Skip to main content

A Decision-Making Model for Critical Infrastructures in Conditions of Deep Uncertainty

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in Economic Modeling

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See also http://www.netsymod.eu/.

  2. 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. 3.

    Download available at http://www.netsymod.eu/DSSwelcome.html.

  4. 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. 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. 6.

    Definition of deep uncertainty from the Society for Decision Making Under Deep Uncertainty (www.deepuncertainty.org).

  7. 7.

    There are several techniques to reach group consensus, most notably the Delphi method and the nominal group technique (Delbecq et al. 1975).

  8. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darwiche, A. (2009). Modeling and reasoning with Bayesian networks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2014). SWD(2013) 137 – Adapting infrastructure to climate change.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fourali, C. (1997). Using fuzzy logic in educational measurement: The case of portfolio assessment. Evaluation & Research in Education, 11(3), 129–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georgakakos, A. P. (2007). Decision support systems for integrated water resources management with an application to the Nile basin. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Giupponi, C. (2007). Decision support systems for implementing the European water framework directive: The MULINO approach. Environmental Modelling & Software, 22(2), 248–258. Elsevier.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giupponi, C. (2014). Decision support for mainstreaming climate change adaptation in water resources management. Water Resources Management, 28(13), 4795–4808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorry, A. G., & Scott-Morton, N. (1971). A framework for management information systems. Sloan Management Review, 12, 55–70. MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves, D. G., & Lempert, R. J. (2007). A new analytic method for finding policy-relevant scenarios. Global Environmental Change, 17(1), 73–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keen, P. G. W., & Scott-Morton, M. S. (1978). Decision support systems: An organizational perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, F. H. (1921). Risk, uncertainty, and profit. New York: Boston, New York, Houghton Mifflin Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lempert, R. J., & Kalra, N. (2013). Managing climate risks in developing countries with robust decision making. Washington, DC: World Resources Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhead, J. (1980a). Planning under uncertainty: 1. The inflexibility of methodologies. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 31(3), 209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhead, J. (1980b). Planning under uncertainty: II . A methodology for robustness analysis. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 31(4), 331–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993). Multiple scenario planning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(January 1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yager, R. R. (1988). On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria Decisionmaking. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 18(1), 183–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juliana Bernhofer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics