Difference between revisions of "User:Sam0911"

From Testiwiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Homework 3)
Line 196: Line 196:
 
4. Application of expert knowledge helps to convert to a good conclusion
 
4. Application of expert knowledge helps to convert to a good conclusion
 
5.By addressing the proper issue in a responsible way.
 
5.By addressing the proper issue in a responsible way.
 +
 +
{{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
 +
| Climate Change due to GHG emissions of transport and power plants.
 +
|-----
 +
| Causes
 +
| Present fuels used for transport and power production emit large amounts of greenhouse gases, which play a major role in climate change.
 +
|-----
 +
| Problem owner
 +
|
 +
* The city council is responsible for implementation of guidelines and recommendation.
 +
* The owner of the public transport company makes the decision about the fuel options.
 +
* Engineers to review designing structures to increase energy efficiency.
 +
|-----
 +
| Target
 +
|
 +
* The city council can use the results to give recommendations or guidelines for fuel choice.
 +
* Transport commissions can changed their choice of fuel regarding the assessment results.
 +
* Communication and public relations out fits is responsible for the communication of recommendations. {{comment|# |But are they really the target or a means of delivering the recommendations to the target. Depends a bit on the perspective one wishes to look at the case.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
 +
* Building and construction out fits is responsible to review designs to increase energy efficiency.
 +
|-----
 +
| Interaction
 +
| The scope of participation is very open, because all stakeholders with environmental concerns are allowed to participate. Based on the assessment draft it is very difficult to group the draft into one category of interaction within the knowledge-policy interaction framework, because the draft gives not enough details to do so.
 +
{{attack|# |Try to pick one (or two if necessary) of the example categories that you think mostly resembles the type of interaction the draft assessment would promote or aim for.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
 +
{{comment|# |I picked the examples categories, which mostly resemble the type of interaction in my opinion.|--[[User:Isabell Rumrich|Isabell Rumrich]] 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
 +
|}
 +
 +
 +
{|{{prettytable}}
 +
|+ '''Characterization of the dimensions of openness.
 +
! Dimension
 +
! Characterization
 +
|-----
 +
| Scope of participation
 +
| All stakeholders are allowed to participate. However no detailed information are given who is considered as a stakeholder with environmental concerns.
 +
{{comment|# |all with "environmental concerns" is a broad group of stakeholders, but a bit vaguely expressed in terms of who are the stakeholders that get or don't get to participate.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
 +
{{comment|# |I added a short explanation.|--[[User:Isabell Rumrich|Isabell Rumrich]] 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
 +
|-----
 +
| Access to information
 +
| The assessment draft gives no information about it. It only states that the public awareness should be strengthened.
 +
|-----
 +
| Timing of openness
 +
| The draft only states stakeholders as participants. It does not give information whether other parties are invited at some point. The stakeholders have to participate from the beginning on.
 +
|-----
 +
| Scope of contribution
 +
| The draft allows public participation. However, no detailed information are given whether te participation is limited in any way. 
 +
{{attack|# |Looks to me that almost anyone would get to participate, at least in principle (see scope of participation), but I'm not sure based on the description. This attribute considers what aspects could the participants address. Little can be said about that based on the draft assessment, but one could guess that perhaps the intended users would have certain specific parts to contribute to, but this is just guessing, since it is not described.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
 +
{{comment|# |I corrected the answer.|--[[User:Isabell Rumrich|Isabell Rumrich]] 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
 +
|-----
 +
| Impact of contribution
 +
| There is only one group of participants: the stakeholders.
 +
|}
 +
 +
 +
Explanations of categories of interaction within the knowledge-policy interaction framework.
 +
 +
:It is very difficult to categorize this draft of an assessment into one of the categories, because the draft it too vague and only includes stakeholders as participants. It does not include enough information about other participants or details.
 +
 +
* Isolated: The assessment is not isolated at all if it is done as the draft describes it. The stakeholders are the only participants, which makes in impossible that they do not interfere with making the assessment.
 +
* Informing: Again, the draft only includes the stakeholders as participants. The city council and other groups are only named as intended user. That way it does not seem very realistic, that the assessment will be done according to gaining the best outcome for all intended users.
 +
* Participatory: The allowed participation is very narrow and limited.
 +
* Joint: The draft gives no clear information about planned information or data exchange. But due to the list of possible options to answer the study question, there needs to be data and information sharing among the intended users.  Management and follow-up are not included in the draft.
 +
* Shared: Open collaboration is not intended at any point.
 +
 +
{{comment|# |The explanations for the example categories for "Interaction" are just to help you choose the one that most closely describes the type of interaction indicated by the draft assessment you have looked at. No need to make any further analysis according to them.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 09:39, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
 +
 +
 +
'''Evaluation of the assessment draft'''
 +
 +
{|{{prettytable}}
 +
|+ '''Evaluation according to the properties of good assessment
 +
! Attribute
 +
! Score
 +
! Explanation
 +
|-----
 +
| Quality of content
 +
| 1
 +
