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
- By topic:
- By user:
- By information type:
Current issues
Active assessments
Show all
|
|
|
|
|