Abstract
A variety of model-based approaches for supporting decision-making under deep uncertainty have been suggested, but they are rarely compared and contrasted. In this paper, we compare Robust Decision-Making with Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways. We apply both to a hypothetical case inspired by a river reach in the Rhine Delta of the Netherlands, and compare them with respect to the required tooling, the resulting decision relevant insights, and the resulting plans. The results indicate that the two approaches are complementary. Robust Decision-Making offers insights into conditions under which problems occur, and makes trade-offs transparent. The Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways approach emphasizes dynamic adaptation over time, and thus offers a natural way for handling the vulnerabilities identified through Robust Decision-Making. The application also makes clear that the analytical process of Robust Decision-Making is path-dependent and open ended: an analyst has to make many choices, for which Robust Decision-Making offers no direct guidance.
Highlights
Uncertain changes in climate, technological, socio-economic and political situations, and the dynamic interaction among these changes, and between these changes and interventions, pose a challenge to planners and decision-makers
The adaptive robust policy design advocated by Hamarat et al (2013) explicitly combines the Robust Decision-Making (RDM) approach with Adaptive Policy-Making, and offers guidance on when vulnerabilities identified through scenario discovery are better addressed through static action or through dynamic adaptation
If we look at the plans that emerge from both the RDM process and the robust optimization approach to the design of adaptation pathways, we make several observations
Summary
Technological, socio-economic and political situations, and the dynamic interaction among these changes, and between these changes and interventions, pose a challenge to planners and decision-makers. Hall et al (2012) compare Info-Gap Decision Theory and Robust Decision-Making They conclude that along quite different analytical paths, both approaches arrive at fairly similar but not identical results. Matrosov et al (2013b) compare Info-Gap and Robust Decision-Making They reach a similar conclusion and discuss in more detail the complementary character of the analytical paths used by both approaches. Matrosov et al (2013a) compare Robust Decision-Making with an economic optimization approach (UK Water Industry Research (UKWIR), 2002) In this case, the results are quite different, suggesting a need to combine both approaches. Roach et al (2015, 2016) compare Info-Gap Decision Theory and robust optimization They conclude that there are substantial differences between the plans resulting from these two approaches, and argue in favor of mixed methodologies.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
