The methodology for calculation of contribution to uncertainty is based upon apportioning the variance of the inventory to the variance of each category.
If the uncertainty is symmetric, then the variance is estimated, on a category basis, as:
Contribution of category X - variance for symmetric uncertainty a? =| Dx^x.
Ux = uncertainty half-range for category x, in units of percent;
Dx = the total emissions or removals for category x, corresponding to the entries in Column D of Table 3.5.
cx2 = the variance of emissions or removals for category x.
Even if the uncertainty is asymmetric, the variance can be estimated based on the arithmetic standard deviation or the coefficient of variation. The variance is simply the square of the arithmetic deviation. The variance for the category can be estimated from the coefficient of variation, vx, as:
Contribution of category X - variance for asymmetric uncertainty
Once the variance is known for a category, the variances should be summed over all categories. The result is the approximate total variance in the inventory. However, this result is not likely to agree exactly with a Monte Carlo simulation result for the inventory for at least one and possibly more reasons: (1) because of sample fluctuations in the Monte Carlo simulation, the Monte Carlo estimate of the variance may differ somewhat from the true value; (2) the analytical calculation is based upon assumptions of normality or lognormality of the distributions for combined uncertainty for individual categories, whereas Monte Carlo simulation can accommodate a wide variety of distribution assumptions; and (3) the Monte Carlo simulation may account for nonlinearities and dependencies that are not accounted for in the analytical calculation for contribution to variance. If the emission inventory calculations are linear or approximately linear, without any substantial correlations, then the results should agree fairly well. Furthermore, methods for estimating 'contribution to variance' for Monte Carlo methods are approximate. For those methods that potentially can account for all contributions to variance (e.g., Sobol's method, Fourier Amplitude Sensitivity Test), the measures of sensitivity are more complex (e.g., Mokhtari et al., 2006). Thus, the methodology described here is a practical compromise.
Abdel-Aziz, A., and Frey, H.C. (2003). 'Development of Hourly Probabilistic Utility NOx Emission Inventories Using Time Series Techniques: Part I-Univariate Approach', Atmospheric Environment, 37:5379-5389 (2003).
Ang, A. H-S., and Tang, W.H., (1984). Probability Concepts in Engineering Planning and Design, Volume 2: Decision, Risk, and Reliability. John Wiley and Sons, New York .
Ang, A. H-S., and Tang, W.H., (1975). Probability Concepts in Engineering Planning and Design, Volume 1.
John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Baggott, S.L., Brown, L., Milne, R., Murrells, TP., Passant, N., Thistlethwaite, G., Watterson, J.D. (2005) "UK
Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 1990 to 2003: Annual Report for submission under the Framework Convention on Climate Change", April 2005. pub AEA Technology, UK ref AEAT/ENV/R/1971, ISBN 0-9547136-5-6.
Barry, T.M. (1996), Recommendations on the testing and use of pseudo-random number generators used in Monte Carlo analysis for risk assessment, Risk Assessment, 16(1):93-105.
Bevington, P.R. and Robinson, D.K. (1992). Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences. McGraw-Hill: New York.
Cohen A.C. and Whitten B. (1998). Parameter Estimation in Reliability and Life Span Models, M. Dekker: New York.
Cullen, A.C. and Frey, H.C. (1999), Probabilistic Techniques in Exposure Assessment: A Handbook for Dealing with Variability and Uncertainty in Models and Inputs, Plenum: New York.
D'Agostino, R.B. and Stephens, M.A. (eds.) (1986). Goodness-of-Fit Techniques, Marcel Dekker, New York.
Efron, B. and Tibshirani, R.J. (1993). An Introduction to the Bootstrap, Chapman and Hall, New York.
Eggleston, S., et al. (1998). Treatment of Uncertainties for National Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Report AEAT 2688-1 for DETR Global Atmosphere Division, AEA Technology, Culham, UK.
