4.7 Article

Choosing small sets of policy-relevant scenarios by combining vulnerability and diversity approaches

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING & SOFTWARE
卷 84, 期 -, 页码 155-164

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.06.011

关键词

Scenario diversity analysis; Vulnerability based scenario analysis; Climate change; Scenario discovery; Robust decision making

资金

  1. Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research (Mistra)
  2. European Commission [603416]
  3. Network for Sustainable Climate Risk Management (SCRiM) under U.S. National Science Foundation [GEO-1240507]
  4. UK Department for International Development (DfID)
  5. Nordic Development Fund (NDF)
  6. Kredit Anstalt fur Entwicklung (KfW)
  7. Agence Francaise pour Developmment (AFD)
  8. Bank-Netherland Partnership Program (BNPP)
  9. Trust Fund for Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development (TFESSD)
  10. Directorate For Geosciences [1240507] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Computer simulation models can generate large numbers of scenarios, far more than can be effectively utilized in most decision support applications. How can one best select a small number of scenarios to consider? One approach calls for choosing scenarios that illuminate vulnerabilities of proposed policies. Another calls for choosing scenarios that span a diverse range of futures. This paper joins these two approaches for the first time, proposing an optimization-based method for choosing a small number of relevant scenarios that combine both vulnerability and diversity. The paper applies the method to a real case involving climate resilient infrastructure for three African river basins (Volta, Orange and Zambezi). Introducing selection criteria in a stepwise manner helps examine how different criteria influence the choice of scenarios. The results suggest that combining vulnerability- and diversity-based criteria can provide a systematic and transparent method for scenario selection. (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据