China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
An introduction to policy and policy development
Published in Mark Zacharias, Jeff Ardron, Marine Policy, 2019
With respect to the different aspects of policy that could be evaluated, Theodoulou and Kofinis (2004) proposed the following four types of policy evaluation: Process evaluations determine how well a policy (or program the policy established) is being administered and focus less on whether the policy is achieving its desired outcome. Process evaluations are generally undertaken by staff directly involved in the program in order to find administrative efficiencies in the delivery of the program. Outcome evaluations strive to measure outputs (e.g. number of ships compliant with mandated technologies) to demonstrate the degree of compliance with the policy. In other words, outcome evaluation is used to measure tangible and available results of the policy, often before the policy matures, to provide an indication of whether the policy is working as it should. Outcome evaluation is therefore not used to determine whether the policy has yet achieved its stated goals; rather, it measures tangible progress towards them. Impact evaluation evaluates whether the policy is achieving its stated objectives as the decision-makers intended. Impact evaluation is what most consider when thinking about policy appraisal and evaluates whether the policy is working and/or has produced unintended effects. Cost-benefit analysis assesses the financial costs of the policy (or program the policy creates) against the societal benefits. In particular, applying cost-benefit analysis to mature programs enables them to be modified. Also, they can be assessed against the economic analysis in the program formulation stage to determine how closely predictive cost-benefit models align with reality.
A new academic impact metric for evaluating geographic simulation models
Published in International Journal of Digital Earth, 2022
Kai Xu, Min Chen, Albert J. Kettner, C. Michael Barton, Barry F.W. Croke, Anthony J. Jakeman, Daniel P. Ames, Hsiao-Hsuan Wang, Susan M. Cuddy, Songshan Yue, Yongning Wen, Fengyuan Zhang, Yixuan Zhang, Guonian Lü
In this study, we demonstrate the academic impact of geographic simulation models using multiple indices, which are combined using a weighted sum method that can be used to quantify multiple impacts using an analytical hierarchy process (AHP). The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, the existing impact indices are reviewed. In Section 3, the concept of the evaluation method is introduced. In Section 4, the impact evaluation method is presented in detail. Section 5 provides an example of the implementation of the evaluation method. In Section 6, the evaluation method for the academic impact of geographic simulation models is verified by analysing the results. In Section 7, the methods used and results of this study are discussed, and the conclusions are presented in Section 8.
Carbon footprint and cost analysis of renewable hydrogen-fuelled ships
Published in Ships and Offshore Structures, 2023
Ibrahim S. Seddiek, Nader R. Ammar
Figure 6 shows the results of the impact evaluation of Aci. pot. and Eut. pot. for diesel and hydrogen-powered vessels. Diesel-powered vessels have higher Aci. pot. than the hydrogen-powered vessels. This is due to the high content of acidification effect substance in the life cycle of ships operated by diesel fuel. In addition, ship 2 has higher Aci. pot. than the two ships due to their high speed and power consumption. The emissions from ship 3 presented the next level after ship 2. Most of these emissions come from the tailpipe emissions released during fuel combustion in engines (PTW emissions). Eut. pot. emissions are the same as Aci. pot. impact emissions.
Quantitative assessment of severe accident management strategies in a nuclear power plant
Published in Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, 2018
A qualitative evaluation of all the 60 post-Fukushima action plans was done. The results showed that most of the action plans were not able to evaluate the qualitative safety impact using the PSA model. Four improvement countermeasures had a significant influence on the risk of a severe accident. These four improvement countermeasures are as follows: (1) MGTG, (2) PARs, (3) CFVS, and (4) external injection using portable pumps. Therefore, a quantitative safety impact evaluation of the four improvement countermeasures above was performed, and a comprehensive quantitative safety impact evaluation was also performed as well.