| The complete draft it very vague. The assessment question is already. It does not state a specific city or mentions specific actions taken into account in the assessment. It is a very open question because the way it is written it has to include all European cities and actions taken there. Moreover, important parts of the assessment are missing totally. The variable and the results are not included. All in all it seems like not much effort was put into the draft. The whole concept of open assessment was not used for it and no details about the options considered in the assessment are mentioned. Furthermore, including only the stakeholders as participants would not work in a real assessment.
 +
|-----
 +
| Applicability: Relevance
 +
| 1
 +
| The draft does not contain any information about how the results are communicated and who is allowed to use them. The time framework is until 2020. All in all, if the draft is developed further, the results could be available for all important groups within a limited period of time (maybe months to a year). The outcomes of the assessment, if it is improved and further developed, can be of a use for the intended users. The assessment can give good advice, how the GHG emissions can be decreased.
 +
{{attack|# |Perhaps the communication issue relates more to availability and usability. Although the question and the description overall is quite vague, it seems that the intended users could have a real need for the results such an assessment could bring (if improved sufficiently).|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
 +
{{comment|# |I made small changes in the answer.|--[[User:Isabell Rumrich|Isabell Rumrich]] 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
 +
|-----
 +
| Applicability: Availability
 +
| 0
 +
| The draft does not contain any information about how the results are communicated and who is allowed to use them. The time framework is until 2020. All in all, if the draft is developed further, the results could be available for all important groups within a limited period of time (maybe months to a year). It depends on how the assessment is done and on which data it is based. It has good potential to have a useable outcome, though.
 +
{{comment|# |This is hard to evaluate due to limited information. If e.g. Opasnet were used in making the assessment, it would increase at least the potential of availability. Again based on guessing. |--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
 +
{{comment|# |I made small changes in the answer.|--[[User:Isabell Rumrich|Isabell Rumrich]] 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
 +
|-----
 +
| Applicability: Usability
 +
| 2
 +
| If the assessment is not developed further, the output of the assessment would be very limited, because the stakeholders are the only ones participating in the assessment and their knowledge is limited in assessment. If the draft is developed further and the study question is more limited, there is potential that the assessment might have a useful outcome, which can be understood by the stakeholders, the city and the public. Therefore, the output might be useable for them. {{defend|# |Good. I agree, there is potential and reasonable thinking behind, but should be developed further.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
 +
|-----
 +
| Applicability: Acceptability
 +
| 0
 +
| Again, the draft is too vague to be able to evaluate this. In the current state the assessment would not be accepted by anyone, I guess, because too many information are missing. The draft does not even give an idea about the expected results. The fact, that the scope of participation is very broad, can be seen as a good aspect for the acceptability of the assessment. I guess, all groups, who participated in the assessment, will accept the outcome in the end.
 +
{{comment|# |I see broad openness, which seems like a good thing. On the other hand, very little is said about how the assessment would be done and kind of knowledge it would be based on, so hard to say.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
 +
{{comment|# |I added an explanation.|--[[User:Isabell Rumrich|Isabell Rumrich]] 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
 +
|-----
 +
| Efficiency
 +
| 1
 +
| The assessment described in the draft, would not be efficient. The question is so open that it would be very expensive and time consuming to answer it, if it is possible to find an answer. The whole assessment can be divided into smaller assessment so that more things can be done in the same time and more people can work on it. The different options need different expert knowledge so that it would make sense to assess them in different groups. Of course, the different expert groups would need to share knowledge and data, in order to make the assessment good as a whole. It is a matter of shared understanding.
 +
{{comment|# |On the other hand, practical problems typically requires many kinds of experts and non-experts to co-operate. Good reasoning still.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
 +
{{comment|# |I added an explanation.|--[[User:Isabell Rumrich|Isabell Rumrich]] 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
 +
|}
 +
 +
{{comment|# |If something is very difficult to evaluate based on the given information, also 0 can be given as score for that attribute.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
 +
 +
'''Comments and ideas how to improve the draft'''
 +
 +
* The structure of the assessment should be more obvious (eg like the example assessment clearly stated the scope with question, the answer and the rationale.). It is very hard to follow draft with the current structure. Moreover the draft is too vague as a total. There are no details mentioned at all, which would be needed to be able to evaluate the draft.
 +
* The question is very open and makes the assessment very hard. Maybe it would be better to focus on one city and one small part of your current assessment (eg transport or energy production.
 +
* It would be nice if it would be written in whole sentences and in a fluent text. It would make it easier to read. {{comment|# |Also use of headings, lists, indents an other kinds of technical editing would be helpful.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)}}
 +
* The listed intended users are a good start, but not enough regarding your open question.
 +
* The stakeholders as only participants seems unrealistic. Inviting experts and the public for the evaluation of the options and so on should be considered?
 +
* The decision should be something like: Option x is the recommended, because…
 +
* Overall the options are good. It would be nice though, if they would explained them a little better.
 +
* The rationale is missing nearly completely. Endpoints and variables are not mentioned at all.

Revision as of 10:16, 11 February 2013

Homework 1

1. Purpose of environmental health risk assessment

So as to provide vital information for decision makers.
So as to assess the characteristics of human activity.

2.What is impact assessment

The process of evaluating potential impacts for example in the society i,e health, environment, or economy.

3.What is collaboration

It is a process of sharing ones (idea, potential, or interest) to other. --# : In fact not just sharing, but also working on achieving something together with others. Of course, sharing knowledge, views etc. is essential in making it possible. --Mikko Pohjola 11:05, 28 January 2013 (EET)

←# : Good answers. --Mikko Pohjola 11:05, 28 January 2013 (EET)

Homework 3

Assessment draft based on the application of compound x on vegetable Y as fertilizer

⇤# : The topic is not one of the three: Talvivaara, metal mines, or climate change policies in cities. Find a topic within these boundaries. --Jouni 06:36, 21 January 2013 (EET)

⇤# : It was difficult to evaluate this homework because the topic was not one of those three. --Salla 12:01, 6 February 2013 (EET)

1.Scope

--# : Here could be a short definition about that why this assessment is done. --Salla 10:48, 6 February 2013 (EET)

1.1 question

What the negative impact of compound x on vegetable Y

--# : If x is fertilizer, we expect positive impacts. --Jouni 06:36, 21 January 2013 (EET)

--# : The question could be "what kind of impacts does compound x cause on vegetable y?" There could be added also a question like "Does the possible impacts restrict the use of the vegetable?" --Salla 10:52, 6 February 2013 (EET)

1.2 Who is responsible for the result

--# : Rather use term "Intended user". --Jouni 06:36, 21 January 2013 (EET)

The company who supply compound x

--# : Here could be also farmers that use the compound, the consumers and EVIRA. And also a description how we expect intended users to use the information that we get from the assessment. --Salla 10:56, 6 February 2013 (EET)

1.3 Participant

Expert in the toxicology of compounds

--# : Why are you planning an assessment with one participant only? Why do you leave others out? --Jouni 06:36, 21 January 2013 (EET)

--# : Here could be also, EVIRA and farmers and consumers. --Salla 11:00, 6 February 2013 (EET)--# : The company that produces the compound could be excluded because it might be partial. --Salla 11:02, 6 February 2013 (EET)

⇤# : You could add here a scenario about decisions and decision options. --Salla 11:04, 6 February 2013 (EET) ⇤# : You could add here analyses that are needed to be able to produce results that are useful for making conclusions about the question. --Salla 11:05, 6 February 2013 (EET)

1.4 Decisions

Alternative compound will substituted according to the severity of the problem.

--# : Are those other compounds known? They should be listed here. --Jouni 06:36, 21 January 2013 (EET)

2 Answers

2.1 Result

Low impact observed according to the analysis

⇤# : We cannot know the results and conclusions before the analysis is done. --Jouni 06:36, 21 January 2013 (EET)

2.2 Conclusion

Compound x is suitable for vegetable Y

3 Rationale

According to the intensive field and lab work by our experts,we found that the application of compound x is suitable for vegetable y besides compound x found that ,environmentally friend.

--# : Assessments are about using all available information, not just performing a single new study. --Jouni 06:36, 21 January 2013 (EET)

⇤# : Where are your other homework answers? If they are on someone else's userpage, please add links here so they can be found. --Mikko Pohjola 11:05, 28 January 2013 (EET)

Home work 3,

Last time I discussed out of range,now I would like focus on the climate change policy on Rotterdam city.

'Scope To examine the health impact due to the activities based on climate change in Rotterdam city , in connection to the level of PM.

Question

What are the level of particulate matter(PM) in the city? This can be done by taking data from various station(that measure PM) in the city.

Intended use and users?

The city of of Rotterdam Ministry of Environment of Netherlands Ministry of Health of Netherlands

These agents will organize the information they got from the assessment and act according to it.

Participants

Experts from...Environmental health area

Scenarios

Bisness as usual 

Analysis

Bases on exposure modelling 

   Results

Level of PM matter that can be inhale-able 

   Conclusion

The activity of climate change in the city , can or can not have the potential impact, on the health based on the data of PM 

   Rationale

    End points,

    =City council of Rotterdam
    =Ministry health of Netherlands

  In this case they are willing to get the final PM level especially with the limit value of exposure set by standard organizations( like WHO)
   
   Variables

  Particulate matter and
  Respiratory infection
  The level of PM and expected infection in the respiratory system
  Mainly children and elderly people considered as a special condition because of susceptible issue but all the population in the city also involved in the assessment of the health.


Home work 4 1. 1 The main goal is to make Rotterdam city, a place to joy, work, invest, in general, to make the future bright city. Since the country situated in the low delta, there is a threat from rising sea level and fluctuation of river discharge, and by tackling these problems, the above goal can be maintained.

To make the city , a knowledge/example for climate and water management.

2. Actions toward the goal: 

   2.1. Flood management:
Because the city is commonly known as delta city
   2.2 Accessibility:

Since unexpected weather condition results negative impact on the city network and infrastructure, therefore, one of the action is improving this situation which can lead city for sustainable development. 

   2.3. Adaptive building:
Since the risk of flood high even though there is a flood management programme, so building adaptive building is wise idea.
   2.4 Urban water system:

The city, currently felt the climate change; in terms of the presence of heat wave, flood stress, and draught as well so as to challenge the mentioned problems especially the draught case, by building water storage facilities and water plazas. 

2.5 Urban climate:

The city layout and design has an impact on the climate variability. Joint action from: The municipal public work department 

                                : The municipal housing and planning department
                                 : Rotterdam development coroporation

3. Decisions:

Building green roofs
Building additional water storage space
To design and build connection
To design and build adaptive buildings
Spatial planning and socioeconomic tasks


I think again from the Joint action from: The municipal public work department 

                                                                      : The municipal housing and planning department
                                                                      : Rotterdam development corporation.

And also the city of Rotterdam. 4. Positive health impact: stress will minimize across the nations because of the actions taken by the city so as tackle the problem. Negative health impacts: Since the solutions proposed for the problems; involves building various infrastructures, so exposure from PM (particulate matter) is one of the risk. But form the angle of saving Rotterdam city from the threat of climate change; the negative impacts from economic, health, environment are not that much plausible. The intended polices rely on win-win approach by considering various aspects; from the citizen security and from sustainable country economy point of view. 5. What are the impacts on; economy, health, and environment, based on the actions which are carried out to tackle climate change? 6.May be I explain the situation in my view and of course I don’t have other option to explain other than my view.

Homework 5a

1. City of Rotterdam, Economic Development Board of Rotterdam, Ministry of housing, spatial planning and Environment Directorate General, Ministry of transport, Ministry of Water of Holland and Experts from the universities. 2. Participant from City of Rotterdam=Assessing the task in general Participant from the Ministry of housing, spatial planning and Environment Directorate=to assess the adaptive building strategy, city network. Participant from the Ministry of Water=to assess water management approach Participant from the University Members=Expert judgment


3. Knowledge 

Management (water, task/activities),

Engineering (building, roads), Climate change knowledge(impacts,mitigation and adaptation strategies)

3. Tackling climate change from mitigation and adaptation sense

Homework 5b 1, Based on expert knowledge in their field which based on organized (time)activity and scientific approach. 2. There should be some expert group who control those activities and to get the best of it. 3. The same answer as question number 2 4. Application of expert knowledge helps to convert to a good conclusion 5.By addressing the proper issue in a responsible way.

