Source: http://en.opasnet.org/w/Talk:Life%2B
Timestamp: 2019-03-19 04:44:59+00:00
Document Index: 10402959

Matched Legal Cases: ['kko ', 'kko ', 'kko ', 'kko ', 'kko ', 'kko ', 'kko ', 'kko ', 'kko ', 'kko ', 'kko ', 'kko ', 'kko ', 'kko ', 'kko ', 'kko ', 'kko ', 'kko ', 'kko ', 'kko ', 'kko ', 'kko ', 'kko ', 'kko ', 'kko ', 'kko ', 'kko ', 'kko ']

Talk:Life+ - Opasnet
Talk:Life+
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/cooperation?callIdentifier=FP7-HEALTH-2013-INNOVATION-1 http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/cooperation?callIdentifier=FP7-KBBE-2013-7-single-stage http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/cooperation?callIdentifier=FP7-SMARTCITIES-2013 http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/page/cooperation?callIdentifier=FP7-KBBE-2013-7-single-stage
1 LIFE+ application
1.2 ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION (Part A?)
1.2.2 OTHER PROPOSALS SUBMITTED FOR EUROPEAN UNION FUNDING
1.2.3 Actions and means involved:
1.2.4 Expected results (outputs and quantified achievements):
1.2.5 Can the project be considered to be a climate change adaptation project?
1.3 TECHNICAL APPLICATION FORMS Part B - technical summary and overall context of the project
1.3.1 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
1.3.2 Project objectives
1.3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM TARGETED
1.3.4 STATE OF THE ART AND INNOVATIVE ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT
1.3.5 DEMONSTRATION CHARACTER OF THE PROJECT
1.3.6 SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
1.3.7 EFFORTS FOR REDUCING THE PROJECT'S "CARBON FOOTPRINT"
1.3.8 EU ADDED VALUE OF THE PROJECT AND ITS ACTIONS
1.3.9 STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED AND TARGET AUDIENCES OF THE PROJECT OTHER THAN PROJECT PARTICIPANTS
1.4 Monitoring of the impact of project actions (obligatory)
1.5 Communication and dissemination actions (obligatory)
1.5.1 EXPECTED CONSTRAINTS AND RISKS RELATED TO THE PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND HOW THEY WILL BE DEALT WITH
1.5.2 CONTINUATION / VALORISATION OF THE PROJECT RESULTS AFTER THE END OF THE PROJECT
1.5.3 TECHNICAL APPLICATION FORMS Part C – detailed technical description of the proposed actions
1.5.3.1 ACTION 1: Drinking water
1.5.3.2 Action 2: Climate policy implementation
1.5.3.3 Action 3: Open assessment
1.5.3.4 Action 4: Dissemination and external partner support
1.5.3.5 Action 5: Management
Title: ORACLE (Open assessment as a tool to pRomote wAter safety planning and life cyCLE assessment of actions)
Basic information (a draft as everything on this page):
Name of application: ORACLE (Open assessment as a tool to pRomote wAter safety planning and life cyCLE assessment of actions)
Funding period: 1st September 2013 - 31st August 2017
Total budget: 1.8 M€? (EU contribution 900 k€?)
Coordinator: Jouni Tuomisto, THL
Partners: THL, SYKE, CUT, VVY, Waterworks of Siilinjärvi municipality, Waterworks of Mikkeli municipality, Waterworks of Kuopio municipality?
National priorities: Finland has NOT set any national priorities that should be taken into account in the proposal. (info from P. Harju-Autti, 23.8.)
Luettavaa: LIFE+ pullonkaulat (Harju-Autti, Tiira, Hännine, Lemola), Ympäristöministeriön raportteja 11/2010
Life+-infopäivä 25.4.2012 (Pekka Harju-Autti)
Yleiskatsaus Life-ohjelmasta Suomessa
EcoInnovation Action Plan (ETAP) Main Page About ETAP
Life-ohjelman suomenkielinen sivusto
Life program community
National Contact Point: Pekka Harju-Autti, Ympäristöministeriö
National Funding decision
An earlier plan with meeting minutes 21.8.; possible connections with Life+ objectives, and previous ideas.
#: . Onko mahdollista sisällyttää hakemukseen myös välineiden sovelluksen ja testauksen työpaketti tai tehtäviä? Sisältönä vesioppaan ja Urgenchen (sekä muiden) mallien käyttö käytännön tilanteissa (kaupungit ja vesilaitokset) ja toimivuuden sekä vaikuttavuuden tutkiminen (THL, Nordem). Muistuttaa TEKAISUun suuniteltuja pilot-caseja, mutta voi ottaa välinekeskeisemmän näkökulman. Tukee siten TEKAISUn TP1:tä sekä TP3:a, mutta erityisesti toteuttaa ohjelmassa kaivattua demonstrointia. --Mikko Pohjola 13:39, 8 August 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)
1. Olen jo aikaisemmin alkanut näpertelemään biodiversiteettimallinnuksen kanssa yhtä toista päämäärää varten. Työ ei vielä ole kovin pitkälle edennyt, mutta periaatteessa sitä mukaa (jos ja kun) materiaalia syntyy se on Life+:n käytettävissä.
2. Metsät ja metsäpalot mainittiin myös. Meillä on 'käyttämätön' metsäpalomalli valmiina (tosin se on nykymuodossaan liian raskas R:lle) ja sekin voidaan luovuttaa Life+-käyttöön jos tarvetta on. Nyt on myös käytössä MMLn maastodataa sekä Ilmatieteenlaitoksen säätietoja voidaan hyödyntää.
3. Voisiko (joukko)liikennemalleista kehittää anomuksen rungon? Niihin saadaan hyvin linkitettyä monta muuta juttua jotka on jo tehty Opasnetissä tai jotka ovat tekeillä (melu, energia, hiili, kaupunkisuunnittelu jne.) Voisimme myös mainostaa asiaan liittyvää kaupallista potentiaalia ja näyttää että asian tiimoilta on julkaisuja, koulutusta jne. Voisiko Life-hakemusta painottaa konkretian takia niin että se tähtäisi nimenomaan työkalujen viemiseen yrityksiin ja yhteisöihin (kaupunkien liikennelaitokset, yksityiset liikennöitsijät, kimppakyytiyhteisöt jne.) Pakettiin kuuluisi rahoituksen hakeminen yrittäjien kouluttamiseksi työkalun käyttöön. Tämä olisi mielestäni paljon tehokkaampaa kuin arviointityökalujen tarjoaminen hallinnon käyttöön. Työkaluihin lisättäisiin ominaisuuksia jotka mahdollistaisivat joukkoliikennepalveluiden varsinaisten käyttäjien osallistumisen suunnitteluun. Asiaan voisi yhdistää vielä jotain kaupunkisuunnittelun näkökulmia.
Projektin kielenä on suomi, koska muuten karkotetaan soveltajia. Kuitenkin hakemus kirjoitetaan englanniksi, joten soveltajien kannalta olennaiset osat siitäkin pitää kääntää myös suomeksi.
