YaBeSH Engineering and Technology Library

    • Journals
    • PaperQuest
    • YSE Standards
    • YaBeSH
    • Login
    View Item 
    •   YE&T Library
    • ASCE
    • Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
    • View Item
    •   YE&T Library
    • ASCE
    • Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
    • View Item
    • All Fields
    • Source Title
    • Year
    • Publisher
    • Title
    • Subject
    • Author
    • DOI
    • ISBN
    Advanced Search
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Archive

    How Should Robustness Be Defined for Water Systems Planning under Change?

    Source: Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management:;2015:;Volume ( 141 ):;issue: 010
    Author:
    Jonathan D. Herman
    ,
    Patrick M. Reed
    ,
    Harrison B. Zeff
    ,
    Gregory W. Characklis
    DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000509
    Publisher: American Society of Civil Engineers
    Abstract: Water systems planners have long recognized the need for robust solutions capable of withstanding deviations from the conditions for which they were designed. Robustness analyses have shifted from expected utility to exploratory bottom-up approaches which identify vulnerable scenarios prior to assigning likelihoods. Examples include Robust Decision Making (RDM), Decision Scaling, Info-Gap, and Many-Objective Robust Decision Making (MORDM). We propose a taxonomy of robustness frameworks to compare and contrast these approaches based on their methods of (1) alternative generation, (2) sampling of states of the world, (3) quantification of robustness measures, and (4) sensitivity analysis to identify important uncertainties. Building from the proposed taxonomy, we use a regional urban water supply case study in the Research Triangle region of North Carolina to illustrate the decision-relevant consequences that emerge from each of these choices. Results indicate that the methodological choices in the taxonomy lead to the selection of substantially different planning alternatives, underscoring the importance of an informed definition of robustness. Moreover, the results show that some commonly employed methodological choices and definitions of robustness can have undesired consequences when ranking decision alternatives. For the demonstrated test case, recommendations for overcoming these issues include: (1) decision alternatives should be searched rather than prespecified, (2) dominant uncertainties should be discovered through sensitivity analysis rather than assumed, and (3) a carefully elicited multivariate satisficing measure of robustness allows stakeholders to achieve their problem-specific performance requirements. This work emphasizes the importance of an informed problem formulation for systems facing challenging performance tradeoffs and provides a common vocabulary to link the robustness frameworks widely used in the field of water systems planning.
    • Download: (4.533Mb)
    • Show Full MetaData Hide Full MetaData
    • Get RIS
    • Item Order
    • Go To Publisher
    • Price: 5000 Rial
    • Statistics

      How Should Robustness Be Defined for Water Systems Planning under Change?

    URI
    http://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/75567
    Collections
    • Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management

    Show full item record

    contributor authorJonathan D. Herman
    contributor authorPatrick M. Reed
    contributor authorHarrison B. Zeff
    contributor authorGregory W. Characklis
    date accessioned2017-05-08T22:15:54Z
    date available2017-05-08T22:15:54Z
    date copyrightOctober 2015
    date issued2015
    identifier other40030437.pdf
    identifier urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl/handle/yetl/75567
    description abstractWater systems planners have long recognized the need for robust solutions capable of withstanding deviations from the conditions for which they were designed. Robustness analyses have shifted from expected utility to exploratory bottom-up approaches which identify vulnerable scenarios prior to assigning likelihoods. Examples include Robust Decision Making (RDM), Decision Scaling, Info-Gap, and Many-Objective Robust Decision Making (MORDM). We propose a taxonomy of robustness frameworks to compare and contrast these approaches based on their methods of (1) alternative generation, (2) sampling of states of the world, (3) quantification of robustness measures, and (4) sensitivity analysis to identify important uncertainties. Building from the proposed taxonomy, we use a regional urban water supply case study in the Research Triangle region of North Carolina to illustrate the decision-relevant consequences that emerge from each of these choices. Results indicate that the methodological choices in the taxonomy lead to the selection of substantially different planning alternatives, underscoring the importance of an informed definition of robustness. Moreover, the results show that some commonly employed methodological choices and definitions of robustness can have undesired consequences when ranking decision alternatives. For the demonstrated test case, recommendations for overcoming these issues include: (1) decision alternatives should be searched rather than prespecified, (2) dominant uncertainties should be discovered through sensitivity analysis rather than assumed, and (3) a carefully elicited multivariate satisficing measure of robustness allows stakeholders to achieve their problem-specific performance requirements. This work emphasizes the importance of an informed problem formulation for systems facing challenging performance tradeoffs and provides a common vocabulary to link the robustness frameworks widely used in the field of water systems planning.
    publisherAmerican Society of Civil Engineers
    titleHow Should Robustness Be Defined for Water Systems Planning under Change?
    typeJournal Paper
    journal volume141
    journal issue10
    journal titleJournal of Water Resources Planning and Management
    identifier doi10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000509
    treeJournal of Water Resources Planning and Management:;2015:;Volume ( 141 ):;issue: 010
    contenttypeFulltext
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian
     
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian