There is increasing concern over deep uncertainty in the risk analysis field as probabilistic models of uncertainty cannot always be confidently determined or agreed upon for many of our most pressing contemporary risk challenges. This is particularly true in the climate change adaptation field, and has prompted the development of a number of frameworks aiming to characterize system vulnerabilities and identify robust alternatives. One such methodology is robust decision making (RDM), which uses simulation models to assess how strategies perform over many plausible conditions and then identifies and characterizes those where the strategy fails in a process termed scenario discovery. While many of the problems to which RDM has been applied are characterized by multiple objectives, research to date has provided little insight into how treatment of multiple criteria impacts the failure scenarios identified. In this research, we compare different methods for incorporating multiple objectives into the scenario discovery process to evaluate how they impact the resulting failure scenarios. We use the Lake Tana basin in Ethiopia as a case study, where climatic and environmental uncertainties could impact multiple planned water infrastructure projects, and find that failure scenarios may vary depending on the method used to aggregate multiple criteria. Common methods used to convert multiple attributes into a single utility score can obscure connections between failure scenarios and system performance, limiting the information provided to support decision making. Applying scenario discovery over each performance metric separately provides more nuanced information regarding the relative sensitivity of the objectives to different uncertain parameters, leading to clearer insights on measures that could be taken to improve system robustness and areas where additional research might prove useful.
Keywords: Climate change; deep uncertainty; robust decision making.
© 2016 Society for Risk Analysis.