Uncertain numbers and uncertainty in the selection of input distributions - Consequences for a probabilistic risk assessment of contaminated land

Risk Analysis

Volumn 26, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 1363-1375

  Sander, Per ^a   Bergbäck, Bo ^a   Öberg, Tomas ^a  

^a LINNAEUS UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Distribution assumptions; Imprecise numbers; Interval analysis; Monte Carlo analysis; Probability bounds analysis

Indexed keywords

DISTRIBUTION ASSUMPTIONS; IMPRECISE NUMBERS; INTERVAL ANALYSIS; PROBABILITY BOUNDS ANALYSIS;

ERROR ANALYSIS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PROBABILISTIC LOGICS; PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS;

RISK ASSESSMENT;

CONTAMINATED LAND; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; CONTAMINATION; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; LAND BIOME; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION; UNCERTAINTY;

BODY WEIGHT; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; GEOLOGIC SEDIMENTS; HUMANS; INDUSTRIAL WASTE; MODELS, THEORETICAL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PUBLIC HEALTH; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOIL MICROBIOLOGY; SOIL POLLUTANTS; UNCERTAINTY; WATER POLLUTANTS, CHEMICAL; WATER PURIFICATION; WATER SUPPLY;

EID: 33750188256     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00808.x     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Kammen, D. M., & Hassenzahl, D. M. (1999). Should We Risk It? Exploring Environmental, Health, and Technological Problem Solving. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2. U.S. EPA. (2001). Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume III - Part A, Process for Conducting Probabilistic Risk Assessment. Report EPA/540/R-02/002. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
3. Cullen, A.C., & Frey, H.C. (1999). Probabilistic Techniques in Exposure Assessment: A Handbook for Dealing with Variability and Uncertainty in Models and Inputs. New York: Plenum Press.
4. Morgan, M.G., Henrion, M., & Small, M. (1990). Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
5. Regan, H. M., Colyvan, M., & Burgman, M. A. (2002). A taxonomy and treatment of uncertainty for ecology and conservation biology. Ecological Applications, 12, 618-628.
6. Winkler, R. L. (1996). Uncertainty in probabilistic risk assessment. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 54, 127-132.
7. Ferson, S., & Ginzburg, L. R. (1996). Different methods are needed to propagate ignorance and variability. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 54, 133-144.
8. Burgman, M. A. (2005). Risks and Decisions for Conservation and Environmental Management. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9. Elert, M., Jones, C., & Norman, F. (1996). Development of Generic Guideline Values - Model and Data Used for Generic Guideline Values for Contaminated Soil in Sweden. Report 4639. Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Environmental Protection Agency.
10. Ferson, S. (2002). RAMAS Risk Calc 4.0 Software: Risk Assessment with Uncertain Numbers. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.
11. Öberg, T., & Bergbäck, B. (2005). A review of probabilistic risk assessment of contaminated land. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 5, 213-224.
12. Finley, B., & Paustenbach, D. (1994). The benefits of probabilistic exposure assessment: Three case studies involving contaminated air, water, and soil. Risk Analysis, 14, 53-73.
13. Vose, D. (2000). Risk Analysis: A Quantitative Guide. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
14. Thompson, K. M. (1999). Developing univariate distributions from data for risk analysis. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 5, 755-783.
15. Stanek III, E. J. (1996). Estimating exposure distributions: A caution for Monte Carlo risk assessment. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 2, 874-891.
16. Haas, C. N. (1997). Importance of distributional form in characterizing inputs to Monte Carlo risk assessments. Risk Analysis, 17, 107-113.
17. U.S. EPA. (1997). Guiding Principles for Monte Carlo Analysis. Report EPA/630/R-97/01. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
18. Burmaster, D. E., & Anderson, P. D. (1994). Principles of good practice for the use of Monte Carlo techniques in human health and ecological risk assessments. Risk Analysis, 14, 477-481.
19. U.S. EPA. (1999). Report on the Workshop on Selecting Input Distributions for Probabilistic Assessments. Report EPA/630/R-98/004. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
20. Bukowski, J., Korn, L., & Wartenberg, D. (1995). Correlated inputs in quantitative risk assessment - The effects of distributional shape. Risk Analysis, 15, 215-219.
21. Finley, B., Proctor, D., Scott, P., Harrington, N., Paustenbach, D., & Price, P. (1996). Recommended distributions for exposure factors frequently used in health risk assessment. Risk Analysis, 14, 533-551.
22. Hope, B. K. (1999). Distributions selected for use in probabilistic human health risk assessments in Oregon. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 5, 785-808.
