The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How Should Robustness Be Defined for Water Systems Planning under Change?
Abstract
Water systems planners have long recognized the need for robust solutions capable of withstanding deviations from the conditions for which they were designed. Robustness analyses have shifted from expected utility to exploratory bottom-up approaches which identify vulnerable scenarios prior to assigning likelihoods. Examples include Robust Decision Making (RDM), Decision Scaling, Info-Gap, and Many-Objective Robust Decision Making (MORDM). We propose a taxonomy of robustness frameworks to compare and contrast these approaches based on their methods of (1) alternative generation, (2) sampling of states of the world, (3) quantification of robustness measures, and (4) sensitivity analysis to identify important uncertainties. Building from the proposed taxonomy, we use a regional urban water supply case study in the Research Triangle region of North Carolina to illustrate the decision-relevant consequences that emerge from each of these choices. Results indicate that the methodological choices in the taxonomy lead to the selection of substantially different planning alternatives, underscoring the importance of an informed definition of robustness. Moreover, the results show that some commonly employed methodological choices and definitions of robustness can have undesired consequences when ranking decision alternatives. For the demonstrated test case, recommendations for overcoming these issues include: (1) decision alternatives should be searched rather than prespecified, (2) dominant uncertainties should be discovered through sensitivity analysis rather than assumed, and (3) a carefully elicited multivariate satisficing measure of robustness allows stakeholders to achieve their problem-specific performance requirements. This work emphasizes the importance of an informed problem formulation for systems facing challenging performance tradeoffs and provides a common vocabulary to link the robustness frameworks widely used in the field of water systems planning.
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
Dilemmas in a general theory of planning
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973) · Policy Sciences · doi:10.1007/bf01405730 · Cited by 16,338
The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment
Moss, R. H., Edmonds, J. A., Hibbard, K. A., Manning, M. R., Rose, S. K., van Vuuren, D. P., Carter, T. R., Emori, S., Kainuma, M., Kram, T., et al. (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature08823 · Cited by 6,467
Global Sensitivity Analysis. The Primer
Saltelli, A., Ratto, M., Andres, T., Campolongo, F., Cariboni, J., Gatelli, D., Saisana, M., & Tarantola, S. (2007) · doi:10.1002/9780470725184 · Cited by 6,430
Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their monte carlo estimates
Sobol′, I. M. (2001) · Mathematics and Computers in Simulation · doi:10.1016/s0378-4754(00)00270-6 · Cited by 6,389
Saltelli, A., Annoni, P., Azzini, I., Campolongo, F., Ratto, M., & Tarantola, S. (2010) · Computer Physics Communications · doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2009.09.018 · Cited by 3,623
Making best use of model evaluations to compute sensitivity indices
Saltelli, A. (2002) · Computer Physics Communications · doi:10.1016/s0010-4655(02)00280-1 · Cited by 2,228
Multiple Objective Decision Making — Methods and Applications
Hwang, C.-L., & Masud, A. S. M. (1979) · Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-45511-7 · Cited by 1,186
Cited by
Maier, H. R., Guillaume, J. H. A., van Delden, H., Riddell, G. A., Haasnoot, M., & Kwakkel, J. H. (2016) · Environmental Modelling & Software · doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.03.014 · Cited by 490
Kwakkel, J. H., Haasnoot, M., & Walker, W. E. (2016) · Environmental Modelling & Software · doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.09.017 · Cited by 261
Giuliani, M., Castelletti, A., Pianosi, F., Mason, E., & Reed, P. M. (2016) · Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management · doi:10.1061/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0000570 · Cited by 257
Self-citationHerman, J. D., Quinn, J. D., Steinschneider, S., Giuliani, M., & Fletcher, S. (2020) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2019wr025502 · Cited by 257
Self-citationExploratory modeling for analyzing coupled human-natural systems under uncertainty
Moallemi, E. A., Kwakkel, J., de Haan, F. J., & Bryan, B. A. (2020) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102186 · Cited by 130
Metadata
- Authors
- Herman, J. D., Reed, P. M., Zeff, H. B., & Characklis, G. W.
- Venue
- Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
- Published
- 2015-10
- Volume
- 141
- Issue
- 10
- ISSN
- 0733-9496 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-5452
- OpenAlex
- W1995299836
- Cited by
- 371
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 37.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: How Should Robustness Be Defined for Water Systems Planning under Change? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1061/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0000509
- The paper
- Herman, J. D., Reed, P. M., Zeff, H. B., & Characklis, G. W. (2015). How Should Robustness Be Defined for Water Systems Planning under Change? Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)wr.1943-5452.0000509
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.