Climatic Change

, Volume 151, Issue 3–4, pp 525–539 | Cite as

Characterizing climate change risks by linking robust decision frameworks and uncertain probabilistic projections

  • Julie E. ShortridgeEmail author
  • Benjamin F. Zaitchik


There is increasing concern that avoiding climate change impacts will require proactive adaptation, particularly for infrastructure systems with long lifespans. However, one challenge in adaptation is the uncertainty surrounding climate change projections generated by general circulation models (GCMs). This uncertainty has been addressed in different ways. For example, some researchers use ensembles of GCMs to generate probabilistic climate change projections, but these projections can be highly sensitive to assumptions about model independence and weighting schemes. Because of these issues, others argue that robustness-based approaches to climate adaptation are more appropriate, since they do not rely on a precise probabilistic representation of uncertainty. In this research, we present a new approach for characterizing climate change risks that leverages robust decision frameworks and probabilistic GCM ensembles. The scenario discovery process is used to search across a multi-dimensional space and identify climate scenarios most associated with system failure, and a Bayesian statistical model informed by GCM projections is then developed to estimate the probability of those scenarios. This provides an important advancement in that it can incorporate decision-relevant climate variables beyond mean temperature and precipitation and account for uncertainty in probabilistic estimates in a straightforward way. We also suggest several advancements building on prior approaches to Bayesian modeling of climate change projections to make them more broadly applicable. We demonstrate the methodology using proposed water resources infrastructure in Lake Tana, Ethiopia, where GCM disagreement on changes in future rainfall presents a major challenge for infrastructure planning.


Risks Uncertainty Adaptation Probabilistic projections Robust decision-making 



The authors would like to acknowledge the Ethiopian Ministry of Water and Energy, the Tana Sub Basin Organization, and the International Water Management Institute for providing the data and models on which this analysis was based. Dr. Zaitchik’s contribution to this research was supported through NSF-ICER Grant 1624335. The source code and simulation model for the analyses described in this manuscript can be obtained from the corresponding author. We would also like to acknowledge two anonymous reviewers whose thorough review greatly enhanced the manuscript.

Supplementary material

10584_2018_2324_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.7 mb)
ESM 1 (PDF 1711 kb)


