IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envman/v25y2000i6d10.1007_s002670010050.html

Assessing Uncertainty in Estimates of Nitrogen Loading to Estuaries for Research, Planning, and Risk Assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Glynnis Collins

    (San Francisco Bay Conservation Development Commission, 30 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 2011, San Francisco, California 94102, USA)

  • James N. Kremer

    (Department of Marine Sciences, University of Connecticut at Avery Point, Groton, Connecticut 06340-6097, USA)

  • Ivan Valiela

    (Boston University Marine Program, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543, USA)

Abstract

Parametric (propagation for normal error estimates) and nonparametric methods (bootstrap and enumeration of combinations) to assess the uncertainty in calculated rates of nitrogen loading were compared, based on the propagation of uncertainty observed in the variables used in the calculation. In addition, since such calculations are often based on literature surveys rather than random replicate measurements for the site in question, error propagation was also compared using the uncertainty of the sampled population (e.g., standard deviation) as well as the uncertainty of the mean (e.g., standard error of the mean). Calculations for the predicted nitrogen loading to a shallow estuary (Waquoit Bay, MA) were used as an example. The previously estimated mean loading from the watershed (5,400 ha) to Waquoit Bay (600 ha) was 23,000 kg N yr−1. The mode of a nonparametric estimate of the probability distribution differed dramatically, equaling only 70% of this mean. Repeated observations were available for only 8 of the 16 variables used in our calculation. We estimated uncertainty in model predictions by treating these as sample replicates. Parametric and nonparametric estimates of the standard error of the mean loading rate were 12–14%. However, since the available data include site-to-site variability, as is often the case, standard error may be an inappropriate measure of confidence. The standard deviations were around 38% of the loading rate. Further, 95% confidence intervals differed between the nonparametric and parametric methods, with those of the nonparametric method arranged asymmetrically around the predicted loading rate. The disparity in magnitude and symmetry of calculated confidence limits argue for careful consideration of the nature of the uncertainty of variables used in chained calculations. This analysis also suggests that a nonparametric method of calculating loading rates using most frequently observed values for variables used in loading calculations may be more appropriate than using mean values. These findings reinforce the importance of including assessment of uncertainty when evaluating nutrient loading rates in research and planning. Risk assessment, which may need to consider relative probability of extreme events in worst-case scenarios, will be in serious error using normal estimates, or even the nonparametric bootstrap. A method such as our enumeration of combinations produces a more reliable distribution of risk.

Suggested Citation

  • Glynnis Collins & James N. Kremer & Ivan Valiela, 2000. "Assessing Uncertainty in Estimates of Nitrogen Loading to Estuaries for Research, Planning, and Risk Assessment," Environmental Management, Springer, vol. 25(6), pages 635-645, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:envman:v:25:y:2000:i:6:d:10.1007_s002670010050
    DOI: 10.1007/s002670010050
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s002670010050
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s002670010050?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:envman:v:25:y:2000:i:6:d:10.1007_s002670010050. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.