Aihepiirit: WSP:n tekeminen, ilmastopoliittisten ohjelmien täytäntöönpanosuunnitelman tekeminen.
Partnerirakenne:
tutkijat/kehittäjät: THL, SYKE, CII, Nordem: menetelmätuki ja evaluointi
kansalliset soveltajat: Vesi- ja viemärilaitosyhdistys VVY?, Kuntaliitto (Tarja Laatikainen)?: levittävät sovelluksia valtakunnallisesti. (1 / aihepiiri)
paikalliset soveltajat: Kuopio, Mikkeli, Siilinjärvi, Lahti, HSY, Rauma,...: käyttävät sovelluksia omiin tapauksiinsa (n. 3 / aihepiiri)
ulkopuoliset soveltajat: eivät ole projektissa partnereina, mutta heidän tukemiseensa varataan partnerien resursseja, ei kuitenkaan itse työn tekemiseen.
WSP:ssä neljä teemaa: isot vesilaitokset, pienet vesilaitokset, jätevesilaitokset, kiinteistöjen omat vesijärjestelmät. Tässä hankkeessa painotutaan isoihin vesilaitoksiin ja jätevesilaitoksiin.
Jouni etsii esitykset Ilmastoareenasta, koska siellä oli tärkeitä kontakteja.
Kuntien ilmastokampanja - niminen hanke on olemassa.
Hankekokoukset järjestetään avoimesti ja myös online, jotta tieto leviää tehokkaasti.
Mietittävä miten tehdään arkaluontoisten tietojen kanssa: esim. WSP paljastaa vesilaitosten haavoittuvat kohdat.
ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION (Part A?)
Partners divide into two groups: expert partners (provide models and expertise to be implemented, develop products further based on implementation lessons); and implementing partners (have a real need for improvement in a key area and for implement new approaches and tools. Define the areas of implementation).
Assessment and Modelling Unit, THL
MEKA (menetelmien kehittäminen ja arviointi)
Water system modelling unit
CUT/CII: John Evans, Gregory Norris
Handprinter: life cycle assessment of actions
Siilinjärven vesilaitos
Kuopion Vesi?
#: . Add information about the THL units YMAL, YVES, and MEKA. --Jouni 07:02, 7 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant attack)
#: . Add information about CUT/CII. --Jouni 07:02, 7 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant attack)
#: . Add information about SYKE. --Jouni 07:02, 7 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant attack)
#: . Add information about VVY. --Jouni 07:02, 7 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant attack)
#: . Add information about Mikkeli waterworks. --Jouni 07:02, 7 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant attack)
#: . Add information about Siilinjärvi waterworks --Jouni 07:02, 7 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant attack)
#: . Add information about Kuopio waterworks? --Jouni 07:02, 7 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant attack)
Contact person in Kuopion Vesi: Markku Lehtola?
OTHER PROPOSALS SUBMITTED FOR EUROPEAN UNION FUNDING
#: . Please answer each of the following questions:
Have you or any of your associated beneficiaries already benefited from previous LIFE cofinancing? (please cite LIFE project reference number, title, year, amount of the co-financing, duration, name(s) of coordinating beneficiary and/or partners involved):
Have you or any of the associated beneficiaries submitted any actions related directly or indirectly to this project to other European Union financial instruments? To whom? When and with what results?
For those actions which fall within the eligibility criteria for financing through other European Union financial instruments, please explain in full detail why you consider that those actions nevertheless do not fall within the main scope of the instrument(s) in question and are therefore included in the current project. --Jouni 07:02, 7 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)
The Department of Environmental Health is one of the leading centers of environmental health in Europe. Its purpose is to anticipate, prevent and combat environmental health threats. It gives advice based on high-quality research and work in close cooperation with officials and local authorities. Currently the Department of Environmental Health is coordinating Life+ project INSULATE (Improving energy efficiency of housing stock: impacts of indoor environmental quality and public health in Europe, LIFE09 ENV/FI/000573)and participating in EXPAH (Population Exposure to PAH, LIFE09/ ENV/IT/000082).
ORACLE will perform several implementation case studies about water quality and life cycle assessments of actions. With these implementation case studies, this project will:
c) produce the same relevant generic information translated in English, German, French, Spanish, and Finnish and distribute it online;
d) evaluate the practices and tools of open online collaboration #: . in what? needs to be defined in more detail. --Mikko Pohjola 10:48, 7 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant attack) and increase understanding about their challenges;
e) improve practices and tools of open online collaboration #: . in what? needs to be defined in more detail. --Mikko Pohjola 10:48, 7 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant attack) based on the evaluations;
g) develop models, tools, and data to work on other topics than water and climate as well, such as environmentally friendly urban transportation, and give support to new users of these functionalities;
h) organise several user workshops to increase the awareness of the available methods and to promote their use with different topics and by different decision makers.
The Water Guide model is used and several #: . should we define a number? --Jouni 07:02, 7 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment) assessments are produced to be a basis for a Water Safety Plan.
All waterworks in Finland are aware of the possibility of using Water Guide in their own planning and decision making.
Also several hundred waterworks in Europe (outside Finland) are aware of the possibility of using Water Guide.
Handprinter and Opasnet are used in at least ten #: . should we define a number? --Jouni 07:02, 7 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment) life cycle assessments about large events or actions. #: . city-level policies/actions not studied with handprinter? --Mikko Pohjola 10:49, 7 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant attack)
Awareness of the availability of Handprinter for life cycle assessment is large. This can be seen as the number of stakeholder groups that join the society Open Assessors' Network: there are more than 50 members using and/or promoting the method.
Visibility in national media in different countries: specific objectives?
TECHNICAL APPLICATION FORMS Part B - technical summary and overall context of the project
(Max. 3 pages; to be completed in English)
Project title: Open assessment as a tool to promote water safety planning and life cycle assessment of actions (ORACLE)
To implement a drinking water model Vesiopas on the waterworks level to support decision making
To implement an urban energy model (Urgenche) to assess climate mitigation policies in city-level urban planning. #: . Does the EU funding prevent the use of this? --Jouni 10:42, 2 August 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant attack)
To implement a citizen forum in Opasnet for collecting and organising views and values about water and energy issues.
#: . Objectives and actions should be clarified. They should not overlap but support each other: objectives are improvements in the situation, actions are things that are done by the project. Ideally, each objective is achieved by doing one or more actions. --Jouni 07:02, 7 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant defense)
#: . Correspondingly, results and outputs (see above) are concrete products of the actions that deliver the improvements in the situation. E.g. i)action 1 applies vesiopas at local waterworks, which ii) produces specific assessments of water safety risks, and thereby iii) improves the capability of the waterworks to develop and apply good WSPs. --Mikko Pohjola 10:53, 7 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant defense)
Quality of natural waters as sources of raw water
Indirectly, any environmental problem is targeted, as the project implements generic tools to improve decision making, and the project will make them available for local, national, and EU level decision making.
Wise decisions lead to effective actions, which can either reduce pressures such as emissions or directly improve the state of the environment. Decisions are inevitably based on the knowledge of the people who make those decisions. A recent analysis found out that a most critical issue in dealing with environmental health risks is the inefficient use of information in decision making (Pohjola et al XXXX). There are huge amounts of data and information about environmentally relevant information in scientific publications and reports, but the utilisation of this information is poor when decisions are made in practice. The same problem exists with decision makers who are citizens living their daily lives, as well as with those who are government representatives negotiating about global climate treaties.
This is not because decisions makers would be stupid or ignorant. A major problem is that decision makers don't have the time and resources to distill those pieces of information that are truly relevant and critical for the particular situation. The production process of scientific information is not optimised for answering this kind of practical questions. On the contrary, many risk assessment paradigms specifically separate the risk assessment and risk management in the aim of keeping assessment as an objective scientific exercise. This narrows the role of the expert to only assess the magnitude of a risk but ignoring its practical implications, while the decision maker has a lonely task to make a coherent synthesis about this risk estimate, valuations, and all other issues relevant for the decision.
Unfortunately, because of this common separation of "science" and "management", an excellent scientific practice is not effectively used in risk management. This practice is the practice of making incremental improvements by continuous, open criticism. In addition to science, a similar approach is seen in the implementation of policies in market: when e.g. a new environmental tax is applied, all market players produce improvements and solutions to absorb the shock, and the most efficient solutions survive. In decision making, such market or agora rarely exists. Good decision options are not openly collected and evaluated, and even if someone offers them for decision making, there is no guarantee of being heard, XXXX yet to get any merit or benefit for such activity.
Decision support systems (REF XXXX) offer some science-based practical guidance for decision making. However, they are typically designed for single large questions where there is enough resources to pay for the expert work needed. In addition, they are rarely based on open criticism but on the high expertise of those experts that design the system and collect the data. Opasnet and Handprinter are radically different decision support systems in this respect. They are designed in a way that once a tool has been created, it is easy and cheap to copy and reuse in similar situations, with little or no additional expert work. In addition, all assumptions and equations, and data is openly available to all users and critiques. Anything can be criticised, and once a mistake has been found, if can be fixed on-the-fly, and improvements are automatically updated in the depending assessments.
#: . Problem with DSS (often identified with models) is typically the same is with assessments. Their development and use tend to be more focused on serving the needs and interests of closed communities of experts than the practical needs of policy makers and the society at large. A more pragmatic approach (Pohjola et al. 2011/Pragmatic knowledge services) is to harness the information technologies and systems (e.g Opasnet) as means to constitute the agora for collaborative scrutiny of decision options. --Mikko Pohjola 11:16, 7 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)
Handprints are “Positive Footprints”
The science of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) shows us that the production, use, and final disposition of every good and every service entails negative environmental impacts. These are known, collectively, as its “environmental footprint.” Dimensions of environmental footprints include many detailed environmental impact categories (can cite ReCiPe method, for example, and Impact World method; and the EU Environmental Footprint project) which can be aggregated via damage assessment modeling to a limited set of “endpoint categories.” Typical endpoints in state of the art methods of life cycle impact assessment are human health, ecosystem quality, resource depletion. Optionally, climate change impacts measured prior to damage assessment modeling, stoping at 100-year global warming potentials, for example, can be a fourth separate reporting category.
Since every product has a footprint, the logical conclusion from footprinting alone, for every day in the life of at least every citizen in an industrialized country, is that “the planet would be better off without me.” This discouraging view seems to be held by the majority of citizens in industrialized countries, based on informal surveys we've done; but the view tends to be suppressed from awareness at least most of the time, for obvious reasons.
Science shows (can cite, for example, literature cited in CRED's guide on communicating about climate change) that while negative and alarming information may grab people's attention, they cannot sustain attention to such information. Efforts to achieve lasting behavior change are much more likely to meet with success if the activities and their outcomes can be framed positively.
Fortunately, footprints are not the only truth about the lives of global citizens today. We can also take autonomous, purposeful and creative action to bring about positive changes which would not happen without our effort and influence. We call the impacts of these actions “handprints.” Handprints can be measured in the same metrics (and using much of the same data, software, and modeling conventions) that we use to assess footprints. A person, or an organization, has a net-positive influence this year on one or more environmental impact categories if their total handprint for those categories are greater than their total footprint.
A web-based app to encourage and support handprint creation and its measurement has been introduced in beta form at www.handprinter.org. It is available in French, Spanish, German, Dutch, and English, with more translations on the way. The initial database of actions in the app was created based in part on studies by the US National Research Council, to identify actions which were highly feasible and known to bring non-trivial reductions on emissions of greenhouse gasses and consumption of fossil fuels. To these actions we added some additional actions related to diet.
So far, the actions are relevant strictly to individual consumers (rather than organizations), and mainly to adults, mainly those living in affluent conditions such as typical citizens in the OECD countries. This is all designed to change, as we introduce youth portals, and company portals, and as the handprint action database grows (see below). So far, the only impacts addressed in the app interface are those related to climate change; but since the data and modeling of all actions is based on LCA data and methods, the full set of environmental dimensions is available in the background, and just needs to be integrated into the interface. So far, the action set is focused on reductions in consumption. It lacks for example curative actions that people can take outdoors or in their community, but this too is intended to change as we introduce the “Handprints near me” feature into a mobile app during early 2013, which is designed to connect people to local environmental preservation/restoration projects of all kinds.
Today's Handprinter beta represents a powerful starting point, designed to promote exponential growth in its user base, once handprint visualization is supported, which we anticipate for October 2012. Handprinter is being piloted in schools in Montreal during the academic year which has just begun, and is being introduced to students from schools across Montreal by staff at that city's famed “Biodome” museum of living ecosystems. The Biodome, which welcomes more than a million visitors per year, will also host exhibits about Handprinting that are being created by schools this year.
Another powerful collaboration taking shape is with the “Events industries” of Germany, Austria and Switzerland. There, the industry of concerts, music festivals, and cinema is beginning to plan integration of the Handprint concept into the 2013 season. This would entail outreach to event attendees, who will be encouraged to form community after the event and ensure that the net handprint of the event far exceeds its footprint, which the organizers will have of course taken prudent actions to minimize.
A third pilot in development is with a global manufacturer of building materials, which seeks to quantify the handprints of its products and compare them to its footprint, with the goal of achieving net positive impact status as soon as possible. This pilot is engaging the World Resources Institute, which co-led the development of international consensus standards for product and organizational carbon footprinting, and which likewise seeks to apply credible methods for Handprint accounting, to ensure that its net impacts are positive.
Handprinter is being designed as an open system. The database of actions in place presently is meant simply as a seed. The app requests users to submit suggestions for new actions; indeed, one way to grow your handprint is by introducing new actions that other people around the world become inspired to take.
Thus, Handprinter is designed to stimulate exponential growth in the demand for transparently modeled estimates of the comprehensive environmental (and eventually also the social) life cycle impacts of a virtually unlimited number of creative actions which individuals and organizations can take to reduce footprints or create environmental benefits. This begs the question: from whence will come the supply of such transparent models and impact estimates.
Opasnet appears to be the ideal infrastructure within which to promote organic growth of a collaborating global community of analysts and modeling specialists who respond with an exponentially growing supply of models, modeling discourse, and supportive data, to enable citizens of the Earth to understand how best to heal our relationship with the planet. Such modeling needs to address the full set of footprint and handprint dimensions including climate change, water consumption, emissions of health-harming pollutants to air, water, and soils; land-use impacts and other insults to biodiversity and ecosystem health; depletion of non-renewable and renewable resources, and so-on.
The purpose of ORACLE is to improve decisions that have environmental and health impacts. This is done by providing practical information that is designed for particular situations, especially water consumption and quality, and life cycle of climate-relevant actions XXXX Sounds strange. The information is provided openly on a website, where it can be freely used, copied, and modified for other similar situations. In addition, it can be criticised, and information is updated if criticism is successful according to defined rules.
#: . Provide means to waterworks and policy makers on different levels means (tools, knowledge, practices) to make improved decision and take improved actions... ? --Mikko Pohjola 11:28, 7 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)
Opasnet workspace and Handprinter are versatile tools for all kinds of decision support, modelling, and life cycle assessment. Therefore there is a great potential for these tools to spread to many different disciplines. However, the ORACLE project focusses on implementing these tools in water and climate issues, because they are important issues as such, but also because they serve as good areas of implementation and demonstration of the functionalities in general.
#: . Handprinter is a practical tool for assessing/exploring/analysing the climate/environmental impacts of decisions, actions and events with a life-cycle approach (not a tool for life-cycle assessment of climate-relevant actions)? --Mikko Pohjola 11:28, 7 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)
Actions related to water quality are described in Action 1. Actions related to climate change are described in Action 2.
The project will be based on the model Water Guide (Action 1) and Handprinter (life cycle and climate change, Action 2).
#: . both applied within Opasnet web-workspace? --Mikko Pohjola 11:28, 7 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)
The Water Guide is an online computational model and guidance document about microbial and chemical health impacts of drinking water, starting from raw water sources and going all the way to water distribution system. The model estimates microbial and chemical concentrations and health risks of a raw water source with specified quality and some particular water purification systems. The Water Guide has been developed by THL in previous projects, and it has been successfully used in case studies.
This is an important issue, as climate change will change raw water sources. In some areas such as in Finland, precipitation will likely increase. This will add contamination events caused by surface water leakages into raw water systems. In addition, the sewage and rain water share pipes in many areas. This leads to water overflows in sewage treatment plants during heavy rains. All in all, the changing climate makes it more important to keep up the quality of natural water systems. The Water Guide produces information for this task.
On the other hand, dry periods convert groundwater flow, which can cause microbiological problems, and they may affect raw water quality.
Water Guide is used to guide the production of Water Safety Plans in three waterworks in Finland. #: . risk assessments as a part of developing WSPs? --Mikko Pohjola 11:28, 7 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)
This work is planned, evaluated, and improved by using the method developed in THL.
The evaluation is used to improve the Water Guide and the #: . knowledge practices of the waterworks. --Mikko Pohjola 11:28, 7 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)
Discussion about Handprinter
The project is designed to implement existing models in decision situations that are environmentally relevant. ORACLE will produce information about how to implement the models and what guidance or additional information is needed so that the models can be effectively implemented in new situations. The guidance and information is produced in ORACLE and translated into English, French, Spanish, and German for maximal availability of the method.
#: . I think the handprinter action will become more practical, meaningful and connected with water action if also some cases of Finnish city-level policies/decisions/actions are included in the analysis in addition to the European festivals and events. --Mikko Pohjola 11:28, 7 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)
SOCIO-ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
#: . Reduced adverse health effects through good WSPs? --Mikko Pohjola 11:32, 7 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)
#: . Potential for reduced climate/environmental impacts through improved capacity of evaluation and management of decisions, actions and events? --Mikko Pohjola 11:32, 7 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)
The project work itself does not have a large carbon footprint. It mostly consists of travels to meetings abroad. These are organised yearly somewhere in Europe, but most communication is organised online. Also all material produced, including lectures, are made available online, so that instead of long travelling, videos and social media can be used.
Handprinter will be used to assess the carbon footprint of the project and to evaluate different ways of organising it with as small footprint as possible. These ways are then published for other people to use.
#: . Demonstration and pilot implementation of new means (tools, knowledge, practices) for management of water safety risks, climate/environmental impacts of event organization, and climate/environmental impacts of city-level deisions and actions. The means are (in principle) applicable everywhere in EU on all levels of governance. --Mikko Pohjola 11:38, 7 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)
The added value comes from improved actions from waterworks and events. However, the implementation of Opasnet, Water Guide, and Handprinter within the project is only a small part of the actual potential. The case studies demonstrate the functionality and give feedback for producing guidance material needed. The project can also disseminate information about the availability of these functionalities. However, the largest added value will become from the large scale use of the methods and practices provided by the project for outside users.
#: . A marketing plan is needed. XXX Greg: do you have expertise in writing something? --Jouni 23:48, 6 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)
Environment and health: Opasnet as a whole contains several functionalities to support this: assessment environment, large encyclopedia, guidance documents for making assessments (from Intarese if we take the content), IRIS, Ebode etc data to be utilised in assessments, decision support system, Avary to support nowcomers' work (this should be made official?!)
Innovation: Opasnet offers a perfect platform for support innovative policy approaches and technologies. Contact: THL, provide, develop, and market the policy support system. Handprinter: to measure the impacts of actions by policy makers (municipalities, governments.,,,), NGOs and citizens. Contacts: THL, role: Opasnet development and offering of platform; CII, role: offering and development of Handprinter.
Strategic approaches: To promote effective implementation and enforcement of Union environmental legislation and improve the knowledge base for environmental policy; to improve the environmental performance of SMEs.
STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED AND TARGET AUDIENCES OF THE PROJECT OTHER THAN PROJECT PARTICIPANTS
#: . "Indicate the stakeholders the proposal intends to involve and how. Please indicate which kind of input you want for their involvement. Describe target groups and methods for dissemination of knowledge. Comments on activities for general publicity and/or marketing of the concept during and after the implementation." (Page 19. LIFE+ Environment Policy and Governance, Guidelines for applicants 2012, Part 2 - Application forms) --Jouni 23:48, 6 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)
In addition, ORACLE has stakeholders. They are not partners, but they are interested parties that participate in meetings, education workshops and implementing methods.
