Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The European Forum on Integrated Environmental Assessment

  • Published:
Environmental Modeling & Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Integrated Environmental Assessment (IEA) can be loosely defined as policy‐relevant, multidisciplinary research on environmental issues. Many, diverse activities in this broad field are ongoing, but the approaches lack the structure, standardization and quality control common in disciplinary research. IEA has three stages: “structuring the problem”, “analyzing the problem” and “communicating the findings and insights”. Each stage has its inherent difficulties, not least because problem definition and analysis are neither separable nor unambiguous nor unique. Difficulties are exacerbated in the first and third stages by the necessity for science and policy to work together. Difficulties are exacerbated in the second stage by the necessity of different scientific disciplines to cooperate. The European Forum on Integrated Environmental Assessment is an initiative to improve scientific quality and policy‐relevance of IEA, by organizing two series of workshops, one looking in detail at current and desired scientific practices, the other reviewing current and establishing further applications of IEA to environmental issues in Europe.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. J. Alcamo, IMAGE 2.0: Integrated Modeling of Global Climate Change (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  2. J. Alcamo, R. Shaw and L. Hordijk, The RAINS Model of Acidification: Science and Strategies in Europe (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  3. M. Amann, M. Baldi, C. Heyes, Z. Klimont and W. Schoepp, Integrated assessment of emission control scenarios, including the impact of tropospheric ozone, Water, Air and Soil Pollution 85 (1995) 2595–2600.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. H.M. ApSimon and R.F. Warren, Transboundary air pollution in Europe, Energy Policy 24(7) (1996) 631–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. M.B.A. van Asselt, A.H.W. Beusen and H.B.M. Hilderink, Uncertainty in integrated assessment: A social scientific perspective, Environmental Modeling and Assessment 1(1,2) (1996) 71–90.

    Google Scholar 

  6. P.D. Bailey, IEA: A new methodology for environmental policy?, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 17 (1997) 221–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. P.D. Bailey, C.A. Gough, M.J. Chadwick and G. McGranahan, Methods for Integrated Environmental Assessment: Research Directions for the European Union (Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  8. R. Braddock, J. Filar, R. Zapert, J. Rotmans and M. Den Elzen, The IMAGE greenhouse model as a mathematical system, Applied Mathematical Modelling 18 (1994) 234–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. S.J. Cohen, ed., Mackenzie Basin Impact Study - Interim Report #1 (Canadian Climate Centre, Downsview, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  10. S.J. Cohen, Mackenzie Basin Impact Study: Broadening the climate change debate, Ecodecision (1995) 34–37.

  11. S.J. Cohen, Mackenzie Basin Impact Study Final Report (Environment Canada, Vancouver, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  12. S.J. Cohen, Scientist-stakeholder collaboration in integrated assessment of climate change: Lessons from a case study of Northwest Canada, Environmental Modeling and Assessment 2 (1997) 281–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. H. Dowlatabadi, Integrated assessment models of climate change: An incomplete overview, Energy Policy 23(4) (1995) 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. H. Dowlatabadi, Adaptive management of climate change mitigation: A strategy for coping with uncertainty (draft) (1997).

  15. H. Dowlatabadi and G. Morgan, A model framework for integrated studies of the climate problem, Energy Policy (1993) 209–221.

  16. G. Duerrenberger, J. Behringer, U. Dahinden, A. Gerger, B. Kasemir, C. Querol, R. Schuele, D. Tabara, F.L. Toth, M.B.A. van Asselt, D. Vassilarou, N. Willi and C.C. Jaeger, Focus groups in integrated assessment: A manual for a participatory tool, ULYSSES Working Paper WP-97-2, Center for Interdisciplinary Studies in Technology, Darmstadt University of Technology (1997).

  17. J. Edmonds, M. Wise and C. MacCracken, Advanced energy technologies and climate change: An analysis using the global change assessment model (GCAM), in: Global Climate Change - Science, Policy, and Mitigation Strategies, eds. C.V. Mathai and G. Stensland (Air & Waste Management Association, Boston, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  18. S. Fankhauser, Valuing Climate Change - The Economics of the Greenhouse (EarthScan, London, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  19. S. Fankhauser and S. Kverndokk, The global warming game - Simulations of a CO2-reduction agreement, Resource and Energy Economics 18 (1996) 83–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. W. Foell, C. Green, M. Amann, S. Bhattacharya, G. Carmicheal, M.J. Chadwick, S. Cinderby, T. Haugland, J.-P. Hettelingh, L. Hordijk, J.C.I. Kuylenstierna, J. Shah, R. Shrestha, D. Streets and D. Zhao, Energy use, emissions, and air pollution reduction strategies in Asia, Water, Air and Soil Pollution 85 (1995) 2277–2282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. S.O. Funtowicz and J.R. Ravetz, Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science, in: Social Theories of Risk, eds. S. Krimsky and D. Golding (Greenwood, Westport, 1992).

  22. S.O. Funtowicz and J.R. Ravetz, Uncertainty, complexity and postnormal science, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13(12) (1994) 1881–1885.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. M. Grubb, M. Ha Duong and T. Chapuis, The economics of changing course, Energy Policy 23(4/5) (1995) 417–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. N. Haigh, Science-policy interactions from a policy perspective, Environmental Modeling and Assessment 3 (1998), this issue.

  25. K. Hasselmann, S. Hasselmann, R. Giering, V. Ocana and H. von Storch, Sensitivity study of optimal CO2 emission paths using a simplified Structural Integrated Assessment Model (SIAM), Climatic Change 37 (1997) 345–386.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. A. Henderson-Sellers, Can we integrate climatic modeling and assessment?, Environmental Modeling and Assessment 1(1,2) (1996) 59–70.

    Google Scholar 

  27. M. Hisschemoeller and R. Hoppe, Coping with intractable controversies: The case for problem structuring in policy design and analysis, Knowledge and Policy - The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization 8(4) (1995) 40–60.

    Google Scholar 

  28. C.W. Hope, J. Anderson and P. Wenman, Policy analysis of the greenhouse effect: An application of the PAGE model, Energy Policy 15 (1993) 328–338.

    Google Scholar 

  29. L. Hordijk, Review of the IMAGE model, 410100080, RIVM, Bilthoven (1993).

  30. L. Hordijk, Integrated assessment models as a basis for air pollution negotiations, Water, Air and Soil Pollution 85 (1995) 249–260.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. L. Hordijk and C. Kroeze, Integrated assessment models for acid rain, European Journal of Operational Research 102 (1997) 405–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. J.C. Hourcade, R.G. Richels, J. Robinson, W. Chandler, O. Davidson, D. Finon, M.J. Grubb, K. Halsneas, K. Hogan, M. Jaccard, F. Krause, E. La Rovere, W.D. Montgomery, P. Nastari, A. Pegov, K. Richards, L. Schrattenholzer, D. Siniscalco, P.R. Shukla, Y. Sokona, P. Sturm and A. Tudini, Estimating the costs of mitigating greenhouse gases, in: Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions - Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds. J.P. Bruce, H. Lee and E.F. Haites (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  33. J. Jäger, Current thinking on using scientific findings in environmental policy making, Environmental Modeling and Assessment 3 (1998), this issue.

  34. C.C. Jaeger, S. Shackley, E. Darier and C. Waterton, Towards a polylogue on climate change and global modelling, ULYSSES Working Paper WP-97-3, Center for Interdisciplinary Studies in Technology, Darmstadt University of Technology (1997).

  35. M. Janssen, Meeting Targets - Tools to Support Integrated Assessment Modelling of Global Change (University of Maastricht, Maastricht, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  36. B. Kasemir, M.B.A. van Asselt, G. Duerrenberger and C.C. Jaeger, Integrated assessment: Multiple perspectives in interaction, International Journal of Environment and Pollution (1998, forthcoming).

  37. B. Kasemir, J. Behringer, B. De March, C. Deuker, G. Duerrenberger, S. Funtowicz, A. Gerger, M. Giaoutzi, Y. Haffner, M. Nilsson, C. Querol, R. Schuele, D. Tabara, M.B.A. van Asselt, D. Vassilarou, N. Will and C.C. Jaeger, Focus groups in integrated assessment: The ULYSSES pilot experience, ULYSSES Working Paper WP-97-4, Center for Interdisciplinary Studies in Technology, Darmstadt University of Technology (1997).

