IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0190641.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Characterizing uncertain sea-level rise projections to support investment decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Ryan L Sriver
  • Robert J Lempert
  • Per Wikman-Svahn
  • Klaus Keller

Abstract

Many institutions worldwide are considering how to include uncertainty about future changes in sea-levels and storm surges into their investment decisions regarding large capital infrastructures. Here we examine how to characterize deeply uncertain climate change projections to support such decisions using Robust Decision Making analysis. We address questions regarding how to confront the potential for future changes in low probability but large impact flooding events due to changes in sea-levels and storm surges. Such extreme events can affect investments in infrastructure but have proved difficult to consider in such decisions because of the deep uncertainty surrounding them. This study utilizes Robust Decision Making methods to address two questions applied to investment decisions at the Port of Los Angeles: (1) Under what future conditions would a Port of Los Angeles decision to harden its facilities against extreme flood scenarios at the next upgrade pass a cost-benefit test, and (2) Do sea-level rise projections and other information suggest such conditions are sufficiently likely to justify such an investment? We also compare and contrast the Robust Decision Making methods with a full probabilistic analysis. These two analysis frameworks result in similar investment recommendations for different idealized future sea-level projections, but provide different information to decision makers and envision different types of engagement with stakeholders. In particular, the full probabilistic analysis begins by aggregating the best scientific information into a single set of joint probability distributions, while the Robust Decision Making analysis identifies scenarios where a decision to invest in near-term response to extreme sea-level rise passes a cost-benefit test, and then assembles scientific information of differing levels of confidence to help decision makers judge whether or not these scenarios are sufficiently likely to justify making such investments. Results highlight the highly-localized and context dependent nature of applying Robust Decision Making methods to inform investment decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Ryan L Sriver & Robert J Lempert & Per Wikman-Svahn & Klaus Keller, 2018. "Characterizing uncertain sea-level rise projections to support investment decisions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-35, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0190641
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190641
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190641
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190641&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0190641?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Howard Kunreuther & Geoffrey Heal & Myles Allen & Ottmar Edenhofer & Christopher B. Field & Gary Yohe, 2013. "Risk management and climate change," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 3(5), pages 447-450, May.
    2. Robert J. Nicholls & Susan E. Hanson & Jason A. Lowe & Richard A. Warrick & Xianfu Lu & Antony J. Long, 2014. "Sea‐level scenarios for evaluating coastal impacts," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(1), pages 129-150, January.
    3. John Hunter, 2012. "A simple technique for estimating an allowance for uncertain sea-level rise," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 113(2), pages 239-252, July.
    4. Maya K. Buchanan & Robert E. Kopp & Michael Oppenheimer & Claudia Tebaldi, 2016. "Allowances for evolving coastal flood risk under uncertain local sea-level rise," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 137(3), pages 347-362, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jasper Verschuur & Raghav Pant & Elco Koks & Jim Hall, 2022. "A systemic risk framework to improve the resilience of port and supply-chain networks to natural hazards," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 24(3), pages 489-506, September.
    2. Zhongyun Yue & John Mangan, 2024. "A framework for understanding reliability in container shipping networks," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 26(3), pages 523-544, September.
    3. Emily Ho & David V. Budescu & Valentina Bosetti & Detlef P. Vuuren & Klaus Keller, 2019. "Not all carbon dioxide emission scenarios are equally likely: a subjective expert assessment," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 155(4), pages 545-561, August.
    4. Robert E. Kopp, 2021. "Land-grant lessons for Anthropocene universities," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-12, March.
    5. Jesse M. Keenan & Jacob T. Bradt, 2020. "Underwaterwriting: from theory to empiricism in regional mortgage markets in the U.S," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(4), pages 2043-2067, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. D. J. Rasmussen & Scott Kulp & Robert E. Kopp & Michael Oppenheimer & Benjamin H. Strauss, 2022. "Popular extreme sea level metrics can better communicate impacts," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 1-17, February.