  1. Alemayehu T, McCartney M, Kebede S (2010) The water resource implications of planned development in the Lake Tana catchment, Ethiopia. Ecohydrol Hydrobiol 10:211–221. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnell NW, Tompkins EL, Adger WN (2005) Eliciting information from experts on the likelihood of rapid climate change: eliciting information on rapid climate change. Risk Anal 25:1419–1431. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ben-Haim Y (2000) Robust rationality and decisions under severe uncertainty. J Frankl Inst 337:171–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ben-Haim Y, Smithson M (2018) Data-based prediction under uncertainty: CDF-quantile distributions and info-gap robustness. J Math Psych 87:11–30. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borgomeo E, Mortazavi-Naeini M, Hall JW, Guillod BP (2018) Risk, robustness and water resources planning under uncertainty. Earths Future 6:468–487. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown C, Ghile Y, Laverty M, Li K (2012) Decision scaling: linking bottom-up vulnerability analysis with climate projections in the water sector. Water Resour Res 48:W09537. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bryant BJ (2014) Sdtoolkit: scenario discovery tools to support robust decision making. R package version 2:33–31Google Scholar
  8. Bryant BP, Lempert RJ (2010) Thinking inside the box: a participatory, computer-assisted approach to scenario discovery. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 77:34–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Celio E, Koellner T, Grêt-Regamey A (2014) Modeling land use decisions with Bayesian networks: spatially explicit analysis of driving forces on land use change. Environ Model Softw 52:222–233. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark MP, Wilby RL, Gutmann ED et al (2016) Characterizing uncertainty of the hydrologic impacts of climate change. Curr Clim Change Rep 2:55–64. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frigg R, Smith LA, Stainforth DA (2013) The myopia of imperfect climate models: the case of UKCP09. Philos Sci 80:886–897. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Garner G, Reed P, Keller K (2016) Climate risk management requires explicit representation of societal trade-offs. Clim Chang 134:713–723. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haasnoot M, Middelkoop H, Offermans A et al (2012) Exploring pathways for sustainable water management in river deltas in a changing environment. Clim Chang 115:795–819. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haasnoot M, Kwakkel JH, Walker WE, ter Maat J (2013) Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: a method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world. Glob Environ Chang 23:485–498. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hagemann S, Chen C, Haerter JO et al (2011) Impact of a statistical bias correction on the projected hydrological changes obtained from three GCMs and two hydrology models. J Hydrometeorol 12:556–578. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hallegatte S (2011) Uncertainties in the cost-benefit analysis of adaptation measures, and consequences for decision making. In: Climate. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 169–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Herman JD, Zeff HB, Reed PM, Characklis GW (2014) Beyond optimality: multistakeholder robustness tradeoffs for regional water portfolio planning under deep uncertainty. Water Resour Res 50:7692–7713. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kaplan S, Garrick BJ (1981) On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Anal 1:11–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kasprzyk JR, Nataraj S, Reed PM, Lempert RJ (2013) Many objective robust decision making for complex environmental systems undergoing change. Environ Model Softw 42:55–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kasprzyk JR, Reed PM, Hadka DM (2016) Battling arrow’s paradox to discover robust water management alternatives. J Water Resour Plan Manag 142:04015053. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Knutti R, Furrer R, Tebaldi C et al (2010) Challenges in combining projections from multiple climate models. J Clim 23:2739–2758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kunreuther H, Heal G, Allen M et al (2013) Risk management and climate change. Nat Clim Chang 3:447–450. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kwadijk JCJ, Haasnoot M, Mulder JPM et al (2010) Using adaptation tipping points to prepare for climate change and sea level rise: a case study in the Netherlands. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 1:729–740. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kwakkel JH, Haasnoot M, Walker WE (2016a) Comparing robust decision-making and dynamic adaptive policy pathways for model-based decision support under deep uncertainty. Environ Model Softw 86:168–183. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kwakkel JH, Walker WE, Haasnoot M (2016b) Coping with the wickedness of public policy problems: approaches for decision making under deep uncertainty. J Water Resour Plan Manag 142:01816001. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lempert R, Kalra N, Peyraud S, et al (2013) Ensuring robust flood risk management in Ho Chi Minh City. World Bank Policy Res Work PapCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lempert RJ, Groves DG, Popper SW, Bankes SC (2006) A general, analytic method for generating robust strategies and narrative scenarios. Manag Sci 52:514–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lempert RJ, Popper SW, Bankes SC (2003) Shaping the next one hundred years: new methods for quantitative, long-term policy analysis. RAND, Santa Monica, CAGoogle Scholar
  29. Masson D, Knutti R (2011) Climate model genealogy. Geophys Res Lett 38:L08703. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morgan MG (2014) Use (and abuse) of expert elicitation in support of decision making for public policy. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:7176–7184. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Murphy JM, Sexton DMH, Jenkins GJ, et al (2009) UK climate projections science report: climate change projections. Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  32. Nassopoulos H, Dumas P, Hallegatte S (2012) Adaptation to an uncertain climate change: cost benefit analysis and robust decision making for dam dimensioning. Clim Chang 114:497–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Oppenheimer M, Little CM, Cooke RM (2016) Expert judgement and uncertainty quantification for climate change. Nat Clim Chang 6:445–451. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Seleshi Y, Camberlin P (2006) Recent changes in dry spell and extreme rainfall events in Ethiopia. Theor Appl Climatol 83:181–191. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shortridge J, Guikema S, Zaitchik B (2017) Robust decision making in data scarce contexts: addressing data and model limitations for infrastructure planning under transient climate change. Clim Chang 140:323–337. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shortridge JE, Guikema SD (2016) Scenario discovery with multiple criteria: an evaluation of the robust decision making framework for climate adaptation. Risk Anal 36:2298–2312. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Siam MS, Eltahir EAB (2017) Climate change enhances interannual variability of the Nile river flow. Nat Clim Chang 7(5):350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stainforth D, Allen M, Tredger E, Smith L (2007) Confidence, uncertainty and decision-support relevance in climate predictions. Philos Trans R Soc Math Phys Eng Sci 365:2145–2161. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Steinschneider S, McCrary R, Mearns LO, Brown C (2015a) The effects of climate model similarity on probabilistic climate projections and the implications for local, risk-based adaptation planning: intermodel correlation and risk. Geophys Res Lett 42:5014–5044. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Steinschneider S, McCrary R, Wi S et al (2015b) Expanded decision-scaling framework to select robust long-term water-system plans under hydroclimatic uncertainties. J Water Resour Plan Manag 141:04015023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stephenson DB, Collins M, Rougier JC, Chandler RE (2012) Statistical problems in the probabilistic prediction of climate change. Environmetrics 23:364–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tang S, Dessai S (2012) Usable science? The U.K. climate projections 2009 and decision support for adaptation planning. Weather Clim Soc 4:300–313. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tebaldi C, Knutti R (2007) The use of the multi-model ensemble in probabilistic climate projections. Philos Trans R Soc Math Phys Eng Sci 365:2053–2075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tebaldi C, Sansó B (2009) Joint projections of temperature and precipitation change from multiple climate models: a hierarchical Bayesian approach. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc 172:83–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tebaldi C, Smith RL, Nychka D, Mearns LO (2005) Quantifying uncertainty in projections of regional climate change: a Bayesian approach to the analysis of multimodel ensembles. J Clim 18:1524–1540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thrasher B, Maurer EP, McKellar C, Duffy PB (2012) Technical note: bias correcting climate model simulated daily temperature extremes with quantile mapping. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 16:3309–3314. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thrasher B, Xiong J, Wang W et al (2013) Downscaled climate projections suitable for resource management. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 94:321–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vaughan DG, Spouge JR (2002) Risk estimation of collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet. Clim Chang 52:65–91. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Weaver CP, Lempert RJ, Brown C et al (2013) Improving the contribution of climate model information to decision making: the value and demands of robust decision frameworks: the value and demands of robust decision frameworks. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 4:39–60. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wilby RL, Dessai S (2010) Robust adaptation to climate change. Weather 65:180–185. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biological Systems EngineeringVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  2. 2.Earth and Planetary SciencesJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations