Assessing the Performance Level of Air Quality Models

  • William M. Cox
  • Joseph A. Tikvart
Part of the NATO · Challenges of Modern Society book series (NATS, volume 10)


The air quality management process relies heavily on an ability to predict the impact of control decisions on ambient pollutant concentrations.1 Air quality models are a fundamental component of this management process. In fact, control decisions based on these models have a major effect on the siting of air pollution sources and on the costs of control. Accordingly, air quality managers need to know the accuracy of model estimates, and modelers need a measure by which to evaluate and compare the performance of alternative models.


Environmental Protection Agency Fractional Difference Cinder Cone American Meteorological Society Urban Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    “Guidelines to Air Quality Management Systems,” A Report by the NATO/ CCMS Pilot Study on Air Pollution Assessment Methodology and Modeling, N. 71 (revised), North Atlantic Treaty Organization, April 1979.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    “Practical Demonstration of Urban Air Quality Simulation Models,” A Report of the NATO/CCMS Pilot Study on Air Pollution Assessment Methodology and Modeling, N. 106, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, August 1980.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    G.E. Moore, T.E. Stoeckenius and D. A. Stewart, “A Survey of Statistical Measures of Model Performance and Accuracy for Several Air Quality Models,” EPA-450/4–83–001, November 1982.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    “Air Quality Modeling and the Clean Air Act: Recommendations to EPA on Dispersion Modeling for Regulatory Applications,” Report Prepared Under a Cooperative Agreement With the Environmental Protection Agency, American Meteorological Society, Boston, MA, 1981.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    “Guidelines on Air Quality Models,” Federal Register 45(61):20157 (1980)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. G. Fox, “Judging Air Quality Model Performance”, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 62(5):599 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. A. Tikvart and W. M. Cox, “EPA’s Model Evaluation Program,” Paper Presented at the Fourth Joint Conference on Applications of Air Pollution Meteorology, Portland, OR, 1984.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    W. M. Cox, J. A. Tikvart and J. L. Pearson, “Preliminary Conclusions from EPA’s Model Evaluation Program, Paper 85–24A.4 Presented at the 78th APCA Annual Meeting, Detroit, Michigan, 1985.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. J. Londergan, D. H. Minott, D. J. Wackter, T. Kincaid and D. Bonitata “Evaluation of Rural Air Quality Simulation Models,” EPA-450/4–83–003, October 1982.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. J. Londergan, D. H. Minott, D. J. Wackter and R. R. Fizz, “Evaluation of Urban Air Quality Simulation Models,” EPA-450/4–83–020, July 1983.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. G. Fox, D. Randerson, M. E. Smith, F. D. White and J. C. Wyngaard, “Synthesis of the Rural Model Reviews,” EPA 600/S3–83–109, December 1983.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    F. D. White, “Review of the Attributes and Performance of Six Urban Diffusion Models,” EPA-600/S3–84–089, September 1984.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. E. Smith, “Review of the Attributes and Performance of 10 Rural Diffusion Models,” Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 65(6):554 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. J. Londergan and D. J. Wackter, “Evaluation of Complex Terrain Air Quality Simulation Models,” EPA-450/4–84–017, June 1984.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    G. Csanady, D. G. Fox, M. E. Smith, J. Weil, F. D. White, and J. C. Wyngaard, “Summary of Complex Terrain Model Evaluation,” Draft Report Submitted to Environmental Protection Agency by the American Meteorological Society, January 1985.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    B. Efron and G. Gong, “A Leisurely Look at the Bootstrap, the Jackknife, and Cross-Validation,” The American Statistician 37 (1): 36 (1983).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    W. S. Cleveland and R. McGill, “Graphical Perception Theory, Experimentation, and Application to the Development of Graphical Methods,” Journal of the American Statistical Association 79(387):531 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. J. Policastro, M. Wastag, J.D. Shannon, R. Carhart and W. Dunn, “Evaluation of Two Short-Term Long-Range Transport Models with Field Data”, Transactions of an APCA Specialty Conference on the Meteorology of Acid Deposition, Hartford, CT, 1983, pp. 513–527.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. R. Martinez, H. S. Javitz, R. E. Ruff, A. Valdes, K. C. Nitz and W. F. Dabberdt, “Methodology for Evaluating Highway Air Pollution Dispersion Models,” National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report, Transportation Research Board, December 1981.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. E. Layland and H. S. Cole, “A Review of Recent Applications of the SAI Urban Airshed Model,” EPA-450/4–84–004, December 1983.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • William M. Cox
    • 1
  • Joseph A. Tikvart
    • 1
  1. 1.Monitoring and Data Analysis Division (MD-14)U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyResearch Triangle ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations