Technical Uncertainty in Quantitative Policy Analysis — A Sulfur Air Pollution Example

  • M. Granger Morgan
  • Samuel C. Morris
  • Max Henrion
  • Deborah A. L. Amaral
  • William R. Rish
Part of the NATO · Challenges of Modern Society book series (NATS, volume 10)


Expert judgments expressed as subjective probability distributions provide an appropriate means of incorporating technical uncertainty in some quantitative policy studies. Judgments and distributions obtained from several experts allow one to explore the extent to which the conclusions reached in such a study depend on which expert one talks to. For the case of sulfur air pollution from coal-fired power plants, estimates of sulfur mass balance as a function of plume flight time are shown to vary little across the range of opinions of leading atmospheric scientists while estimates of possible health impacts are shown to vary widely across the range of opinions of leading scientists in air pollution health effects.


Atmospheric Environment Deposition Velocity Flight Time Sulfate Aerosol Subjective Probability Distribution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    M. Henrion, “The Value of Knowing How Little You Know: The advantages of a probabilistic treatment of uncertainty in policy analysis”, Ph. D. thesis, School of Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA (March, 1982).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Morgan, “The Role of Decision Analysis and Other Quantitative Tools in Environmental Policy Analysis”, A tutorial prepared for the Environment Directorate, OECD, Paris (1983).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R.W. Winkler, Introduction to Bayesian Inference and Decicion, Holt, Rinehart and Winston (1972).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R.L. Keeney, “Decision Analysis: An overview”. Operations Research, 30, pp. 803–981 (September/October 1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    R.A. Howard, J.E. Matheson and K.L. Miller (eds.), Readings in Decision Analysis, Decision Analysis Group, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA, 613 pp. (1976).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    H. Raiffa, Decision Analysis: Introductory lectures on choices under uncertainty, Addison-Wesley, 309 pp. (1970).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    “Reactor Safety Study: An assessment of accident risks in U.S. Commercial power plants11”, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission WASH-1400 (NUREG 75/014) (1975).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. Howard, J. Matheson and W. North, “The Decision to Seed Hurricanes”, Science, 1976, 1191–1202 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    W. North and M. Merkhofer, “A Methodology for Analyzing Emission Control Strategies”, Computers and Operation Research, 3, 185–207 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Rotty, “Uncertainties Associated with Future Atmospheric CO2 Levels”, Institute for Energy Analysis, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, ORAU/IEA-79–6(0) (1979).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. Morgan, S. Morris, A. Meier and D. Shenk, “A Probabilistic Methodology for Estimating Health Effects from Coal-Fired Power Plants”, Energy Systems and Policy, 2, 287–310 (1978).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. Morgan, S. Morris, W. Rish and A. Meier, “A Probabilistic Approach to Policy Analysis”, Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 28, 993–997 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    N.C. Dalkey, “The Delphi Method, An Experimental Study in Group Opinion”, Technical Report RM-5888-PR, Rand Corporation (1969 June).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    H. Linstone and M. Turoff (eds.), The Delphi Method: Techniques and applications, Addison-Wesley (1975).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    G. Morgan, M. Henrion and S. Morris, “Expert Judgments for Policy Analysis”, Brookhaven National Laboratory, BNL 51353 (1981).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    G. Morgan, M. Henrion and S. Morris, “Making Subjective Judgments About Atmospheric SO2 to Sulfate Conversion Rates: Briefing notes on the issue of how well people can make such judgment and some of the likely difficulties”, Appendix 2 of reference 15 above.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and biases”, Science, 185, 1124–1131 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    W. White (ed.), Special Issue: Plumes and visibility, Atmospheric Environment, 15, 1785–2406 (1981).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. Husar, J. Lodge and D. Moore (eds.), Special Issue: Sulfur in the atmosphere, Atmospheric Environment, 12, 1–796 (1978).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J.A. Garland, “Dry and Wet Removal of Sulphur From the Atmosphere”, Atmosphere Environment, 12, 349–362 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    T.A. McMahon and P.J. Denison, “Review Paper: Empirical atmospheric deposition parameters — a survey”, Atmospheric Environment, 13, 571–585 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    G.A. Schmel, “Particle and Gas Dry Deposition: A review”, Atmospheric Environment, 14, 983–1011 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    W.G.N. Slinn, L. Hasse, B.B. Hicks, A.W. Hogan, D. Lal, P.S. Liss, K.O. Munnich, G.A. Sehmel and O. Vittori, “Review Paper: Some aspects of the transfer of atmospheric trace constituents part the air-sea interface”. Atmospheric Environment, 12, 2055–2087 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    W.R. Rish, “A Summary of the Literature On the Oxidation of Sulfur Dioxide in the Atmosphere 1977–1980”, working paper, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA (1980).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    C.-A.S. Stael von Holstein and Harnes E. Matheson, A Manual for Encoding Probability Distributions, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA (August, 1979).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    D.W. Boyd and S.G. Gegulinski, Characterizing Uncertainty in Technology Cost and Performance, Decision Focus, Inc. (report 1114), Palo Alto, CA (June, 1979).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    G. Morgan, D. Amaral, M. Henrion and S. Morris, “Technological Uncertainty in Policy Analysis”, final report to the NSF Division of Policy Research and Analysis on grant PRA-7913070. Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie-Mellon University, (August, 1982). Available through NTIS, PB83165142.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    C. Sheih, M. Wesley and B. Hicks, “Estimated Dry Deposition Velocities of Sulfur Over the Eastern United States and Surrounding Regions”, Atmospheric Environment, 13, 1361–1368 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    J. Shannon, “A Model of Regional Long-term Average Sulfur Atmospheric Pollution, Surface Removal, and Net Horizontal flux”, Atmospheric Environment, 15, 689–701 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    B. Nieman, Environmental Protection Agency, private communication.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    M. Hamrud, H. Rodhe and J. Grandell, “A Numerical Comparison Between Lagrangian and Eulerian Rainfall Statistics”, Tellus, 33, 235–24 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    M. Henrion and G. Morgan, “A Computer Aid for Risk and Other Policy Analysis”, Risk Analysis (1984).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    M. Henrion and I. Nair, Demos Users Manual, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA (1982).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    G. Morgan, M. Henrion, I. Nair, T. Mullin and C. Wiecha, “A Generic Pre-HEED On Characterizing and Dealing with Uncertainty in Health and Environmental Risk Assessment”, prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Health and Environmental Risk Assessment Program, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA (1983).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    J. Heffter, “Air Resources Laboratories Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion Model”, NOAA Technical Memorandum ARL-81, Air Resources Laboratory, Silver Spring, MD (February 1980).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    P. Pack, G. Ferber, J. Heffter, K. Telegadas, J. Angell, W. Hoecker and L. Machta, “Meteorology of Long-Range Transport”, Atmospheric Environment, 12, 425–444 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Computer code developed by C. Benkovitz, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY, on the basis of an algorithm reported by C. Lawson, “Generation of a Triangular Grid with Application to Contour Plotting”, Section 914, TM299, Jet Propulsion Lab, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA (1972).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Atmospheric sulfate data collected by EPRI, Sulfate Regional Experiment (SURE) and provided through the multi-state atmospheric power production study (MAP3S) by C. Benkovitz, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    J. Heffter, “The Variation of Horizontal Diffusion Parameter With Time for Travel Periods of One Hour or Longer”, Journal of Applied Meteorology, 4, 153–156 (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    J. Carras and D. Williams, “The Long-Range Dispersion of a Plume for An Isolated Point Source”, Atmospheric Environment, 15, 2205–2217 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    N. Gillani, R. Husar, J. Husar and D. Peterson, “Project MISTT: Kinetics of particulate sulfur formation in a power plant plume out to 300 km”, Atmospheric Environment, 12, 589–598 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    “TAG technical assessment guide”, EPRI P-2410-SR, Electric Power Research Institute Palo Alto, CA (May 1982).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    J. Molburg, “A Graphical Representation of the New NSPS for Sulfur Dioxide”, Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 30, 172 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    H. Richmond, “A Framework for Assessment Health Risks Associated with National Ambient Air Quality Standards”, The Environmental Professional, 3, 225–233 (1981).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    T. Feagans and W. Biller, “Risk Assessment: Describing the protection provided by ambient air quality standards”, The Environmental Professional, 3, 235–247 (1981).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Final report of “Workshop on Dealing with Uncertainty in HEED Analysis”, prepared by EPP, Carnegie-Mellon University for the DOE Health and Environmental Risk Analysis Program of the Human Health and Assessment Division, Office of Health and Environmental Research, Office of Energy Research (1982).Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Congressman D. Ritter, et al., “Risk Assessment Research and Development Act of 1984”, HR 4192, bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, 98th Congress, 1st session (1984).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Senator R. Dole, “Regulatory Reform Act of 1981”, S. 405, Bill introduced to the U.S. Senate, 97th Congress, 1st session (1981).Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    B. Fischhoff, “Clinical Decision Analysis”, Operations Research, 28, 28–43 (January/February 1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    G. Majoneand E. Quade, Pitfalls of Analysis, Wiley Interscience, 213 pp. (1980).Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    S. Bereiter, “Engineers with a Difference”, IEEE Spectrum, 20, 63–66 (February 1983).Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    “Section 20: Technology and Public Policy” in vol. 5, “Engineering and Applied Science” of Petersons Annual Guides to Graduate Study, Princeton, NJ (1983).Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    M. Henrion and B. Fischhoff, “Uncertainty Assessment in the Estimation of Physical Constants”, draft paper, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie-Mellon University (1984).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Granger Morgan
    • 1
  • Samuel C. Morris
    • 2
  • Max Henrion
    • 3
  • Deborah A. L. Amaral
    • 4
  • William R. Rish
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.Departments of Engineering and Public Policy and of Electrical and Computer EngineeringCarnegie-Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Biomedical and Environmental Assessment DivisionBrookhaven National LaboratoryUptonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Engineering and Public PolicyCarnegie-Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  4. 4.Decision Focus, Inc.Carnegie-Mellon UniversityLos AltosUSA
  5. 5.EBASCOLyndhurstUSA
  6. 6.Engineering and Public PolicyCarnegie-Mellon UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations