Managing uncertainty

An EIA (Environmental investigation agency) involves prediction and

thus uncertainty is an integral part. There are two types of uncertainty
associated with environmental impact assessments: that associated with
the process and, that associated with predictions. With the former the
uncertainty is whether the most important impacts have been identified
or whether recommendations will be acted upon or ignored. For the
latter the uncertainty is in the accuracy of the findings. The main types
of uncertainty and the ways in which they can be minimized are
discussed by de Jongh in Wathern (1988). They can be summarized as
follows:
• Uncertainty of prediction: this is important at the data collection
stage and the final certainty will only be resolved once implementation
commences. Research can reduce the uncertainty;
• Uncertainty of values: this reflects the approach taken in the EIA
process. Final certainty will be determined at the time decisions are
made. Improved communications and extensive negotiations should
reduce this uncertainty;
• Uncertainty of related decision: this affects the decision making
element of the EIA process and final certainty will be determined by
post evaluation. Improved coordination will reduce uncertainty.
The importance of very wide consultation cannot be overemphasized in
minimizing the risk of missing important impacts. The significance of
impacts is subjective, but the value judgments required are best arrived
at by consensus: public participation and consultation with a wide
sector of the community will reduce uncertainty. One commonly
recurring theme is the dilemma of whether to place greater value on
short-term benefits or long-term problems.
The accuracy of predictions is dependent on a variety of factors such as
lack of data or lack of knowledge. It is important not to focus on
predictions that are relatively easy to calculate at the expense of
impacts that may be far more significant but difficult to analyze.
Prediction capabilities are generally good in the physical and chemical
sciences, moderate in ecological sciences and poor in social sciences.
Surveys are the most wide-spread technique for estimating people's
responses and possible future actions.
The results of the EIA should indicate the level of uncertainty with the
use of confidence limits and probability analyses wherever possible.
Sensitivity analysis similar to that used in economic evaluation could be
used if adequate quantifiable data are available. A range of outcomes
can be found by repeating predictions and adjusting key variables.
EIA cannot give a precise picture of the future, much as the Economic
Internal Rate of Return cannot give a precise indication of economic
success. EIA enables uncertainty to be managed and, as such, is an aid
to better decision making. A useful management axiom is to preserve
flexibility in the face of uncertainty.
Sources of Uncertainty
The basic sources of uncertainty associated with
hazardous waste sites include:
• Decision Uncertainty. Decision uncertainty is
equivalent to the likelihood of making the wrong
decision, such as concluding that an area complies
with cleanup criteria when in fact it does not.
Decision uncertainty is the opposite of decision
confidence. Decision quality is the degree to which
an actual decision coincides with the decision that
would have been made if complete and fully
accurate information was available at the time. Cost-
effectively managing decision uncertainty is the
primary focus of the Triad for hazardous waste site
cleanup activities. Decision uncertainty is the
aggregated uncertainty contributed by political,
economic, and public perception factors, along with
model, analytical, sampling, and relational
uncertainties. The last three, taken together, are
often referred to as data uncertainty.
• Model Uncertainty. Model uncertainty refers to the
uncertainty associated with the "correctness" of
models (e.g., fate and transport, risk pathway
analysis, etc.) used in a CSM to represent key
features or characteristics of a hazardous waste site.
Correctness refers to the ability of a model to
accurately portray a key site feature (e.g., risk
pathway, fate and transport prediction, etc.). Key
site features are those important for decision-making
purposes. Model uncertainty is distinct from the
uncertainty introduced into a CSM, its associated
models, and decision-making by data collection
efforts. Uncertainties associated with data include
analytical, sampling, and relational uncertainties.
Models make use of data sets, and can amplify data
uncertainty when making decisions if significant
model uncertainty also exists.
• Analytical Uncertainty. Analytical uncertainty
refers to the uncertainty associated with analytical
results for media samples. Analytical uncertainty
stems from the limitations of analytical and
determination methods. Common contributors to
analytical uncertainty include poor detection limits,
analytical bias, lack of precision, and susceptibility to
interferences. Analytical uncertainty and its
reduction have been the primary focus of uncertainty
management for traditional cleanup programs, but
the contribution of analytical uncertainty to overall
decision uncertainty is often insignificant compared
to other sources of uncertainty (e.g., sampling
uncertainty).
• Sampling Uncertainty. Sampling uncertainty
reflects the degree to which sample results
 represent actual conditions for the population
sampled, neglecting the contributions of analytical or
relational uncertainty. Sampling uncertainty is an
inclusive, catch-all phrase referring to all factors not
associated with the analytical method that
contribute to data uncertainty. The primary
contributors to sampling uncertainty are the natural
heterogeneity in contamination distributions across
the area being sampled and the potential non-
representativeness of sampling procedures. Other
contributors include problems with sample
processing (e.g., improper handling, incomplete
sampling equipment decontamination, etc.).
Sampling uncertainty's contribution to data
uncertainty is often significantly greater than that
from analytical uncertainty.
• Relational Uncertainty. Relational uncertainty is
the uncertainty associated with the relationship
between a parameter being measured, and the true
parameter of interest from a decision-making
perspective. Relational uncertainty can become a
concern for real-time measurement methods that are
non-specific in nature (e.g., immunoassay kits), or
that measure a parameter other than the primary
parameter of concern using the measured parameter
as a proxy for the primary parameter when site
decisions are made. Relational uncertainty can be of
concern for traditional data collection programs
when traditional fixed-laboratory methods produce
data used as a surrogate for more difficult to obtain
information. For example, total chromium
concentrations are sometimes used as a proxy for
the toxic chromium(VI) fraction, and total metals
concentrations are often used to estimate exposure
 risk if estimates of the available fraction are not
available

Managing Uncertainty
Project managers must understand a few basic facts
about hazardous waste site decision uncertainty and its
management:
• Decision uncertainty is a fact of life for
environmental decision-making. It is unavoidable.

• Completely eliminating decision uncertainty (and the

possibility of decision errors) is impossible. The best
one can accomplish is to manage uncertainty in a
manner that keeps the possibility of making
mistakes at acceptable levels.

• There are diminishing returns to investments in

reducing decision uncertainty. Sampling uncertainty
provides a good example. In general, sampling
uncertainty is reduced as the square root of
additional sample numbers. To reduce sampling
uncertainty by a factor of four often requires
increasing sample numbers by a factor of sixteen.
Managing decision-making uncertainty presumes that
one can identify and prioritize the primary contributors to
decision-making uncertainty. Political, economic, and
social factors may be important sources of uncertainty
for site decision-making (e.g., cleanup standards
changing with time, or funding constraints imposed by
state or federal agencies impacting decisions already
made). It is important that these contributors to decision
uncertainty be identified and their potential implications
understood to the degree possible as part of the
systematic planning process, but resolving these issues is
beyond the scope of the EIA.