Upload
jadon-chapman
View
220
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Negotiating uncertainties
Jeroen Veraart, Wim Cofino
Test case: Expert judgments on Sealevel rise
Defining climate proofing and assessing associated uncertainties in coastal zones
with scarce freshwater resources
Contents
Objective PhD research Theories Uncertainty Set up SLR Experiment Results SLR Experiment Further steps… Discussion
Objective PhD-research
To map levels of (dis)agreement of (un)certainties regarding the freshwater availability for land use by Qualitatively (analysis of cultural concepts), and Quantitatively, with statistical analysis
Practical guidelines for negotiating (un)certainties in regional science-policy interfaces related to climate proofing Southwest Delta of the Netherlands To be identified
Uncertainty philosophies in climate science
Imprecise
Information
Precise
Information
Objective perspective Subjective perspectiveEarth
system
Human
dimension
causality
choice
observations
models
Scenario’s
Swart e.a., 2008
Likelihood scaleConfidence scaleLevel of agreement & evidence
Explanatory factors
Set up Sea Level Rise Experiment (questionaire) What will be the sea level rise in
2030/2100/2200? What is the body length of Eddy Moors? (cm) What is the average body length of the ESS
group? What is your own body length? (cm)
Average (cm) Minimum (cm) Maximum (cm) Chance that you are wrong (%) Explain your (expert) judgment
Sea level rise 2030
ID Name Conf avg 2030 min 2030 max 2030 Expect.value
Std
1 Erik van Slobbe 60% 20 5 60 28.3 11.6
2 Aad Sedee 80% 10 5 20 11.7 3.1
3 Eddy Moors 80% 20 10 40 23.3 6.2
4 Arnold van Vliet 50% 10 5 15 10.0 2.0
5 Hasse Goosen 75% 15 10 20 15.0 2.0
6 Herbert ter Maat 75% 30 20 50 33.3 6.2
7 Rob Swart 90% 10 4 15 9.7 2.2
8 Fokke 40% 10 2 20 10.7 3.7
9 Catharien 30% 50 20 70 46.7 10.3
10 Judith 40% 15 10 30 18.3 4.2
11 Rik Leemans 100% 45 12 600 219.0 134.9
12 Pavel 50% 10 5 15 10.0 2.0
13 Saskia - 15 1 30 15.3 5.9
Sealevel rise experiment: expert judgment
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 97
Sea level rise 2030(cm)
Pro
bab
ility
den
sity
Erik
AadEddyArnold
Hasse
HerbertRob
Catharien
JudithFokke
Rik
Pavel
Saskia
Summed asym. PDF’s for 2030 (2 approaches)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7Summed asym.triangular probability density functions
PMF1
PMF2
PMF3
hist
ModelModel-first mode
Triangulars
Min. Entropy approach
Pmf1 = 13.7 cm, 51.5%
Pmf2 = 29.4 cm, 23.6%
Pmf3 = 35 cm, 11.8%
Rik = 206, 6.7%
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 700
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5Summed probability density functions
PMF1
PMF2
PMF3
hist
KDEModel
Model-first mode
Normal Distr. per respondent
Min. Entropy approach
Pmf1 = 13.7 cm, 71%
Pmf2 = 42 cm, 17%
Pmf3 = 26 cm, 10%
no Rik
Arithmic mean = 20 cm ± 13 cm
Overlap matrix sealevel rise 2030 Graphical representation of overlap matrix
2
4
7
8
12
5
10
13
1
3
6
11
9
2
4
7
8
12
5
10
13
1
3
6
11
9
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.99 Catharien
11 Rik Leemans
6 Herbert ter Maat
3 Eddy Moors
1 Erik van Slobbe
13 Saskia Werners
10 Judith Klostermann
5 Hasse Goosen
12 Pavel Kabat
8 Fokke de Jong
7 Rob Swart
4 Arnold van Vliet
2 Aad Sedee
Aa
d
Arn
old
Ro
b
Fo
kke
Pa
vel
Hass
e
Jud
ith
Sa
skia
Eri
k
Ed
dy
He
rbert
Rik
Ca
thari
en
Comparison of all expert judgmentsExpert judgment
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Estimation 2030 Estimation 2100 Estimation 2200 Eddy ESS-CC
cm
Arith mean
Min entropy
Max entropy
Delta Commissie
KNMI 06
max
min
reality
Comparison body lengths estimations
0 50 100 150 200 2500
1
2
3
4
5
6Summed asym.triangular probability density functions
PMF1
PMF2
PMF3
hist
ModelModel-first mode
Rik, 133cm, 6%
183cm, 25%
183cm, 60%
186cm
Eddy Judgment
130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 2100
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4Summed asym.triangular probability density functions
PMF1
PMF2
PMF3
hist
ModelModel-first mode
ESS-CC Judgment
Minent
Minent
176cm, 56%
177cm, 22%
177cm, 9%
180cm
Eddies body length is easier to estimate than group length
Further steps:
What is the (average) annual minimum amount of rainfall needed (m3 m-2 yr -1) to maintain freshwater supply for sector A,B in region Y under climate change?
Compare (expert) judgment regarding freshwater supply from natural resources in region Y under climate change for different stakeholder/expert groups
Comparison of regions Method is also applicable to: (beyond scope PhD)
map (un(certainties) in the process of valuation of ecosystem services
Other ecosystem services
Thank youJeroen Veraart