Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:55:56.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Environmental Review: Environmental Decision Making in the Face of Uncertainty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2009

Bruce E. Tonn
Bruce E. Tonn*
Affiliation:
School of Planning, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and Energy Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
*
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Building 4500, PO Box 2001, Oak Ridge, TN 37831; (fax) 865-574-3895; (e-mail) [email protected].
Get access

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to help environmental practitioners deal with uncertainty. A simple model is presented that distinguishes between uncertainties about fact—past, present, and future—and indecision about what to do. To help environmental practitioners deal with these two problems, four tools or conceptual aides are presented. First presented is the “source of uncertainty” analysis method, which can help environmental practitioners understand the sources of uncertainty about facts. Second, a conceptual discussion of imprecise probability is presented to provide environmental practitioners with a method for understanding how to represent uncertainty quantitatively. The third tool presented is known as comprehensive life cycle analysis, which is a methodology to help environmental practitioners assess the full impacts of potential environmental decisions over multiple criteria and time. Fourth, a decision process framework is presented to help environmental practitioners understand when and how uncertainty and indecision can be attacked. The paper includes a discussion about how these four tools can be used by environmental practitioners to overcome seven common everyday problems they may face when confronted with the need to make environmental decisions under uncertainty. The paper also applies the four tools and relates the seven problems to the example of tropospheric ozone.

Type
Features & Reviews
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , June 2000 , pp. 188 - 202
Copyright
Copyright © National Association of Environmental Professionals 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Hacking, I., 1975, The Emergence of Probability, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.Google Scholar

2. Shafer, G., 1978, “Non-Additive Probabilities in the Work of Bernoulli and Lambert,” Archive for History of Exact Sciences 19:309–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. See Tonn, B. and Berry, L., 1996, “The Value of Imprecise Uncertainty Concepts and Methods for Evaluating DSM,” Journal of the Association of Energy Services Professionals 2(2):87–104Google Scholar. For a different approach, see Funtowicz, S. and Ravetz, J., 1990, Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy, Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. Shafer, G. 1976, A Mathematical Theory of Evidence, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar

5. Walley, P., 1991, Statistical Reasoning with Imprecise Probabilities, Chapman and Hall, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schmeidler, D., 1986, “Integral Representation Without Additivity,” Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 97:255–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fishburn, P., 1988, Nonlinear Preference and Utility Theory, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar

6. Additivity is expressed as P(A ∩ B) = Ø = > P(A ∪ B) = P(A) + P(B). Countable additivity is expressed as P(A1 ∪ A2 ∪ …) = P(A1) + P(A2) + …, for every infinite sequence A1, A2,… of pairwise disjoint events.

7. See Shannon (1948) for the original presentation of the entropy formula and Jaynes (1957) for the seminal discussion on maximizing entropy. Shannon, C., 1948, “A Mathematical Theory of Communication,” Bell System Technical Journal 27:379–423 and 623–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jaynes, E., 1957, “Information Theory and Statistical Mechanics,” Physical Review 106:620–630 and 108:171–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. Das, S., Dhingra, R., Tonn, B., Overly, J., Hadley, S., Jones, D., Wolfe, A., Vogt, D., and Schexnayder, S., 1999, New Generation (3XV) Materials Assessment, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.Google Scholar

9. See Keeney, R. and Raiffa, H., 1976, Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar; and von Winterfeldt, D. and Edwards, W., 1986, Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.Google Scholar

10. See Yuracko, K., Tonn, B., Morris, M., and Bishop, L., 1999, “Life Cycle Analysis System to Support D & D., Pollution Prevention, and Reindustrialization,” Proceedings of Waste Management '99, Tucson, AZ.Google Scholar

11. Tonn, B., English, M., and Travis, C., 2000, “A Framework for Understanding and Improving Environmental Decision Making,” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 43(2):165–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. Keeney, R., 1988, “Value-Focused Thinking and the Study of Values,” in Decision Making: Descriptive, Normative and Prescriptive Interactions, Bell, D., Raiffa, H., and Tversky, A., eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, pp. 465–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. See Bellah, R., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W., Swidler, W., and Tipton, S., 1992, The Good Society, Vintage Books, New York.Google Scholar

14. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., and Tversky, A., eds., 1982, Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge University Press, NY.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15. Slaughter, R., 1995, The Foresight Principle: Cultural Recovery in the Century, Praeger, Westport, CT.Google Scholar

16. Schwartz, P., 1991, The Art of the Long View, Doubleday, New YorkGoogle Scholar; and May, G., 1996, The Future Is Ours: Foreseeing, Managing, and Creating Future, Praeger, Westport, CT.Google Scholar

17. Coughlin, J., 1995, “Alternative Dispute Resolution in Electricity: Just Do It!,”, The Electricity Journal (11):68–75.Google Scholar

18. Heifetz, R., 1994, Leadership Without Easy Answers, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

19. For example, see Chechile, R., 1991, “Introduction to Environmental Decision Making,” in Environmental Decision Making: A Multidisciplinary Perspective, Chechile, R. and Carlisle, S. eds., Van Nostrand Reinhold, NY, oo. 1–13.Google Scholar

20. For example, see Keeney, R. and Raiffa, H., 1976, Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, Wiley, NY.Google Scholar

21. The appropriate one depends on the institutional context, the decisionmaking mode, and who has the ultimate decision-making authority. For example, in a conflict management situation, a decision is reached when parties come to a negotiated agreement. Voting can be used to reach decisions in many situations, from citizen referenda to boards of directors. Citizen juries are an innovative possibility for reaching decisions in some situations.

22. Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Layman, M., and Combs, B., 1978, “Causes of Death: Biased Newspaper Coverage and Biased Judgement,” Journalism Quarterly 56:837–843, 849.Google Scholar

23. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A., 1979, “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decisions Under Risk,” Econometrica 47:263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D., 1981, “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice,” Science 211:453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25. Tonn, B., Travis, C., and Goeltz, R., 1991, “Elicitation of Natural Language Representations of Uncertainty Using Computer Technology,” in Risk Analysis, Zervos, C., ed., Plenum Press, NY, pp. 143–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26. Tonn, B., Travis, C., Goeltz, R., and Phillippi, R., 1990, “Knowledge-Based Representations of Risk Beliefs,” Risk Analysis 10(1):169–184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

27. Tonn, B. and Peretz, J., 1997, “Field Notes on Using Risk in Environmental Decision Making: Lack of Credibility All Around,” Inside EPA's Risk Policy Report 4(6):33–36.Google Scholar

28. Das et al., op cit.

29. Keating, T. and Farrell, A., 1999, Multi-Stakeholder Air Quality Management Lessons from the Ozone Transport Assessment Group. National Center for Environmental Decision-Making Research, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.Google Scholar

30. Kelly, M., 2000, “Tomorrow in Brief,” The Futurist 34(2):2.Google Scholar