Climatic Change

, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 539–563 | Cite as

Bene-Eia: A Bayesian Approach to Expert Judgment Elicitation with Case Studies on Climate Change Impacts on Surface Waters

  • Olli Varis
  • Sakari Kuikka


Climatic change impact studies are among the most complicated environmental assessments scientists have ever faced. The questions that policy makers face are enormous. There is plenty of experience and systematization in the environmental impact assessment (EIA) practice, especially at project level studies, but it has not been fully utilized in climatic change studies, we argue. Screening and scoping in EIA are typical examples. Beset by uncertainty and interdisciplinary divisions, climatic change impact analyses and policy assessments have been dominated by very detailed studies without the prior cross-sectorial, integrative phases that would aid in focusing the issues. Here, we present a probabilistic, Bayesian impact matrix approach (BeNe-EIA) for expert judgment elicitation, using belief networks from artificial intelligence. One or more experts are used to define a Bayesian prior distribution to each of the selected attributes, and the interattribute links, of the system under study. Posterior probabilities are calculated interactively, indicating consistency of the assessment and allowing iterative analysis of the system. Illustration is given by 2 impact studies of surface waters. In addition to climatic change studies, the approach has been designed to be applicable to conventional EIA. Insufficient attention has thus far been devoted to the probabilistic nature of the assessment and potential inconsistencies in expert judgment.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baum, W. C.: 1982, Project Cycle, The World Bank, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  2. Beanlands, G.: 1988, ‘Scoping Methods and Baseline Studies in EIA’, in Wathern, P. (ed.), Environmental Impact Assessment, Theory and Practice, Routledge, London, pp. 33–46.Google Scholar
  3. Bisset, R.: 1988, ‘Developments in EIA Methods’, in Wathern, P. (ed.), Environmental Impact Assessment, Theory and Practice, Routledge, London, pp. 47–61.Google Scholar
  4. Biswas, A. K. and Geping, Q.: 1987, Environmental Impact Assessment for Developing Countries, UNU/Tycooly, London, p. 232.Google Scholar
  5. Canter, L. W., Atkinson, S. F., and Leistritz, F. L.: 1985, Impacts of Growth, Lewis, Chelsea, MI, p. 542.Google Scholar
  6. Ebisemiju, F. S.: 1993, ‘Environmental Impact Assessment: Making It Work in Developing Countries’, J. Environ. Manage. 38, 247–273.Google Scholar
  7. EBRD: 1994, Environmental Impact Assessment Legislation: Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, London, p. 352.Google Scholar
  8. EIA Centre: 1992, ‘EIA Guidelines’, University of Manchester, Leaflet Series 12.Google Scholar
  9. Fiering, M. B. and Rogers, P.: 1989, ‘Climate Change and Water Resources Planning under Uncertainty’, Report for U.S. Army Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, VA.Google Scholar
  10. Golden, J., Ouellette, R. P., Saari, S., and Cheremisinoff, P. N.: 1979, Environmental Impact Data Book, Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, MI, p. 874.Google Scholar
  11. Hammit, J. K.: 1995, ‘Outcome and Value Uncertainties in Global-Change Policy’, Clim. Change 30, 125–145.Google Scholar
  12. Horwitz, E. J., Breese, J. S., and Henrion, M.: 1988, ‘Decision Theory in Expert Systems and Artificial Intelligence’, Int. J. Approxim. Reason. 2, 247–302.Google Scholar
  13. Järnefelt, H.: 1956, ‘Materialien zur Hydrobiologie des Sees Tuusulanjärvi’, Acta Soc. Fauna et Flora Fennica 71, 1–38.Google Scholar
  14. Kuikka, S. and Varis, O.: 1997, ‘Climatic Change Impact Assessment: A Bayesian Uncertainty Analysis on Boreal Watersheds’, Boreal Environ. Res. 2, 109–128.Google Scholar
  15. Kämäri, J. (ed.): 1997, ‘Special Issue on Climate Change and Waters in the Boreal Zone’, Boreal Environ. Res. 2, 1–128.Google Scholar
  16. Laurmann, J. A.: 1991, ‘Global Warming and the Credibility of Science’, Clim. Change 18, 107–109.Google Scholar
  17. Lee, N. (ed.): 1992, ‘Special Issue on Strategic Environmental Assessment’, Project Appraisal 7, 125–192.Google Scholar
  18. Lee, N. and Walsh, F.: 1992, ‘Strategic Environmental Assessment: An Overview’, Project Appraisal 7, 126–136.Google Scholar
  19. Lohani, B. N.: 1984, Environmental Quality Management, South Asian Publishers, New Delhi, p. 452.Google Scholar
  20. Lohani, B. N. and Halim, N.: 1987, ‘Recommended Methodologies for Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment in Developing Countries: Experiences Derived from Case Studies in Thailand’, in Biswas, A. K. and Geping, Q. (eds.), Environmental Impact Assessment in Developing Countries, UNU/Tycooly, London, pp. 65–111.Google Scholar
