environmental science & policy 9 (2006) 22–31

available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci

"
Fuzzy approaches to environmental decisions: application
to air quality

Bernard E.A. Fisher

Risk and Forecasting, Environment Agency, Kings Meadow Road, Reading RG1 8DG, UK

article info abstract

Published on line 27 December 2005 This paper considers flexible approaches to decisions designed to improve environmental
quality having regard to uncertainty. The performance of simple and complex models, for
Keywords: forecasting air quality are reviewed, and both types are shown to involve considerable
Fuzzy logic uncertainty regarded as typical of environmental systems. This means that decisions
Environmental decision-making usually depend on combining two or more quite uncertain environmental criteria, and it
Aggregation is shown that this can be approached systematically if a fuzzy logic framework is adopted.
Multi-criteria analysis Fuzzy set aggregation includes, as special cases, other decision-making frameworks, such as
Air quality models multi-criteria analysis and conventional probability based methods. Examples are pre-
Risk sented of how it can be applied to situations involving models and used to incorporate
broader factors involving risk, and socio-economic considerations.
# 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. The problem and to consider models which allow decisions to be made,

Ideally environmental models should contain the best-
known science, be tested against measurements, and then
used for prediction and decision-making if they are sup-
ported by the necessary input data and perform well against
measurements. This has led in recent years to the develop-
ment of more complex, fundamental models, in which every
part of the environmental system is described in as much
detail as possible, the so-called ‘reductionist’ approach. If
the development in modelling produced better predictions
this would be the way to proceed. From examples in the
field of air pollution, it is argued in this paper that limita-
tions in process description, and the lack of detailed data on
concentrations, deposition or emissions etc., mean that this
approach has not produced usefully better predictions. Even
the most advanced models are still associated with large
uncertainties (Hunt, 2000; Funtowicz and Ravetz, 2005;
Saloranta, 2001).
The alternative approach to forecasting is to consider the
decision that is likely to bring environmental improvements
so-called ‘fit for purpose’ models. These models may involve
greater uncertainty than more complex models, but they
facilitate more readily the treatment of uncertainty, through
sensitivity analysis. Moreover, the data requirements to
run them are less stringent. They may also allow broader
factors to be included into the decision-making process,
incorporating risk, and optimising social and economic
factors, etc.
An environmental decision ought to depend on a criterion
meeting a numerical objective with uncertainty treated
explicitly (Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution,
1998). One way of including the uncertainty is to assume that
the criterion involves the membership of a fuzzy set. This is
an obvious application of fuzzy logic to environmental
decision-making. In some cases, the environmental criterion
is vague or imprecise, such as when dealing with the ‘quality
of life’ (Mendes and Motizuki, 2001), the ranking of ecosys-
tems in terms of environmental conditions and impacts (Tran
et al., 2002), or environmental impact assessment (Enea and
Salemi, 2001).

E-mail address: Bernard.Fisher@environment-agency.gov.uk.

1462-9011/$ – see front matter # 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2005.08.006
 environmental science & policy 9 (2006) 22–31
A fuzzy set is a generalisation of a normal set for which
there is not a sharp boundary between belonging and not
belonging to the set. A fuzzy set is defined by its membership
function and two examples are shown in Fig. 1, in which two
hypothetical environmental quality criteria (relating to health
and noise) along a cross-section though a city are shown,
where x is the distance from the city centre. In both cases near
the city centre (at small values of x), the environmental quality
is poorer, and therefore there is a greater possibility that
environmental quality objectives are exceeded. This is shown
by the higher membership functions at short distances from
the city centre for the fuzzy sets describing unsatisfactory
health and noise. If the environmental quality were described
by a normal set, the membership function would equal 1 out to
the distance at which the environmental quality was judged
satisfactory and the membership function would be set equal
to 0 at greater distances.
Qualitative factors, involving expert judgement of the
pedigree of a model, should be part of an assessment of model
performance, going beyond traditional scientific approaches,
such as sensitivity analysis and model validation (Van der
Sluijs et al., 2003). Wider judgements are required when
reviewing the formulation of a model or deciding whether it is
appropriate to use an established model in a novel applica-
tion. Because of its history of testing model performance, and
the use of objectives in air quality management, air quality
provides a good test case of fuzzy decision-making. However,
fuzzy decision-making is closely related to other environ-
mental decision-making frameworks, such as multi-criteria
decision analysis for flood defence (Tung, 2002), or the
weighted utility approach for abrupt climate change (Per-
rings, 2003). It is not proposed that fuzzy decision-making is
superior to these other methods, but it does provide a
structured framework within which other methods may
be incorporated.
Fig. 1 – Two environmental criteria A and B equal to the
membership functions of fuzzy sets defined in terms
of the distance from the centre of a city, x. The higher
membership functions mA and mB near the city centre
x = 0 indicate the greater possibility that the
environmental quality is poor in this region.
23
In this paper, we consider how conventional approaches
to air quality models can be extended within a fuzzy logic
framework to include wider considerations, not just those
concerned with the accuracy of the model. These wider,
generally policy related, considerations are relevant to how
the modelling results will be used, and hence should also be
an integral part of the decision.
2. Performance of air quality models: simple
and complex
2.1. Short-range models
A number of assessments of dispersion models’ performance
to predict concentrations over short distances out to 30 km
have been made. Some of these have been summarised by
Ireland (2003), and for urban areas by Fisher (2005a). They
show that various summary statistics can be used to judge
model performance. Model performance also varies according
to the way results are interpreted. For example, for point
sources much of the error can arise from errors in the
prediction of the direction of the plume centreline. The error is
much smaller if predicted and measured maximum ground-
level concentrations are compared without regard to the
location of the maxima. Generally, studies suggest that most
predictions are likely to be within a factor of two of the
predictions, a simple, useful measure of performance, but
performance is not consistently better than a factor of two.
The uncertainty in model predictions could be based on other
estimators, such as the residual sum of squares. The factor of
two is easy to explain to decision makers and would be in
agreement with the uncertainty associated with setting the
boundary of air quality management areas, recommended in
informal guidance produced by National Society for Clean Air
(2003).
The uncertainty associated with errors in model formula-
tion, or whether the model is appropriate to an application are
more difficult to deal with. In part, this may be addressed by
using more than one air quality dispersion model in predic-
tions (Fisher, 2003; Fisher et al., 2002). The overall uncertainty
can only be addressed by recourse to comparisons with
measurements of suitable quality and quantity. The pedigree
of the model can help (Van der Sluijs et al., 2003) and would
bring in considerations as to whether the model had been used
for similar applications and if the formulation of the model is
readily available for review by potential users. When the
structure of the environmental model is very complex, which
is often the case in regional air quality models, sensitivity
analysis to choose the best values for parameters, is not
usually undertaken, because either the run times are too long,
or the data sets of observations are too limited to evaluate each
component in detail.
2.2. Regional models
The prediction of concentrations and deposition over long and
short distances using air quality models depends in part on the
uncertainty in the input values for the parameters in the
model. This can be assessed in a relatively straightforward
24 environmental science & policy 9 (2006) 22–31
way, if possible errors in model formulation are ignored.
Two recent studies have determined the uncertainty in
model predictions for acid deposition (Abbott et al., 2003)
and dispersion calculations (Hall et al., 2000a,b) based on
sensitivity studies, Monte-Carlo simulation and scena rio