Evans, J.S., Graham J.D., Gray, G.M., and Sielken Jr, R.L. (1994). "A Distributional Approach to Characterizing Low-Dose Cancer Risk," Risk Analysis, 14(1):25-34 (February 1994).
Falloon, P. and Smith, P. (2003). Accounting for changes in soil carbon under the Kyoto Protocol: need for improved long-term data sets to reduce uncertainty in model projections. Soil Use and Management, 19, 265-269.
Frey, H.C. and Rubin, E.S. (1991). Development and Application of a Probabilistic Evaluation Method for
Advanced Process Technologies, Final Report, D0E/MC/24248-3015, NTIS DE91002095, Prepared by Carnegie-Mellon University for the U.S. Department of Energy, Morgantown, West Virginia, April 1991, 364p.
Frey, H.C. and Rhodes, D.S. (1996). "Characterizing, Simulating, and Analyzing Variability and Uncertainty: An Illustration of Methods Using an Air Toxics Emissions Example," Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: an International Journal, 2(4):762-797 (December 1996).
Frey, H.C. and Bammi, S. (2002). Quantification of Variability and Uncertainty in Lawn and Garden Equipment N0x and Total Hydrocarbon Emission Factors, J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc., 52(4), 435-448.
Frey, H.C., Zheng, J., Zhao, Y., Li, S., and Zhu, Y. (2002). Technical Documentation of the AuvTool Software for Analysis of Variability and Uncertainty, Prepared by North Carolina State University for the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. February 2002.
Frey, H.C. and Zheng, J. (2002). "Probabilistic Analysis of Driving Cycle-Based Highway Vehicle Emission Factors," Environmental Science and Technology, 36(23):5184-5191 (December 2002).
Frey, H.C. (2003), "Evaluation of an Approximate Analytical Procedure for Calculating Uncertainty in the
Greenhouse Gas Version of the Multi-Scale Motor Vehicle and Equipment Emissions System," Prepared for Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, MI, May 30, 2003.
Frey, H.C. (2005), "Comparison of Approach 1 and Approach 2," January 2005, unpublished analysis done for this Chapter.
Gelfand, A. E. (1996). Gibbs Sampling, The Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences (editors: Kotz J., Reed C. and Banks D.), John Wiley and Sons, New York, 283-292.
Hahn, G.J., and Shapiro, S.S. (1967) Statistical Models in Engineering, Wiley Classics Library, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Holland, D.M and Fitz-Simons, T. (1982) "Fitting statistical distributions to air quality data by the maximum likelihood method," Atmospheric Environment, 16(5):1071-1076.
Hora, S.C. and Iman, R.L. (1989). Expert opinion in risk analysis: The NUREG-1150 methodology, Nuclear Science and Engineering, 102:323-331.
IPCC (1997). Houghton, J.T., Meira Filho, L.G., Lim, B., Tréanton, K., Mamaty, I., Bonduki, Y., Griggs, D.J. and Callander, B.A. (Eds). Revised 1996IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Inventories. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), IPCC/OECD/IEA, Paris, France.
IPCC (2000). Penman, J., Kruger, D., Galbally, I., Hiraishi, T., Nyenzi, B., Emmanuel, S., Buendia, L., Hoppaus, R., Martinsen, T., Meijer, J., Miwa, K., and Tanabe, K. (Eds). Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), IPCC/OECD/IEA/IGES, Hayama, Japan.
ISO (1993). "Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM)" prepared by ISO, IEC, BIPM, IFCC, OIML, IUPAC, IUPAP and published by ISO, Switzerland in 1993.
Kirchner, T.B. (1990). Establishing modeling credibility involves more than validation, Proceedings, On the Validity of Environmental Transfer Models, Biospheric Model Validation Study, Stockholm, Sweden, October 8-10.
Manly, B.F.J. (1997). Randomization, Bootstrap, and Monte Carlo Methods in Biology, Second Edition, Chapman and Hall.
McCann, T.J. and Associates, and Nosal, M. (1994). Report to Environmental Canada Regarding Uncertainties in Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimates, Calgary, Canada.
Merkhofer, M.W. (1987). Quantifying judgmental uncertainty: Methodology, experiences, and insights, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. 17(5):741-752.
Mokhtari, A., Frey H.C. and Zheng J. (2006). "Evaluation and recommendation of sensitivity analysis methods for application to Stochastic Human Exposure and Dose Simulation (SHEDS) models," Journal of Exposure Assessment and Environmental Epidemiology, Accepted December 2, 2005, In press.
Monni, S., Syri, S. and Savolainen I. (2004). 'Uncertainties in the Finnish greenhouse gas emission inventory'. Environmental Science and Policy 7, pp.87-98.
Monte, L, Hakanson, L., Bergstrom, U., Brittain, J. and Heling, R. (1996). Uncertainty analysis and validation of environmental models: the empirically based uncertainty analysis. Ecological Modelling, 91, 139-152.
Morgan, M.G., and Henrion, M. (1990). Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis, Cambridge University Press, New York.
NARSTO (2005). Improving Emission Inventories for Effective Air Quality Management Across North America, NARSTO, June 2005.
NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements). (1996). A Guide for Uncertainty Analysis in Dose and Risk Assessments Related to Environmental Contamination, NCRP Commentary No. 14, Bethesda, MD.
Ogle, S.M., Breidt, F.J., Eve, M.D. and Paustian, K. (2003). Uncertainty in estimating land use and management impacts on soil organic carbon storage for U.S. agricultural lands between 1982 and 1997. Global Change Biology 9:1521-1542.
Smith, A.E, Ryan, P.B. and Evans J.S. (1992). The effect of neglecting correlations when propagating uncertainty and estimating the population distribution of risk, Risk Analysis, 12:467-474.
Spetzler, C.S., and von Holstein, S. (1975). Probability Encoding in Decision Analysis, Management Science, 22(3).
Statistics Finland. (2005). Greenhouse gas emissions in Finland 1990-2003. National Inventory Report to the UNFCCC, 27 May 2005.
USEPA (1996). Summary Report for the Workshop on Monte Carlo Analysis, EPA/630/R-96/010, Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
USEPA (1997). Guiding Principles for Monte Carlo Analysis, EPA/630/R-97/001, Risk Assessment Forum. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
USEPA (1999). Report of the Workshop on Selecting Input Distributions for Probabilistic Assessments, EPA/630/R-98/004, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, January 1999. http://www.epa.gov/ncea/input.htm
Wackerly, D.D., Mendenhall III, W. and Scheaffer, R.L. (1996). Mathematical Statistics with Applications, Duxbury Press: USA.
Winiwarter, W. and Rypdal K. (2001). "Assessing the uncertainty associated with national greenhouse gas emission inventories: a case study for Austria," Atmospheric Environment, 35(22):5425-5440.
Zhao, Y. and Frey, H.C. (2004a). "Development of Probabilistic Emission Inventory for Air Toxic Emissions for Jacksonville, Florida," Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 54(11):1405-1421.
Zhao, Y., and Frey, H.C. (2004b). "Quantification of Variability and Uncertainty for Censored Data Sets and Application to Air Toxic Emission Factors," Risk Analysis, 24(3):1019-1034 (2004).
Zheng, J. and Frey H.C. (2004). "Quantification of Variability and Uncertainty Using Mixture Distributions: Evaluation of Sample Size, Mixing Weights and Separation between Components," Risk Analysis, 24(3):553-571 (June 2004).
Was this article helpful?
Your Alternative Fuel Solution for Saving Money, Reducing Oil Dependency, and Helping the Planet. Ethanol is an alternative to gasoline. The use of ethanol has been demonstrated to reduce greenhouse emissions slightly as compared to gasoline. Through this ebook, you are going to learn what you will need to know why choosing an alternative fuel may benefit you and your future.