Proceedings
of the
ITRN2015
27 - 28th August
National University of
Ireland/ Galway
HOSSEN,HINE: Conceptualising risk and
uncertainty in transport policy /Literature review
CONCEPTUALISING RISK AND UNCERTAINTY IN TRANSPORT POLICY
Mr Ali Hossen
PhD Student
School of the Built Environment, University of Ulster, UK
Professor Julian Hine
Professor of Transport, Trans link Chair of Transport
School of the Built Environment, University of Ulster, UK
Abstract
A theoretical review of the literature on concepts of risk and uncertainty in transport policy. In
recent years, policy makers have become increasingly aware of the importance of risk and
uncertainty that climate change and extreme weather conditions poses on transport sector
and transport policy. The aim of this review paper is to investigate the literature on risk and
uncertainty in transport policy, to underline key findings, conclusions, arguments, and to
consider points of agreements and disagreement.
This conceptual improved paper from empirical researches examines how risk and
uncertainty are approached within transport policy and transport appraisal process. Indeed, it
has been proposed that risk is now frequently used as if it is associated with uncertainty and
they tend to be handled as the one thing, however, many research papers has been
theoretically written about risk and uncertainty, it is arguable that little empirical research has
been conducted in this field . This suggest that research on risk and uncertainty has to adapt
descriptive approach rather than empirical approach to address the complexity nature of risk
and uncertainty, using methods which can capture the weakness of a variety of outcomes.
Decision maker’s requires to follow guidelines and procedures in climate change and
transport disruption, however, there is no evidence about the relationship between risk and
uncertainty procedures approach and professional judgement, nor how decision makers can
promote valid judgement within the appraisal process of transport projects.
Key words: risk; Uncertainty; Transport policy; decision-making; Transport appraisal.
1. Introduction: what is uncertainty?
In general, uncertainty definition relates to two main elements, knowledge and degree of
confidence about knowledge, at the same time being confident or unconfident is a subjective
perception which require reliability assessment of knowledge. Uncertainty is a major element
of risk assessment, a process of recognition and appraisal of risk [1].
Our private and public life is ringed with uncertainty, although we have to decide and act in
doubts upon different issues and goals in our daily life without knowing what action we can
take to achieve that goal. Therefore our actions can be described as vaguely, unclear and
ambiguous. Good and reasonable decisions are very hard to be taken under uncertainty. At
the same level Risk situation is very chaotic when combined with uncertainty because it will
be associated with lack of clarity and it may lead to poor decision and communication in
issues such as transport disruption. To deal with present challenges and future demands of
climate change and transport disruption, risk and uncertainty require new clear approach to
support policy-makers approach towards this problem.
2. What is risk?
It is commonly known that risk associates with any type of activities such as theoretical or
empirical research studies. There is no concord in existence between of how to define risk
within scientific disciplines due to the lack of scientific evidence, therefore understanding risk
is not straight forward process as numerical approach to risk. However some definitions for
risk exist in real life and their existence is based on either expectation, probabilities or
uncertainty. While climate change experts have always faced and addressed risk, policymakers needs better approach to risk to meet the demand of policy implementation to
reduce climate change effects on transport system, at the same time the fact of facing risk
HOSSEN,HINE: Conceptualising risk and
uncertainty in transport policy /Literature review
27 - 28th August
National University of
Ireland/ Galway
Proceedings
of the
ITRN2015
cannot be avoidable unless we can design the future and it is only possible to choose
between risks. The non-stationary relation between climate change and transport system
require new developments for assessing risk, Initial review of the relation between climate
change and risk require clear approach of how to handle risk in decision making and public
policy. Science definition of risk can be approached from different angles, based on the need
of the research, therefore risk has several definitions, one as “the objective correlative of the
subjective uncertainty"[2]. Another definition among all that we think stands out above the
rest is the proposed by [3], because it is based on concise quantitative meaning, It is the
definition that forms the basis for many analyses, it is defined as the answers to three
questions: 1. what can go wrong? (Failure). 2. How likely is it to go wrong? (Probability). 3. If
it does go wrong, what are the consequences? (Outcome).
