Advertisement

Model Quality Assurance

  • C. Borrego
  • O. Tchepel
  • A. C. Carvalho

Abstract

Complex numerical models widely used to assist decision-makers in environmental studies have not always been submitted for proper analysis of their performance. Therefore, some important decisions having political and economical consequences could be based on model predictions of unknown quality (Schatzmann and Leitl, 1999). At the same time, defining model quality is not a simple task and there is no universal strategy for this intention. It has been recognised in EUROTRAC-2 that model calculations of known quality and adequate for their intended use is an essential element for project success (Borrell, 1998).

Keywords

Quality Indicator Quality Objective Modelling Goal Photochemical Modelling Lisbon Region 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Borrego C., Barros N., Miranda A.I., Carvalho A.C. and Valinhas M.J. (1998): Validation of two photochemical numerical systems under complex mesoscale circulations. Proc. 23rd NATO/CCMS Int. Tech. Meeting on Air Pollution Modelling and its Application, Bulgaria.Google Scholar
  2. Borrell P. (1998): Quality Assurance and Quality Control in EUROTRAC-2. A statement by the Scientific Steering Committee (SSC). IFU Garmisch-Partenkirchen.Google Scholar
  3. Britter R.E. (1994): The Evaluation of technical models used for major-accident hazard installation. Report EUR 14774 EN, Brussels.Google Scholar
  4. EEA (1996): Ambient air quality, pollutant dispersion and transport models. Topic Report 19/96 ETC/AQ.Google Scholar
  5. Fox D.G. (1984): Uncertainty in Air Quality Modelling. In: Bulletin American Meteorological Society, V.65, N∖1, pp.27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. ISO 14050:1998 (1998): Environmental Management — Vocabulary.Google Scholar
  7. Martinez J.R., Javitz H.S., Ruff R.E., Valdes A., Nitz K.C. and Dabberdt W.F. (1981): Methodology for Evaluation Highway Air Pollution Dispersion Models. Transportation Research Board, USA.Google Scholar
  8. MEG-Model Evaluation Group (1994): Report on the second Open Meeting. By Cole S.T. and Wicks P.J., France.Google Scholar
  9. Schatzmann M. and Leitl B. (1999); Quality Assurance of Urban Dispersion Models. Proc. 6th International Conference on Harmonisation within Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling for Regulatory Purpose, France, CD-ROM.Google Scholar
  10. Schlünzen K. Heinke (1997): On the validation of high-resolution atmospheric mesoscale models. In: J. Wind Eng. and Industrial Aerodynamics, 67 & 68, pp. 479–492.Google Scholar
  11. USEPA (1998): A Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans; EPA QA/G-5.Google Scholar
  12. USEPA (1991): Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed Model. EPA-450/4-91-013.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Borrego
    • 1
  • O. Tchepel
    • 1
  • A. C. Carvalho
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environment and PlanningUniversity of AveiroPortugal

Personalised recommendations