Geldof, Govert

Mikkelsen, Peter Steen

A conceptual framework for comprehending, discussing and coping with uncertainty in practical urban water management is presented, which explains why there are good reasons to perceive and manage uncertainty differently across e.g. the technical, natural, economic, planning and social sciences.A 2x2 “matrix of decision making” that clearly distinguishes uncertainty/certainty about the problem to be solved (i.e. agreement/disagreement about goals) and about the means to solve the problem (i.e. the knowledge required to achieve the goals) is introduced and combined with a well-established frame for characterizing uncertainty distinguishing three distinct dimensions (location, level and nature of uncertainty). Each quadrant in the matrix is an arena for different types of professionals involved in decision making, and is furthermore characterized by mainly one distinct level of uncertainty (statistical uncertainty, scenario uncertainty, qualitative uncertainty, and recognised ignorance). Because the location, level and nature of uncertainty differs between the quadrants the appropriate management strategy and the role of the water manager as an actor in decision processes also differs.The framework illustrates how positivistic and constructivist planning approaches are complementary dependant on the location in the 2x2 matrix, and offers recognizable patterns that can be used for reflection when aiming to make complex and wicked decision situations tangible. The framework will be illustrated and discussed in the full paper using contemporary examples from urban water management

Online Research Database In Technology

                       General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.  • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal   If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.     Downloaded from orbit.dtu.dk on: Dec 20, 2017Uncertainty in engineering, research, negotiation and adaptive management for watersensitive citiesMikkelsen, Peter Steen; Geldof, GovertPublished in:WSUD 2012 - 7th International Conference on Water Sensitive Urban Design: Building the Water SensitiveCommunity, Final Program and Abstract BookPublication date:2012Document VersionPeer reviewed versionLink back to DTU OrbitCitation (APA):Mikkelsen, P. S., & Geldof, G. (2012). Uncertainty in engineering, research, negotiation and adaptivemanagement for water sensitive cities. In WSUD 2012 - 7th International Conference on Water Sensitive UrbanDesign: Building the Water Sensitive Community, Final Program and Abstract Book  Melbourne: InternationalConference on Water Sensitive Urban Design.  Uncertainty in engineering, research, negotiation and adaptive management for water sensitive cities   P. S. Mikkelsen* and G. D. Geldof*,**  * Department of Environmental Engineering (DTU Environment), Technical University of Denmark, Miljoevej, Building 113, DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby (E-mail: psmi@env.dtu.dk) ** Geldof c.s., Holprijp 2,8804 RZ, Tzum, the Netherlands (E-mail: govert@geldofcs.nl)  Extended Abstract A reflexive framework for comprehending, discussing and coping with uncertainty in urban water management is presented, which explains why there are good reasons to perceive and manage uncertainty differently across e.g. the natural, technical, economic, planning and social sciences.  A 2x2 “matrix of decision making” that clearly distinguishes uncertainty/certainty about the problem to be solved (i.e. agreement/disagreement about goals) and about the means to solve the problem (i.e. the knowledge required to achieve the goals) is introduced (Figure 1, upper left, Christensen, 1985) and combined with a concept for characterizing uncertainty using three dimensions (location, level and nature of uncertainty, Figure 1 upper right, Walker et al., 2003). This is then combined with reflections on the appropriate action considering the level and nature of uncertainty characterizing the situation (Figure 1, lower left) and how this connects with the introduced matrix (Figure 1, lower right) and with positivistic as well as constructivist planning approaches.   Rules, predictive design, modelling, optimisationRationalist, regulator, engineer, cost-benefitNegotiation, bargaining,Participation, resource allocationLobbyist, mediator, process managerChaos, clarification, reformulation, transition, adaptive managementCharismatic leader, problem finderExperimentation, learning, innovation, empirical-iterative designResearcher, scientistGoalsAgreed Not agreedKnownUnknownKNowledge(to achievethegoals)13 42               Acting on uncertainty ...StatisticaluncertaintyScenariouncertaintyIgnoranceReducible(partly)Irreducible(in practice)Level Nature Scientific paradigmePositivismConstructivismTry to reduce itAccept it as a precondition for changePossible actionTame problems    Rules, predictive design, modelling, optimisationRationalist, regulator, engineer, cost-benefitNegotiation, bargaining,Participation, resource allocationLobbyist, mediator, process managerChaos, clarification, reformulation, transition, adaptive managementCharismatic leader, problem finderExperimentation, learning, innovation, empirical-iterative designResearcher, scientistGoalsAgreed Not agreedKnownUnknownStatisticaluncertaintyScenariouncertaintyRecognizedignorance13 42Construc-tivistPositivist   Figure 1. Overall concepts that will be explained, connected and exemplified in the conference presentation.   