An examination of risk and uncertainty literature leads to the understanding of risk and
uncertainty with respect to the differences between approach and nature, and the transport
appraisal process .furthermore, it sets out public and private views, and how to deal with
uncertainty .Different claims are made in the literature for the roots and origins of the term
‘risks ‘and ‘uncertainty’. Jaeger [4] argue that the idea of risk management can be traced to
the code of Hammurabi, 18th century BC, while [5] suggest that risk firstly appeared in the
German literature in the 16th century, but it existed at earlier date originated from the Latin
word riscum a phrase which was linked and referred to the means of calculating occurrence
of ships disaster for insurance purposes. Keshmall [6] refer risk to later era around
Napoleon’s war soldier insurance which was guided by personal knowledge rather than
statistical analysis. [7, 8] argues that the notion of risk appeared in the scene of gambling in
the 17th century referring it to the probability of losses or gains. In short, there is a little
concurrence about the origin of risk while with clarity risk has always been part of human life.
In the middle Ages and up to the early 18th century’s risky events where not caused by or
referred to human failing but to natural intervention [9].such belief was cleared up during
Enlightenment age (1650s-1780s) where cultural and intellectual forces in Western Europe
emphasized reason, analysis, and individualism rather than traditional lines of authority. It
was believed that the natural world is subject to prediction and measurements. According to
[9] the distinction between risk and uncertainty conditions when probability estimates of any
event are known is neutral and did not suggest good or bad outcomes.
However, later in the 19th century risk became used more often to refer to unacceptable
events and outcomes and continue to carry the same meaning until now. Risk was defined
as ‘the probability that a particular adverse event occurs during a stated period of time or
results from a particular challenge’ [10, p.2]. Jaeger [4, p.17] introduce an alternative
definition to risk ‘a situation or event in which something of human value (including humans
themselves) has been put at stake and where the outcome is uncertain’. This definition is
predetermined to capture what is called the ontological nature of the world: humans are
encapsulated in uncertain environments, both natural and caused by humankind, containing
sensible and insensible risks. On the other hand risk was framed in a negative term as the
comparative variation of the possible loss [11].
Uncertainty in climate change and environmental decision making has received great
scientific, political and administrative interest in the few past decades [12, 13,14,15,16, and
17]. Uncertainty around Transport disruption resulted from Extreme weather conditions have
received direct attention in the context of decision making, science and political
administration. Uncertainty is a very important issue that needs to be pointed out when
dealing with environmental problems and climate change [12, 13, 15, 16, and 17].
2. Climate risk management
Climate risk management is a combination of information, knowledge and frequency of
occurrence of extreme weather in climate scenarios, events and trends. Climate projections
have been designed to enable decision makers to avoid or reduce potential loss or harm.
Similarly, successful translation of climate information into actions demands three essential
elements: salience, credibility and legitimacy.” [18, 19]. Climate Change prediction is
surrounded with uncertainty and risk accuracy, links between levels of climate change
impacts and adaptation will be limited if risk is not materialized, therefore it will be very
difficult to allocate resources to proactively manage risk. [20].
3. Uncertainty analysis;
Proceedings
of the
ITRN2015
27 - 28th August
National University of
Ireland/ Galway
HOSSEN,HINE: Conceptualising risk and
uncertainty in transport policy /Literature review
Undoubtedly, uncertainty has negative impact on transport policy goals since it is relevant to
the fact that decisions taken are public decisions, therefore uncertainty have to be clearly
reported in the decision maker’s process. With respect to the consequences of climate
change many uncertainties exist and the existing climate models can be criticized on some
findings, such as the claim that Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding fast and they may
disappear by 2035 perhaps sooner, if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. IPCC [21]
while on 19 January 2010 the IPCC acknowledged that the paragraph was incorrect. Still,
these models are the current state-of-the-art. There are very few systematic analyses that
point to climate change from the bulk of the models in existence.
Uncertainties of climate change scenarios have a significant impact on transport system
plans, significant reduction of key uncertainties will require a decade or more [22], while we
think it will require decades. It is invariably considered that climate change is a major issue of
global interest, conversely, the extent that climate change represents a problem is still a
heavily debated issue, future impacts associated with climate change, and judgments about
mitigation and adaptation, differ widely [23]. Extreme weather events are real threats to the
transportation system and one main element of transport disruption. [24] Argue that
overcoming the negative impacts of extreme weather effects are not possible, therefore
insufficient data is not enough to effectively prevent implementation and mitigation tools.
4. Uncertainty within the theory of probability.
Uncertainty within the theory of probability is explained by random of outcomes of the events
and the chances of occurrence .more likely probability can be explained as frequency of
occurrence, therefor it can be quantified. It is very important to be sure that all possible
outcomes considered to be known and reliable when applying probability theory to
uncertainty [25]. In theory, uncertainty situations can be described in a way that possible
outcomes and all probabilities are known when using subjective probability [26].
conceptualising uncertainty in environmental decision making cannot be justified [27].the
reasons behind this is referred to ,firstly some assumptions are not realistic and outcomes
are known in advance such as effects of chemical pollution to aquatic system. Secondly,
when uncertainty is traced back to repetition and frequency. This dispute can be contradicted
by the reality need of subjective probability to repetition because they can only be justified
with similar citations [28].
Extreme weather condition effects on transport system is regarded as a complex issue
because of the incorporation and interaction of the vigorous processes .Nonlinear reaction
results in unexpectedly threshold and outcome. Precise description of uncertainty is
surrounded by complexity to forecast extreme weather condition and suggest effective
solutions to transport disruption, it requires tremendous logical information and knowledge to
establish acceptable based scientific background for decision maker whereas logical
uncertainty knowledge is not available .frequently in human and natural sciences knowledge
about uncertainty of climate change is often treated as reductionist in the scientific
language.[29,p.23]defines knowledge as ‘unsystematic, fragmentary and not clear’.
Knowledge surrounding extreme weather conditions is widely spread over several scientific
disciplines varies from social to natural sciences and cannot be easily merged. Hence the
exchange of information between scientists and policy makers poses problems. Therefore,
Uncertainty of extreme weather condition effect plays very important role in decision making
process and appraisal of transport system.
In general, quantification of uncertainty requires total knowledge of the considered subject.
However, in the case of transport policy and climate change ,it is not possible to fulfil the
preconditioned term because of the lack of climate knowledge .Uncertainty quantification
under probability may cause insufficient presentation of facts and narrow down perceptions
on applicable features. Meanwhile probability theory is prime statistical approach to describe
uncertainty and develop action guidance for Policy makers. Where significant, uncertainty
should be quantified by probabilities to obtain more comprehensive illustration of uncertainty.
5. Causes of uncertainty
Variations are partially built on different causes of uncertainty [30, 31]. Two basic variations
are identified as fundamental and practical causes. Fundamental causes are referred to as
phenomenological and epistemological uncertainty. While the first one refers to phenomena
HOSSEN,HINE: Conceptualising risk and
uncertainty in transport policy /Literature review
27 - 28th August
National University of
Ireland/ Galway
Proceedings
of the
ITRN2015
the second one comprehend from the first one. In reality, it is very difficult to clearly contrast
between the two sources of uncertainty. Gingerenzer [32] argues that uncertainty is rooted in
both causes, the phenomena and and the potential cognitive of the observer to recognise the
phenomena [32].
6. Uncertainty sources
An examination of uncertainty literature leads to understanding the sources of uncertainty
and the diversity of decision makers approach. The main question that needs more research
is how uncertainty sources complement and relate to each other in decision making
process?