    2. Thomas David Pol & Jochen Hinkel, 2019. "Uncertainty representations of mean sea-level change: a telephone game?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 152(3), pages 393-411, March.
    3. Mattauch, Linus & Hepburn, Cameron & Stern, Nicholas, 2018. "Pigou pushes preferences: decarbonisation and endogenous values," INET Oxford Working Papers 2018-16, Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford.
    4. Xueke Li & Amanda H. Lynch, 2023. "New insights into projected Arctic sea road: operational risks, economic values, and policy implications," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(4), pages 1-16, April.
    5. Georgia Warren-Myers & Gideon Aschwanden & Franz Fuerst & Andy Krause, 2018. "Estimating the Potential Risks of Sea Level Rise for Public and Private Property Ownership, Occupation and Management," Risks, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-21, April.
    6. repec:osf:osfxxx:6ewmu_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Ottmar Edenhofer & Susanne Kadner & Christoph von Stechow & Gregor Schwerhoff & Gunnar Luderer, 2014. "Linking climate change mitigation research to sustainable development," Chapters, in: Giles Atkinson & Simon Dietz & Eric Neumayer & Matthew Agarwala (ed.), Handbook of Sustainable Development, chapter 30, pages 476-499, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Ghasan Fahim Huseien & Kwok Wei Shah, 2021. "Potential Applications of 5G Network Technology for Climate Change Control: A Scoping Review of Singapore," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-26, August.
    9. Mitter, Hermine & Heumesser, Christine & Schmid, Erwin, 2014. "Modelling robust crop production portfolios to assess agricultural vulnerability to climate change," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182702, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Sitong Yang & Shouwei Li & Xue Rui & Tianxiang Zhao, 2024. "The impact of climate risk on the asset side and liability side of the insurance industry: evidence from China," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 1-51, June.
    11. Loïc Berger & Massimo Marinacci, 2020. "Model Uncertainty in Climate Change Economics: A Review and Proposed Framework for Future Research," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(3), pages 475-501, November.
    12. Toman Michael, 2014. "The need for multiple types of information to inform climate change assessment," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 5(3), pages 469-485, December.
    13. Loïc Berger & Valentina Bosetti, 2020. "Are Policymakers Ambiguity Averse?," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(626), pages 331-355.
    14. Nahmmacher, Paul & Schmid, Eva & Pahle, Michael & Knopf, Brigitte, 2016. "Strategies against shocks in power systems – An analysis for the case of Europe," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 455-465.
    15. Stephan Lewandowsky & James Risbey & Michael Smithson & Ben Newell, 2014. "Scientific uncertainty and climate change: Part II. Uncertainty and mitigation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 124(1), pages 39-52, May.
    16. Muhammed Sütçü, 2024. "Parameter uncertainties in evaluating climate policies with dynamic integrated climate-economy model," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 69-84, March.
    17. Loïc Berger & Johannes Emmerling & Massimo Tavoni, 2017. "Managing Catastrophic Climate Risks Under Model Uncertainty Aversion," Post-Print hal-03027150, HAL.
    18. Julie E. Shortridge & Seth D. Guikema, 2016. "Scenario Discovery with Multiple Criteria: An Evaluation of the Robust Decision‐Making Framework for Climate Change Adaptation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(12), pages 2298-2312, December.
    19. Oliver D. Bettis & Simon Dietz & Nick G. Silver, 2017. "The risk of climate ruin," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 140(2), pages 109-118, January.
    20. Jesse M. Keenan & Jacob T. Bradt, 2020. "Underwaterwriting: from theory to empiricism in regional mortgage markets in the U.S," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(4), pages 2043-2067, October.
    21. Anderson, Edward & Zachary, Stan, 2023. "Minimax decision rules for planning under uncertainty: Drawbacks and remedies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 311(2), pages 789-800.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0190641. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.