The aim is to involve municipalities and waterworks that don't have the resources to become partners, but still are interested in implementing the tools available. These contacts are invited to project seminars and their travel costs to them are reimbursed. New municipalities and waterworks are actively recruited during the project. The interested municipalities and waterworks can also invite and expert to come to help them with the tools available within the project.
The tools available in this project are products of previous projects and the contact persons of these projects are one important group of stakeholders. "Urgenche" (Urban Reduction of GHG Emissions in China and Europe) is one of these projects. The aim of Urgenche is to develop and apply a methodological framework for the assessment of the overall risks and benefits of alternative greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction policies for health and well-being in China and Europe. Urgenche is an ongoing project and to ensure the distiction between the projects, the tools developed in Urgenche are tested and verified in other municipalities than partners of Urgenche.
#: . Vesioppaan tulevia käyttäjiä voisivat olla WSP:n käyttäjät. Vesioppaan osalta kiinnostavia käytännön ongelmia talousveden laadun suhteen ovat ääritilanteet jotka liittyvät ilmastonmuutokseen ovat esim. rankkasateet. Tällöin veden mikrobiologinen laatu heikkenee ja raakaveden sameus lisääntyy, ja suositellut lisäpuhdistustoimet, kuten UV-desinfiointi ei välttämättä riitä lisääntyneen sameuden vuoksi. Kemialliselta puolelta mangaani nousevana terveysongelmana. --Päivi Meriläinen 16:05, 17 August 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)
Urgenche, Clive Sabel: Urgenche energy, emission, and urban models #: . not (so) relevant in current plan? --Mikko Pohjola 11:43, 7 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)
HSL, composite traffic (this could be an implementing partner if we can organise this within a month, which is unlikely due to lack of previous personal contacts)
SYKE/Policy analysis unit #: . They might be national users but in the current project structure, they don't have a meaningful major role as a partner (e.g. as an action leader). --Jouni 12:48, 23 August 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant attack)
Contact person in Kuopion ympäristötoimisto: Erkki Pärjälä
City of Rauma (yleiskaava/sataman laajennuksen TVA)
Nordem Oy: Mikko Pohjola #: . Naming as a stakeholder may be bad for subcontracting plans! --Mikko Pohjola 11:43, 7 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant attack)
Evaluation of implementation projects and assessment methods.
Monitoring of the impact of project actions (obligatory)
#: . (From LIFE+ Environment Policy and Governance, Guidelines for applicants 2012, Part 1 - Content of the proposal)
All projects will have to include monitoring actions.
The implementation actions (B actions) must lead to a measurable improvement of the state of the environment targeted by the project. Monitoring these effects should take place throughout the project and its results should be evaluated on a regular basis. In this regard, every project proposal must contain an appropriate amount of monitoring activities in order to measure the project's impact on the environmental problem targeted. These activities are distinct of the monitoring of the project progress (E actions). For this purpose, the project management should identify specific indicators to be used to measure the impact of the project. These indicators should be coherent with the environmental problem addressed and the type of activities planned during the project. The initial situation from which the project starts should be assessed and progress should be regularly evaluated against it. The monitoring of the project impact on the environmental problem should allow the project management either to confirm the adequacy of the developed means to address the specific problems and threats, or to question these means and alternatively develop new ones. At the end of the project, the beneficiaries should be able to quantify the progress achieved, in terms of impact on the targeted environmental problem.
In addition, each proposal must include an action aimed to assess the socioeconomic impact of the project actions on the local economy and population. This can take the form of a study consolidating the data and results over the project lifetime, to be delivered with the Final Report. Projects should aim to increase social awareness and acceptance of the benefits of protecting the environment. Examples of positive effects of the project are: direct or indirect employment growth, enhancement of other activities (e.g. ecotourism) aimed to develop supplementary income sources, offsetting social and economic isolation, raising the profile of the area/region, resulting in increasing the viability of the local community (especially in rural areas). --Jouni 23:48, 6 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)
Communication and dissemination actions (obligatory)
LIFE+ Environment Policy & Governance projects are innovative and/or demonstration projects (except where they concern the comprehensive, long-term, harmonised monitoring of forests). They must include a significant set of actions to disseminate the results of the project so that the knowledge gained is actively communicated to those targeted stakeholders that may best make use of it and apply the lessons from the project.
information activities regarding the project to the general public and stakeholders aimed at facilitating the implementation of the project
awareness and dissemination actions aimed at publicising the project and its results both to the general public and to other stakeholders that could usefully benefit from the project's experience and implement themselves the innovative actions demonstrated in the project.
The range of possible actions is large (media work, organisation of events for the local European Union, didactic work with local schools, seminars, workshops, brochures, leaflets, newsletters, DVDs, technical publications, …), and those proposed should form a coherent package. To be effective, these actions should in general begin early on in the project. Each communication and dissemination action must clearly define and justify its target audience, and should be expected to have a significant impact. The organisation of large and costly scientific meetings or the financing of large-scale visitor infra-structures is not eligible.
Note that certain communication actions are obligatory (project web site, notice boards …) and should therefore be explicitly foreseen in the proposal. See Article 13 of the Common Provisions: "Communication actions …" for full details.
Please see also for detailed advice on communication and dissemination actions. --Jouni 23:48, 6 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)
EXPECTED CONSTRAINTS AND RISKS RELATED TO THE PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND HOW THEY WILL BE DEALT WITH
CONTINUATION / VALORISATION OF THE PROJECT RESULTS AFTER THE END OF THE PROJECT
Which actions will have to be carried out or continued after the end of the project? How will this be achieved, what resources will be necessary to carry out these actions? To what extent will the results and lessons of the project be actively disseminated after the end of the project to those persons and/or organisations that could best make use of them (please identify these persons/organisations)?
TECHNICAL APPLICATION FORMS Part C – detailed technical description of the proposed actions
LIST OF ALL PROPOSED ACTIONS A. Preparatory actions (if needed) B. Implementation actions C. Monitoring of the impact of the project actions (obligatory) #: . Pitääkö seurannan olla omana actionina vai voiko olla sulautettuna muihin? Nythän suunnitelma on, että osa seurannasta sisältyy actioneihin 1 ja 2 niihin keskeisesti kuuluvan evaluaation muodossa. --Mikko Pohjola 12:09, 7 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)
#: . Kyllä pitää olla omana kohtanaan, koska sähköinen hakemuslomake on rakennettu siten. --Jouni 22:24, 7 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant defense)
D. Communication and dissemination actions (obligatory) E. Project management and monitoring of the project progress (obligatory)
ACTION 1: Drinking water
Leader: Ilkka Miettinen, THL
To provide tools and support to water risk assessment and management implementation plans related to Water Safety Plans (WSP).
To make implementation plans for three waterworks using open assessment and the Water Guide.
Tasks and person-months: Total XX pm
THL 22-24 pm?
SYKE 4-6 pm?