Each quadrant in the matrix is an arena for different types of professionals involved in decision making, and is furthermore characterized by one or a few distinct levels of uncertainty: we here distinguish the levels statistical uncertainty, scenario uncertainty, qualitative uncertainty, recognized ignorance and total ignorance, based on Refsgaard et al. (2007). Because the location and nature of uncertainty differs between the quadrants the appropriate management strategy and the role of the water manager as an actor in decision making also differs. The typical arena for an engineer concerned with design, simulation and optimisation is quadrant 1, where uncertainty is statistical and the problems faced can be tamed (to some extent) by reducing uncertainty. Quadrant 2 is the arena for negotiation and resource allocation, which bring the human interaction processes into focus, and Quadrant 3 is the arena for experimentation and learning, where research and science is at focus. These two quadrants are both characterised by scenario uncertainty and qualitative uncertainty, i.e. assumptions can be made about a process or about the future and patterns describing reality can be conceptualised, but there is no basis for assigning probabilities. Completely different skills are needed when uncertainty is large and approaches recognized and even total ignorance (quadrant 4); this is where adaptive management plays an important role and engineering standards and design are less important in the big picture. Quadrant 4 can be characterized as chaotic; projects often alternate between formulating the problem and finding the solution, but it is also where the inherent problem wickedness (Conklin, 2006) can be seen as an opportunity for those who are interested in trying out new ideas.  The framework illustrates how positivistic and constructivist planning approaches are complementary dependant on the location in the 2x2 matrix. This will be exemplified and discussed in the conference presentation using contemporary examples from the field of urban stormwater management, i.e. real time control of urban drainage systems, control of chemical constituents in wet-weather discharges, urban flood risk management and water sensitive urban design. The framework is proposed as a reflexive framework for analysis of decision making processes that make complex situations tangible to practical urban water management.  References Christensen, K.S. (1985): Coping with uncertainty in planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 51, ls 1, pp. 63-73.  Conklin, J. (2006): Wicked problems and social complexity. Chapter 1 of Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., England. Available at: http://cognexus.org/wpf/wickedproblems.pdf (visited 11 November).  Hauger, M.B. (2005): Uncertainty, risk and modelling in urban drainage. PhD thesis. Institute of Environment & Resources, Technical University of Denmark, 53 pp. + appendix.  Holling, C.S. (ed) (1978): Adaptive environmental management and assessment. Wiley, Chichester.  Refsgaard JC, van der Sluijs JP, Højberg AL, Vanrolleghem PA (2007) Uncertainty in the environmental modelling process – A framework and guidance. Environmental Modelling & Software, 22, 1543-1556.  Walker, W.E., Harremoës, P., Rotmans, J., vand der Sluijs, J.P., van Asselt, M.B.A., P. Janssen and Krayer von Kraus, M. (2003): Integrated Assessment, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 5-17.  7th International Conference on Water Sensitive Urban Design.WSUD Conference 2012: Bullding the Water Sensitive CommunityMelbourne/Australia, 22-24 February 2012Uncertainty in engineering, research, negotiation and adaptive management for water sensitive cities(tentative slides)Peter Steen Mikkelsen1 and Govert Geldof1,21 DTU Environment, Technical University of Denmark2 Geldof c.s., Holprijp 2,8804 RZ, Tzum, the NetherlandsA draft framework for communicating about uncertaintyLocationWhat is often referred to as "uncertainty" actually hides important technical distinctions Nature(EEA, 2001);“Any departure from the unachievable ideal of complete d t i i ”e erm n smA three dimensional concept LevelInspired byWalker et al. (2003): Defining uncertainty. A conceptual basis for uncertainly management in model based decision support. Integrated Assessment, 4(1), 5-17.Christensen (1985): Coping with uncertainty in planning. J. Am. Planning Assoc., 51(1), 66-73.Supplemented with thoughts developed to a large extent in collaboration with Govert Geldof, NL, around teaching in Environmental