analysis. The degree of uncertainty is again broadly within
a factor of two i.e. changing input values within their
bounds of uncertainty generally leads to predictions which
lie within a range of two of a central value, but predictions
better than a factor of two cannot be obtained. Abbott et al.
(2003) have also shown that the commonly applied methods
of deriving critical loads have uncertainties of comparable
magnitude.
An example of a complex integrated atmospheric model to
calculate long-term annual average atmospheric concentra-
tions and depositions over a region such as Europe, is the use
of Models-3. Recent research (Cocks et al., 2004) has demon-
strated that meso-scale pollution transport models, such as
Models-3, can be run to produce hourly time-series of
pollution concentration and deposition fields over long
periods, such as a year, providing direct comparisons with
percentile exceedences of short-term air quality objectives.
Long-term averages derived from time-series also provide a
benchmark for comparison with older established statistical
acid deposition models, which may only be used to calculate
long-term averages. Issues regarding the practical use of
Models-3 for regulatory assessment purposes remain, but the
demonstration supports the viability of the concept of a
modular assessment framework incorporating complex inter-
actions. As an integrated, ‘reductionist’ model, the results
provide extra information on quantities, such as secondary
particulate matter.
The running of a meso-scale model is a very large
computing exercise, and a large amount of preparatory work
is involved in the production of the data sets used. Unlike the
simpler models, the attribution, or contribution, of a single
source or a set of sources to the total concentration or
deposition, is not a simple output of such models. The
calculations provide the concentration, as time series, at
chosen receptor points. However, as the model includes non-
linear processes, the simple addition or subtraction of
individual source contributions is not appropriate. In order
to estimate the contribution of a set of sources, the
calculation would need to be repeated again, so that
computer results with, and without, the specified sources
can be compared. The run times can be reduced by running
parts of the model in parallel, but run times and costs are still
a significant disincentive to the routine application of such
models. Source-receptor relationships are available when
supercomputing facilities are used, such as for the EMEP
model (Tarrason et al., 2003) used in international negotia-
tions to set limits on transboundary pollution. However,
estimates of the uncertainty cannot be easily derived
from this model, or Models-3, because of the computing
requirements.
2.3. Examples of regional model performance
Estimates of the likely uncertainties in predicted concentra-
tions and deposition using the simpler regional transport
models are possible, because they have short running times.
Abbott et al. (2003) found that 300 runs of the model TRACK
using a plausible range of input parameter values, describing
emissions, processes and meteorology, encompassed almost
all the annual wet deposition measurements made at UK sites
in 1997.
Comparisons of model performance against measure-
ments were possible for both simple and complex models.
In the above study (Abbott et al., 2003), the baseline model
TRACK for which normal parameter input values are used, had
correlation coefficients1 of 0.6, 0.6 and 0.4, when measured
and modelled annual wet deposition of sulphur, nitrate and
reduced nitrogen were compared at 31 UK acid deposition
sites. The annual wet deposition of sulphur, nitrate and
reduced nitrogen for 1997 from the statistical national
assessment model HARM, which has in recent years been
used to make assessments of possible critical load excee-
dences from a variety of sources, had slightly better correla-
tion coefficients of 0.7, 0.7 and 0.6. The national assessment
model FRAME, though not the latest version, produced a
correlation coefficient of 0.3 for reduced nitrogen comparisons
for 1997. A comparison of the annual wet deposition at 48
European sites from the EMEP model yielded correlation
coefficients of 0.6, 0.7 and 0.7 over the period 1985–1996. The
correlation coefficients from the limited spatial analysis of the
Models-3 annual deposition over the UK (Cocks et al., 2004)
gave values of 0.75 and 0.5 for comparisons of the calculated
and measured annual wet deposition of sulphur and nitrate at
13 UK acid deposition sites for 1999. No correlation was found
for reduced nitrogen, though predictions were in the right
range. One should be cautious about drawing firm conclusions
from these numbers, which apply to annual deposition over
different years, periods and spatial domains, but it is apparent
that none of the models was markedly better at predicting
annual spatial patterns than any of the others.
However, complex models (Models-3, or EMEP) do have the
advantage that they can be used to predict time series of
concentrations or deposition, which is not possible with the
simpler models. Models-3 (Cocks et al., 2004) produced
correlation coefficients for weekly time-series of observations
in the range 0.6–0.8 for sulphur, 0.4–0.8 for nitrate and 0.3–0.8
for reduced nitrogen at UK acid deposition sites. A similar
comparison of the results of the EMEP model, at monthly
averaged, European acid deposition sites, appeared to suggest
slightly lower correlation coefficients.
Without dismissing the progress that ‘reductionist’
models may achieve in advancing the science, one may
consider more direct approaches to decision-making. The
studies cited above suggest that models of concentration or
