A method for the analysis of assumptions in model-based environmental assessments

When analysts do model-based scientific assessments of complex environmental problems, they have to make many assumptions. This inevitably involves - to some degree - subjective judgements by the analysts. Although the potential value-ladenness of model-based assessments has been extensively problematized in literature, this has not so far led to a systematic strategy for analyzing this value-ladenness. In this article, a new method is presented to identify, review, and prioritize assumptions in order to assess the potential value-ladenness of important assumptions and to deal with these potentially value-laden assumptions in an explicit and transparent manner. The potential value-ladenness of the assumptions is analyzed using a so-called pedigree matrix. The matrix addresses epistemic (general and discipline-bound) and non-epistemic (socio-political and practical) values. The method can be applied by the analysts doing the assessment in collaboration with peers and stakeholders or by external reviewers. Here, the method is illustrated for the modelling chain that was used to calculate the indicator 'death and emergency hospital admittances due to the exposure to ozone' in the Fifth Dutch Environmental Outlook. The weakest links of the calculation chain were identified through a workshop. This method for the analysis of assumptions enables the analysts to make conscious, well-underpinned, transparent choices, and pinpoints the issues in the chain that are important to communicate to the audience of the assessment report.

[1]  Michael H. Huesemann,et al.  The inherent biases in environmental research and their effects on public policy , 2002 .

[2]  Lae,et al.  Emissies en kosten tot 2030 bij het vastgesteldmilieubeleid. Achtergronddocument bij de Nationale Milieuverkenning 5 , 2001 .

[3]  Ayalew Kassahun,et al.  Quality assurance in model based water management - review of existing practice and outline of new approaches , 2005, Environ. Model. Softw..

[4]  J G Blom,et al.  Description of the 3d Lotos Model. Part I: Dynamics , .

[5]  J. P. van der Sluijs,et al.  Uncertainty as a monster in the science-policy interface: four coping strategies. , 2005, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[6]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  On science and Precaution in the Management of Technological Risk - An ESTO Project Report - Prepared for the European Commission - JRC Institute Prospective Technological Studies Seville , 1999 .

[7]  Stephen H. Schneider,et al.  Integrated assessment modeling of global climate change: Transparent rational tool for policy making or opaque screen hiding value‐laden assumptions? , 1997 .

[8]  Arthur C. Petersen,et al.  Uncertainty assessment of the IMAGE/TIMER B1 CO2 emissions scenario, using the NUSAP method , 2002 .

[9]  W. Walker,et al.  Defining Uncertainty: A Conceptual Basis for Uncertainty Management in Model-Based Decision Support , 2003 .

[10]  P. Kloprogge,et al.  A method for the analysis of assumptions in assessments , 2005 .

[11]  Jeroen P. van der Sluijs,et al.  A way out of the credibility crisis of models used in integrated environmental assessment , 2002 .

[12]  M.B.A. van Asselt,et al.  Perspectives on Uncertainty and Risk: The PRIMA Approach to Decision Support , 2000 .

[13]  J. A. Wardekker,et al.  Uncertainty Communication : Issues and good practice , 2007 .

[14]  S. Funtowicz,et al.  Science for the Post-Normal Age , 1993, Commonplace.

[15]  Jerome R. Ravetz,et al.  Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy , 1990 .

[16]  A. Petersen.  Simulating Nature: A Philosophical Study of Computer-Simulation Uncertainties and Their Role in Climate Science and Policy Advice, Second Edition , 2007 .

[17]  Jeroen P. van der Sluijs,et al.  Choice processes in modelling for policy support , 2002 .

[18]  Yves Laberge,et al.  Simulating nature: a philosophical study of computer-simulation uncertainties and their role in climate science and policy advice , 2013 .

[19]  I. Cartuja.  ON SCIENCE AND PRECAUTION IN THE MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGICAL RISK , 2000 .

[20]  Lars-Gunnar Lindfors,et al.  On the nordic guidelines for life cycle assessment , 1996 .

[21]  Bert Brunekreef,et al.  Daily Mortality and Air Pollution in the Netherlands , 2000, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[22]  Laura Maxim,et al.  Uncertainty: cause or effect of stakeholders' debates? Analysis of a case study: the risk for honeybees of the insecticide Gaucho. , 2007, The Science of the total environment.

[23]  S. Jasanoff,et al.  The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. , 1991 .

[24]  V. Dale,et al.  Science and Decisionmaking , 2002 .

[25]  Ângela Guimarães Pereira,et al.  RIVM/MNP Guidance for Uncertainty Assessment and Communication: Detailed Guidance , 2003 .

[26]  Joseph A. C. Delaney.  Sensitivity analysis , 2018, The African Continental Free Trade Area: Economic and Distributional Effects.

[27]  Anthony J. Jakeman,et al.  Ten iterative steps in development and evaluation of environmental models , 2006, Environ. Model. Softw..

[28]  G. Hornberger,et al.  Approach to the preliminary analysis of environmental systems , 1981 .

[29]  Silvio Funtowicz,et al.  Application of a checklist for quality assistance in environmental modelling to an energy model , 2005 .

[30]  Janssen Phm,et al.  Uncertainty and RIVM's Environmental Outlooks:Documenting a learning process , 2001 .

[31]  Warren E. Walker,et al.  Defining Uncertainty: A Conceptual Basis for Uncertainty Management in Model-Based Decision Support , 2003 .

[32]  Jerome R. Ravetz,et al.  Exploring the quality of evidence for complex and contested policy decisions , 2008 .

[33]  B Brunekreef,et al.  Daily mortality and air pollution in The Netherlands. , 2000, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[34]  N Oreskes,et al.  Verification, Validation, and Confirmation of Numerical Models in the Earth Sciences , 1994, Science.

[35]  Simon Shackley,et al.  Anchoring Devices in Science for Policy , 1998 .

[36]  Peter A. Vanrolleghem,et al.  Uncertainty in the environmental modelling process - A framework and guidance , 2007, Environ. Model. Softw..

[37]  Eerens Hc,et al.  Grootschalige luchtverontreiniging en depositie in de Nationale Milieuverkenning 5 , 2002 .

[38]  Mnv.  Nationale Milieuverkenning 5, 2000-2030 , 2000 .

[39]  J. A. Wardekker,et al.  Uncertainty communication in environmental assessments: views from the Dutch science-policy interface , 2008 .

[40]  Andrew Stirling.  Inclusive deliberation and scientific expertise: precaution, diversity and transparency in the governance of risk , 2001 .

[41]  Arthur C. Petersen,et al.  Towards guidance in assessing and communicating uncertainties , 2005 .

[42]  S. Rayner,et al.  Human choice and climate change , 1998 .

[43]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Technical analysis of IIASA energy scenarios , 1984, Nature.

[44]  Elizabeth L. Malone,et al.  The societal framework , 1998 .

[45]  Anne B. Knol,et al.  Expert elicitation: methodological suggestions for its use in environmental health impact assessments , 2008 .

[46]  S. Funtowicz,et al.  Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Measures of Uncertainty in Model‐Based Environmental Assessment: The NUSAP System , 2005, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.