“This Is What We Don't Know”: Treating Epistemic Uncertainty in Bayesian Networks for Risk Assessment
Ullrika Sahlin,Inari Helle,Dmytro Perepolkin
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4367
2020-12-03
Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management
Abstract:Failing to communicate current knowledge limitations, i.e. epistemic uncertainty, in environmental risk assessment (ERA) may have severe consequences for decision‐making. Bayesian Networks (BNs) have gained popularity in ERA, primarily because they can combine variables from different models and integrate data and expert judgement. This paper highlights potential gaps in the treatment of uncertainty when using BNs for ERA and proposes a consistent framework (and a set of methods) for treating epistemic uncertainty to help close these gaps. The proposed framework describes the treatment of epistemic uncertainty about the model structure, parameters, expert judgement, data, management scenarios, and the assessment's output. We identify issues related to the differentiation between aleatory and epistemic uncertainty and the importance of communicating both uncertainties associated with the assessment predictions (direct uncertainty) and the strength of knowledge supporting the assessment (indirect uncertainty). Probabilities, intervals, or scenarios are expressions of direct epistemic uncertainty. The type of BN determines the treatment of parameter uncertainty: epistemic, aleatory, or predictive. Epistemic BNs are useful for probabilistic reasoning about states of the world in light of evidence. Aleatory BNs are the most relevant for ERA, but they are not sufficient to treat epistemic uncertainty alone, as they do not explicitly express parameter uncertainty. For uncertainty analysis, we recommend embedding an aleatory BN into a model for parameter uncertainty. BNs do not contain information about uncertainty in the model structure, which requires several models. Statistical models (e.g., hierarchical modelling outside the BNs) are required to consider uncertainties and variability associated with data. We highlight the importance of being open about things one does not know and carefully choosing a method to precisely communicate both direct and indirect uncertainty in ERA.EDITOR'S NOTE: This article is part of the special series "Applications of Bayesian Networks for Environmental Risk Assessment and Management" and was generated from a session on the use of Bayesian networks (BNs) in environmental modelling and assessment in 1 of 3 recent conferences: SETAC North America 2018 (Sacramento), SETAC Europe 2019 (Helsinki), and European Geosciences Union 2019 (Vienna). The 3 sessions aimed at showing the state‐of‐the art and new directions in the use of BN models in environmental assessment, focusing on ecotoxicology and water quality modelling. This series aims at reflecting the broad applicability of BN methodology in environmental assessment across a range of ecosystem types and scales, and discusses the relevance for environmental management.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
environmental sciences,toxicology