deposition over long, or short-ranges, produce results, which
lie within, but are not much better than, a factor of two of
observations. To the author’s knowledge this degree of
uncertainty is the best achievable for forecasts in all
environmental media i.e. land, air and water. Given this
1
A higher correlation coefficient does not imply better perfor-
mance, but for illustration has been used here to indicate degrees
of agreement. Reduced nitrogen is difficult to deal with, and
performance depends on assumptions regarding the emissions
inventory.
 environmental science & policy 9 (2006) 22–31
degree of uncertainty in the environmental quantities
predicted by models, decisions based on models should
not be regarded as certain. Instead a fuzzy logic framework
should be applied, which additionally has the advantage
that other, broader aspects of the decision-making process
might be included within the same framework.
3. Uncertain environmental objectives
3.1. Critical load example
Although national air quality objectives, in terms of
concentrations and deposition, have been laid down,
decisions regarding the management of emissions, in the
event of exceedences are not straightforward. The objectives
themselves should not be regarded as exact boundaries
between satisfactory and unsatisfactory air quality. Air
quality assessments should rely on the best and most
equitable ways of ensuring improvement, taking account of
the uncertainty in current methods. Decisions made on the
assumption that exceedences can be assessed without error
can be very sensitive to underlying assumptions, whereas
methods accepting that the transition from acceptable air
quality to unacceptable air quality is gradual, incorporate a
more realistic representation of present knowledge (Fisher,
2003).
The application of the critical loads approach illustrates the
problem (Fisher, 2005b). A critical load assessment is based on
the idea that the acid deposition onto a 1 km
1 km grid
square in the UK should not exceed the critical load of that grid
square. The deposition from emissions in the UK compared
with the critical load sets criteria on the emissions of the main
acidifying species, sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides and
reduced nitrogen compounds. Setting exceedences of the
critical load as undesirable implies a sharp criterion, in which
deposition less than the critical load is acceptable, and
deposition greater than the critical load is not acceptable.
Although strictly the criterion applied to critical loads
should be no exceedence anywhere, one should recognise the
uncertainty in the deposition and critical load. As an
illustration one might consider the difference between the
deposition and the critical load over a grid square, assuming
that both the deposition and the critical load can be described
by fuzzy sets with the expected factor of 2 agreement
discussed in Section 2. Then with the mean deposition greater
than the mean critical load, the membership function of the
fuzzy set describing exceedence is that shown Fig. 2, where x is
the exceedence = deposition  critical load. It has been
assumed that the membership functions of the deposition
and critical load fuzzy sets are unrelated, so that one can take
random selections from each to get the aggregate fuzzy set
describing exceedence. It has been assumed for the purposes
of the numerical illustration, that the deposition membership
function ranges uniformly between 0.5 and 1.4 and is zero
beyond these limits, while the critical load membership
function ranges uniformly between 0.4 and 0.9 and is zero
outside this range.
In the example in Fig. 2, the membership functions
expressing the weighting on values in the sets could be
25
Fig. 2 – Illustration of a Monte-Carlo estimate of the
membership function of the aggregated set describing
the difference between atmospheric deposition and
critical load. The deposition and critical loads are assumed
to have simple membership functions characteristic of
estimates lying within a ‘factor of 2’. The membership
function of the fuzzy set describing deposition minus
the critical load is shown by the straight-line graph. The
membership function of the set describing exceedence
assuming the deposition is greater than the critical load
is the curved line. One can sees that even when the
deposition exceeds the critical load, one cannot know
with complete certainty whether exceedence occurs. If
uncertainties were neglected there would be a sharp
transition from 0 to 1, exactly at a point where the
deposition exceeded the critical load.
interpreted as probability distribution or density functions.
However, in some cases one would wish to transform
weightings in a way, which meant that they could no longer
be interpreted as probabilities. In a fuzzy set framework, the
weighting need not lie between 0 and 1, nor need it vary
monotonically. For example when the exceedence is very
high, the weighting is nearly one that the critical load is
exceeded. One might regard very high exceedences as outliers,
which should be excluded. In this case, the membership
function for poor environmental quality could decrease again
for high values of exceedences. The advantages of using a
fuzzy set description are that it is a flexible framework within
which other descriptions of environmental damage may be
incorporated. This has advantages when including criteria,
which are uncertain, or not well defined.
The approach outlined above may be compared with one
in which a single ‘best’ prediction is compared with a
criterion. If the prediction lies well above (or below) the
criterion, there is little possibility of making the wrong
decision. (In order to make this judgement some knowledge
of uncertainty is implied.) However, if the single prediction is
