowledge on what each participant offers as indicated in their detailed draft, in my opinion. They however did not mention local residents who I consider as important.