--# : 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 Climate Change due to GHG emissions of transport and power plants.
Causes Present fuels used for transport and power production emit large amounts of greenhouse gases, which play a major role in climate change.
Problem owner
  • The city council is responsible for implementation of guidelines and recommendation.
  • The owner of the public transport company makes the decision about the fuel options.
  • Engineers to review designing structures to increase energy efficiency.
Target
  • The city council can use the results to give recommendations or guidelines for fuel choice.
  • Transport commissions can changed their choice of fuel regarding the assessment results.
  • Communication and public relations out fits is responsible for the communication of recommendations. --# : But are they really the target or a means of delivering the recommendations to the target. Depends a bit on the perspective one wishes to look at the case. --Mikko Pohjola 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)
  • Building and construction out fits is responsible to review designs to increase energy efficiency.
Interaction The scope of participation is very open, because all stakeholders with environmental concerns are allowed to participate. Based on the assessment draft it is very difficult to group the draft into one category of interaction within the knowledge-policy interaction framework, because the draft gives not enough details to do so.

⇤# : Try to pick one (or two if necessary) of the example categories that you think mostly resembles the type of interaction the draft assessment would promote or aim for. --Mikko Pohjola 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET) --# : I picked the examples categories, which mostly resemble the type of interaction in my opinion. --Isabell Rumrich 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET)


Characterization of the dimensions of openness.
Dimension Characterization
Scope of participation All stakeholders are allowed to participate. However no detailed information are given who is considered as a stakeholder with environmental concerns.

--# : all with "environmental concerns" is a broad group of stakeholders, but a bit vaguely expressed in terms of who are the stakeholders that get or don't get to participate. --Mikko Pohjola 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET) --# : I added a short explanation. --Isabell Rumrich 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET)

Access to information The assessment draft gives no information about it. It only states that the public awareness should be strengthened.
Timing of openness The draft only states stakeholders as participants. It does not give information whether other parties are invited at some point. The stakeholders have to participate from the beginning on.
Scope of contribution The draft allows public participation. However, no detailed information are given whether te participation is limited in any way.

⇤# : Looks to me that almost anyone would get to participate, at least in principle (see scope of participation), but I'm not sure based on the description. This attribute considers what aspects could the participants address. Little can be said about that based on the draft assessment, but one could guess that perhaps the intended users would have certain specific parts to contribute to, but this is just guessing, since it is not described. --Mikko Pohjola 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET) --# : I corrected the answer. --Isabell Rumrich 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET)

Impact of contribution There is only one group of participants: the stakeholders.


Explanations of categories of interaction within the knowledge-policy interaction framework.

It is very difficult to categorize this draft of an assessment into one of the categories, because the draft it too vague and only includes stakeholders as participants. It does not include enough information about other participants or details.
  • Isolated: The assessment is not isolated at all if it is done as the draft describes it. The stakeholders are the only participants, which makes in impossible that they do not interfere with making the assessment.
  • Informing: Again, the draft only includes the stakeholders as participants. The city council and other groups are only named as intended user. That way it does not seem very realistic, that the assessment will be done according to gaining the best outcome for all intended users.
  • Participatory: The allowed participation is very narrow and limited.
  • Joint: The draft gives no clear information about planned information or data exchange. But due to the list of possible options to answer the study question, there needs to be data and information sharing among the intended users. Management and follow-up are not included in the draft.
  • Shared: Open collaboration is not intended at any point.

--# : The explanations for the example categories for "Interaction" are just to help you choose the one that most closely describes the type of interaction indicated by the draft assessment you have looked at. No need to make any further analysis according to them. --Mikko Pohjola 09:39, 9 February 2013 (EET)


Evaluation of the assessment draft

Evaluation according to the properties of good assessment
Attribute Score Explanation
Quality of content 1 The complete draft it very vague. The assessment question is already. It does not state a specific city or mentions specific actions taken into account in the assessment. It is a very open question because the way it is written it has to include all European cities and actions taken there. Moreover, important parts of the assessment are missing totally. The variable and the results are not included. All in all it seems like not much effort was put into the draft. The whole concept of open assessment was not used for it and no details about the options considered in the assessment are mentioned. Furthermore, including only the stakeholders as participants would not work in a real assessment.
Applicability: Relevance 1 The draft does not contain any information about how the results are communicated and who is allowed to use them. The time framework is until 2020. All in all, if the draft is developed further, the results could be available for all important groups within a limited period of time (maybe months to a year). The outcomes of the assessment, if it is improved and further developed, can be of a use for the intended users. The assessment can give good advice, how the GHG emissions can be decreased.

⇤# : Perhaps the communication issue relates more to availability and usability. Although the question and the description overall is quite vague, it seems that the intended users could have a real need for the results such an assessment could bring (if improved sufficiently). --Mikko Pohjola 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET) --# : I made small changes in the answer. --Isabell Rumrich 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET)

Applicability: Availability 0 The draft does not contain any information about how the results are communicated and who is allowed to use them. The time framework is until 2020. All in all, if the draft is developed further, the results could be available for all important groups within a limited period of time (maybe months to a year). It depends on how the assessment is done and on which data it is based. It has good potential to have a useable outcome, though.

--# : This is hard to evaluate due to limited information. If e.g. Opasnet were used in making the assessment, it would increase at least the potential of availability. Again based on guessing. --Mikko Pohjola 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET) --# : I made small changes in the answer. --Isabell Rumrich 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET)

Applicability: Usability 2 If the assessment is not developed further, the output of the assessment would be very limited, because the stakeholders are the only ones participating in the assessment and their knowledge is limited in assessment. If the draft is developed further and the study question is more limited, there is potential that the assessment might have a useful outcome, which can be understood by the stakeholders, the city and the public. Therefore, the output might be useable for them. ←# : Good. I agree, there is potential and reasonable thinking behind, but should be developed further. --Mikko Pohjola 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)
Applicability: Acceptability 0 Again, the draft is too vague to be able to evaluate this. In the current state the assessment would not be accepted by anyone, I guess, because too many information are missing. The draft does not even give an idea about the expected results. The fact, that the scope of participation is very broad, can be seen as a good aspect for the acceptability of the assessment. I guess, all groups, who participated in the assessment, will accept the outcome in the end.

--# : I see broad openness, which seems like a good thing. On the other hand, very little is said about how the assessment would be done and kind of knowledge it would be based on, so hard to say. --Mikko Pohjola 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET) --# : I added an explanation. --Isabell Rumrich 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET)

Efficiency 1 The assessment described in the draft, would not be efficient. The question is so open that it would be very expensive and time consuming to answer it, if it is possible to find an answer. The whole assessment can be divided into smaller assessment so that more things can be done in the same time and more people can work on it. The different options need different expert knowledge so that it would make sense to assess them in different groups. Of course, the different expert groups would need to share knowledge and data, in order to make the assessment good as a whole. It is a matter of shared understanding.

--# : On the other hand, practical problems typically requires many kinds of experts and non-experts to co-operate. Good reasoning still. --Mikko Pohjola 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET) --# : I added an explanation. --Isabell Rumrich 18:15, 9 February 2013 (EET)

--# : If something is very difficult to evaluate based on the given information, also 0 can be given as score for that attribute. --Mikko Pohjola 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)

Comments and ideas how to improve the draft

  • The structure of the assessment should be more obvious (eg like the example assessment clearly stated the scope with question, the answer and the rationale.). It is very hard to follow draft with the current structure. Moreover the draft is too vague as a total. There are no details mentioned at all, which would be needed to be able to evaluate the draft.
  • The question is very open and makes the assessment very hard. Maybe it would be better to focus on one city and one small part of your current assessment (eg transport or energy production.
  • It would be nice if it would be written in whole sentences and in a fluent text. It would make it easier to read. --# : Also use of headings, lists, indents an other kinds of technical editing would be helpful. --Mikko Pohjola 11:06, 9 February 2013 (EET)
  • The listed intended users are a good start, but not enough regarding your open question.
  • The stakeholders as only participants seems unrealistic. Inviting experts and the public for the evaluation of the options and so on should be considered?
  • The decision should be something like: Option x is the recommended, because…
  • Overall the options are good. It would be nice though, if they would explained them a little better.
  • The rationale is missing nearly completely. Endpoints and variables are not mentioned at all.
Retrieved from "http://www.opasnet.org/testiwiki/index.php?title=User:Sam0911&oldid=28870"