The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Managing the Risk of Uncertain Threshold Responses: Comparison of Robust, Optimum, and Precautionary Approaches
Abstract
Many commentators have suggested the need for new decision analysis approaches to better manage systems with deeply uncertain, poorly characterized risks. Most notably, policy challenges such as abrupt climate change involve potential nonlinear or threshold responses where both the triggering level and subsequent system response are poorly understood. This study uses a simple computer simulation model to compare several alternative frameworks for decision making under uncertainty—optimal expected utility, the precautionary principle, and three different approaches to robust decision making—for addressing the challenge of adding pollution to a lake without triggering unwanted and potentially irreversible eutrophication. The three robust decision approaches—trading some optimal performance for less sensitivity to assumptions, satisficing over a wide range of futures, and keeping options open—are found to identify similar strategies as the most robust choice. This study also suggests that these robust decision approaches offer a quantitative, decision analytic framework that captures the spirit of the precautionary principle while addressing some of its shortcomings. Finally, this study finds that robust strategies may be preferable to optimum strategies when the uncertainty is sufficiently deep and the set of alternative policy options is sufficiently rich.
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
“Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms.”
Ellsberg, D. (1961) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1884324 · Cited by 7,891
Cited by
Transformational adaptation when incremental adaptations to climate change are insufficient
Kates, R. W., Travis, W. R., & Wilbanks, T. J. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1115521109 · Cited by 1,289
The psychological impacts of global climate change
Doherty, T. J., & Clayton, S. (2011) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/a0023141 · Cited by 894
Kwakkel, J. H., Haasnoot, M., & Walker, W. E. (2016) · Environmental Modelling & Software · doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.09.017 · Cited by 261
Risk and Uncertainty Communication
Spiegelhalter, D. (2017) · Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application · doi:10.1146/annurev-statistics-010814-020148 · Cited by 248
Exploratory 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
- Lempert, R. J., & Collins, M. T.
- Venue
- Risk Analysis
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-08
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1009-1026
- ISSN
- 0272-4332 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-6924
- OpenAlex
- W2017795107
- Cited by
- 465
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 25.97
- 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: Managing the Risk of Uncertain Threshold Responses: Comparison of Robust, Optimum, and Precautionary Approaches. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00940.x
- The paper
- Lempert, R. J., & Collins, M. T. (2007). Managing the Risk of Uncertain Threshold Responses: Comparison of Robust, Optimum, and Precautionary Approaches. Risk Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00940.x
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.