close to the criterion, one might try to apply a more detailed
model to reduce the uncertainty. However, the evidence
presented in Section 2 does not suggest that complex models
lead to more accurate answers, so that this does not
necessarily help the decision-making. However, complex
models can be used to explore non-linearities between the
input parameters, which is not possible in simple models.
These non-linearities could result in probability distribu-
26 environmental science & policy 9 (2006) 22–31
tions with unusual features, such as significant weighting
on predictions much larger or smaller than estimates near
the centre of a range.
Accepting that the deposition and critical load have some
uncertainty associated with them, within a fuzzy set
framework one would define a membership function m(x)
for the fuzzy set of unacceptable conditions, where the
critical load is exceeded, based on the ratio of the deposition
to the critical load, x. Two examples are shown in Fig. 3: the
straight line assumes a linear membership function between
the conditions when the ratio is 0 (the ideal) and 2 (moderate
exceedence given the uncertainty in the assessment). For a
ratio of deposition to critical load greater than 2, conditions
are definitely unacceptable. For intermediate values between
0 and 2 one has a sliding scale of acceptable conditions. The
strict criterion for acceptability would be a step function,
which would be represented in the figure by a vertical line
where the deposition/critical load equals one (not shown in
the figure). (A step function, set at x = 0.5 say, is an
alternative, precautionary approach.) A smooth membership
function has been drawn in Fig. 3 representing a gradual
transition between acceptable and unacceptable conditions.
The smooth curve is described in the caption to Fig. 3. It is a
simple membership function with the desired properties that
it equals 0, at x = 0, equals 1, when x is large, and equals 0.5,
when x = x0 = 1. It depends on the parameter b. Large b values
sharpen the fit towards a crisp set. The chosen value of b = 2
means that the membership function equals 0.9, at x = 2,
which corresponds to the expected uncertainty in the air
quality models reviewed in Section 2. Instead of setting
membership functions based on the accuracy of model
predictions, expert judgement may also be used to define
qualitatively the membership functions of a fuzzy set.
For the straight-line membership function in Fig. 3,
greatest improvement would arise from reducing deposition
in areas within a factor of two of where the deposition equals
the critical load, x = 1. This is of little advantage in reducing
Fig. 3 – Examples of membership functions depending
on the deposition/critical load ratio. The curved line is
the membership function for the fuzzy exceedence set
described by the function m(x) = n(x)/(n(x0) + n(x)) where
n(x) = ebx S 1, and x is the ratio of the deposition/critical
load, b = 2 describes the fuzziness, or uncertainty,
chosen to be consistent with the performance of
environmental models. The criterion for just
meeting the objective is x0 = 1.
exceedences in areas where the deposition is very much
greater than the critical load, since the straight-line member-
ship function equals 1 in regions where the deposition is
more than twice the critical load. Perrings (2003) remarks that
weighting functions often used in expected utility app-
roaches to decision-making, have a reference point, and
greater weighting is often assigned to changes around the
reference point and less to large changes far from the refe-
rence point. In this case, the reference point is x = 1, where the
deposition equals the critical load and the membership
function is 0.5.
The main question in applying a fuzzy approach is how to
choose the membership function. The two parameters x0 and
b allow a range of shapes to be described. x0 fixes the value
where the objective is exceeded and b determines the
fuzziness; large values of b correspond with less fuzzy,
sharper criteria. In this case, b has been chosen to be
consistent with the factor of 2 performance of air quality
models. The choice of the membership function may also
depend on considerations not arising in the models used to
estimate the deposition/critical load ratio. A Pareto member-
ship function 1/(1 + x0/x) would have a long tail in which large
values of exceedence (large x) have non-trivial weightings
(and are not just equal to 1). Use of the transformation
x ! ebx  1 shortens the tail. In this case, it was considered
desirable to have a membership function with significant
variation within a small multiplicative factor of meeting the
objective x0 = 1.
The setting of the membership function requires con-
sideration of subjective values, which rely on the decision
maker’s attitude to risk. The membership function in Fig. 3 is
as sensitive as the straight-line membership function to
improvements in areas where the critical load is slightly
exceeded, but is also slightly sensitive in areas where the
exceedence is grossly exceeded. If the intention is to reduce
the membership of the fuzzy sets where gross exceedences
occur, the membership function could then take the form
m(x) = ex. Reducing membership functions of this kind empha-
sises the regions of greatest exceedence.
3.2. Fuzzy logic framework for uncertain environmental
objectives
In the example above, both the environmental effect
(deposition) and the objective (critical load) were determined
using models based on scientific understanding. In many
situations, the decision-making needs to be extended to
include the criteria weighted according to other external
criteria. These may well not be scientifically based and may
depend on judgements involving socio-economic values, or
