Difference between revisions of "Main Page"

From Testiwiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
−
{|
+
{|===''Assessment of Homework 3 of Assessment of Homework 3 of Juho Kutvonen ===
−
|-
+
(Groupwork of Juho Kutvonen and Salla)
 +
 
 +
{{comment|# |I collected the answers into three tables for easier reading and commenting. You could do the same for the other characterization/evaluation below, e.g. by copying the tables as such and replacing their contents (I recommend doing the same to everyone else as well).|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 09:44, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
 +
:{{comment|# |Will get back to comment the contents later.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 09:51, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
 +
 
 +
'''Knowledge-policy interaction'''
 +
 
 +
{|{{prettytable}}
 +
|+ '''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.
 +
 
 +
{|{{prettytable}}
 +
|+ '''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.
 +
|-----
 +
| 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: 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'''
 +
 
 +
{|{{prettytable}}
 +
|+ '''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
 +
| 4
 +
| 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.
 +
 
 +
{|===''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'''
 +
 
 +
{|{{prettytable}}
 +
|+ '''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'''
 +
 
 +
{|{{prettytable}}
 +
|+ '''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.
 +
 
 
| style="border: 1px solid rgb(180, 180, 181); margin: 0pt 0pt 0.7em; vertical-align: top; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 253); width: 50%; height: 100%; padding-left:5px;padding-right:5px;" |
 
| style="border: 1px solid rgb(180, 180, 181); margin: 0pt 0pt 0.7em; vertical-align: top; background-color: rgb(249, 249, 253); width: 50%; height: 100%; padding-left:5px;padding-right:5px;" |
 
<h2 style='height: 30px; line-height: 30px; padding: 0 0 0 6px; border: solid 1px #faa; background-color: #fcc; margin-top: 4px;'>Information about Opasnet</h2>
 
<h2 style='height: 30px; line-height: 30px; padding: 0 0 0 6px; border: solid 1px #faa; background-color: #fcc; margin-top: 4px;'>Information about Opasnet</h2>

Revision as of 22:08, 15 February 2013

(Groupwork of Juho Kutvonen and Salla) --# : I collected the answers into three tables for easier reading and commenting. You could do the same for the other characterization/evaluation below, e.g. by copying the tables as such and replacing their contents (I recommend doing the same to everyone else as well).--Mikko Pohjola 09:44, 9 February 2013 (EET)
--# : Will get back to comment the contents later. --Mikko Pohjola 09:51, 9 February 2013 (EET)
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.
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: 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. 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 4 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.

(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.

Information about Opasnet

Opasnet is a wiki-based website and workspace for helping societal decision making. The website collects, synthesises, and distributes people's values and scientific information. Opasnet welcomes anyone who wants to promote science-based decision-making in any field. The speciality is that the information is structured for both scientific scrutiny and for policy use at the same time. In practice, you can do original research, store data, make models, and perform policy assessments and discuss all of that work in one workspace. Originally, the developers of Opasnet came from the environmental health, i.e. a research field that studies the impacts of environment on human health. We are actively working, among other things, on climate change and air pollution, but you can also start a new assessment about a decision of your own interest, or participate in an existing assessment.

Anyone can solve common problems.
Error creating thumbnail: Unable to save thumbnail to destination


Opasnet is the web workspace for solving them by you, and by us together.


Learn from and participate in Opasnet

We can only help decision making if a large group of people participate in the work. Find your own ways to contribute and act!

Recent recommendations

See more recommendations

Portals

Current issues


Active assessments

Show all
Retrieved from "http://www.opasnet.org/testiwiki/index.php?title=Main_Page&oldid=29278"