Readings for Week 10


Wed., Mar. 20

Please read Steinschneider et al. (2015) and consider the following questions:

  1. “Arbitrary” inputs What were some expert-based or arbitrary input values (e.g. failure definition) that were used in the analysis? How can they determine the analysis results and the decision making process?
  2. Limited actions What are some advantages/disadvantages of using a small and discrete group of actions in comparison to model the actions as continuous variables or even sequential policies.
  3. Uncertainty modeling What were the main sources of uncertainty in the problem, how they were handled and how do they impact the robustness of actions?
  4. Robustness How is robustness defined by the author for the case study and how is useful within a decision making framework? Think in two or three other case analyses (e.g. our house elevation problem) and propose how to measure the robustness of actions. 1, Computational burden If you could have unlimited computational resources what parts of the analysis would you have done differently or how would you improve the framework?
  5. States of the world Besides climate and demand, what are other considerations (sow’s) in the analysis that you think should be included for having a broader picture of the problem for the decision makers? Particularly for such a long-time planning window. Prepare two for sharing with the class.
  6. Limitations What could be some limitations or potential issues of robustness analysis. Think in one case when robustness might not be very informative to decision makers.


Steinschneider, S., McCrary, R., Wi, S., Mulligan, K., Mearns, L. O., & Brown, C. M. (2015). Expanded decision-scaling framework to select robust long-term water-system plans under hydroclimatic uncertainties. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 141(11).