Download Climate change and development

Negotiating uncertainties
Defining climate proofing and assessing associated uncertainties in coastal zones
with scarce freshwater resources
Test case:
Expert judgments on Sealevel rise
Jeroen Veraart, Wim Cofino
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
Earth
Objective perspective
Subjective perspective
system
Precise
Information
causality
Likelihood scale
Confidence
scale
Level of
agreement &
evidence
observations
models
Scenario’s
Explanatory
factors
choice
Imprecise
Information
Human
dimension
Swart e.a., 2008
Set up Sea Level Rise Experiment

What will be the sea level rise in
(questionaire)



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
Probability density
0.25
Erik
Aad
Eddy
Arnold
0.2
Hasse
Herbert
Rob
0.15
Catharien
Judith
Fokke
0.1
Rik
Pavel
Saskia
0.05
0
1
5
9
13
17
21
25
29
33
37
41
45
49
53
57
61
65
69
73
77
Sea level rise 2030(cm)
81
85
89
93
97
Summed asym. PDF’s for 2030 (2
approaches)
Arithmic
mean = 20 cm ± 13 cm
Triangulars
Normal
Distr.
respondent
Summed
probabilityper
density functions
Summed asym.triangular probability density functions
7
5
hist
Model
Model-first mode
6
4
Min. Entropy approach
5
3.5
Pmf1 = 13.7 cm, 51.5%
Pmf3 = 35 cm, 11.8%
Pmf1 = 13.7 cm, 71%
Pmf2 = 42 cm, 17%
2.5
Pmf3 = 26 cm, 10%
Rik = 206, 6.7%
3
Min. Entropy approach
3
Pmf2 = 29.4 cm, 23.6%
4
2
no Rik
PMF3 1.5
2
10
20
30
PMF2
0.5
PMF1
0
PMF3
1
PMF2
1
0
hist
KDE
Model
Model-first mode
4.5
40
50
60
70
80
90
0
100 -10
PMF1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Overlap matrix sealevel rise 2030
Graphical representation of overlap matrix
9
Catharien
9
11
Rik Leemans
11
0.9
6
Herbert ter Maat
6
0.8
3
Eddy Moors
3
1
Erik van Slobbe
1
13
Saskia Werners
13
10
Judith Klostermann
10
0.5
5
Hasse Goosen
5
0.4
12
Pavel Kabat
12
8
Fokke de Jong
8
7
Rob Swart
7
0.2
4
Arnold van Vliet
4
0.1
2
Aad Sedee
2
0.7
0.6
9
Catharien
11
13
Saskia
Rik
10
Judith
6
5
Hasse
Herbert
12
Pavel
3
8
Fokke
Eddy
7
Rob
1
4
Arnold
Erik
2
Aad
0.3
Comparison of all expert judgments
Expert judgment
450
400
350
300
reality
250
Arith mean
cm
Min entropy
max
200
Max entropy
Delta Commissie
KNMI 06
150
min
100
50
0
Estimation 2030
-50
Estimation 2100
Estimation 2200
Eddy
ESS-CC
Comparison body lengths estimations
Eddy Judgment
ESS-CC Judgment
Summed asym.triangular probability density functions
6
hist
Model
Model-first mode
186cm
5
Summed asym.triangular probability density functions
4
3.5
hist
Model
Model-first mode
180cm
3
4
2.5
Minent
3
2
Rik, 133cm, 6%
2
1.5
183cm, 25%
183cm, 60%
1
PMF2
1
0
50
100
150
200
PMF3
177cm, 9%
PMF2
177cm, 22%
0.5
PMF1
0
Minent
PMF3
250
0
130
176cm, 56%
140
150
PMF1
160
170
180
190
200
210
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 you
Jeroen Veraart