Environmental Modeling & Assessment

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 273–281 | Cite as

Distributional Assumptions in Chance-Constrained Programming Models of Stochastic Water Pollution

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

In the water management literature both the normal and log-normal distribution are commonly used to model stochastic water pollution. The normality assumption is usually motivated by the central limit theorem, while the log-normality assumption is often motivated by the need to avoid the possibility of negative pollution loads. We utilize the truncated normal distribution as an alternative to these distributions. Using probabilistic constraints in a cost-minimization model for the Baltic Sea, we show that the distribution assumption bias is between 1% and 60%. Simulations show that a greater difference is to be expected for data with a higher degree of truncation. Using the normal distribution instead of the truncated normal distribution leads to an underestimation of the true cost. On the contrary, the difference in cost when using the normal versus the log-normal can be positive as well as negative.

Keywords

Cost effectiveness Water pollution Chance-constrained programming Log-normal distribution Truncated normal distribution 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors want to thank Clas Eriksson, Karin Larsen, Monica Campos, Yves Surry, and Erik Ansink for valuable comments. The usual disclaimer applies. Funding from Baltic Nest Institute, Aarhus University, Denmark, and the BONUS program is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. 1.
    Andersson, C., & Destouni, G. (2001). Groundwater transport in environmental risk and cost analysis: Role of random spatial variability and sorption kinetics. Ground Water, 39, 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blackwood, L. G. (1992). The lognormal distribution, environmental data, and radiological monitoring. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 21, 193–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bouraoui, F., Grizzetti, B., Granlund, K., Rekolainen, S., & Bidoglio, G. (2004). Impact of climate change on the water cycled and nutrient losses in a Finnish catchment. Climate Change, 66, 109–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brooke, A., Kendrick, D., & Meeraus, A. (1988). GAMS—a user’s guide. San Francisco: Scientific.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Byström, O. (1999). Wetlands as a nitrogen sink—estimation of costs in Laholm bay. In M. Boman, R. Brännlund & B. Kriström (Eds.), Topics in environmental economics. Dordrecht: Klüwer Academic.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1963). Deterministic equivalents for optimizing and satisfying under chance constraints. Operational Research, 11(1), 18–39.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cooper, W. W., Hemphill, H., Huang, Z., Li, S., Lelas, V., & Sullivan, D. W. (1997). Survey of mathematical programming models in air pollution management. European Journal of Operational Research, 96(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Crow, E. L., & Shimizu, K. (eds). (1988). Lognormal distributions: Theory and applications. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Elofsson, K. (2000). Cost efficient reductions of stochastic nutrient loads to the Baltic Sea. Working Paper Series 6. Uppsala: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Economics.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Elofsson, K. (2003). Cost-effective reductions of stochastic agricultural loads to the Baltic Sea. Ecological Economics, 47, 13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gren, I-M., Jannke, P. & Elofsson, K. (1995), Cost of Nutrient Reductions to the Baltic Sea, Technical Report. Beijer Discussion Papers Series No. 70. Stockholm: Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gren, I.-M., Destouni, G., & Scharin, H. (2000). Cost effective management of stochastic coastal water pollution. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 5(4), 193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gren, I.-M., Destouni, G., & Tempone, R. (2002). Cost effective policies for alternative distributions of stochastic water pollution. Journal of Environmental Management, 66, 145–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guo, P., Huang, G. H., He, L., & Sun, B. W. (2008). ITSSIP: Interval-parameter two-stage stochastic semi-infinite programming for environmental management under uncertainty. Environmental Modelling and Software, 23, 1422–1437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hald, A. (1952). Statistical theory with engineering applications. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huang, G. H., Sae-Lim, N., Liu, L., & Chen, Z. (2001). An interval-parameter fuzzy-stochastic programming approach for municipal solid waste management and planning. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 6, 271–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kampas, A., & White, B. (2003). Probabilistic programming for nitrate pollution control: Comparing different probabilistic constraint approximations. European Journal of Operational Research, 147(1), 217–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kampas, A., & Adamidis, K. (2005). Discussion of the paper “Cost effective policies for alternative distributions of stochastic water pollution” by Gren, Destouni and Tempone. Journal of Environmental Management, 66, 145–157.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li, Y. P., Huang, G. H., & Nie, S. L. (2006). An interval-parameter multi-stage stochastic programming model for water resources management under uncertainty. Advances in Water Resources, 29(5), 776–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Maqsood, I., Huang, G. H., & Yeomans, J. S. (2005). An interval-parameter fuzzy two-stage stochastic program for water resources management under uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research, 167(1), 208–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Milon, J. W. (1987). Optimizing nonpoint source controls in water quality regulation. Water Resources Bulletin, 23(3), 387–396.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ott, W. R. (1990). A physical explanation of the log-normality of pollutant concentrations. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, 40(10), 1378–1383.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Paris, Q., & Easter, C. D. (1985). A programming model with stochastic technology and prices: The case of Australian agriculture. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 67(1), 120–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reimann, C., & Filzmoser, P. (2000). Normal and lognormal data distribution in geochemistry: Death of a myth. Consequences for the statistical treatment of geochemical and environmental data. Environmental Geology, 39, 1001–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sengupta, J. K., & Gruver, G. (1971). Chance-constrained linear programming under truncation and varying sample sizes. The Swedish Journal of Economics, 73(2), 184–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Van Buren, M. A., Watt, W. E., & Marsalek, J. (1997). Applications of the lognormal and normal distributions to stormwater quality parameters. Water Research, 3(1), 95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Willett, K., Zhang, T., McTernan, W. F., Sharda, R., & Rossman, E. J. (1997). Regulation of pesticide discharge into surface and groundwater under uncertainty: A model for risk-profitability trade-offs and policy selection. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 2, 211–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Xu, F., Prato, T., & Zhu, M. (1996). Effects of distribution assumptions for sediment yields on farm returns in a chance-constrained programming model. Review of Agricultural Economics, 18, 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zhu, M., Taylor, D., Sarin, S., & Kramer, R. (1994). Chance constrained programming models for risk-based economic and policy analysis of soil conservation. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 23, 58–65.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mitesh Kataria
    • 1
  • Katarina Elofsson
    • 2
  • Berit Hasler
    • 3
  1. 1.Max Planck Institute of EconomicsStrategic Interaction GroupJenaGermany
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUppsalaSweden
  3. 3.National Environmental Research InstituteAarhus UniversityRoskildeDenmark

Personalised recommendations