the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Robust Adaptive Pathways for Long-Term Flood Control in Delta Cities: Addressing Pluvial Flood Risks under Future Deep Uncertainty
Abstract. Delta cities are increasingly vulnerable to flood risks due to the uncertainties surrounding climate change and socioeconomic development. Decision-makers face significant challenges in determining whether to invest in high-level flood defenses for long-term planning. Adaptation solutions should be given considerable attention not only to robustness but also to adaptiveness if the future unfolds not as expectation. To support decision-making and meet long-term multi-objective targets, we propose a synthesized framework that integrates robustness analysis, adaptiveness analysis, and pathway generation. This framework was applied to evaluate alternative solutions for managing pluvial flood risk in central Shanghai. The results show that using a single-objective decision-making approach (focused only on robustness) tends to yield biased options. By examining the valid period and flexibility of candidate solutions, we assessed whether alternative solutions could meet long-term flood control targets. The analysis reveals that a combined option—incorporating increased green areas, an improved drainage system, and a deep tunnel with a 30 % runoff absorption capacity (D+G+Tun30)—is the most robust and adaptive pathway, based on multi-objective trade-off analysis. This study highlights the importance of considering valid period within predefined control targets and retaining flexibility to avoid path-dependency and minimize long-term regrets. The proposed framework can be applied to other delta cities to guide adaptive responses to future flood risks.
- Preprint
(1340 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(852 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 13 Mar 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2024-391', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Feb 2025
reply
The study contained in this paper is well-conceived and well-conducted. It is a conscientious application of the robust decision making (RDM) decision making under deep uncertainty (DMDU) method to an important problem lying at the conjunction of earth science and public policy. Beyond this, the paper might be considered significant and important because it is, to this reviewer's knowledge, the first such application of DMDU concepts and methods to an East Asian policy decision problem carried out by a domestic resarch team. DMDU methods have disseminated rapidly since their first application in the US in the 1990s. However, their advance has been notably slow in China, Japan, Republic of Korea, and other nations in their proximity. This gives the paper an importance beyond its individual merits.
There are two principal reasons that the paper should undergo revision before publication. One is substantive and the other stylistic. Happily, both issues can be addressed without any revisions to the actual scientific design or analysis. Therefore, while the list of needed changes is long, they have been characterized as minor (if extensive). The bones of the study require little or no change and the scientific merits are readily apparent.
The substantive issue is one that I as a reader had a difficult time understanding at first. The authors characterize their study as not solely relying upon robustness criteria for evaluating alternative courses of action but also engaging adaptivity considerations as well. This is most curious and a bit solipsistic. Adaptation and flexibility have long been understood as being some of the principal tools for ensuring the robustness of a planned course of action. Indeed, under conditions of deep uncertainty they are almost invariably major components of a course of action deemed to be robust. Yet, in this paper they are principally presented as alternative approaches with which the authors innovative by taking both into consideration.
There may be several misunderstandings occurring. One is that robustness is a much abused term taking on different meanings in different fields. There are robust statistics, for example, while in engineering design for robustness may be to determine maximum stresses and then construct the item to withstand 3x of that force. This may be why the authors speak of the considerable expense of robust solutions in their problem space. But this is not so much true when robustness is used in the application of policy.
Another possibility is that the authors are confusing the concept of robustness with that of regret in terms of decision analysis. They discuss at one point different approaches to measuring "robustness" when in fact they are citing different methods for calculating regret. Regret is a very useful concept for determining the relative merits of alternative courses of action under deep uncertainty. When optimization is not feasible, as the authors correctly state, and the project of forecasting and prediction becomes fraught, then regret is the key for understanding choices. It is also a uni-dimensional concept. One chooses individual metrics and then use them to successively assess relative regret for alternative courses of action according to that metric. I think what they authors are saying, again correctly, is that such regret measures may be myopic when applied solely to cost-benefit analysis of those things that are easily measured, such as NPV. They introduce alternative metrics such as adaptability and do so convincingly. The problem is that they do so in a false opposition to a straw man that they term 'robustness'.
The second problem is one of syntax, grammar, and English usage. The authors have chosen to publish their work in an English-language journal for the benefit of a wider, global audience. They are to be applauded and we non-Mandarin speakers will be made richer for that decision. However, there are syntactical problems with the use of articles, verb agreement, incomplete and awkward sentences and other issues that it simply was not within the resources of this reviewer to correct. At least one of the authors is associated with an institution of higher education in the English-speaking world. Once the manuscript has been revised in light of my comments, the additional and more detailed marginalia that I have placed in the .pdf document attached to this review, and the insights of other reviewers, it would be wise for the authors to engage the services of a native English speaker colleague or copy editor to provide the light edit that would immensely improve the readability of this draft.
Please find comments of a more detailed character in the attached .pdf.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
124 | 23 | 5 | 152 | 13 | 2 | 3 |
- HTML: 124
- PDF: 23
- XML: 5
- Total: 152
- Supplement: 13
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1