practicality. In such cases, a fuzzy logic framework is a
natural framework in which to describe an environmental
decision.
The combination of fuzzy sets through operations, such as
union and intersection, more generally described as fuzzy
aggregation, provides the framework in which criteria can be
combined. The requirement to satisfy the axioms of fuzzy set
aggregation ensures that the combinations are consistent and
logical (Fisher, 2003). The need to combine criteria is common
to many environmental decisions.
 environmental science & policy 9 (2006) 22–31
Having defined a membership function, the final step in the
decision-making process for the atmospheric deposition
example is to consider arrangements of emissions, which
minimise membership of the fuzzy set of undesirable environ-
mental conditions. The environmental decision depends on
minimising a criterion, where this is the membership function
m(x) of a fuzzy set. Unfortunately there is no objective way of
choosing the most appropriate membership function and so
this must to some extent depend on the decision maker’s
attitude to risk.
4. Aggregation of fuzzy membership
functions in multi-criteria situations
Some examples are given in this section of how a fuzzy logic
approach provides a framework for aggregating criteria. The
aggregate, or combined membership function mC(x) could be
some function of the membership functions of the indivi-
dual environmental factors under consideration such as
health, noise etc. and their environmental objectives,
labelled A and B for convenience. The adverse effects of
each are described by the membership function of the
individual fuzzy sets mA(x) and mB(x). The decision-making
process depends on the aggregate membership function
mC(x). This could be to ensure that mC(x) is less than a critical
value, say 0.5, for all x. The degree of precaution depends on
the choice of this critical value; lower critical values mean
more precaution. Where advice is being sought on real world
situations, either a policy goal or some structured consulta-
tion of experts could be conducted to decide on the degree
of precaution.
4.1. Combining or aggregating fuzzy sets
The question of aggregation arises whenever individual
environmental, or social indices are grouped together to
produce a single index. For example, a single multiple index of
deprivation has been produced for England, based on
individual indices representing deprivation according to
income, employment, eduction, housing, etc. (ODPM, 2002).
A simple, weighted averaging procedure was used (see below)
with an exponential transformation to limit the effects of
cancellation. This transformation means that a very deprived
ward is still counted as deprived even if it is not very deprived
according to some of the individual indices.
Combining two fuzzy sets, such as A and B illustrated
in Fig. 1, can be performed using fuzzy set aggregation
in various ways, consistent with the axioms of fuzzy sets
(Klir and Folger, 1988). The most direct form is the general-
ised, weighted average of the membership functions mA
and mB. mC is the membership function of the aggre-
gated set. Weighting functions w and 1  w, with values
between 0 and 1, can be introduced at the discretion of the
decision-maker
mC ðw; mA ; mB Þ ¼ ðwmnA þ ð1  wÞmnB Þ1=n (1)
mC takes certain familiar forms depending on the choice of
n. One should choose values to fit asymptotic behaviour.
27
Clearly mC can be generalised to consider the aggregation of
more than two sets.
For n ! 1, mC ! maximum(mA, mB) corresponding to the
commonly applied fuzzy set ‘union’ operation (the logical ‘or’
operation) (Klir and Folger, 1988).
For n ! 1, mC ! minimum(mA, mB) corresponding to the
commonly applied fuzzy set ‘intersection’ operation (the
logical ‘and’ operation).
For n = 1, mC becomes the arithmetic mean of the member-
ship functions mA and mB.
For n = 1, mC becomes the harmonic mean of the
membership functions mA and mB.
For n = 0, mC becomes the geometric mean of the member-
ship functions mA and mB.
Taking an arithmetic mean with weighting factors is
equivalent to multi-criteria analysis (Dodgson et al., 2000).
Fig. 4 illustrates some of the approaches as vertices of a
triangle. It is included to illustrate different views to risk.
Multi-criteria analysis, usually involves some form of trade-off
between different effects. If mC is determined by the ‘fuzzy
intersection’ operation, the minimum membership function is
used to define the aggregated set. This is the risk-taker’s
approach, as it suggests that compliance can be reached for all
environmental criteria by managing the least harmful. If mC is
determined by the ‘fuzzy union’ operation, the maximum
membership function is used to define the aggregated set. This
is a precautionary approach as it suggests that compliance can
be reached for all environmental criteria. Other forms of
aggregation are also possible.
Although aggregation is a way of combining fuzzy criteria,
the decision-maker still has to decide on the most appropriate
Fig. 4 – An illustration of how different choices of
aggregation may be made. They depend on the view
of risk taken by the decision-maker. The weighted
arithmetic mean represents some trade-off between
criteria. The intersection and union operations represent
different views to risk taking. ‘Intersection’ is the risk
taker’s approach assuming the minimum membership
function of the criteria can be reached by all the criteria.
However, as seen in Section 4.2, it can also be used to
identify the few worst areas on which to focus action.
‘Union’ is a precautionary approach assuming that
attention should always be paid to managing the
worst of the criteria.
28 environmental science & policy 9 (2006) 22–31

way of aggregating the criteria and this depends on his

attitude to risk. The consequences can best be illustrated by an
example. One could extend the uncertainty assessment of one
of the modelling examples discussed in Section 2, to include
the additional uncertainty associated with the expert judge-
ment of the pedigree or appropriateness of the model (Van der
Sluijs et al., 2003). However, since this would involve personal
judgement of a particular model, it is better left to the
structured form of evaluation by a group of experts favoured
by the above authors. Instead an air pollution example is
presented in the next section, in which the adverse effects of
air pollution are combined with a policy objective involving
road travel.

4.2. Example of the application of fuzzy set aggregation to

air pollution and private car usage

An example of aggregation involving a scientific assessment,

air pollution exposure, and a more subjective policy
requirement, private car usage, is presented, but the
numbers and interpretation are used to illustrate the
method and should not be taken in any way as definitive.
By considering the population in each 1 km
1 km grid
square covering the UK, the relative exposure mA of the
whole population to primary PM10 particles may be calcu-
lated for a source at any location, relative to a unit source
placed in central London (Fisher, 2004). This shows where it

Fig. 6 – A criterion showing shaded areas where the relative

private car usage is highest.

would be most advantageous to reduce emissions in the

Fig. 5 – A criterion showing relative exposure to PM10
according to location. The axes show distances in
kilometres. The areas inside the 0.5-shaded contour
are areas where reductions in emissions of primary
PM10 would have the most benefit.
country to protect the population from air pollution (see
Fig. 5). It suggests that attention should be focused on the
areas with the highest weighting, such as areas with mA
greater than 0.4, which lie in a swathe across the country
coinciding with the main urban areas, and especially on a
few areas inside the 0.5 shaded contour, containing areas
around London.
A decision could be made to try to reduce emissions
focusing on the limited areas within the 0.5 contours, but this
may not be the best decision taking wider considerations into
account, namely that particle emissions are related to road
transport, and the distribution of road transport around the
country has a spatially varying pattern. The feasibility of
encouraging a reduction in road transport, either by encoura-
ging public transport, car sharing etc., is related to current car
usage and is likely to depend on regional factors (Department
for Transport, 2002, 2003). One can consider the relative
distances travelled per person per year along minor roads, in
each 1 km
1 km grid square (assuming travel along major
roads are subject to other types of behavioural influences).
These can be related to the membership function mB of the
fuzzy set describing the personal use of cars as ‘high’. This is
shown in Fig. 6 by drawing contours showing where the ‘car
use’ membership function is higher than 0.6. The figure shows
higher distances are travelled in rural areas and is quite
dissimilar from Fig. 5.
 environmental science & policy 9 (2006) 22–31
Fig. 7 – An aggregated criterion based on taking the average
of the criteria in Figs. 5 and 6 by applying w = 0.5, n = 1, in
Eq. (1). This identifies the best areas for action assuming
evidence, or policy arguments, support equal benefit in
reducing the relative exposure to PM10 and the relative
car usage.
The combined outcome should be to reduce areas of both
high air pollution and high private car use, though these do not
occur in the same areas. One may consider the aggregate
weighting of both factors, assuming mA is the membership
function of each grid square, with poor air quality, and mB is
the membership function of each grid square, with a high,
annual distance travelled by car. mA is chosen to have the
functional form and the parameter values shown in Fig. 3,
where the x-axis is the relative air pollution exposure. This
form has been chosen to allow for a plausible degree of
uncertainty. For convenience the membership function mB is
chosen to have the same functional form and uncertainty as
mA, where the x-axis is the relative annual distance travelled
by person by car in a grid square. This involves a subjective
judgement of what might be regarded as ‘high’ annual travel.
It is an example of the use of expert or policy judgement to
define a concept in a qualitative way. Since attention is
focused on change from the present situation, it seems
appropriate to choose the membership function in Fig. 3, and
to make it sensitive to changes in travel distance close to the
current national mean travel distance.
Fig. 7 shows the effect of aggregating the two criteria
using simple averaging (w = 0.5, n = 1), when the member-
29
Fig. 8 – An aggregated criterion based on the union of the
criteria relating to relative exposure to PM10 and the usage
of private cars, obtained by applying w = 0.5, n = 10, in
Eq. (1). This criterion shows most of the country subject to
one or other, or both, of the individual criteria and is not
useful for discriminating where action would be most
advantageous.
ship function of the aggregate weighting equals 0.6.
Because areas where sources would cause high exposure
do not generally coincide with areas of high personal car
usage, the areas with a high aggregate weighting lie
somewhere between Figs. 5 and 6. Fig. 8 (w = 0.5, n = 10)
shows areas where either of the criteria may be high. This
covers most of the country and hence is not a useful
criterion. Fig. 9 (w = 0.5, n = 10) shows where both criteria
are satisfied. This is seen to be rather different from either
of the initial criteria, Figs. 5 or 6. It focuses attention on
just a few areas, which are highly weighted according to
both criteria, and these are areas where policy should be
directed.
If the aim is to identify a few areas for action, the fuzzy
intersection aggregation appears to satisfy the requirement.
The example only gives a notional idea of how methods of
fuzzy set aggregation may be used to combine the results of an
environmental model with a broader, policy criterion. More
involved fuzzy logic rules could be developed to describe
responses to more complex criteria. For example, one might
consider taking into account differences between urban and
rural areas, since there are fewer alternatives to the private car
in rural areas.
30 environmental science & policy 9 (2006) 22–31
Fig. 9 – An aggregated criteria based on taking the
intersection of the criteria based on the relative exposure
to PM10 and the use of the motor car, obtained by applying
w = 0.5, n = S10, in Eq. (1). These are areas with a high
weighting according to both criteria.
5. Conclusions
It is seen that conventional approaches to uncertainty, such as
