The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Uncertainty communication in environmental assessments: views from the Dutch science-policy interface
Open accessAbstract
Scientific assessments of environmental problems, and policy responses to those problems, involve uncertainties of many sorts. Meanwhile, potential impacts of wrong decisions can be far-reaching. This article explores views on uncertainty and uncertainty communication in the Dutch science-policy interface and studies several issues concerning presentation of uncertainty information. Respondents considered uncertainty communication to be important, but it should be concise and policy relevant. Several factors influence policy relevance, including the place of an issue in the policy cycle, and its novelty, topicality and controversiality. Respondents held particular interest in explicit communication on the implications of uncertainty. Related to this, they appreciated information on different sources and types of uncertainty and qualitative aspects of uncertainty (e.g. pedigree charts). The article also studies probability terms, particularly for IPCC's 33–66% probability interval (‘about as likely as not’). Several terms worked reasonably well, with a median interpretation of 40–60%. Finally, as various target groups have different information needs and different amounts of attention for various parts of a report or communication process, it is important to progressively disclose uncertainty information throughout the communication. Improved communication of uncertainty information leads to a deeper understanding and increased awareness of the phenomenon of uncertainty and its policy implications.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Van Der Sluijs, J. P., Craye, M., Funtowicz, S., Kloprogge, P., Ravetz, J., & Risbey, J. (2005) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00604.x · Cited by 426
Self-citation
Cited by
Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization
Jahn, T., Bergmann, M., & Keil, F. (2012) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.017 · Cited by 1,104
Young, J. C., Waylen, K. A., Sarkki, S., Albon, S., Bainbridge, I., Balian, E., Davidson, J., Edwards, D., Fairley, R., Margerison, C., et al. (2014) · Biodiversity and Conservation · doi:10.1007/s10531-013-0607-0 · Cited by 297
Maturing the New Water Management Paradigm: Progressing from Aspiration to Practice
Pahl-Wostl, C., Jeffrey, P., Isendahl, N., & Brugnach, M. (2011) · Water Resources Management · doi:10.1007/s11269-010-9729-2 · Cited by 295
The effect of communication design and recipients’ numeracy on responses to UXO risk
Bruine de Bruin, W., Stone, E. R., Gibson, J. M., Fischbeck, P. S., & Shoraka, M. B. (2013) · Journal of Risk Research · doi:10.1080/13669877.2013.788055 · Cited by 24
Maria, D. L., Maria-Therese, G., & Ece, K. (2020) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2020.07.027 · Cited by 21
Metadata
- Authors
- Wardekker, J. A., van der Sluijs, J. P., Janssen, P. H. M., Kloprogge, P., & Petersen, A. C.
- Venue
- Environmental Science & Policy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2008-11
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 627-641
- ISSN
- 1462-9011 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2127166834
- Cited by
- 189
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 46.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Uncertainty communication in environmental assessments: views from the Dutch science-policy interface. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.envsci.2008.05.005
- The paper
- Wardekker, J. A., van der Sluijs, J. P., Janssen, P. H. M., Kloprogge, P., & Petersen, A. C. (2008). Uncertainty communication in environmental assessments: views from the Dutch science-policy interface. Environmental Science & Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2008.05.005
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.