Management & Ethics course at DTU.Three dimensions of uncertainty (Walker et al., 2003)Location of uncertainty- Context (framing/system boundaries), model structure, attributes input parameters data and method used forl f, , ,      calibration ...Leve  o  uncertaintySt ti ti l S i R i d T t la s ca          cenar o           ecogn ze          o auncertainty      uncertainty         ignorance ignoranceNature of uncertainty- Can it be reduced (epistemic) or not (stochastic)?Uncertainty and decision making (Kristensen, 1985)G loa sAgreed Not agreedRules, predictive design, modelling, optimisationNegotiation, bargaining, Participation, resource allocationnowns)Rationalist, regulator, engineer, cost-benefitLobbyist, mediator, process managerKnledgethe goals1 2Chaos, clarification, reformulation, transition, adaptive managementExperimentation, learning, innovation, empirical-iterative designnownKNowlachieve  Charismatic leader, problem finder Researcher, scientistUnknK(to 3 4Hard system projects (tame problems)Soft system projects (wicked problems)Collect dataProblem Analyse dataF l t l tiormua e sou onSolution Implement solutionTime(Conklin, 2006)Acting on uncertainty ...Level Nature Scientific diPossible tiStatistical Reduciblepara gmePositivismTry toac onuncertaintyS i(partly)  reduce it Tame problemscenar ouncertaintyIgnorance Irreducible(in practice)ConstructivismAccept it as a precondition for changeWicked problemsUncertainty and decision makingG loa sAgreed Not agreedPositivism(tame)Rules, predictive design, modelling, optimisationNegotiation, bargaining,Participation, resource allocationnowns)Rationalist, regulator, engineer, cost-benefit Lobbyist, mediator, process managerKnledgethe goals1 2Chaos, clarification, reformulation, transition, adaptive managementExperimentation, learning, innovation, nownKNowlachieve  Charismatic leader, problem finderempirical-iterative designResearcher, scientistUnknK(to C t ti i3 4ons ruc v sm(wicked)Examples of tools for dealing with uncertaintyStochastic state space modelling for probabilistic forecasting in -real time control of urban drainage systems (statistical uncertainty)S f t  i  i  d i  f b  d i  t  ( t ti ti l a e y marg n n es gn o ur an ra nage sys ems s a s cauncertainty, scenario uncertainty)3PA for communication in Urban flood risk management ( lit ti  t i t  i )qua a ve uncer a n y, gnorance… and moreSee more on http://www.swi.env.dtu.dkStochastic state-space modellingDiffusion termDrift term Observation noise(stochastic)(deterministic)System equationObservation equationNotation:Statistical and scenario uncertaintyScenario 3Variable, X Scenario 1Konfidence-levelScenario 2EstimateKonfidence-interval TimePlanning horizon Scenarios don’t need to be related to time (different assumptions)I i i d ( l k th d t d l ith it)gnorance s gnore  we ac  me o s o ea  w  ...Temporal evolution of safety margin in sewer design  Denmark,Diameter = f (flow, roughness, slope)Design levelSafety margin, consciously chosenflow · sf1 · sf2Traditional design Safety margin, based on experience/practice (unconsciously chosen)New design guideline acknowledging unc.(Rational Method)Dynamic simulation No safety marginmodels introducedOptimised design, cost minimization Uncertainty analysis, based on            (1) statistical unc  (input  parameters)  Flooding becomes more frequent, climate change becomes a ”fact”1970 2000 2005 TimeLegal frame changed, uncertainty discussed. ,(2) scenario unc. (climate, urbanisation)The Three Points Approach ( i i l 20 )Frat n  et a ., 11  Danger  to life Extreme rainUrban resilience (cooperation water and urban planners)Costand structures 2.Damage1. Technical optimization of water Design rainNuisancesystem(meeting standards)3.Little rainDay-to-day values (balancing  awareness with pleasure)Flood Return Period0,1 1 10 100 1000ConclusionsDifferent levels of uncertainty calls for different management approaches”Tame” problems can be managed using statistical methods and iti i ti  l i  h  St ti ti l t i t   b  pos v s c p ann ng approac es. a s ca uncer a n y can equantified using models and sometimes reduced”Wicked” problems are characterised by recognised ignorance th t t b  d d  b t tt   id  f l i i hta canno e re uce , u pa erns can prov e use u ns g sPlanning for Water Sensitive Cities has many ”wicked” charateristics, and constructivist planning based on step-wise flearning may be the only use ul way aheadThe developed framework for comprehending, discussing and coping with uncertainty can be used for reflection when aiming to make complex decision situations tangible to practical urban water management

Uncertainty in engineering, research, negotiation and adaptive management for water sensitive cities

http://orbit.dtu.dk/ws/files/12335541/WSUD2012-ExtendedAbstract-slides_Uncertainty_Mikkelsen_111119.pdf

Uncertainty in engineering, research, negotiation and adaptive management for water sensitive cities

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Online Research Database In Technology