sensitivity analysis, indicate that large error bounds are
associated with environmental models. Rather than expend-
ing great efforts to reduce these uncertainties, it is preferable
that environmental decision-making should be put into a
fuzzy logic framework, which can accommodate uncertainties
in the model, the environmental objectives and the broader
policy aims. Aspects of the framework are dependent on the
decision-maker and wider environmental factors, but this
may be considered an advantage as it is possible within the
framework to take a consistent approach to combining
different environmental criteria. The final decision will
depend on a combined environmental criterion, determined
after suitable trials of the membership function of an
aggregated fuzzy set.
This does not exclude applying environmental models
in a conventional statistical framework. However, one is
unlikely to be able to set results wholly in such a frame-
work because of practical considerations regarding any
actions for improvement, apart from limits on the
amount of measured data available for testing model
performance.
Acknowledgements
The valuable contribution of Dr R. Willows to the preparation
of the paper is appreciated. The views expressed are those of
the author and not necessarily those of the organisation to
which he belongs.
references
Abbott, J., Hayman, G., Vincent, K., Metcalfe, S., Dore, T.,
Skeffington, R., Whitehead, P., Whyatt, D., Passant, N.,
Woodfield, M., 2003. Uncertainty in acid deposition
modelling and critical load assessments. Environment
Agency R&D Technical Report P4-083(5)/1.
Cocks, A., Lucas, V., Rodgers, I., Teasdale, I., 2004. The
performance of Models-3 for deposition and atmospheric
concentrations over a year. Environment Agency R&D
Technical Report P4-083(5).
Department for Transport, 2002. Revised national travel survey
data for urban and rural areas. DfT December 2002,
available at http://www.transtat.dft.gov.uk/personal/
index.htm.
Department for Transport, 2003. Travel in urban and rural areas
in Great Britain, personal travel fact sheet 11. National
Statistics, Department for Transport.
Dodgson, J., Spackman, M., Pearman, A., Phillips, L., 2000. Multi-
criteria analysis: a manual. London, Department of the
Environment, Transport and the Regions. http://
www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_about/
documents/pdf/odpm_about_pdf_608524.pdf or a hard copy
from DETR Publications Sales Centre, Unit 21, Goldthorpe
Industrial Estate, Goldthorpe, Rotherham S63 9BL.
Enea, M., Salemi, G., 2001. Fuzzy approach to the environmental
impact evaluation. Ecol. Model. 135, 131–147.
Fisher, B.E.A., Ireland, M.P., Boyland, D.T., Critten, S.P., 2002.
Why use one model? An approach for encompassing model
uncertainty and improving best practice. Environ. Model.
Assess. 7, 291–299.
Fisher, B.E.A., 2003. Fuzzy environmental decision-making:
applications to air pollution. Atmos. Environ. 37, 1865–1877.
Fisher, B.E.A., 2004. Risk based approaches to assessing the
environmental burden of acid gas emissions. In:
Proceedings of the 27th NATO/CCMS International
Technical Meeting on Air Pollution Modelling and its
Application, 25–29 October 2004, Banff Centre, Banff,
Canada.
Fisher, B.E.A., 2005a. Sensitivity of urban dispersion calculations
to urban meteorology (COST 715). Int. J. Environ. Pollut. 25,
71–79.
Fisher, B.E.A., 2005b. Environmental burden of acid gas
emissions associated with the exceedence of critical loads.
Atmos. Environ. 39, 1903–1915.
Funtowicz, S., Ravetz, J., 2005. Post-normal science—
environmental policy under conditions of complexity.
http://www.nusap.net.
Hall, D.J., Spanton, A.M., Dunkerley, F., Bennett, M., Griffiths,
R.F., 2000a. A review of dispersion model inter-comparisons
studies using ISC, R91, AERMOD and ADMS. Environment
Agency Technical Report P353.
Hall, D.J., Spanton, A.M., Dunkerley, F., Bennett, M., Griffiths,
R.F., 2000b. An inter-comparison of the AERMOD, ADMS
and ISC dispersion models for regulatory applications.
Environment Agency Technical Report P362.
Hunt, J., 2000. Mathematics and environmental problems—
methodologies and future developments. NERC-EPSRC
Workshop, July 18, 2000.
 environmental science & policy 9 (2006) 22–31
Ireland, M, 2003. Local Air Quality Management and Climate
Change: Tools for Joined-up Policy. PhD Thesis, University
of Greenwich.
Klir, G.J., Folger, T.A., 1988. Fuzzy Sets, Uncertainty and
Information. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Mendes, J.F.G., Motizuki, W.S., 2001. Urban quality of life
evaluation scenarios: the case of Sao Carlos in Brazil.
CTBUH Rev. 1, 1–11.
National Society for Clean Air, 2003. Air quality management
areas: a review of procedures and practice for local
authorities. NSCA publication.
ODPM, 2002. Updating the English indices of deprivation
2000. Stage 1 consultation report. Office of the
Deputy Prime Minister, ODPM Neighbourhood
Renewal Unit.
Perrings, C., 2003. The economics of abrupt climate change.
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A 361, 2043–2059.
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, 1998. Setting
environmental standards. 21st Report. The Stationary
Office, Cm 4053.
Saloranta, T.M., 2001. Post-normal science and the climate
change issue. Climatic Change 50, 395–404.
Tarrason, L., Jonson, J.E., Fagerli, H., Benecdictow, A., Wind, P.,
Simpson, D., Klein, H., 2003. Transboundary acidification,
eutrophication and ground level ozone in Europe.
Part III. Source-receptor relationships. EMEP
Report 1/2003.
31
Tran, L.T., Knight, C.G., O’Neill, R.V., Smith, E.R., Riitters, K.H.,
Wickham, J., 2002. Fuzzy decision analysis for integrated
environmental vulnerability assessment of the Mid-Atlantic
region. Environ. Manage. 29, 845–859.
Tung, Y.-K., 2002. In: Wu, et al. (Eds.), Risk-Based Design of
Flood Defense Systems. Flood Defence. Science Press,
New York.
Van der Sluijs, J., Kloprogge, P., Risbey, J.,Ravetz, J., 2003.
Towards a synthesis of qualitative and quantitative
uncertainty assessment: applications of the numerical,
unit, spread, assessment, pedigree (NUSAP) system. Paper
at International Workshop on Uncertainty, Sensitivity and
Parameter Estimation for Multimedia Environmental
Modeling, 19–21 August 2003. Rockville, Maryland USA.
See also www.nusap.net.
Bernard Fisher is a policy advisor on Risk and Forecasting at the
Environment Agency. His interests lie in air pollution modelling,
air quality management, acid rain and environmental inequal-
ities. Recent experience has involved implementing local air qual-
ity management when he was a research professor at the
University of Greenwich. He is a member of the Air Quality Expert
Group of the UK government Department of Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs, and was until recently chairman of the COST 715
committee on ‘‘Meteorology applied to urban air pollution pro-
blems’’. He is a visiting professor at the Universities of Greenwich
and Hertfordshire.