User:Anni Hartikainen

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

Draft assessment 1

To evaluate the draft assessment done earlier, I used the frameworks of Open policy practice.

Characterization of assessment

Category		Characterization
Impacts		Which impacts are addressed in assessment? Which impacts are most significant? Which impacts are most relevant for the intended use?
Causes		Which causes of impacts are recognized in assessment? Which causes of impacts are most significant? Which causes of impacts are most relevant for the intended use?
Problem owner		Who has the interest, responsibility and/or means to assess the issue? Who actually conducts the assessment? Who has the interest, responsibility and/or power to make decisions and take actions upon the issue? Who are affected by the impacts?
Target		Who are the intended users of assessment results? Who needs the assessment results? Who can make use of the assessment results?
Interaction		What is the degree of openness in assessment (and management)? (See Table 4.) How does assessment interact with the intended use of its results? (See Table 5.) How does assessment interact with other actors in its context?
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?)

Evaluation of the assessment

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.