Search

Environmental risk analysts need to draw from a clear typology of uncertainties when qualifying risk estimates and/or significance statements about risk. However, categorizations of uncertainty within existing typologies are largely overlapping, contradictory, and subjective, and many typologies are not designed with environmental risk assessments (ERAs) in mind. In an attempt to rectify these issues, this research provides a new categorization of uncertainties based, for the first time, on the appraisal of a large subset of ERAs, namely 171 peer-reviewed environmental weight-of-evidence assessments. Using this dataset, a defensible typology consisting of seven types of uncertainty (data, language, system, extrapolation, variability, model, and decision) and 20 related sub-types is developed. Relationships between uncertainties and the techniques used to manage them are also identified and statistically evaluated. A highly preferred uncertainty management option is to take no action when faced with uncertainty, although where techniques are applied they are commensurate with the uncertainty in question. Key observations are applied in the form of guidance for dealing with uncertainty, demonstrated through ERAs of genetically modified higher plants in the European Union. The presented typology and accompanying guidance will have positive implications for the identification, prioritization, and management of uncertainty during risk characterization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Uncertainties, whether due to randomness or human or system errors, are inherent within any decision process. In order to improve the clarity and robustness of risk estimates and risk characterisations, environmental risk assessments (ERAs) should explicitly consider uncertainty. Typologies of uncertainty can help practitioners to understand and identify potential types of uncertainty within ERAs, but these tools are yet to be reviewed in earnest. Here, we have systematically reviewed 30 distinct typologies and the uncertainties they communicate and demonstrate that they: (1) use terminology that is often contradictory; (2) differ in the frequencies and dimensions of uncertainties that they include; (3) do not uniformly use systematic and robust methods to source information; and (4) cannot be applied, on an individual basis, to the domain of ERA. On the basis of these observations, we created a summary typology – consisting of seven locations (areas of occurrence) of uncertainty across five distinct levels (magnitude of uncertainty) – specifically for use with ERAs. This work highlights the potential for confusion, given the many versions of uncertainty typologies which exist for closely related risk domains and, through the summary typology, provides environmental risk analysts with information to form a solid foundation for uncertainty analysis (based on improved understanding) to identify uncertainties within an ERA. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]