Frameworks for Environmental Assessment and Indicators at the eea

Ov
erall S
tr
ength of E
vidence
O
utcome (e.g., 
R
elev
ant exposur
e
Association†
P
lausibility†
Causality†
M
echanism of 
Ov
erall w
eight
D
ir
ection of 
childhood asthma)
(e.g., indoor 
action?†
of evidence
evidence 
air pollution
(w
eak, moderate, 
(str
onger or 
[NO
x
])
or str
ong) ‡
w
eaker o
ver 
last 5–10 
years)
N
ote:
This table is designed to be used to ev
aluate the scientific evidence for each hypothesis (at an appr
opriate lev
el of detail, r
elev
ant to the exper
tise
of those doing the ev
aluation) against the factors in the frame
wor
k and judge the o
verall str
ength of evidence for the hypothes
is and the dir
ection in
which the evidence is mo
ving.
*F
rom obser
vations or theories.
†Commonly accepted among r
elev
ant scientists.
‡Commonly accepted b
y r
elev
ant scientists as “
w
eak,” “
moderate,” or “
str
ong,” categories based on H
ill (1965), IPCC (2001), and
IPCS/WHO
(2002).
Scope 67 FM, TEXT.qxd 3/28/07 2:44 PM Page 158

---

T
able 9.4. D
iffer
ent lev
els of pr
oof for differ
ent purposes: S
ome examples and illustrations.
Q
uantitativ
e D
escr
iptor 
Q
ualitativ
e D
escr
iptor
Illustrations
(pr
obability bands 
based on IPCC 2001)*
100% pr
obability
V
er
y likely (90–99%)
• “S
tatistical significance
”
• P
ar
t of str
ong scientific “
causation
” evidence
• “B
ey
ond all r
easonable
• M
ost criminal law; the S
w
edish chemical law
, 1973 
doubt
”
(for evidence of “
safety
” fr
om manufactur
ers)
Likely (66–90%)
• “R
easonable cer
tainty
”
• F
ood Q
uality P
rotection A
ct, 1996 (U.S.)
• “S
ufficient scientific 
• 
W
orld 
T
rade O
rganisation SPS Agr
eement, 
evidence
”
A
rt. 2.2, 1995, to justify a trade r
estriction
• I
nternational Agency for R
esear
ch on Cancer (IAR
C) 
Categor
y 1: “P
robable H
u
man Car
cinogen
”
M
edium likelihood 
• “B
alance of evidence
”
• I
ntergo
vernmental P
anel on Climate Change 1995 and 2001
(33–66%)
• “B
alance of pr
obabilities
”
• M
uch civil and some administrativ
e law
• “Limited evidence
”
• IAR
C
Categor
y 2 B: “P
ossible H
uman Car
cinogen
”
• “R
easonable gr
ounds for 
• E
u
ropean Commission on the P
recautionar
y P
rinciple 2000
concern
”
• B
ritish N
uclear F
uels occupational radiation compensation 
• “S
tr
ong possibility
”
scheme, 1984 (20–50% pr
obabilities triggering differ
ent
• “Scientific suspicion of risk
”
awar
ds up to 50%, which triggers full compensation)
• S
w
edish chemical law
, 1973, for evidence r
equir
ed for 
regulators to take pr
ecautionar
y action on potential harm 
fr
om substances
Lo
w likelihood 
• “S
ome evidence of 
• IAR
C
criterion for selecting substances for ev
aluation
(10–33%)
car
cinogenicity
”
• 
W
T
O SPS Agr
eement, Ar
t. 5.7, to justify a pr
ovisional 
• “
A
vailable per
tinent 
trade r
estriction wher
e “
scientific information is insufficient
”
information
”
V
er
y unlikely 
• Lo
w risk
• H
ousehold fir
e insurance
0% pr
obability
(1–10%)
• “N
egligible and insignificant
”
• F
ood Q
uality P
rotection A
ct, 1996 (U.S.)
*S
implified b
y r
emo
ving the top (>99%) and bottom (<1%) lev
els. 
Ther
e is rar
ely pr
ecision on contested issues to allocate speci
fic numerical pr
oba-
bilities, and the boundaries betw
een categories ar
e in practice fuzzy: 
The quantitativ
e descriptors illustrate br
oad categories
of evidence based on
Incr
easing Probability
Scope 67 FM, TEXT.qxd 3/28/07 2:44 PM Page 159

---

has been achieved. The appropriate level of proof varies in each case, depending on the
likely nature and scale of the hazards and the availability and feasibility of alternatives.
After further discussion and improvements, the EEA believes that this framework for
evaluating scientific evidence will be a helpful tool in the process of producing consis-
tent overviews of the existing states of knowledge.
Conclusion
Measuring sustainable development requires innovative techniques and indicators, rig-
orous underlying models, and frameworks for interpretation of complex evidence. The
approaches and frameworks presented in this chapter and the associated critique are
expected to contribute to improved assessment of sustainability by shedding light on
new techniques, providing criticism of existing systems, and contributing new
approaches to analyzing and interpreting results.
Notes
1. The criteria were initially introduced by the EEA in 1998–1999 in Europe’s Envi-
ronment: The Second Assessment, p. 284, and in Europe’s Environment at the Turn of the
Century, p. 20 (EEA 1998, 1999b). The criteria were based on key environmental pro-
grams such as the Rio Declaration; the European Commission’s 5th Environmental
Action Programme; the Pan-European Environmental Programme for Europe; policy
papers produced to implement the EU Treaty provisions on integration, including the
Commission of the European Communities Communication on Integration; conclu-
sions of the Cardiff, Vienna, and Cologne summits; draft council papers on sectoral
integration for the Helsinki Summit; and associated commentaries from the European
Environmental Bureau and member states.
2. Council Regulation (EEC) no. 1210/90 of May 7, 1990, as amended by Coun-
cil Regulation 933/1999 of April 29, 1999.
3. The EEA Expert Group on Guidelines and Reporting brought together national
experts on the state of the environment and indicator reporting, meeting twice a year
to discuss topics of mutual interest and to advise the EEA on its reporting activities.