Difference between revisions of "Talk:Gasbus - health impacts of Helsinki bus traffic"

From Testiwiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Suggestions of different groups for issue framing -- ~~~~)
 
(Add "total concentration" as supplementary data to the diagram. ("constant node" in Analytica))
 
(12 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Suggestions of different groups for issue framing  -- [[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 21:42, 18 February 2008 (EET) ==
+
==Excluded variables==
  
Päivi Meriläinen, Matteo Prandi, Antonio Gasparrini, Pauliina Ahtoniemi
+
{{discussion
 +
|Statements= The following variables should not be included in the assessment
 +
* A PM2.5 emissions from other sources
 +
* B Overall PM2.5 concentration in Helsinki
 +
* C Total PM-induced mortality
 +
* D Exposure to bus-derived PM2.5
 +
* E Lung intake of bus-derived PM2.5
 +
|Resolution= Accepted.
 +
|Argumentation =
 +
{{defend|1|For A, B, C: We are not interested in non-bus-derived emissions.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 23:11, 18 February 2008 (EET)}}<br>
 +
{{defend|2|For D, E: We don't need exposure or intake, because we have a concentration-response function, not an exposure-response or dose-response function.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 23:11, 18 February 2008 (EET)}}
 +
}}
  
'''Scope
+
== We need to take account of that the emissions variable is per year and the concenctration variable is in 2020 ==
  
Purpose
+
{{discussion
 +
|Statements= We need to take account of that the emissions variable is per year and the concenctration variable is in 2020.
 +
|Resolution=
 +
|Argumentation =
 +
{{defend|1|The emissions variable contains all years, but the concentration variable contains the values for 2020. Also, the scenarios are in 2020. So we must extract the 2020 values of the emissions variable.|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 09:59, 21 February 2008 (EET)}}
 +
}}
  
To compare PM2.5 induced mortality in alternative public bus-transportation strategies as being considered by the Helsinki Metropolitan area.
+
== Bus technology variable is "current" and the assessment has its scenarios in 2020. ==
  
Boundaries
+
{{discussion
 +
|Statements= Bus technology variable is "current" and the assessment has its scenarios in 2020.
 +
|Resolution=
 +
|Argumentation =
 +
{{defend|1|It is good to have the "current" technology because we assume that the technolgoy and the bus fleet do not change from 1997 to 2020.|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 10:02, 21 February 2008 (EET)}}
  
*area: Helsinki Metropolitan area, Finland
+
{{attack|2|The version "current" changes all the time. How to know to which time to refer to?|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 10:02, 21 February 2008 (EET)}}
*population: whole population in Helsinki area (1 million)
+
}}
*primary PM2.5
 
*time period: Based on data 1996-1997, projected to year 2020
 
*Public Health effects: Mortality due to cardiopulmonary diseases, lung cancer and other non-accidental causes (?)
 
*Bus traffic tail-pipe emissions
 
*different ratio between the technologies
 
*fuel
 
  
 +
== Add "total concentration" as supplementary data to the diagram. ("constant node" in Analytica) ==
  
Scenarios
+
{{discussion
 +
|Statements= Add "total concentration" as supplementary data to the diagram. ("constant node" in Analytica)
 +
|Resolution=
 +
|Argumentation =
 +
{{defend|1|The total primary PM <sub>2.5</sub> concentration is not only related to the bus emissions so it is not a variable, but the measured data are used to calculate the contribution of the busses (source apportionment) so they are important to know.|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 13:29, 21 February 2008 (EET)}}
 +
}}
  
#Business as usual (current bus fleet)
+
{{discussion
#All buses converted to modern diesel (EURO3-STD)
+
|Statements= The results and information used to derive them (data, formula) for each scenario should be contained in a variable.
#All buses converted to diesel with particle traps
+
|Resolution=
#All buses converted to natural gas buses
+
|Argumentation =
 +
{{defend|1|The assessment process is not transparent without such information. |--[[User:Miranda|Miranda]] 13:19, 22 February 2008 (EET)}}
 +
}}
  
Intended users
+
{{discussion
 
+
|Statements= Assumptions should be explicitly included as a sub-attribute in assessments and variables.
*Helsinki Metropolitan area council
+
|Resolution=
*Finnish government (e.g. Finnish ministry of social affairs and health)
+
|Argumentation =
*Scientific community
+
{{defend|1|By explicitly putting assumptions in assessments and variables, the creators and users are forced to think about them. This is a very important part of any assessment/analysis/model. This also allows for a more transparent process.|--[[User:Miranda|Miranda]] 13:19, 22 February 2008 (EET)}}
*Decision makers at local community level
+
}}
 
 
Participants
 
 
 
*Scientists: KTL, YTV, Joint Research Centre @ European Commission
 
 
 
'''Definition
 
 
 
Variables
 
*Decision variable: Which bus engine?
 
**includes emissions from different engine types
 
*PM2.5 emission from bus traffic
 
*PM2.5 concentration of bus traffic in Helsinki area (= exposure and intake estimate)
 
**data: total conc. of PM2.5 exposure in Helsinki
 
*constant: Bus traffic intensity (if it remains the same)
 
*Dose-response
 
**slope uncertain à variable
 
**background mortality included as a constant
 
*human behavior (if data available)
 
*Health impact à mortality rate
 

Latest revision as of 13:22, 16 November 2009

Excluded variables

How to read discussions

Statements: The following variables should not be included in the assessment
  • A PM2.5 emissions from other sources
  • B Overall PM2.5 concentration in Helsinki
  • C Total PM-induced mortality
  • D Exposure to bus-derived PM2.5
  • E Lung intake of bus-derived PM2.5

Resolution: Accepted.

(A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation:

1: For A, B, C: We are not interested in non-bus-derived emissions. --Jouni 23:11, 18 February 2008 (EET)
2: For D, E: We don't need exposure or intake, because we have a concentration-response function, not an exposure-response or dose-response function. --Jouni 23:11, 18 February 2008 (EET)


We need to take account of that the emissions variable is per year and the concenctration variable is in 2020

How to read discussions

Statements: We need to take account of that the emissions variable is per year and the concenctration variable is in 2020.

Resolution: Resolution not yet found.

(A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation:

1: The emissions variable contains all years, but the concentration variable contains the values for 2020. Also, the scenarios are in 2020. So we must extract the 2020 values of the emissions variable. --Alexandra Kuhn 09:59, 21 February 2008 (EET)


Bus technology variable is "current" and the assessment has its scenarios in 2020.

How to read discussions

Statements: Bus technology variable is "current" and the assessment has its scenarios in 2020.

Resolution: Resolution not yet found.

(A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation:

1: It is good to have the "current" technology because we assume that the technolgoy and the bus fleet do not change from 1997 to 2020. --Alexandra Kuhn 10:02, 21 February 2008 (EET)

2: The version "current" changes all the time. How to know to which time to refer to? --Alexandra Kuhn 10:02, 21 February 2008 (EET)


Add "total concentration" as supplementary data to the diagram. ("constant node" in Analytica)

How to read discussions

Statements: Add "total concentration" as supplementary data to the diagram. ("constant node" in Analytica)

Resolution: Resolution not yet found.

(A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation:

1: The total primary PM 2.5 concentration is not only related to the bus emissions so it is not a variable, but the measured data are used to calculate the contribution of the busses (source apportionment) so they are important to know. --Alexandra Kuhn 13:29, 21 February 2008 (EET)


How to read discussions

Statements: The results and information used to derive them (data, formula) for each scenario should be contained in a variable.

Resolution: Resolution not yet found.

(A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation:

1: The assessment process is not transparent without such information. --Miranda 13:19, 22 February 2008 (EET)


How to read discussions

Statements: Assumptions should be explicitly included as a sub-attribute in assessments and variables.

Resolution: Resolution not yet found.

(A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation:

1: By explicitly putting assumptions in assessments and variables, the creators and users are forced to think about them. This is a very important part of any assessment/analysis/model. This also allows for a more transparent process. --Miranda 13:19, 22 February 2008 (EET)