IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v23y2003i6p1297-1308.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Model Uncertainty and Choices Made by Modelers: Lessons Learned from the International Atomic Energy Agency Model Intercomparisons

Author

Listed:
  • Igor Linkov
  • Dmitriy Burmistrov

Abstract

The treatment of uncertainties associated with modeling and risk assessment has recently attracted significant attention. The methodology and guidance for dealing with parameter uncertainty have been fairly well developed and quantitative tools such as Monte Carlo modeling are often recommended. However, the issue of model uncertainty is still rarely addressed in practical applications of risk assessment. The use of several alternative models to derive a range of model outputs or risks is one of a few available techniques. This article addresses the often‐overlooked issue of what we call “modeler uncertainty,” i.e., difference in problem formulation, model implementation, and parameter selection originating from subjective interpretation of the problem at hand. This study uses results from the Fruit Working Group, which was created under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) BIOMASS program (BIOsphere Modeling and ASSessment). Model‐model and model‐data intercomparisons reviewed in this study were conducted by the working group for a total of three different scenarios. The greatest uncertainty was found to result from modelers' interpretation of scenarios and approximations made by modelers. In scenarios that were unclear for modelers, the initial differences in model predictions were as high as seven orders of magnitude. Only after several meetings and discussions about specific assumptions did the differences in predictions by various models merge. Our study shows that parameter uncertainty (as evaluated by a probabilistic Monte Carlo assessment) may have contributed over one order of magnitude to the overall modeling uncertainty. The final model predictions ranged between one and three orders of magnitude, depending on the specific scenario. This study illustrates the importance of problem formulation and implementation of an analytic‐deliberative process in risk characterization.

Suggested Citation

  • Igor Linkov & Dmitriy Burmistrov, 2003. "Model Uncertainty and Choices Made by Modelers: Lessons Learned from the International Atomic Energy Agency Model Intercomparisons," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1297-1308, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:23:y:2003:i:6:p:1297-1308
    DOI: 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2003.00402.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2003.00402.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2003.00402.x?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Elizabeth A. Casman & M. Granger Morgan & Hadi Dowlatabadi, 1999. "Mixed Levels of Uncertainty in Complex Policy Models," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 33-42, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Milad Eghtedari Naeini & Benjamin D. Leibowicz & J. Eric Bickel, 2020. "Can you trust a model whose output keeps changing? Interpreting changes in the social cost of carbon produced by the DICE model," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 301-320, September.
    2. Michael Greenberg & Charles Haas & Anthony Cox & Karen Lowrie & Katherine McComas & Warner North, 2012. "Ten Most Important Accomplishments in Risk Analysis, 1980–2010," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(5), pages 771-781, May.
    3. Iftikhar Ahmad & Ahsan Ayub & Uzair Ibrahim & Mansoor Khan Khattak & Manabu Kano, 2018. "Data-Based Sensing and Stochastic Analysis of Biodiesel Production Process," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, December.
    4. Judson Jaffe & Robert N. Stavins, 2007. "On the value of formal assessment of uncertainty in regulatory analysis," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(2), pages 154-171, June.
    5. Vicki M. Bier & Shi‐Woei Lin, 2013. "On the Treatment of Uncertainty and Variability in Making Decisions About Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(10), pages 1899-1907, October.
    6. Edoardo Tosoni & Ahti Salo & Enrico Zio, 2018. "Scenario Analysis for the Safety Assessment of Nuclear Waste Repositories: A Critical Review," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(4), pages 755-776, April.
    7. Zachary A. Collier & James H. Lambert & Igor Linkov, 2020. "Concurrent threats and disasters: modeling and managing risk and resilience," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 299-300, September.
    8. Roxane Foulser‐Piggott & Gary Bowman & Martin Hughes, 2020. "A Framework for Understanding Uncertainty in Seismic Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(1), pages 169-182, January.
    9. Alberto Garre & Geraldine Boué & Pablo S. Fernández & Jeanne‐Marie Membré & Jose A. Egea, 2020. "Evaluation of Multicriteria Decision Analysis Algorithms in Food Safety: A Case Study on Emerging Zoonoses Prioritization," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(2), pages 336-351, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nicola Ranger & Falk Nieh�rster, 2011. "Deep uncertainty in long-term hurricane risk: scenario generation and implications for future climate experiments," GRI Working Papers 51, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    2. Knoblauch, Theresa A.K. & Trutnevyte, Evelina, 2018. "Siting enhanced geothermal systems (EGS): Heat benefits versus induced seismicity risks from an investor and societal perspective," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1311-1325.
    3. To N. Nguyen & Paul M. Jakus & Mary Riddel & W. Douglass Shaw, 2010. "An Empirical Model of Perceived Mortality Risks for Selected U.S. Arsenic Hot Spots," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(10), pages 1550-1562, October.
    4. Sarah J. Cowell & Robyn Fairman & Ragnar E. Lofstedt, 2002. "Use of Risk Assessment and Life Cycle Assessment in Decision Making: A Common Policy Research Agenda," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(5), pages 879-894, October.
    5. Robert J. Lempert & Myles T. Collins, 2007. "Managing the Risk of Uncertain Threshold Responses: Comparison of Robust, Optimum, and Precautionary Approaches," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 1009-1026, August.
    6. Anthony M. Barrett, 2010. "Cost Effectiveness of On-Site Chlorine Generation for Chlorine Truck Attack Prevention," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(4), pages 366-377, December.

    More about this item

    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:wly:riskan:v:23:y:2003:i:6:p:1297-1308. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.