  38. G.A.J. Klaassen, Trading Sulphur Emission Reduction Commitments in Europe: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  39. J.H.G. Klabbers, R.J. Swart, R. Janssen, P. Vellinga and A.P. van Ulden, Climate science and climate policy: Improving the science/ policy interface, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 1 (1996) 73–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. C.D. Kolstad, George Bush versus Al Gore: Irreversibilities in greenhouse gas accumulation and emission control investment, Energy Policy 22(9) (1994) 772–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. C.D. Kolstad, Learning and stock effects in environmental regulations: The case of greenhouse gas emissions, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31 (1996) 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. M. Leimbach, Development of a fuzzy optimization model, supporting global warming decision-making, Environmental and Resource Economics 7 (1996) 163–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. D. Maddison, A cost-benefit analysis of slowing climate change, Energy Policy 23(4/5) (1995) 337–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. A.S. Manne, R. Mendelsohn and R.G. Richels, MERGE: A model for evaluating regional and global effects of GHG reduction policies, Energy Policy 23(1) (1995) 17–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. A.S. Manne and R.G. Richels, The greenhouse debate: Economic efficiency, burden sharing and hedging strategies, Energy Journal 16(4) (1995) 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  46. M.G. Morgan and H. Dowlatabadi, Learning from integrated assessment of climate change, Climatic Change 34 (1996) 337–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. T. Morita, M. Kainuma, H. Harasawa, K. Kai, L. Dong-Kun and Y. Matsuoka, Asian-Pacific integrated model for evaluating policy options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and global warming impacts, AIM Interim Paper, National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  48. W.D. Nordhaus, An optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases, Science 258 (1992) 1315–1319.

    Google Scholar 

  49. W.D. Nordhaus, Rolling the DICE: An optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases, Resource and Energy Economics 15 (1993) 27–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. W.D. Nordhaus, Managing the Global Commons: The Economics of Climate Change (The MIT Press, Cambridge, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  51. W.D. Nordhaus and Z. Yang, RICE: A regional dynamic general equilibrium model of optimal climate-change policy, American Economic Review 86(4) (1996) 741–765.

    Google Scholar 

  52. E.A. Parson, Integrated assessment and environmental policy making, Energy Policy 23(4/5) (1995) 463-475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. E.A. Parson, Three dilemmas in the integrated assessment of climate change - An editorial comment, Climatic Change 34 (1996) 315–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. E.A. Parson, Informing global environmental policy-making: A plea for new methods of assessment and synthesis, Environmental Modeling and Assessment 2 (1997) 267–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. S.C. Peck and T.J. Teisberg, CETA: A model for carbon emissions trajectory assessment, The Energy Journal 13(1) (1991) 55–77.

    Google Scholar 

  56. S.C. Peck and T.J. Teisberg, Global warming uncertainties and the value of information: An analysis using CETA, Resource and Energy Economics 15 (1993) 71–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. S.C. Peck and T.J. Teisberg, CO2 emissions control: comparing policy instruments, Energy Policy (1993) 222–230.

  58. S.C. Peck and T.J. Teisberg, Optimal carbon emissions trajectories when damages depend on the rate or level of global warming, Climatic Change 28 (1994) 289–314.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. S.C. Peck and T.J. Teisberg, Optimal CO2 control policy with stochastic losses from temperature rise, Climatic Change 31 (1995) 19–34.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. S.C. Peck and T.J. Teisberg, International CO2 emissions targets and timetables: An analysis of the AOSIS proposal, Environmental Modeling and Assessment 1(4) (1996) 219–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. E.L. Plambeck and C.W. Hope, PAGE95 - An updated valuation of the impacts of global warming, Energy Policy 24(9) (1996) 783–793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. E.L. Plambeck, C.W. Hope and J. Anderson, The Page95 model: Integrating the science and economics of global warming, Energy Economics 19 (1997) 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. J.R. Ravetz, Integrated Environmental Assessment Forum: Developing guidelines for good practice, ULYSSES Working Paper WP-97-1, Center for Interdisciplinary Studies in Technology, Darmstadt University of Technology (1997).