Mikkeli waterworks 6 pm
Siilinjärvi waterworks 4 pm
Kuopio waterworks 4 pm
#: . * Vesipuitedirektiivi sisältää uimavesidirektiivin, virkistyskäytön, vedenhankinnan. Tarjoaa siis hyvän hallinnollisen viitekehyksen tarkasteluille.
Jätevesien ylijuoksutus rankkasateissa, koska hulevedet usein menevät jätevesiviemäreihin: seurauksena mikrobien ja ravinteiden pääsy ympäristöön. --Jouni 23:48, 6 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)
Water: Implementation of Water Guide model in several waterworks in Finland. Modelling of climate change induced problem of raw water. Contacts: SYKE, role: modelling of natural water systems in relation to climate change, partner in Life+; example cities: Kuopio, Mikkeli, Siilinjärvi, role: test and implement Water Guide and natural water models in decision making in the city.
Beneficiary responsible for implementation: THL
Other participating beneficiaries: (Action leaders) SYKE, Waterworks
Timeline: months 0-48
In this action the tool for water risk management will be tested, evaluated and applied for new water management purposes. The target waterwork include ground water, artificially recharging ground water and surface water works, which cover all drinking water production types used. The aim of the drinking water risk assessment and management tools is to estimate and quantify the health risks associated with harmful microbes and chemicals present in drinking and recreational waters. The exposure assessment data including the concentrations of harmful substances in water from water treatment plants is linked to health risk assessment. Subsequently, the mitigation possibilities can be evaluated with this tool aiming at reducing the public health risk derived from consuming water intended for drinking or from other exposure to contaminated water.
Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment (QMRA) will combine these aspects for estimating overall microbiological risks [ref,ref]. Integrated health assessment models developed in HIWATE and INTARESE projects and water quality based health risk model (POLARIS) have been further developed into a web based water management tool VESIOPAS to investigate health risks of different microbial agents and chemicals. The integrated health risk of drinking water from sources to consumer tap with integrated and open assessment methods have been obtained to increase awareness and stakeholder participation to strengthen the societal acceptance of risk assessment. Open assessment as a novel method (Opasnet, [ref]) directed at improving the effectiveness of impact assessments will be employed. The assessment tool involves a chain of model results and descriptions that contain contaminant emission sources, transport, exposure, and health effect estimates and conditional on management options assessed in a probabilistic Monte Carlo based modelling tool which can also include uncertainty and value of information analyses. Water Guide tool gives direct health risk estimates which can be used to supplement water safety plans, a legislative requirement which is in planning phase at the moment and will be implement in Finland in the near future (2015-2017). This action will evaluate whether the Water Guide can give the useful risk estimated for WSP and other water sector related administrative requirements.
In this action the following tasks will be done:
Task 1.1 Introducing the wiki based risk assessment tool “Water Guide” to partner waterworks. Water Guide will be introduced to waterworks in a seminar and instruction on how to conduct risk assessment related with their own water drinking water production chain. Preliminary quidency is given to identify the major chemical and microbial threats of drinking water.
Task 1.2 (D 1)Implementing and testing risk assessment tool Water Guide in interested target waterworks with support from Action 3 (Task 3.x). On site instruction will be given to show on how to collect information needed for the Water Guide and risk assessment, how to manage the data and how to conduct the risk assessment in each partner waterworks. This task compose one of the major tasks in Action 1. The main effort for the waterworks is to identify and assess the information concerning the threats relevant for each water treatment phase in the water works. Finnish Environmental Centre (SYKE) will provide their knowledge of surface and ground water supplies and threats (flooding/drought periods) related with them. The threat scenarios originating from climate change will be included into this process.
Task 1.3 Updating and improving Water Guide to be applied in new areas in water risk assessment.
Korjaavat toimenpiteet Task 1.3 arvioinnin tuloksena (?)
Comments from water works
Co-operation with SYKE raw water supplies and threats related with them
Task 1.4 Implementing Water Guide in stakeholder waterworks
vaikea paikka – Waterwork will apply the Water Guide and knowledge derived from Water Guide in order to carry out Water Safety Plans (WSP) – kova vaatimus vesilaitoksille velvoittaa heitä toteuttamaan WSP (ei välttämättä ihan vielä ajankohtainen siinä vaiheessa kun projekti päättyy).
#: . Onko tosiaan liikaa tavoiteltu tämän projektin puitteissa? Riittääkö, että task 1.5:n kautta tehdään SH vesilaitoksia tietoisiksi ja tarjotaan välineitä, tietoa ja osaamista hyödynnettäväksi projektin ulkopuolella? --Mikko Pohjola 21:06, 4 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)
#: . Voi olla liian kunnianhimoista, mutta voimmehan sanoa että kiinnostuneilla laitoksilla tehtäisiin Vesioppaan avulla alustava riskinarviointi (kiinnostuneita tuskin on liikaa, jos yhtään). --Päivi Meriläinen 21:12, 6 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)
#: . Kuulostaa hyvältä. --Mikko Pohjola 12:09, 7 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)
Task 1.5 (D2)Evaluation and support to planning, execution, development and dissemination of risk assessment process. This task is organised by THL (units MEKA and YMAL), in collaboration with a subcontractor.
Evaluoinnin näkökulma perustuu THL:lla kehitettyihin menetelmiin, esim. properties of good assessment (PoGA), relational evaluation approach (REA), dimensions of openness (DO) ja TEKAISU-hankkeessa mm. näiden pohjalta kehitettävään kokonaisvaltaiseen arviointien ja käytäntöjen evaluoinnin ja hallinnan menetelmään.
#: . Täsmennän suunnitelmaa kunhan olen nähnyt edes jonkinlaisen kelvollisen kuvaus action 2:sta ja voin kunnolla miettiä minkälaiseksi evaluaatiotyö koknaisuudessaan muodostuu. --Mikko Pohjola 12:09, 7 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant attack)
In task 1.1: Ex ante evaluation: purpose/goal definitions, choice of evaluation measures, co-development of assessment process and implementation plan
pitkälti rakentuu yhteisten keskustelujen pohjalle
In task 1.2: Evaluation of the applicability of the tool, evaluation of the success of the implementation of the risk assessment process, evaluation of the effectiveness of the tool and the process
kysely(jä), itse-evaluointia, projektivastaavien tekemää analyysiä
In task 1.4, 1.5, 1.6: Re-evaluation (Ex post) and application of evaluation results to improvement and dissemination of the tool and the process
AG meetings will review of the project on a regular basis. However, should any difficulties arise; partners involved will immediately inform the responsible action leader.
Measurement and documentation of the effectiveness of the project actions as compared to the initial situation, objectives and expected results. #: . Probably necessitates some kind of a starting point analysis as a part of the evaluation. --Mikko Pohjola 12:09, 7 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)
Main indicators #: . On one hand i) implementation of action (project follow-up), on the other hand ii) success of action (evaluation) --Mikko Pohjola 12:09, 7 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)
Web-based questionnaire to target waterworks and other collaborating stakeholders on the progress and usefulness and progress of the project
mid-term reports – itsearviointi – kokemusten kerääminen – työn edistymisen arviointi
evaluation results in all phases
#: . Results ja indicators pitää olla linjassa aiemmin mainittujen action, results & outputs, ja obkectives listausten kanssa (kaikissa actioneissa). --Mikko Pohjola 12:09, 7 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)
Role in project Daily rate Number of person days Direct personnel costs
Senior researcher 400
Computer designer 250
Project co-ordinator 205
Laboratory supervisor 265
Senior laboratory technician 215
Laborant 190
Destination Purpose, number of trips and persons travelling Travel costs Subsistence Travel and subsistence
Budget breakdown categories Eligible costs % of eligible costs
Action 2: Climate policy implementation
Leader: Gregory Norris?
To provide tools and support to make life cycle assessments of actions using Handprinter.
To make implementation plans using open assessment.
Tasks and person-months:
#: . How to organise support for city stakeholders (Kuopio is the only confirmed at the moment; other possibilities are Lahti, HSY, Rauma, Mikkeli)? The cities themselves are not paid, but training support by partners is planned. Should we reserve funding for direct support by ORACLE to work on stakeholder case studies? --Jouni 01:14, 10 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)
A focus of the proposed project it to implement Handprinter and Opasnet in several case studies on different topics, and then to develop, test, and refine methods to facilitate and encourage a researcher groundswell in using Opasnet in this way. We propose to do so in a set of concurrent and focused pilot projects which each address a specific region, a specific handprinting user community, and a specific subdomain of environmental impact assessment.
Phase 1 (A: preparatory actions): Development of audience-specific Handprinter portal capabilities to serve each of the pilots reasonably well:
One in German that is particularly relevant to the concert-going audience
One in French which is particularly relevant to youth and the actions that they can take, with diet, transport, and urban ecosystem enhancement as their major avenues for action;
One in English (and Finnish?) which is particularly relevant to local governments seeking to understand the potential environmental and economic benefits of preserving open space;
One in English and another European language, which is relevant to companies whose employee engagement programs collect ideas for improving the eco-efficiency of their operations. Would propose to pilot this with DHL (in any European country – DHL's North American arm has approached Handprinter and expressed interest to do this) and with InfoSys, of India, which has also approached us to explore application within their company.
Phase 2: Begins with a needs assessments on the model supply side, for each of the pilots, based on outreach and enagement with researchers and analysts who specialize in the specific subdomain of EIA.
Phase 3: Based on the needs assessments, we will create basic, pilot-community-specific portals for Opasnet, each of which will also be pre-loaded with as much as possible of supportive (transparent) underlying data resources. For example, portals for the LCA-related pilot (numbers 1, xxx) will have the OpenIO model for environmentally-comprehensive input/output LCA to draw upon.
Phase 4: First round of implementation: outreach to communities of analysts and researchers.
Phase 5: Incorporate results from each pilot into the designs of all interfaces, and re-test.
Summary of proposed Pilots
Case 1: German-speaking consumers influenced by the 2013 Summer events season.
Geography: Germany, Austria, and German-speaking Switzerland.
Actions: Personal actions that individual consumers can take, particularly related to reductions or shifts in consumption
Impacts modeling: Life Cycle Assessment methods and databases.
Researcher/Analyst community: LCA experts on this project, plus post-docs, graduate students, students involved in LCA courses in Cyprus, Finland, US, Montreal, and where else?
Case 2: French-speaking primary school students in 5th and 6th grade
Geography: Montreal, Quebec, and Paris, France.
Actions: Actions that urban youth can take, with a focus on three areas: diet, mobility, and care-giving / enhancement of urban parks.
Impacts modeling: Life Cycle Assessment methods and databases; also environmental and any health impacts related to urban micro-ecosystems.
Case 3: Local governments (and land / open space preservation organizations) seeking to understand economic and environmental consequences of open space preservation
Geography: Ex-urban settings in Europe and North America where pressures are particularly strong to convert land from natural or agricultural use to commercial or residential development.
Actions: Shifts or preservation of natural and/or agricultural land use, for moderately-sized parcels, as an alternative to commercial or residential development.
Impacts modeling: Environmental (including biodiversity-related) impacts of alternative land uses; and economic (particularly net fiscal) consequences of alternative land uses. Research indicates that although commercial and residential land use can increase the tax base relative to open space or agricultural use, the longer-term costs of the increases services required (e.g., schools, roads, fire protection, etc.) exceed the tax revenue increases.
Researcher/Analyst community: Researchers on biodiversity and landuse, including coastal zones; economic impact assessment.
Case 4: Company Employee Engagement Programs
Geography: India (in English) and a selected European Country (plan for DHL)
Actions: Actions which increase the eco-efficiency of operations for two sorts of companies: one (in a pilot with InfoSys) related to knowledge-workers; and one (in a pilot with DHL) related to logistics (warehousing and transportation).
#: . I wonder if the ORACLE system for impact estimation related to water might be integrated into the impact estimation described in the attached, as a special 5th case study, devoted to water-related impacts.
Please see what you think after you review the attached. I've not yet added estimates of hours, because I feel we need to discuss the research scope and plan first.
Also, please note that the research proposed is more broad than climate impacts (in reference to what is now noted in the web page). --Gregory Norris 08:07, 8 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)
#: . Looks very interesting. I would still also like to see, if applicable, a case study addressing Finnish city-level policies (e.g. Kuopio & Rauma). Also a more explicit interface with the water action would be good, as Greg also brings up above. --Mikko Pohjola 10:03, 8 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)
#: . The first thought after the first reading of the action 2 plan it seems that the evaluation task in this action would focus on the applicability of the tool and comparing the approach with the modeling approach applied in Vesiopas in action 1. --Mikko Pohjola 10:03, 8 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)
#: . Of course the effectiveness of the cases need to scrutinized, but it is hard to say how much I would be able to contribute to the cases, and how much would be evaluable beyond the estimates provided by the Handprinter itself. --Mikko Pohjola 10:03, 8 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant comment)
I would suggest that we work on various pilots of application and advancement of the open assessment framework to the modeling of a few categories of "handprint actions", and if needed, we can stress the German-speaking European context for the first year, along perhaps with another geographic region (Finland? Cyprus, John?)
The ideas are, very briefly:
Handprinter exists, and is advancing, as a platform by which individuals and organizations and communities assess their multi-dimensional footprint, and then perform (and propose) actions which create positive benefits on potentially ALL of the dimensions of environmental concern mentioned in the Life+ page.
Handprinter, like Opasnet, is open in architecture, allowing and encouraging users to submit ideas for new handprint actions.
When new actions are proposed, we will rely on volunteer experts using the OpAsNet infrastructure to collaboratively build and continually refine models that help users (humanity) to estimate the full impacts of these actions.