23. U.S. EPA. (1997). Exposure Factors Handbook. Report EPA/600/P-95/002F. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
24. Moore, D. R. J. (1996). Using Monte Carlo analysis to quantify uncertainty in ecological risk assessment: Are we gilding the lily or bronzing the dandelion? Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 2, 628-633.
25. Bier, V. (2004). Implications of the research on expert over-confidence and dependence. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 85, 321-329.
26. Binkowitz, B.S., & Wartenberg, D. (2001). Disparity in quantitative risk assessment: A review of input distributions. Risk Analysis, 21, 75-90.
27. Maddalena, R. L., McKone, T. E., & Sohn, M.D. (2004). Standardized approach for developing probabilistic exposure factor distributions. Risk Analysis, 24, 1185-1199.
28. Lessmann, K., Beyer, A., Klasmeier, J., & Matthies, M. (2005). Influence of distributional shape of substance parameters on exposure model output. Risk Analysis, 25, 1137-1145.
29. Frey, H. C., & Rhodes, D. S. (1998). Characterization and simulation of uncertain frequency distributions: Effects of distribution choice, variability, uncertainty, and parameter dependence. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 4, 423-468.
30. Brattin, W. J., Barry, T. M., & Chiu, N. (1996). Monte Carlo modeling with uncertain probability density functions. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 2, 820-840.
31. Hamed, M. M. (2000). Impact of random variables probability distribution on public health risk assessment from contaminated soil. Journal of Soil Contamination, 9, 99-117.
32. Williamson, R. C., & Downs, T. (1990). Probabilistic arithmetic I: Numerical methods for calculating convolutions and dependency bounds. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 4, 89-158.
33. Frank, M. J., Nelsen, R. B., & Schweizer, B. (1987). Best-possible bounds for the distribution of a sum - Problem of Kolmogorov. Probability Theory and Related Fields, 74, 199-211.
34. Ferson, S., & Hajagos, J. G. (2004). Arithmetic with uncertain numbers: Rigorous and (often) best possible answers. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 85, 135-152.
35. Kriegler, E., & Held, H. (2005). Utilizing belief functions for the estimation of future climate change. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 39, 185-209.
36. Ferson, S., & Burgman, M. A. (1995). Correlations, dependency bounds and extinction risks. Biological Conservation, 73, 101-105.
37. Regan, H. M., Hope, B. Y., & Ferson, S. (2002). Analysis and portrayal of uncertainty in a food-web exposure model. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 8, 1757-1777.
38. Ricci, P. F., Rice, D., Ziagos, J., & Cox, L. A. (2003). Precaution, uncertainty and causation in environmental decisions. Environment International, 29, 1-19.
39. Hart, A. (Ed.). (2001). Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Pesticides in Europe: Implementation & Research Needs. Sand Hutton, UK: Central Science Laboratory.
40. Regan, H. M., Sample, B. E., & Ferson, S. (2002). Comparison of deterministic and probabilistic calculation of ecological soil screening levels. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 21, 882-890.
41. Sander, P., & Öberg, T. (2006). Comparing deterministic and probabilistic risk assessments. A case study at a closed steel mill in southern Sweden. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 6, 55-61.
42. Back, P.-E., Starzec, P., Wik, O., Elert, M., & Jones, C. (2005). Calculation Model for Guideline Values for Soil. Draft version (In Swedish: Beräkningsmodell för riktvärden för mark. Remissversion). Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Environmental Protection Agency.
43. ECETOC. (2001). Exposure Factors Sourcebook for European Populations (with Focus on UK Data). Brussels, Belgium: European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals.
44. Otte, P. F., Lijzen, J. P. A., Otte, J. G., Swartjes, F. A., & Versluijs, C.W. (2001). Evaluation and Revision of the CSOIL Parameter Set. Bilthoven, The Netherlands: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment.
45. Vasquez, V. R., & Whiting, W. B. (2005). Accounting for both random errors and systematic errors in uncertainty propagation analysis of computer models involving experimental measurements with Monte Carlo methods. Risk Analysis, 25, 1669-1681.
46. Shlyakhter, A. I. (1994). An improved framework for uncertainty analysis: Accounting for unsuspected errors. Risk Analysis, 14, 441-447.
47. Ferson, S., Nelsen, R. B., Hajagos, J., Berleant, D. J., Zhang, J., Tucker, W. T., Ginzburg, L. R., & Oberkampf, W. L. (2004). Dependence in Probabilistic Modeling, Dempster-Shafer Theory, and Probability Bounds Analysis. Report SAND2004-3072. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories.
48. Hassenzahl, D. M. (2006). Implications of excessive precision for risk comparisons: Lessons from the past four decades. Risk Analysis, 26, 1-12.
49. Apostolakis, G. E. (2004). How useful is quantitative risk assessment? Risk Analysis, 24, 515-520.
50. Bradshaw, G. A., & Borchers, J. G. (2000). Uncertainty as information: Narrowing the science-policy gap. Conservation Ecology, 4, 7. Available at http://www.consecol.org/vol4/iss1/art7/.