A Minimax Regret Analysis of Flood Risk Management Strategies Under Climate Change Uncertainty and Emerging Information
- 446 Downloads
This paper studies the dynamic application of the minimax regret (MR) decision criterion to identify robust flood risk management strategies under climate change uncertainty and emerging information. An MR method is developed that uses multiple learning scenarios, for example about sea level rise or river peak flow development, to analyse effects of changes in information on optimal investment in flood protection. To illustrate the method, optimal dike height and floodplain development are studied in a conceptual model, and conventional and adaptive MR solutions are compared. A dynamic application of the MR decision criterion allows investments to be changed after new information on climate change impacts, which has an effect on today’s optimal investments. The results suggest that adaptive MR solutions are more robust than the solutions obtained from a conventional MR analysis of investments in flood protection. Moreover, adaptive MR analysis with multiple learning scenarios is more general and contains conventional MR analysis as a special case.
KeywordsMinimax regret Flood risk Climate change Adaptive management Flexibility Robust optimisation Learning
We thank two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and suggestions. This research project has been supported by the Knowledge for Climate programme, the Netherlands, the Spanish state (Project TIN2015-66680-c2-2-R) and Junta de Andalucía (P11-TIC-7176), in part financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).
- Bol R (2005) Operation of the Maeslant barrier (storm surge barrier in the Rotterdam New Waterway). In: Fletcher CA, Spencer T (eds) Flooding and environmental challenges for Venice: state of knowledge. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 311–316Google Scholar
- den Hertog D, Roos K (2008) Computing safe dike heights at minimal costs. RIZA, RI-4772, http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/rapporten/2008/04/22/computing-safe-dike-heights-at-minimal-costs.html
- Finus M, Pintassilgo P (2010) Formation of agreements on climate change: the impact of uncertainty. In: Panagopoulos T (ed) Advances in climate changes, global warming, biological problems and natural hazards. WSEAS Press, Miami, pp 124–129Google Scholar
- Gaspars-Wieloch H (2013) Modifications of the Hurwicz’s decision rule. Central Eur J Oper Res 22:1–16Google Scholar
- Kasperski A (2008) Discrete optimization with interval data. Springer, WroclawGoogle Scholar
- KNMI (2014) KNMI’14 compared with KNMI’06: changes for 2014 (in Dutch). KNMI, de Bilt, http://www.klimaatscenarios.nl/faq_klimaatscenarios/index.php
- Krähmer D, Stone R (2005) Dynamic regret theory. Working paper, University College London, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Niehans J (1948) Zur Preisbildungen bei ungewissen Erwartungen. Swiss J Econ Stat 84:433–456Google Scholar
- Schwartz ES, Trigeorgis L (2004) Real options and investment under uncertainty: classical readings and recent contributions. MIT Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Watkiss P, Hunt A, Blyth W, Dyszynski J (2015) The use of new economic decision support tools for adaptation assessment: a review of methods and applications, towards guidance on applicability. Clim Change 132(3):401–416Google Scholar