We anticipate a major collaboration with organizers of German-speaking events (music festivals, concerts, cinema, etc. ) [Thus, in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria] during summer 2013, in which these events will seek to engage their participants in collaboratively ensuring that each of these events is net-positive in environmental impact, on as many dimensions as possible, starting with climate change. They will do this by minimizing their footprints, but then encouraging participants to use Handprinter, to learn about, commit to, and build more widespread momentum around, creative actions (at home, work, and community) which bring environmental benefits.
A focus of my participation in this project could be working to support the maximum possible effectiveness of harnessing Opasnet -- and researchers from around the world -- to provide a body of voluntary analysts and modelers to ensure that the creative ideas generated by the German-speaking public, stemming from the Summer 2013 publicity, are well-characterized in terms of their impacts. Note that the timing of this proposal is quite well-suited, since we anticipate that Summer 2013 is just the starting point of a multi-year groundswell of public engagement, from German-speaking citizens radiating outward across the world in the years that follow.
#: . Greg -- I like the idea of starting with the German speaking areas of the EU and also doing Finland and Cyprus as demonstrations of the capability of Opasnet and Handprinter. We can harness CII students via practicum projects and maybe enlist a group of students in Finland to work in tandem with the Cypriots. -- John --Jouni 23:48, 6 September 2012 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: relevant defense)
Climate change: Urgenche energy balance and emission model is used on city level. The development is not done in this project but in Urgenche; instead, this project spreads the functionalities to cities not involved in urgenche. Contacts: Clive Sabel, role: exchange of information, not a partner in Life+, benefit: both projects gain credibility from each other.
Air: Urgenche energy balance and emission model is used to model emissions from energy in several case study cities in practical decision making situations (Kuopio, Mikkeli, Rauma,...)
Urban environment: Urgenche GIS buildings model is used to model city infrastructure (not in the beginning of project). Also composite traffic model is applied in developing urban environment, air quality, and climate mitigation all in one. Contacts: HSL, who is starting to implement composite traffic in small scale between university campuses, role: not a partner but a utiliser, info provider, and reality check.
Action 3: Open assessment
Leader: Juha Villman/Einari Happonen?
To give generic method support and provide technical functionalities
Task 1: Maintenance of Opasnet and Handprinter
Opasnet and Handprinter are existing web workspaces or tools for making online impact assessments and life cycle analyses. The hardware and software must be maintained during the whole duration of ORACLE. We also anticipate a large increase in the number of users and activity on these websites, so the capacity of the system must be increased during the project.
Hardware (cloud service) 3000 € per year
Software updates (work 60 person-days per year, computer designer) 15000 $ per year
Task 2: Documentation of the existing functionalities
Opasnet has already now (September 2012) versatile documenting, modelling, and data storage capabilities. Several large updates will be performed during the winter 2012-2013, e.g. an improved database with high-speed search from huge pieces of data, and a GIS-server with modelling and mapping georeferenced data. These updates will be available when ORACLE project starts. These systems have only been in researcher use, and the documentation of these functionalities has been minimal or lacking completely. Therefore, a major task in increasing user-friendliness is to document the systems properly. This will include evaluation of draft documentation with actual users in Actions 1 and 2 and updates needed. Also, some minor updates are anticipated to the functionalities themselves.
Documentation work (200 days in total for years 1-2, 40 + 40 days for year 3 + 4) 35000 € + 15000 € + 10000 € + 10000 €
Travel to meetings: 1000 € per year
Action 4: Dissemination and external partner support
Leader: Päivi Meriläinen
To make the project widely known and attractive.
To recruit and give support to external partners (organisations that are not partners of the project).
General project dissemination:
Informing Finnish water sector about Water Guide: Web-site – Water Guide open for all stakeholders (month 1-48; 3 pm), Introduction seminar about Water Guide (month 5, 1 pm); Stakeholder seminar: experts, regulators and operators will be invited to participate (month 36; 2 pm)
On site-support on risk assessment: Person that visits waterworks, helps to collect data and assists on conducting the risk assessments.
In this action the general project dissemination including.... will be conducted. Seminars on introducing the water risk assessment tool "Water Guide" will be held yearly for different stakeholder groups. Additionally an on site support person will visit the target waterworks to help collect necessary data for risk assessment and also assist to conduct the risk assessment using "Water Guide" at the target waterworks.
Action 5: Management
The work in task 5.1 will continue during the whole duration of the project.
The management structure consist of a Project Manager, a Project Coordinator and a Steering Board. There is a sketch about the organization of ORACLE in figure 5.1.
The Project Manager will work as a the contact person towards policy makers and other stakeholders. He will be administrating the overall budget and financial tasks of ORACLE. He will ensure that all operative tasks are met in compliance with agreed time schedules and resource allocations. He will perform the needed adjustments to them. He will be chairing the Steering Board and monitoring and implementing the decisions done in Steering board meetings.
The technical coordination of the actions will be done by the Project Manager. He will ensure the smooth and efficient information flow between the actions.
Dr. Jouni Tuomisto will be the Project Manager.
The Project Coordinator will collect, review and distribute information about the progress of the planned activities, milestones and deliverables. She will be collecting documents for reports and edit them to final form and report the financial statements and related certification to the European Commission. She will arrange the project workshops and the Steering Board meetings. She will prepare agendas and meeting minutes for the Steering Board meetings.
Ms. Laura Hiltunen will be the Project Coordinator.
The Steering Board will be in charge of operational management and supervisory body for the execution of project ORACLE. The Steering Board will ensure the sufficient work and data flow between the actions. The Steering board shall be responsible for deciding the technical roadmaps and providing relevant data for the reporting.
The Steering Board will meet every six months. Before every meeting the Steering Board members will collect information about the status of different tasks, milestones and deliverables. The members of the Steering Board are listed in table 5.1.
Partner Name of member Role
THL Jouni Tuomisto Chair
THL Laura Hiltunen Secretary
Project coordinator 205
Steering board teleconferences
Catering for the Steering Board meetings
Action 6: Audit
Leader: Jouni Tuomisto, deputy: Laura Hiltunen
Financial audit of project costs.
Name of the Deliverable Number of the associated action Deadline
Drinking water risk assessments at target waterworks D1 M24
Water Guide evaulation D2 M40
Name of the Milestone Number of the associated action Deadline
ACTIVITY REPORTS FORESEEN
Inception Report (to be delivered within 9 months after the project start);
Progress Reports n°1, n°2 etc. (if any; to ensure that the delay between consecutive reports does not exceed 18 months);
Mid-term Report with payment request (only for project longer than 24 months)
Final Report with payment request (to be delivered within 3 months after the end of the project)
Please indicate the deadlines for the following reports:Type of report Deadline
Type of report Deadline
Inception report 31.3.2014
Progress report 31.3.2015
Mid-term report 31.3.2016
Final report 30.9.2017
Retrieved from "http://en.opasnet.org/en-opwiki/index.php?title=Talk:Life%2B&oldid=26273"
This page was last edited on 11 September 2012, at 14:11.