Robust Climate Policies Under Uncertainty: A Comparison of Robust Decision Making and Info-Gap Methods

被引:205
作者
Hall, Jim W. [2 ]
Lempert, Robert J. [1 ]
Keller, Klaus [3 ,4 ]
Hackbarth, Andrew
Mijere, Christophe [5 ]
McInerney, David J. [6 ]
机构
[1] RAND Corp, RAND Pardee Ctr, Santa Monica, CA 90407 USA
[2] Univ Oxford, Environm Change Inst, Oxford, England
[3] Penn State Univ, Dept Geosci, University Pk, PA 16802 USA
[4] Earth & Environm Syst Inst, University Pk, PA USA
[5] Grenoble Inst Technol, Sch Energy Water & Environm ENSE3, Grenoble Inp, France
[6] Univ Chicago, Dept Geophys Sci, Chicago, IL 60637 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
Abrupt change; climate change; deep uncertainty; info-gap; robust decision making; SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT; THRESHOLDS;
D O I
10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01802.x
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
This study compares two widely used approaches for robustness analysis of decision problems: the info-gap method originally developed by Ben-Haim and the robust decision making (RDM) approach originally developed by Lempert, Popper, and Bankes. The study uses each approach to evaluate alternative paths for climate-altering greenhouse gas emissions given the potential for nonlinear threshold responses in the climate system, significant uncertainty about such a threshold response and a variety of other key parameters, as well as the ability to learn about any threshold responses over time. Info-gap and RDM share many similarities. Both represent uncertainty as sets of multiple plausible futures, and both seek to identify robust strategies whose performance is insensitive to uncertainties. Yet they also exhibit important differences, as they arrange their analyses in different orders, treat losses and gains in different ways, and take different approaches to imprecise probabilistic information. The study finds that the two approaches reach similar but not identical policy recommendations and that their differing attributes raise important questions about their appropriate roles in decision support applications. The comparison not only improves understanding of these specific methods, it also suggests some broader insights into robustness approaches and a framework for comparing them.
引用
收藏
页码:1657 / 1672
页数:16
相关论文
共 41 条
[1]  
Alley R.B., 2002, Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2009, INF DEC CHANG CLIM
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2003, MR1626RPC RAND CORP
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2008, PRESENTING UNCERTAIN
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2008, ENV FUTURES PRACTICE
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2008, QUESTION BALANCE
[7]   EXPLORATORY MODELING FOR POLICY ANALYSIS [J].
BANKES, S .
OPERATIONS RESEARCH, 1993, 41 (03) :435-449
[8]  
Ben-Haim Y., 1996, Robust Reliability in the Mechanical Sciences
[9]  
BenHaim Y., 2006, Infogap decision theory: Decisions under severe uncertainty, V2nd ed.
[10]  
BenTal A, 2009, PRINC SER APPL MATH, P1