Abstract
In this work, we develop a set of tools able to analyse different options in a generic case of critical infrastructure development with the consideration of climate change adaptation needs. As an example that will guide us through the process, we refer to a decision problem related to the hydraulic regulation of a strategic infrastructure (e.g. an airport, a power plant, a train station or a logistic centre) exposed to uncertain future climatic extremes.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See also http://www.netsymod.eu/.
- 2.
The principle of Pareto dominance (Pareto optimality) is extremely useful in investment decisions and even more in the field of multi-criteria analysis as it allows to isolate those alternatives of choice with contrasting rankings in their criteria and thus identifies real conflicts (trade-offs) in the decision-making process.
- 3.
Download available at http://www.netsymod.eu/DSSwelcome.html.
- 4.
We listed these four options for the sake of concreteness and to add realism to our case study. However, any project alternative with evident or potential trade-offs in their performances could be considered an option.
- 5.
To add additional variability to the simulation database, Likert scales could also be fuzzy (Fourali 1997), i.e. it could be made possible to choose more than one value, creating in this way a range instead of a spot value.
- 6.
Definition of deep uncertainty from the Society for Decision Making Under Deep Uncertainty (www.deepuncertainty.org).
- 7.
There are several techniques to reach group consensus, most notably the Delphi method and the nominal group technique (Delbecq et al. 1975).
- 8.
CART simulation for risk takers available upon request.
References
Ben-Haim, Y. (2004). Uncertainty, probability and information-gaps. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 85(1–3), 249–266.
Bryant, B. P., & Lempert, R. J. (2010). Technological Forecasting & Social Change Thinking inside the box : A participatory , computer-assisted approach to scenario discovery. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 77(1), 34–49. Elsevier Inc.
Darwiche, A. (2009). Modeling and reasoning with Bayesian networks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Delbecq, A. L., de Ven, A. H., Gustafson, D. H., & others. (1975). Group techniques for program planning: A guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Scott, Foresman Glenview, IL.
European Commission. (2014). SWD(2013) 137 – Adapting infrastructure to climate change.
Fourali, C. (1997). Using fuzzy logic in educational measurement: The case of portfolio assessment. Evaluation & Research in Education, 11(3), 129–148.
Georgakakos, A. P. (2007). Decision support systems for integrated water resources management with an application to the Nile basin. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Giupponi, C. (2007). Decision support systems for implementing the European water framework directive: The MULINO approach. Environmental Modelling & Software, 22(2), 248–258. Elsevier.
Giupponi, C. (2014). Decision support for mainstreaming climate change adaptation in water resources management. Water Resources Management, 28(13), 4795–4808.
Giupponi, C., Mysiak, J., Fassio, A., & Cogan, V. (2004). MULINO-DSS: A computer tool for sustainable use of water resources at the catchment scale. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 64(1), 13–24.
Giupponi, C., Sgobbi, A., Mysiak, J., Camera, R., & Fassio, A. (2008). NETSYMOD-an integrated approach for water resources management. In Integrated Water Management (pp. 69–93). Dordrecht: Springer.
Gorry, A. G., & Scott-Morton, N. (1971). A framework for management information systems. Sloan Management Review, 12, 55–70. MIT.
Groves, D. G., & Lempert, R. J. (2007). A new analytic method for finding policy-relevant scenarios. Global Environmental Change, 17(1), 73–85.
Haasnoot, M., van Deursen, W. P. A., Guillaume, J. H. A., Kwakkel, J. H., van Beek, E., & Middelkoop, H. (2014). Fit for purpose? Building and evaluating a fast, integrated model for exploring water policy pathways. Environmental Modelling and Software, 60, 99–120. Elsevier Ltd.
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, 141(10), 1–14.
IPCC. (2012). Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation: special report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In C. B. Field, V. Barros, T. . Stocker, D. Qin, D. J. Dokken, K. Ebi, M. D. Mastrandrea, et al. (Eds.), Intergovernmental panel for climate change (Intergover.). Cambridge, UK/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kasprzyk, J. R., Nataraj, S., Reed, P. M., & Lempert, R. J. (2013). Many objective robust decision making for complex environmental systems undergoing change. Environmental Modelling and Software, 42, 55–71. Elsevier Ltd.
Keen, P. G. W., & Scott-Morton, M. S. (1978). Decision support systems: An organizational perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty, and profit. New York: Boston, New York, Houghton Mifflin Company.
Lempert, R. J., & Collins, M. T. (2007). Managing the risk of uncertain threshold responses: Comparison of robust, optimum, and precautionary approaches. Risk Analysis, 27(4), 1009–1026.
Lempert, R. J., & Kalra, N. (2013). Managing climate risks in developing countries with robust decision making. Washington, DC: World Resources Report.
Lempert, R. J., Groves, D. G., Popper, S. W., & Bankes, S. C. (2006). A general, analytic method for generating robust strategies and narrative scenarios. Management Science, 52(4), 514–528.
Mahmoud, M., Liu, Y., Hartmann, H., Stewart, S., Wagener, T., Semmens, D., Stewart, R., et al. (2009). A formal framework for scenario development in support of environmental decision-making. Environmental Modelling and Software, 24(7), 798–808. Elsevier Ltd.
Mastrandrea, M. D., Mach, K. J., Plattner, G.-K., Edenhofer, O., Stocker, T. F., Field, C. B., Ebi, K. L., et al. (2011). The IPCC AR5 guidance note on consistent treatment of uncertainties: A common approach across the working groups. Climatic Change, 108(4), 675–691. Springer.
Rosenhead, J. (1980a). Planning under uncertainty: 1. The inflexibility of methodologies. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 31(3), 209.
Rosenhead, J. (1980b). Planning under uncertainty: II . A methodology for robustness analysis. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 31(4), 331–341.
Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1991). When and how to use scenario planning: A heuristic approach with illustration. Journal of Forecasting, 10(June 1990), 549–564.
Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993). Multiple scenario planning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(January 1992).
Walker, W. E., Harremoës, P., Rotmans, J., van der Sluijs, J. P., van Asselt, M. B. A., Janssen, P., & Krayer von Krauss, M. P. (2003). Defining uncertainty: A conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support. Integrated Assessment, 4(1), 5–17.
Yager, R. R. (1988). On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria Decisionmaking. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 18(1), 183–190.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bernhofer, J., Giupponi, C., Mojtahed, V. (2019). A Decision-Making Model for Critical Infrastructures in Conditions of Deep Uncertainty. In: Cecconi, F., Campennì, M. (eds) Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in Economic Modeling. Computational Social Sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22605-3_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22605-3_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-22604-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-22605-3
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)