CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 261Sustainability and Climate Change GovernanceComplex Systems and Decision MakingWater resources management and optimization

Comparing Robust Decision-Making and Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways for model-based decision support under deep uncertainty

Open access
Kwakkel, Jan H., Haasnoot, Marjolijn, Walker, Warren E.·2016·Environmental Modelling & Software
DOI 10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.09.017
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

A variety of model-based approaches for supporting decision-making under deep uncertainty have been suggested, but they are rarely compared and contrasted. In this paper, we compare Robust Decision-Making with Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways. We apply both to a hypothetical case inspired by a river reach in the Rhine Delta of the Netherlands, and compare them with respect to the required tooling, the resulting decision relevant insights, and the resulting plans. The results indicate that the two approaches are complementary. Robust Decision-Making offers insights into conditions under which problems occur, and makes trade-offs transparent. The Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways approach emphasizes dynamic adaptation over time, and thus offers a natural way for handling the vulnerabilities identified through Robust Decision-Making. The application also makes clear that the analytical process of Robust Decision-Making is path-dependent and open ended: an analyst has to make many choices, for which Robust Decision-Making offers no direct guidance.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.09.017

Cites

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Alternative climate change mitigation and restoration pathways could explore the future outcomes of decision-making when accounting for climate or socioeconomic developments, new knowledge or technologies, and changing societal values.

    “Rather than making fixed and irreversible decisions now, alternative climate change mitigation and restoration pathways could explore the future outcomes of decision-making when accounting for climate or socioeconomic developments, new knowledge or technologies, and changing societal values (145).”

    From Restoring Degraded Lands (2021) · cites this paper as [145]

    The Introduction supports flexible decisions that adapt as conditions unfold, and §2.2 describes evaluating alternative policy pathways and monitoring developments that trigger later actions. The Waas case considers climate and land-use scenarios. The paper addresses climate adaptation and flood management, however, not mitigation or restoration pathways; the cited passages also do not establish changing societal values or new knowledge as factors evaluated in those pathways. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. Auping, W., Pruyt, E., Kwakkel, J.H., 2015. Societal ageing in The Netherlands: a robust system dynamics approach. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 32 (4), 485e501.
  2. Bai, D., Carpenter, T., Mulvey, J., 1997. Making a case for robust optimization models. Manag. Sci. 43 (7), 895e907.
  3. Bankes, S.C., 1993. Exploratory modeling for policy analysis. Oper. Res. 4 (3), 435e449.
  4. Bankes, S.C., Walker, W.E., Kwakkel, J.H., 2013. Exploratory modeling and analysis. In: Gass, S., Fu, M.C. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Manage- ment Science, third ed. Springer, Berlin, Germany.
  5. Beh, E.H.Y., Maier, H.R., Dandy, G.C., 2015. Adaptive, multiobjective optimal sequencing approach for urban water supply augmentation under deep un- certainty. Water Resour. Res. 51 (3), 1529e1551.
  6. Ben Haim, Y., 2006. Information-Gap Decision Theory: Decision under Severe Un- certainty, second ed. Academic Press, London, UK.
  7. Ben-Tal, A., Nemirovski, A., 1998. Robust convex optimization. Math. Oper. Res. 23 (4), 769e805.
  8. Ben-Tal, A., Nemirovski, A., 2000. Robust solutions of linear programming problems contaminated with uncertain data. Math. Program. 88 (3), 411e424.
  9. Bertsimas, D., Sim, M., 2004. The price of robustness. Oper. Res. 52 (1), 35e53.
  10. Brown, C., Ghile, Y., Laverty, M., Li, K., 2012. Decision scaling: linking bottom-up vulnerability analysis with climate projections in the water sector. Water Resour. Res. 48 (9), 1e12.
  11. de Neufville, R., Scholtes, S., 2011. Flexibility in Engineering Design. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  12. Dessai, S., Hulme, M., Lempert, R.J., Pielke jr, R., 2009. Do we need better predictions to adapt to a changing climate? EOS 90 (13), 111e112.
  13. Dewar, J.A., 2002. Assumption-based Planning: a Tool for Reducing Avoidable Sur- prises. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  14. Friedman, J.H., Fisher, N.I., 1999. Bump hunting in high-dimensional data. Stat. Comput. 9 (2), 123e143.
  15. Groves, D.G., Bloom, E., Lempert, R.J., Fischbach, J.R., Nevills, J., Goshi, B., 2014. Developing key indicators for adaptive water planning. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 141 (7), 05014008.
  16. Groves, D.G., Lempert, R.J., 2007. A new analytic method for finding policy-relevant scenarios. Glob. Environ. Change 17 (1), 73e85.
  17. Haasnoot, M., Kwakkel, J.H., Walker, W.E., Ter Maat, J., 2013. Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: a new method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply un- certain world. Glob. Environ. Change 23 (2), 485e498.
  18. Haasnoot, M., Schellekens, J., Beersma, J.J., Middelkoop, H., Kwadijk, J.C.J., 2015. Transient scenarios for robust climate change adaptation illustrated for water management in The Netherlands. Environ. Res. Lett. 10 (10), 105008.
  19. Hadka, D., Reed, P.M., 2013. Borg: an auto-adaptive many-objective evolutionary computing framework. Evol. Comput. 21 (2), 231e259.
  20. Hall, J.W., Lempert, R.J., Keller, A., Hackbarth, A., Mijere, C., McInerney, D., 2012. Robust climate policies under uncertainty: a comparison of robust decision making and info-gap methods. Risk Anal. 32 (10), 1527e1672.
  21. Hamarat, C., Kwakkel, J.H., Pruyt, E., 2013. Adaptive robust design under deep un- certainty. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 80 (3), 408e418.
  22. Kwadijk, J.C.J., Haasnoot, M., Mulder, J.P.M., Hoogvliet, M.M.C., Jeuken, A.B.M., van der Krogt, R.A.A., van Oostrom, N.G.C., Schelfhout, H.A., van Velzen, E.H., van Waveren, H., de Wit, M.J.M., 2010. Using adaptation tipping points to prepare for climate change and sea level rise: a case study in The Netherlands. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 1 (5), 729e740.
  23. Kwakkel, J.H., Auping, W.L., Pruyt, E., 2013. Dynamic scenario discovery under deep uncertainty: the future of copper. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 80 (4), 789e800.
  24. Kwakkel, J.H., Haasnoot, M., Walker, W.E., 2015. Developing Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways: a computer-assisted approach for developing adaptive stra- tegies for a deeply uncertain world. Clim. Change 132 (3), 373e386.
  25. Kwakkel, J.H., Jaxa-Rozen, M., 2016. Improving scenario discovery for handling heterogeneous uncertainties and multinomial classified outcomes. Environ. Model. Softw. 79. Kwakkel, J.H., Pruyt, E., 2013. Exploratory Modeling and Analysis, an approach for model-based foresight under deep uncertainty. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 80 (3), 419e431.
  26. Kwakkel, J.H., Pruyt, E., 2015. Using system dynamics for grand challenges: the ESDMA approach. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 32 (3), 358e375.
  27. Kwakkel, J.H., van der Pas, J.W.G.M., 2011. Evaluation of infrastructure planning approaches: an analogy with medicine. Futures 43 (9), 934e946.
  28. Kwakkel, J.H., Walker, W.E., Marchau, V.A.W.J., 2010. Adaptive airport strategic planning. Eur. J. Transp. Infrastruct. Res. 10 (3), 227e250.
  29. Kwakkel, J.H., Walker, W.E., Marchau, V.A.W.J., 2012. Assessing the efficacy of adaptive airport strategic planning: results from computational experiments. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 39 (3), 533e550.
  30. Lempert, R.J., 2002. A new decision sciences for complex systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 99 (3), 7309e7313.
  31. Lempert, R.J., Collins, M., 2007. Managing the risk of uncertain threshold response: comparison of robust, optimum, and precautionary approaches. Risk Anal. 24 (4), 1009e1026.
  32. Lempert, R.J., Groves, D.G., 2010. Identifying and evaluating robust adaptive policy responses to climate change for water management agencies in the american west. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 77 (6), 960e974.
  33. Maru, Y.T., Stafford Smith, M., 2014. GEC special edition e reframing adaptation pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 28.
  34. Matrosov, E.S., Padula, S., Harou, J.J., 2013a. Selecting portfolios of water supply and demand management strategies under uncertainty -contrasting economic optimisation and 'robust decision making' approaches. Water Resour. Manag. 27 (4), 1123e1148.
  35. McKay, M.D., Beckman, R.J., Conover, W.J., 1979. A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics 21 (2), 239e245.
  36. Mulvey, J., Vanderbei, R.J., Zenios, S.A., 1995. Robust optimization of large-scale systems. Oper. Res. 43 (2), 264e281.
  37. Rosenhead, J., Elton, M., Gupta, S.K., 1973. Robustness and optimality as criteria for strategic decisions. Oper. Res. Q. 23 (4), 413e431.
  38. van den Hurk, B., Tank, A.K., Lenderink, G., van Ulden, A., van Oldenborgh, G.J., Katsman, C., van den Brink, H., Keller, F., Bessembinder, J., Burgers, G., Komen, G., Hazeleger, W., Drijfhout, S., 2007. New climate change scenarios for The Netherlands. Water Sci. Technol. 56 (4), 27e33.
  39. Wald, A., 1945. Statistical decision functions which minimize the maximum risk. Ann. Math. 46 (2), 265e280.
  40. Walker, W.E., Haasnoot, M., Kwakkel, J.H., 2013. Adapt or perish: a review of planning approaches for adaptation under deep uncertainty. Sustainability 5 (3), 955e979.
  41. Walker, W.E., Rahman, S.A., Cave, J., 2001. Adaptive policies, policy analysis, and policymaking. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 128 (2), 282e289.
  42. Walls, J.G., Widmeyer, G.R., El Sawy, O.A., 1992. Building an information systems design theory for vigilant EIS. Inf. Syst. Res. 3 (1), 35e59.
  43. Walls, J.G., Widmeyer, G.R., El Sawy, O.A., 2004. Assessing information system design theory in perspective: how useful was our 1992 initial rendition? J. Inf. Technol. Theory Appl. 6 (2), 43e58.
  44. Woodward, M., Kapelan, Z., Gouldby, B., 2014. Adaptive flood risk management under climate change uncertainty using real options and optimization. Risk Anal. 34 (1), 75e92.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kwakkel, J. H., Haasnoot, M., & Walker, W. E.
Affiliations
  • Delft University of Technology (NL)
  • Deltares (NL)
Corresponding author
Kwakkel, Jan H.
ORCID
Venue
Environmental Modelling & Software
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-12
Volume
86
Pages
168-183
ISSN
1364-8152 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.09.017
OpenAlex
W2529491643
Cited by
261
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 9
FWCI
14.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Environmental Modelling & Software (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Repository (Delft University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Dutch National Science Foundation (451-13-018)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Sustainability and Climate Change Governance
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Complex Systems and Decision Making
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Ocean Engineering › Water resources management and optimization
Keywords
robust decision making, dynamic adaptive policy pathways, deep uncertainty, model-based decision support, Rhine delta, adaptive management, vulnerability assessment, trade-offs, path dependence

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