Summary
of Individual Program Critiques
for the 2004 EMFI Field Program
(based on 4.0-point scale)
I. Technical Content of the Field Experience
A. Content
B. Range of topics covered
C. Pace
D. Opportunity to acquire
detailed information
E. Opportunity for discussion
with speakers
F. Opportunity for interaction
with participants
|
3.67
3.69
3.08
3.67
3.58
3.83 |
| |
|
II. Field Guide |
|
|
|
A. Content
B. Length
C. Illustrations
D. Clarity
E. Reference
value
|
3.61
3.55
3.43
3.52
3.58 |
| |
|
III. Logistics |
|
| |
|
A. Organization
B. Lodging
C. Food
D. Transportation
|
4.03
3.33
3.81
3.97 |
| |
|
| IV. EMFI Staff |
|
| |
|
A. Helpful
B. Cooperative
C. Knowledgeable
|
3.94
3.94
4.03 |
| |
|
| V. Value of
Field Experience |
|
| |
|
A. Professional value
B. Educational value
C. Enjoyable
|
3.75
3.80
3.86 |
| |
|
| VI. Overall
evaluation of the Field Program |
3.88 |
Open-ended
Questions
1) In your opinion, what
were the most significant strengths of the Program?
- Access to leaders and production
facilities.
- Hands-on experiences.
- Opportunity to see the environmental
context, including the geologic features of the area.
- Diversity of background
in participants.
- Mix of participants.
- Chance to interact with
participants from other offices.
- Finding out what other government
agencies do.
- Knowledge of the staff.
- The knowledge and field
experience of the EMFI staff who make this so much more than a "kick-the-tires
and windshield" tour.
- The range of issues and
on-site experience was exceptional and views from the bus could not be better.
2) In your opinion, what
were the most significant weaknesses of the Program?
- Time was our enemy
- Never seemed to be enough
time.
- A little rushed.
- There was a time constraint,
but this was to be expected.
- Time between events was
tight, the rush added to a sense of exhaustion towards the end of the day.
- Need representation by opposing
viewpoints.
- Need to hear opposing viewpoints.
- Lack of organized discussion
on conservation as energy strategy.
- Lack of discussion on long
term supply demand in U.S. and world.
- Lack of discussion about
environmental controversies.
- I can't find any - but maybe
longer and include other subject areas.
- More stops at scenic, cultural,
and historic locations.
- Just a bit too long.
- Nothing that EMFI could
control/improve.
- Couldn't think of any major
weaknesses.
3) Opportunities
- EMFI may have opportunities
fostering government-to-industry interaction.
- EMFI could be a player in
helping shape issues and solution regarding changes in mining law.
- Have participants give presentations
on their agencies and professional responsibilities.
- Include environmental community
spokespersons.
- Eastern U.S. field tours.
- Keep doing what you are
doing.
4) Any additional comments?
- This is a "must do"
for any government technocrat whose work in the area of energy and natural
resources affects public policy making!
- I would hope you can secure
funding from multiple sources to continue this valuable educational experience.
- Great experience!
- I want to thank the EMFI
staff for all of the behind the scenes coordination and logistics.
- Thanks!
- Thanks so much.
- Agencies need to think more
about how they select participants.
- Allow more opportunities
for interaction among the participants as a whole, rather than relying on
informal interactions.
- Involvement of responsible
critics - there's a sense that we're only getting one side of the story.
- Agencies could arrange for
speakers to complement the industry presentations.
- Provide a bibliography of
resources to read in preparation for the trip.
