On considering robustness in the search phase of Robust Decision Making: A comparison of Many-Objective Robust Decision Making, multi-scenario Many-Objective Robust Decision Making, and Many Objective Robust Optimization

被引:31
作者
Bartholomew, Erin [1 ]
Kwakkel, Jan H. [1 ]
机构
[1] Delft Univ Technol, Fac Technol Policy & Management, Sect Policy Anal, Jaffalaan 5, Delft 2628 BX, Netherlands
关键词
Deep uncertainty; Many Objective Robust Decision Making; Many Objective Robust Optimization; INFO-GAP; EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHMS; DEEP UNCERTAINTY; MANAGEMENT; COMPLEX; ADAPTATION; DISCOVERY; POLICIES; STATE;
D O I
10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104699
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
In recent years, a family of approaches has emerged for supporting decision-making on complex environmental problems characterized by deep uncertainties and competing priorities. Many-Objective Robust Decision Making (MORDM), Multi-scenario MORDM and. Many-Objective Robust Optimization (MORO) differ with respect to the degree to which robustness is considered during the search for promising candidate solutions. To assess the efficacy of these three methods, we compare them using three different policy formulations of the lake problem: inter-temporal, planned adaptive, and direct policy search. The more robustness is considered in the search phase, the more robust solutions are also after re-evaluation but also the lower the performance in individual reference scenarios. Adaptive policy formulations positively affect robustness, but do not reduce the price for robustness. Multi-scenario MORDM strikes a pragmatic balance between robustness considerations and optimality in individual scenarios, at reasonable computational costs.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 64 条
[21]   Including robustness considerations in the search phase of Many-Objective Robust Decision Making [J].
Eker, Sibel ;
Kwakkel, Jan H. .
ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING & SOFTWARE, 2018, 105 :201-216
[22]   Is robustness really robust? How different definitions of robustness impact decision-making under climate change [J].
Giuliani, Matteo ;
Castelletti, Andrea .
CLIMATIC CHANGE, 2016, 135 (3-4) :409-424
[23]   Curses, Tradeoffs, and Scalable Management: Advancing Evolutionary Multiobjective Direct Policy Search to Improve Water Reservoir Operations [J].
Giuliani, Matteo ;
Castelletti, Andrea ;
Pianosi, Francesca ;
Mason, Emanuele ;
Reed, Patrick M. .
JOURNAL OF WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT, 2016, 142 (02)
[24]   A new analytic method for finding policy-relevant scenarios [J].
Groves, David G. ;
Lempert, Robert J. .
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE-HUMAN AND POLICY DIMENSIONS, 2007, 17 (01) :73-85
[25]   Exploring pathways for sustainable water management in river deltas in a changing environment [J].
Haasnoot, Marjolijn ;
Middelkoop, Hans ;
Offermans, Astrid ;
van Beek, Eelco ;
van Deursen, Willem P. A. .
CLIMATIC CHANGE, 2012, 115 (3-4) :795-819
[26]   An open source framework for many-objective robust decision making [J].
Hadka, David ;
Herman, Jonathan ;
Reed, Patrick ;
Keller, Klaus .
ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING & SOFTWARE, 2015, 74 :114-129
[27]   Borg: An Auto-Adaptive Many-Objective Evolutionary Computing Framework [J].
Hadka, David ;
Reed, Patrick .
EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION, 2013, 21 (02) :231-259
[28]   Robust Climate Policies Under Uncertainty: A Comparison of Robust Decision Making and Info-Gap Methods [J].
Hall, Jim W. ;
Lempert, Robert J. ;
Keller, Klaus ;
Hackbarth, Andrew ;
Mijere, Christophe ;
McInerney, David J. .
RISK ANALYSIS, 2012, 32 (10) :1657-1672
[29]   An exploratory approach for adaptive policymaking by using multi-objective robust optimization [J].
Hamarat, Caner ;
Kwakkel, Jan H. ;
Pruyt, Erik ;
Loonen, Erwin T. .
SIMULATION MODELLING PRACTICE AND THEORY, 2014, 46 :25-39
[30]   Adaptive Robust Design under deep uncertainty [J].
Hamarat, Caner ;
Kwakkel, Jan H. ;
Pruyt, Erik .
TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE, 2013, 80 (03) :408-418