Difference between revisions of "User:Anni Hartikainen"
From Testiwiki
(→Evalution of Climate change policies (HW4 by Oluwatobi Abayomi Badejo et al)) |
(→Evalution of Climate change policies (HW4 by Oluwatobi Abayomi Badejo et al)) |
||
| Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
|----- | |----- | ||
| colspan="2" |Impacts | | colspan="2" |Impacts | ||
| − | | Positive impact on environmental (protection from climate change) and health (minimizing the | + | | Positive impact on environmental (protection from climate change) and health (minimizing the adverse effects ). Also the impacts on economy, such as diversification of economies), are looked at. Opinions of populace will also be influenced. |
|----- | |----- | ||
| colspan="2" |Causes | | colspan="2" |Causes | ||
| Line 118: | Line 118: | ||
| rowspan="5"| Dimensions of openness | | rowspan="5"| Dimensions of openness | ||
| Access to information | | Access to information | ||
| − | | All parties probably do not have equal access to all information. Depends on how informative and willing to be open the businesses and | + | | All parties probably do not have equal access to all information. Depends on how informative and willing to be open the businesses and government are. |
|----- | |----- | ||
| Timing of openness | | Timing of openness | ||
| 2 years period for the development in whole, reviews in every three years. Not clearly stated when different participants will have change to participate. | | 2 years period for the development in whole, reviews in every three years. Not clearly stated when different participants will have change to participate. | ||
|----- | |----- | ||
| − | | Scope of contribution | + | | Scope of contribution |
| Not clearly stated, but participants will most likely have different parts. | | Not clearly stated, but participants will most likely have different parts. | ||
|----- | |----- | ||
| − | | Impact of contribution | + | | Impact of contribution |
| − | |Contributions of populace will be tied in with government contributions. This might | + | |Contributions of populace will be tied in with government contributions. This might weaken their influence. |
|} | |} | ||
| Line 135: | Line 135: | ||
|+ <big>'''Evaluation of the assessment'''</big> | |+ <big>'''Evaluation of the assessment'''</big> | ||
! colspan="2" | Category | ! colspan="2" | Category | ||
| − | ! Evaluation | + | ! Evaluation (on scale 1 to 5) |
! Reasoning | ! Reasoning | ||
|----- | |----- | ||
| colspan="2" | Quality of content - Specificity, exactness and correctness of information. Correspondence between questions and answers. | | colspan="2" | Quality of content - Specificity, exactness and correctness of information. Correspondence between questions and answers. | ||
| − | | | + | | 3 |
| − | | | + | | Information is correct, but not very exact. Framework is sketched, but could be specified further. |
|----- | |----- | ||
| rowspan="4"| Applicability | | rowspan="4"| Applicability | ||
| ''Relevance'': Correspondence between output and its intended use. | | ''Relevance'': Correspondence between output and its intended use. | ||
| − | | | + | | 3 |
| − | | | + | | Output can be used in the intended way. As this is a draft of assessment, very specific outputs can not be given. However, possible guidelines or instructions to users could have been given to show how the assessment might be utilized. |
|----- | |----- | ||
| ''Availability'': Accessibility of the output to users in terms of e.g. time, location, extent of information, extent of users. | | ''Availability'': Accessibility of the output to users in terms of e.g. time, location, extent of information, extent of users. | ||
| − | | | + | |3 |
| − | | | + | | As hinted in the assessment, the realities of Nigerian community makes it difficult to make it achievable to all. |
|----- | |----- | ||
| ''Usability'': Potential of the information in the output to generate understanding among its user(s) about the topic of assessment. | | ''Usability'': Potential of the information in the output to generate understanding among its user(s) about the topic of assessment. | ||
| | | | ||
| − | | | + | | The reviewing of policy will be important, but the |
|----- | |----- | ||
| ''Acceptability'': Potential of the output being accepted by its users. Fundamentally a matter of its making and delivery, not its information content. | | ''Acceptability'': Potential of the output being accepted by its users. Fundamentally a matter of its making and delivery, not its information content. | ||
| | | | ||
| − | | | + | | How to make everyone understand what is going on? As an important part of the result is to prioritize the poverty and economic development, will all users content on this? |
|----- | |----- | ||
| colspan="2" | Efficiency Resource expenditure of producing the assessment output either in one assessment or in a series of assessments. | | colspan="2" | Efficiency Resource expenditure of producing the assessment output either in one assessment or in a series of assessments. | ||
| Line 168: | Line 168: | ||
<big> | <big> | ||
'''Suggestions to improve the draft'''</big> | '''Suggestions to improve the draft'''</big> | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Examples of priority adaption action areas could be given. | ||
=== Draft assessment 2 === | === Draft assessment 2 === | ||
Revision as of 16:01, 13 May 2015
Contents
Homework 1:
1. What is shared understanding?
- The botton line is that everyone must be able form identical pictures about the situation and options on which it is to be decided on.
- Everyone has had the chance to express their opinions / offer information, and the final understanding is shared with everyone in a written form. There is no need to agree on the opinions, but on the facts. However, opinions must also be made known in order to understand the possible disagreements.
- The shared understanding agreed on (and understood) by everyone is written down to be shared with everyone.
--# : It is not required that everyone agrees on facts either. However, facts are treated with scientific methods, which probably reduces disagreements about facts. --Jouni (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
2. What are co-creation skills?
- Co-creation skills include skills that are needed in when actually creating and managing an open decision process. The group making the decision must contain enough of these skills. Four main categories for co-creation skills are
- 1. Encouragement
- used to create the supportive atmosphere where participating is easier
- makes the decision process possible in operative way (maintainment, reviewing…)
- 2. Synthesis
- used to combine gathered information in a form that is useful and available to all possible (later) projects as well.
- 3. Open data
- change the available data to a form that can be used by assessment models in a useful way
- 4. Modelling
- used in making the assessment models; modular working, developing models and assessing uncertainties.
3. What are the properties of good assessment?
- In a good assessment information is evaluated based on different properties. Reviewing these properties can be used to evaluate different kinds of information, and can be applied to the whole decision-making or to just parts of it.
- Properties for good assessment can be categorized to three main categories (that, in total, include 9 sub-categories):
- 1. Quality of content : How well does the information answer the right question in a correct and specific way?
- 2. Applicability: How well can the information be used in real life to address the decision in question? – is it available and usable?
- 3. Efficiency: How resource-consuming is the assessment making process (taking into account the possible increase of efficiency in making new assessments later on)?
←# : Good! --Jouni (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Homework 3:
The PSSP-methodology is not very widely explained. It seems there is an uniform structure to follow, but how is that formulated or taken to use in different levels?
Indices are used in assessment making. Can information be organized by any index, and how are the different types of indices classified when making ovariables?
Homework 9:
Group: Anni Hartikainen, Mari Malinen, Michael Assibey
Comparison of assessments
- no access to detailed data of buildings in Basel
- Kuopio and Basel had information about renovations
- Helsinki and Kuopio: no data about emission locations/heights
- Helsinki: what to do with lamp types?
How to model buildings in Helsinki?
To create the ovariables we can use the data we will get from Helsinki.
Ovariable: Buildings
- Effective floor area of buildings by building type.
- type of housing
- Total energy demand by energy type and building type.
- Changes in energy efficiency of different energy sinks.
- missing: no construction/renovation data (like in Kuopio)
Ovariable: heatingEnergy
- Buildings (from above)
- energyUse: Existing situation of important energy parametres in the building stock.
- Total energy demand by energy type and building type.
- Shares of different energy sinks by building type.
- Changes in energy efficiency of different energy sinks.
- Important energy parameters.
Ovariable: emissions
- heatingEnergy (from above)
- needed: information about fuel shares
- emissionFactors: E.g. Emission factors for burning processes
Ovariable: exposure
- emissions (from above)
- population (missing)
Homework 10
To evaluate the draft assessment done earlier, I used the frameworks of Open policy practice.