There is no widely source in existence for uncertainty, therefor, there are different
classifications and types of uncertainty exists in the literature. Two typologies by [33, 34]
differ with variant classification and ranking of uncertainty with two or three dimensions or
source. Walker [33] incorporates level, model and nature of uncertainty description and
views. On the other hand [34] define the source of uncertainty by its nature. These two
definition can be better organised and clarify the way policy and decision makers approach
uncertainty. Uncertainty has also been classified in different types and categories such as
translational, metrical and structural [35], or to position level and nature of uncertainty [33].
However our focus will be on the source of uncertainty of climate change and transport
disruption. Limited knowledge and variability of a system are the two main source of
uncertainty but it can still prevail with a lot of available information, besides available
information may increase or decrease uncertainty, moreover, increased knowledge does not
necessarily decrease uncertainty and vice versa . However, variation of these two
terminology sources with the variability of uncertainty is described as the unpredictable way
of behaviour of a process or a system [34], or as the inherent variability of a natural system
[33].
Figure 1. Uncertainty source [sourced from 34].
Sources of variability is known, compared and explained as described by [35]:
• Inherent randomness of nature: The unpredictable nature of natural or unobserved
processes
• Value diversity: Variation in people’s views and standards due to subjective judgement and
disagreement.
Proceedings
of the
ITRN2015
27 - 28th August
National University of
Ireland/ Galway
HOSSEN,HINE: Conceptualising risk and
uncertainty in transport policy /Literature review
• Human behaviour (behavioural variability): discrepancies between views and actions of
human being.
• Social, economic and cultural dynamics (societal variability): The unpredictable nature of
societal processes and the need to consider institutional processes as a major contributor to
uncertainty due to variability [36]. Examples of uncertainties related to this source of
assessment of climate change: Effectiveness of policy agreements (such as Kyoto).
• Technological surprises: New developments in technology or unknown empirical
information, it contributes to limited knowledge.
Limited knowledge may partly be related to variability and it can also be incomplete and
uncertain that ranges from inexactness to irreducible ignorance.
• Inexactness [37], also referred to as lack of metrical uncertainty, or precise uncertainties.
• Lack of observations/measurements: missing data that could have been collected,
• Practically immeasurable: Lack of data that in principle can be measured, but not in reality.
• Conflicting evidence [37]: data sets/observations are available, but allow room for
competing interpretations.
• Reducible ignorance [38] Processes that we do not observe, nor imagine at present, but it
may be possible in the future.
• Indeterminacy [38]; Processes of understandable principles and laws, but will never be able
to know it such as climate change and weather dynamics.
• Irreducible ignorance: interactions between events that cannot be known by human
capabilities such as uncertainties related to climate change role of sun spots.
6. How policy makers handle risk and uncertainty
Good or bad decision is always weighted by the outcomes, hence, “No universal criterion
exists for a good decision, including a good climate-related decision” IPCC (2014, P.200). At
the same time some reasonable decisions can turn out badly, while some unreasonable
decisions can turn out well. reasonably successful decision-making process requires ”a
clear and quantitative way of expressing risk so that it can be properly weighed, along with
all other costs and benefits, in the decision process” [3, p.11].
Major transport schemes in the UK are funded by central government. The Secretary of
State for Transport authorized to approve funding. Part of the decision-making process
require a detailed appraisal using an approach specified by the DfT. Because of limited
funds for transport, the appraisal and decision-making processes are very critical. However,
the DfT requires that proposals be assessed using the New Approach to Appraisal (NATA), a
sophisticated method based on cost benefit analysis, includes the assessment of climate
change impacts, that needs to be converted to a monetary value.
7. Current decision criteria
In addition to Well-known decision criteria such as Maximin [40, 41] Minimax [42], it is
possible for decision makers to generate specific criteria using multi-attribute utility theory
(MAUT) or multi-criteria analysis (MCA), [43], both of these criteria’s incorporates wide range
of methods with similar principle, at the same time options can be used with several criteria
to create a single criterion, otherwise a score can assigned to a criteria and calculated. Any
of these criterions can be used to decision makers to manage uncertainty. In general
definition criteria refers to the metrics of the optimum decision outcomes, whereas the steps
of decision criteria are described by decision methods. Many decision criteria in climate
change including effects to transport policy require probabilistic projections of unknown
climate change, one of the main sources is the UKCP09 [44]. In recent years climate change
information has moved from deterministic to probabilistic methods of interaction with climate
change information which improves uncertainty quantification that was previously
unavailable to decision makers not familiar with uncertainty (Green and weatherhead,
2013a).
8. Transport planning and appraisal
Planning is not a discrete discipline in itself but it is a field of study which can be reached
from multiple disciplines and perspectives. Transport planning is generally associated and
connected to other fields, our main concern is towards climate change and transport policy
and planning .most appraisal techniques used these days have been built upon or the results
of the complexity nature and interaction of transport activities and infrastructure.
HOSSEN,HINE: Conceptualising risk and
uncertainty in transport policy /Literature review
27 - 28th August
National University of
Ireland/ Galway
Proceedings
of the
ITRN2015
9. Cost benefit analyses
Transport project and appraisal involve great deal and impacts of risk and uncertainty .Cost
benefit analyses (CBA) is certainly one of the most popular appraisal methods used around
the world in transport appraisal [46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51]. CBA methodology is based on the
basic comparison of project coast with total benefit gained from project implementation
calculated by assigning single impact grade to a monetary value. Another appraisal
technique uses the anticipated unit volume in each impacted category multiplied with the unit
value and added to the CBA. Impacts must be quantified in financial terms, so policy makers
can interpret the results of decisions based on CBA.
However basic principles of CBA are easy to understand despite the fact that the method is
restricted by many major practical and theoretical problems. The practical problems side is
pampered with disputes referred to suitable measurement for the impacted grades that has
been used to convert data in to prescriptive, while on the theoretical part disputes are within
the comparable units and how to assign values to impacts. Both issues are very important to
validate CBA as an appraisal method.
CBA still one of the most used appraisal method in transport planning and transport
appraisal despite the wide acknowledgment of the limitation in the use of CBA methodology
[50, 51, 52]. The continuation use of CBA have been justified and accepted by both scholars
and users for three main reasons: firstly simplicity, decision makers in transport planning are
politician who has been generally elected for short term office with wide range of
responsibilities of which transport planning and appraisal is one of them, so they are not
prepared to go in deep details about consequences and impacts, CBA provides the
information required for projects evaluation. Secondly, Neutrality: transport projects are
influenced by environmental, economic and social impacts, CBA offers a reasonable
comparisons and alternatives, this of course does not mean deception of CBA results to
policy makers but intended to support decision makers choices .Thirdly, Ideology: CBA
methodology suits well the current political climate [52,50]. CBA methodology fits well with
the developed world political ideology.
10. Conclusion
Our aim behind this paper was to develop a conceptual description framework for risk and
uncertainty in transport policy to better answer the main question; how policy makers deal
with risk and uncertainty of climate change in transport policy? This question theoretically
can be answered by 1) Describing risk and uncertainty. 2) Deciding under risk and
uncertainty .this paper concerned with concepts of risk and uncertainty in transport policy to
enable policy makers to decide under uncertainty. Collecting information about risk and
uncertainty is considered to be costly and time consuming, it is not possible to precisely
calculate the cost and benefit of uncertainty information and final decisions are left for
decision makers to combine qualitative results and available information to establish the final
decision. Discourses that emerged out of the literature review indicates there was some
differences between the ways in which policy maker’s view transport policy under risk and
uncertainty. decision makers needs a scientific method to better deal with information about
risk and uncertainty in transport policy and this will be of our main interest further down in
this research.
11. References
[1]
Willows RI, Connell RK (2003) Climate adaptation: risk, uncertainty and decisionmaking.
UKCIP, Oxford Zimmermann NE, Kienast F (1999) Predictive mapping of
alpine grasslands in Switzerland: Species versus community approach. J Veg Sci
10:469–482.
[2]
Willet A.H. (2002): The Economic Theory of Risk and Insurance. University Press of
the Pacific, Honolulu.
[3]
Kaplan, S. & Garrick, B.J. 1981.On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Analysis1:
11-27.
[4]
Jaeger, C., O. Renn, E. A. Rosa, and T. Webler. 2001. Risk, Uncertainty, and Rational
Action. London: Earthscan.
[5]
Luhmann, 1993 N. Luhmann the Sociology of Risk de Gruyter, Berlin (1993).
[6]
Kemshall, H. (2002) Conflicting knowledges on risk: the case of risk knowledge in the
probation service, Health, Risk and Society, 2, 143-158.
Proceedings
of the
ITRN2015
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
27 - 28th August
National University of
Ireland/ Galway
HOSSEN,HINE: Conceptualising risk and
uncertainty in transport policy /Literature review
Douglas, M. (1992) Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory. New York: Routledge.
Parton, N. (1996) `Social Work, Risk and `The Blaming System' ', in N. Parton (ed.)
Social Theory, Social Change and Social Work. London: Routledge.
Lupton, D. (1999) Risk. London: Routledge.
Warner, F. (1992) `Introduction', in Risk: Analysis, Perception and Management:
Report of a Royal Society Study Group. London: Royal Society.
Brearley, P. C. (1982a) Risk in Social Work. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Morgan, M.G., Henrion, M. & Small, M.J., 1990. Uncertainty : a guide to dealing with
uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis, Cambridge University Press.
Faber et al., 1992 M. Faber, R. Manstetten, J.L.R. Proops Humankind and the
environment: an anatomy of surprise and ignorance Environmental Values, 1 (1992),
pp. 217–242
Handmer, J.W., Norton, T.W. & Dovers, S.R. (eds.) (2001): Ecology, Uncertainty and
Policy. Managing Ecosystems for Sustainability. Pearson Education Limited, Harlow.
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2002): Towards sustainability in the water sector - The importance of
human actors and processes of social learning. Aquatic Sciences 64,S. 394-411.
Harremoes, P. (2003): The Need to Account for Uncertainty in Public Decision Making
Related to Technological Change. Integrated Assessment 4(1), S. 18-25.
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2007): The implications of complexity for integrated resources
management. Environmental Modelling and Software 22, S. 561-569.
Cash et al., 2003 D.W. Cash, W.C. Clark, F. Alcock, N.M. Dickson, N. Eckley, D.H.
Guston, J. Jill Jäger, B. Ronald, R.B. Mitchell Knowledge systems for sustainable
development Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 100 (2003), pp. 8086–8091.
Meinke et al., 2006 H. Meinke, R. Nelson, P. Kokic, R. Stone, R. Selvaraju, W.
Baethgen Actionable climate knowledge: from analysis to synthesis Clim. Res., 22
(2006), pp. 101–110.
Zsidisin et al 2004
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-6-2.h
Mahlman JD (1997) Uncertainties in projections of human caused climate warming.
Science 278:1416–1417.
KOETSE, M.J. and RIETVELD, P., 2009. The impact of climate change and weather
on transport: An overview of empirical findings. Transportation Research Part D:
Transport and Environment, 14(3), pp. 205-221.
ludvigson and klaeboe 2012
Brown, J., 2004. Knowledge, uncertainty and physical geography: towards the
development of methodologies for questioning belief. Transactions of the Institute of
British Geographers, 29(3), pp.367–381.
H. Jungermann, H.-R. Pfister, K. Fischer Die Psychologie der Entscheidung. Eine
Einführung Spektrum, Heidelberg (1998)
S.O. Hansson Decision making under great uncertainty Philosophy of the Social
Sciences, 26 (1996), pp. 369–386
K. Sigel Umweltprobleme und Unsicherheit Eine konzeptionelle und empirische
Analyse
am
Beispiel
der
EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie,
Ökologie
und
Wirtschaftsforschung, Band, 77, Metropolis, Marburg (2007)
Faber, M. & Manstetten, R. (2003): Mensch - Natur - Wissen. Grundlagen der
Umweltbildung. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen.
Faber, M., Manstetten, R. & Proops, J.L.R. (1992): Humankind and the Environment:
An Anatomy of Surprise and Ignorance. Environmental values 1, S.217-242.
J.D. Brown Knowledge, uncertainty and physical geography: towards the development
of methodologies for questioning belief Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers NS, 29 (2004), pp. 367–381.
G. Gigerenzer Rationality for Mortals. How People Cope with UncertaintyOxford
University Press, Oxford, New York (2008)
Walker, W.E. et al., 2003. Defining Uncertainty: A Conceptual Basis for Uncertainty
Management in Model-Based Decision Support. Integrated Assessment, 4(1), pp.5–
17.
Van Asselt, M.B.A. & Rotmans, J., 2002. Uncertainty in integrated assessment
modelling - From positivism to Pluralism. Climatic Change, 54(1-2), pp.75– 105.
HOSSEN,HINE: Conceptualising risk and
uncertainty in transport policy /Literature review
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
27 - 28th August
National University of
Ireland/ Galway
Proceedings
of the
ITRN2015
Rowe, W.D., 1994. UNDERSTANDING UNCERTAINTY. Risk Analysis, 14(5),
pp.743–750.
de Marchi, B., Funtowicz, S. O., and Ravetz, J. R.: 1993, The Management of
Uncertainty in the Communication of Major Hazards, CEC Joint Research Centre,
Ispra, Italy.
Zimmermann, H. J.: 1996, ‘Uncertainty Modelling and Fuzzy Sets’, in Natke, H. G. and
Ben-Haim,Y. (eds.), Uncertainty Modelling and Fuzzy Sets, Akademie Verlag, Berlin,
Germany.
Wynne, B.: 1992, ‘Uncertainty and Environmental Learning: Reconceiving Science
and Policy in the Preventive Paradigm’, Global Environ. Change 2 (June), 111–127.
IPCC, 2014
A. Wald Statistical decision functions which minimize the maximum risk
Ann. Math., 46 (1945), pp. 265–280
P.S. Laplace A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities (F.W. Truscott & F.L Emory,
Trans.) Dover, New York (1951) (Original work published 1814
L.J. Savage The theory of statistical decision J. Am. Stat. Assoc, 46 (1951), pp. 55–67
J. Dyer, P. Fishburn, R. Steuer, J. Wallenius, S. Zionts Multiple criertia decision
making, multiattribute utility theory: the next ten years Manag. Sci., 38 (1992), pp.
645–654.
Murphy, J.M. et al., 2009. UK Climate Projections Science Report: Climate change
projections, Exeter, UK: Met Office Hadley Centre.
M. Green, E.K. Weatherhead Irrigation demand modelling using the UKCP09 weather
generator:
lessons
learned
J.
Water
Climate
(2013)
http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2013.052
Available
from:
http://www.iwaponline.com/jwc/up/jwc2013052.htm
Vickerman, R. 2000. ‘Evaluation methodologies for transport projects in the United
Kingdom’. Transport Policy 7(1): 7–16.
Grant-Muller, S.M. et al. 2001. ‘Economic appraisal of European transport projects.
The state of the art revisited’. Transport Reviews 21(2): 237–261.
Odgaard, T., C. Kelly, and J. Laird. 2005. Current practice in project appraisal in
Europe. Analysis of country reports. European Commission EC-DG TREN.
Haezendonck, E. 2007. Transport project evaluation: extending the social cost-benefit
approach. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Mackie, P. 2010. Cost-Benefit analysis in transport. A UK perspective. Discussion
paper presented at International Transport Forum roundtable, Mexico.
Van Wee, B. 2011. Transport and Ethics: Ethics and the Evaluation of Transport
Policies and Projects. Edward Elgar Pub.
Ackerman, F., and L. Heinzerling. 2004. Priceless. On knowing the price of everything
and the value of nothing. New York: The New Press.