  21. Morgan, M. G. and Keith, D. W.: 1995, ‘Subjective Judgments by Climate Experts’, Environ. Sci. Technol. 29, 468–476.Google Scholar
  22. Pearl, J.: 1986, ‘Fusion, Propagation, and Structuring in Belief Networks’, Artif. Intellig. 29, 241–288.Google Scholar
  23. Pearl, J.: 1988, Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference, Morgan-Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, p. 552.Google Scholar
  24. Pekkarinen, M.: 1990, ‘Comprehensive Survey of the Hypertrophic Lake Tuusulanjärvi, Nutrient Loading, Water Quality and Prospects of Restoration’, Aqua Fennica 20, 13–25.Google Scholar
  25. Roos, J.: 1996, The Finnish Research Programme on Climatic Change: Final Report, Edita, Helsinki, p. 505.Google Scholar
  26. Räisänen, J.: 1994, ‘A Comparison of the Results of Seven GCM Experiments in Northern Europe’, Geophysica 30, 3–30.Google Scholar
  27. Saaty, T. L.: 1980, The Analytic Hierarchy Process — Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation, McGraw-Hill, New York, p. 287.Google Scholar
  28. Schneider, S. H.: 1990a, Global Warming: Are We Entering the Greenhouse Century?, Vintage, New York.Google Scholar
  29. Schneider, S. H.: 1990b, ‘The Global Warming Debate: Science or Politics?’, Environ. Sci. Technol. 24, 432–435.Google Scholar
  30. Schneider, S. H.: 1994, ‘Detecting Climatic Change Signals: Are There Any “Fingerprints”?’, Science 263, 341–347.Google Scholar
  31. Shackley, S. and Wynne, B.: 1995, ‘Integrating Knowledges for Climate Change. Pyramids, Nets and Uncertainties’, Global Environ. Change 5, 113–126.Google Scholar
  32. Shafer, G.: 1990, ‘Decision Making’, in Shafer, G. and Pearl, J. (eds.), Readings in Uncertain Reasoning, Morgan-Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, pp. 61–67.Google Scholar
  33. Shlyakter, A., Valverde, L. J., and Wilson, R.: 1995, ‘Integrated Risk Analysis of Global Climate Change’, Chemosphere 30, 1585–1618.Google Scholar
  34. Szolovits, P. and Pauker, S. G.: 1993, ‘Categorical and Probabilistic Reasoning in Medicine Revisited’, Artif. Intellig. 59, 167–180.Google Scholar
  35. Therivel, R.: 1993, ‘Systems of Strategic Environmental Assessment’, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 13, 145–168.Google Scholar
  36. Varis, O.: 1991, ‘A Canonical Approach to Diagnostic and Predictive Modelling of Phytoplankton Communities’, Arch. Hydrobiol. 122, 147–166.Google Scholar
  37. Varis, O.: 1993, ‘Cyanobacteria Dynamics in a Restored Finnish Lake — a Long Term Simulation Study’, Hydrobiologia 268, 129–145.Google Scholar
  38. Varis, O.: 1994, A Belief Network Approach to Modeling Environmental Change: The Methodology and Prospects for Application, WP–94-40, IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria, p. 18.Google Scholar
  39. Varis, O.: 1995a, A Belief Network Approach to Optimization and Parameter Estimation in Resource and Environmental Management Models, WP–95-11, IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria, p. 38.Google Scholar
  40. Varis, O.: 1995b, ‘Belief Networks for Modelling and Assessment of Environmental Change’, Environmetrics 6, 439–444.Google Scholar
  41. Varis, O.: 1996, ‘Water Quality Models: Typologies for Environmental Impact Assessment’, Water Sci. Technol. 34, 109–117.Google Scholar
  42. Varis, O. and Kettunen, J.: 1990, ‘Modeling of Water Quality in Lake Tuusulanjärvi’, Aqua Fennica 20, 43–52.Google Scholar
  43. Varis, O., Kuikka, S., and Taskinen, A.: 1994, ‘Modeling for Water Quality Decisions: Uncertainty and Subjectivity in Information, in Objectives, and in Model Structure’, Ecol. Modelling 74, 91–101.Google Scholar
  44. Varis, O. and Kuikka, S.: 1997, ‘Joint Use of Multiple Environmental Assessment Models by a Bayesian Meta-Model: The Baltic Salmon Case’, Ecol. Modelling, in press.Google Scholar
  45. Varis, O. and Somlyódy, L.: 1996, ‘Potential Impacts of Climatic Change on Lake and Reservoir Water Quality’, in Kaczmarek, Z., Strzepek, K., Somlyódy, L., and Priazhinskaya, V. (eds.), Water Resources Management in the Face of Climatic/Hydrologic Uncertainties, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 46–69.Google Scholar
  46. Wathern, P.: 1988, ‘Introduction’, in Wathern, P. (ed.), Environmental Impact Assessment, Theory and Practice, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  47. World Bank: 1991, Environmental Assessment Sourcebook. Vols. I–III, World Bank Technical Papers 139, 140, 154, The World Bank, Washington D.C., p. 227, 282 and 237.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olli Varis
    • 1
  • Sakari Kuikka
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratory of Water ResourcesHelsinki University of TechnologyHutFinland
  2. 2.Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute, xP.O. Box 6HelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations