Search

Modelers involved in environmental policy assessments are commonly confronted with the lack of uptake of model output by policy actors. Actors have different expectations of models, condensed into three quality criteria: credibility, salience, and legitimacy. The fulfilment of quality criteria is also dynamic as expectations vary, change, and possibly counteract each other. We present a checklist for modelers involved in model-based assessments that is aimed at the identification and monitoring of issues, limitations and trade-offs regarding model quality criteria. It draws upon the literature of integrated assessments as well as case study analysis of environmental policy assessments for the Dutch government, based on expert interviews and embedded experience. The checklist is intended to be consulted during assessments; its application may result in greater awareness among modelers involved in assessments regarding model quality criteria, and may positively affect the uptake of model-based knowledge from environmental policy assessments by policy actors. Model credibility, salience and legitimacy are affected by various factors.Factors are summarized based on interviews, literature and a case study.A model evaluation checklist for modelers is presented to help detect such factors.The checklist may improve the uptake of model-based output by decision makers.

Dealing with uncertainty, in terms of analysis and communication, is an important and distinct topic for PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Without paying adequate attention to the role and implications of uncertainty, research and assessment results may be of limited value and could lead to incorrect policy decisions and all the related consequences.

L’expertise en matière de risques environnementaux complexes comme le changement climatique, la perte de la biodiversité ou les plantes génétiquement modifiées est souvent contestée (Funtowicz et Ravetz, 1990 ; Funtowicz, 2006). Des décisions doivent être prises avant que des preuves irréfutables ne soient disponibles, sachant que les potentiels impacts de mauvaises décisions peuvent être énormes. En l’absence de preuves concluantes, il n’est pas possible d’apporter de réponses à certaines questions. Ainsi, quel est le degré exact de probabilité de changements climatiques brusques induits par l’homme, comme une élévation non linéaire du niveau des mers ? Quel est le degré nécessaire d’atténuation des émissions de gaz à effet de serre, pour éviter une perturbation anthropique dangereuse du système climatique ? Quel sera l’impact des activités humaines sur la biodiversité ? Les agences gouvernementales et intergouvernementales qui informent le public de ces risques reconnaissent de plus en plus que les incertitudes et les désaccords doivent être traités de façon transparente et efficace. Le problème de l’incertitude dans le domaine de l’expertise peut être abordé de différentes manières. D’un côté, il existe des méthodes formelles d’analyse de la sensibilité et de l’incertitude, ainsi que des méthodes (par exemple, bayésiennes) permettant des inférences à partir d’éléments de preuves incertains. D’un autre côté, on admet de plus en plus que les incertitudes ne peuvent pas toutes être quantifiées ou traitées de façon formelle ; des approches complémentaires, réflexives, ont été élaborées pour étudier la qualité des preuves.

Het Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving (PBL) maakt bij beleidsevaluaties en verkenningen gebruik van numerieke rekenmodellen die - voor een deel – samen worden ontwikkeld met Wageningen UR. De complexiteit van deze rekenmodellen neemt in het algemeen steeds verder toe. Het idee daarbij is dat het toevoegen van meer processen en variabelen aan een model leidt tot een groter toepassingsgebied, nauwkeuriger uitkomsten en dus tot betere voorspellingen. WOT-paper 11 geeft een beschrijving van een methode om de balans tussen (de complexiteit van) een rekenmodel, de toepassing en de beschikbare data te verbeteren.

Scientific assessments of environmental problems, and policy responses to those problems, involve uncertainties of many sorts. Meanwhile, potential impacts of wrong decisions can be far-reaching. This article explores views on uncertainty and uncertainty communication in the Dutch science-policy interface and studies several issues concerning presentation of uncertainty information. Respondents considered uncertainty communication to be important, but it should be concise and policy relevant. Several factors influence policy relevance, including the place of an issue in the policy cycle, and its novelty, topicality and controversiality. Respondents held particular interest in explicit communication on the implications of uncertainty. Related to this, they appreciated information on different sources and types of uncertainty and qualitative aspects of uncertainty (e.g. pedigree charts). The article also studies probability terms, particularly for IPCC's 33–66% probability interval (‘about as likely as not’). Several terms worked reasonably well, with a median interpretation of 40–60%. Finally, as various target groups have different information needs and different amounts of attention for various parts of a report or communication process, it is important to progressively disclose uncertainty information throughout the communication. Improved communication of uncertainty information leads to a deeper understanding and increased awareness of the phenomenon of uncertainty and its policy implications.

Policy decisions on complex environmental risks often involve contested science. Typically there are no 'facts' that entail a unique correct policy. The evidence that is embodied in scientific policy advice requires quality assessment. Advice should be relevant to the policy issue, scientifically tenable and robust under societal scrutiny. In 2003, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency adopted a standardized method, referred to as 'guidance', whereby key quality aspects of knowledge production and use are exhibited through a checklist for uncertainty assessment and communication. Although the guidance is not fully used within all projects yet, it is increasingly used, attitudes towards dealing with uncertainty in performing and reporting environmental assessments have changed, and communication on uncertainty in the agency's reports has improved over the past five years. In this letter, we present results from the application of the guidance to controversies on the risks of ambient particulate matter. The active deliberation on uncertainty in the policy–advisory setting brings about a joint learning process for advisors and policy makers, which leads to a deeper understanding and increased awareness of the phenomenon of uncertainty and its policy implications.

In the daily practice of science for policy, as experienced by governmental agencies which inform the policy and the public on the state and outlook of the environment, there is a pressing need for guidance in assessing and communicating uncertainties. This need extends beyond the quantitative assessment of uncertainties in model results, and focuses on the entire process of environmental assessment, running from problem framing towards reporting the results of the study. Using the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (RIVM/MNP) as a case, the development, structure and content of such a guidance system is highlighted. Conditions for a successful implementation of the guidance system are discussed, and some prospects for future work are outlined.

Voor het monitoren van het ammoniakbeleid gericht op de landbouw is het van belang inzicht te hebben in de factoren die de hoogte van de ammoniakemissie beïnvloeden. Emissiefactoren en penetratie van emissiebeperkende technieken zijn voorbeelden van deze factoren. De vraag is wat het effect is van variatie rondom emissiefactoren en penetratiegraden op de hoogte van de ammoniakemissie. In het algemeen blijkt dat variatie rondom de emissiefactoren van meer invloed is op de hoogte van de ammoniakemissie dan de penetratiegraden van staltypen en mestaanwendingstechnieken. Deze conclusie geldt voor de monitoring van de ammoniakemissie op nationaal en provinciaal niveau. Op kleinere schaal kan de structuur van de landbouw sterk afwijken van het nationale c.q. provinciale beeld. Dit kan van invloed zijn op de prioriteitsstelling bij de verbetering van de monitoring van de ammoniakemissie.