Evalution of Climate change policies (HW4 by Oluwatobi Abayomi Badejo et al)
This assessment concerned the frameworks for mitigation and adaptation in response to climate change in Lagos, Nigeria. Effect and needs to adapt and mitigate the changing climate, and also the impacts of different mitigation and adaptation strategies
| Category | Characterization | |
|---|---|---|
| Impacts | Positive impact on environmental (protection from climate change) and health (minimizing the adverse effects ). Also the impacts on economy, such as diversification of economies), are looked at. Opinions of populace will also be influenced. | |
| Causes | Climate change, and the changes it inflicts (for example change in education will bring on different mindsets). | |
| Problem owner | Assessment is conducted by government authorities, corporations, and communities. All parties should have an interest to make decisions, as they all will be affected by the impacts. However, the power to act on the issue lies mainly on policy makers and business owners. | |
| Target | Intended users of the results are the policy makers, businesses, and populace. They will use the results to plan their daily activities in environmentally friendly way. | |
| Interaction | All parties might not be similarly included (or their roles are not fully explained). Assessment will be needed in making use of the results, and it will continue assessing the use of the results and development of situation. | |
| Category of interaction within the knowledge-policy interaction framework. | Participatory | |
| Dimensions of openness | Access to information | All parties probably do not have equal access to all information. Depends on how informative and willing to be open the businesses and government are. |
| Timing of openness | 2 years period for the development in whole, reviews in every three years. Not clearly stated when different participants will have change to participate. | |
| Scope of contribution | Not clearly stated, but participants will most likely have different parts. | |
| Impact of contribution | Contributions of populace will be tied in with government contributions. This might weaken their influence. | |
| Category | Evaluation (on scale 1 to 5) | Reasoning | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality of content - Specificity, exactness and correctness of information. Correspondence between questions and answers. | 3 | Information is correct, but not very exact. Framework is sketched, but could be specified further. | |
| Applicability | Relevance: Correspondence between output and its intended use. | 3 | Output can be used in the intended way. As this is a draft of assessment, very specific outputs can not be given. However, possible guidelines or instructions to users could have been given to show how the assessment might be utilized. |
| Availability: Accessibility of the output to users in terms of e.g. time, location, extent of information, extent of users. | 3 | As hinted in the assessment, the realities of Nigerian community makes it difficult to make it achievable to all. | |
| Usability: Potential of the information in the output to generate understanding among its user(s) about the topic of assessment. | The reviewing of policy will be important, but the | ||
| Acceptability: Potential of the output being accepted by its users. Fundamentally a matter of its making and delivery, not its information content. | How to make everyone understand what is going on? As an important part of the result is to prioritize the poverty and economic development, will all users content on this? | ||
| Efficiency Resource expenditure of producing the assessment output either in one assessment or in a series of assessments. | |||
Suggestions to improve the draft
Examples of priority adaption action areas could be given.
Draft assessment 2
| Category | Characterization | |
|---|---|---|
| Impacts |
| |
| Causes |
| |
| Problem owner |
| |
| Target |
| |
| Interaction |
| |
| Knowledge-policy interaction | element 1.1 | |
| Dimensions of openness | Access to information (What information about the issue is made available to participants?) | |
| Timing of openness (When are participants invited or allowed to participate?) | ||
| Scope of contribution (To which aspects of the issue are participants invited or allowed to contribute?) | ||
| Impact of contribution (How much are participant contributions allowed to have influence on the outcomes? In other words, how much weight is given to participant contributions?) | ||
| Category | Evaluation | Reasoning | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality of content - Specificity, exactness and correctness of information. Correspondence between questions and answers. | |||
| Applicability | Relevance: Correspondence between output and its intended use. | ||
| Availability: Accessibility of the output to users in terms of e.g. time, location, extent of information, extent of users. | |||
| Usability: Potential of the information in the output to generate understanding among its user(s) about the topic of assessment. | |||
| Acceptability: Potential of the output being accepted by its users. Fundamentally a matter of its making and delivery, not its information content. | |||
| Efficiency Resource expenditure of producing the assessment output either in one assessment or in a series of assessments. | |||