  64. J. Risbey, M. Kandlikar and A. Patwardhan, Assessing integrated assessments, Climatic Change 34 (1996) 369–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. N.J. Rosenberg, Towards and integrated impact assessment of climate change: The MINK study, Climatic Change 24(1,2) (1993).

  66. J. Rotmans, IMAGE: An Integrated Model to Assess the Greenhouse Effect (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  67. J. Rotmans, ed., TARGETS in Transition (RIVM, Bilthoven, 1995).

  68. J. Rotmans, Methods for IA - Challenges and opportunities ahead, Environmental Modeling and Assessment 3 (1998), this issue.

  69. J. Rotmans and M. van Asselt, Integrated assessment: A growing child on its way to maturity - An editorial essay, Climatic Change 34 (1996) 327–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. J. Rotmans and H. Dowlatabadi, Integrated assessment of climate change: Evaluation of methods and strategies, in: Human Choices and Climate Change: A State of the Art Report (Batelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  71. J. Rotmans, M. Hulme and T.E. Downing, Climate change implications for Europe: An application of the ESCAPE model, Global Environmental Change 4(2) (1994) 97–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. S.H. Schneider, Integrated assessment modeling of global climate change: Transparent rational tool for policy making or opaque screen hiding value-laden assumptions?, Environmental Modeling and Assessment 2 (1997) 229–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. J.P. van der Sluis, Anchoring amid Uncertainty - On the Management of Uncertainties of Risk Assessment of Anthropogenic Climate Change (Utrecht University, Utrecht, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  74. J.P. van der Sluis and J. Jaeger, Towards a typology of computer tools for participatory integrated assessment, Policy Studies Annual Review - Knowledge Power and Participation in Environmental Policy (1998, forthcoming).

  75. M. Thompson, Cultural theory and integrated assessment, Environmental Modeling and Assessment 2 (1997) 139–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. R.S.J. Tol, On the optimal control of carbon dioxide emissions: An application of FUND, Environmental Modeling and Assessment 2 (1997) 151–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. R.S.J. Tol, The social cost controversy: A personal appraisal, in: Proceedings of the International Symposium Prospects of Integrated Environmental Assessment: Lessons Learnt from the Case of Climate Change, eds. A. Sors, A. Liberatore, S. Funtowicz, J.C. Hourcade and J.L. Fellous (European Commission DG12, Brussels, 1997) pp. 35–42.

    Google Scholar 

  78. R.S.J. Tol, T. van der Burg, H.M.A. Jansen and H. Verbruggen, The climate fund - Some notions on the socio-economic impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and emission reduction in an international context, R95/03, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  79. F.L. Toth and E. Hizsnyik, Integrated environmental assessment methodologies: A survey, Environmental Modeling and Assessment 3 (1998), this issue.

  80. UKCCIRG - United Kingdom Climate Change Impacts Review Group, Review of the Potential Effects of Climate Change in the United Kingdom (HMSO, London, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  81. J.P. Weyant, Insights from integrated assessment, in: Critical Issues in the Economics of Climate Change, eds. B.P. Flannery, K.R. Kohlhase and D.G. LeVine (IPIECA, London, 1997) pp. 245–278.

    Google Scholar 

  82. J. Weyant, O. Davidson, H. Dowlatabadi, J. Edmonds, M. Grubb, E.A. Parson, R. Richels, J. Rotmans, P.R. Shukla, R.S.J. Tol, W.R. Cline and S. Fankhauser, Integrated assessment of climate change: An overview and comparison of approaches and results, in: Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions - Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds. J.P. Bruce, H. Lee and E.F. Haites (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  83. B. Wynne, Risk and social learning: Reification to engagement, in: Social Theory of Risk, eds. S. Krimsky and D. Golding (Greenwood, Westport, 1992).

  84. G.W. Yohe and R. Wallace, Near term mitigation policy for global change under uncertainty: Minimizing the expected cost of meeting unknown concentration thresholds, Environmental Modeling and Assessment 1(1,2) (1996) 47–58.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1115, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Richard S.J. Tol & Pier Vellinga

Authors
  1. Richard S.J. Tol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pier Vellinga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tol, R.S., Vellinga, P. The European Forum on Integrated Environmental Assessment. Environmental Modeling & Assessment 3, 181–191 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019023124912

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019023124912

Keywords

Search

Navigation