Sustainable management of water resources is crucial for humanity. However, traditional methods for achieving this are becoming obsolete. This is because they are underpinned by the assumption that we have a good understanding of how water availability and demand will change in the future. However, based on our current experience with climate change, this is not the case. In fact, rather than having a good understanding of what the future might look like, it is, in fact, deeply uncertain. Consequently, a new paradigm for water resources management is needed; one that accounts for deep uncertainty by embracing scenario thinking. We categorize and summarize different causes of deep uncertainty in water resources management and provide examples of how an emerging paradigm rooted in scenario thinking can deal with these. We hope to stimulate discussion to enable this new paradigm to be developed further and embedded in standard practice.

To aid decision making about environmental systems under deep uncertainty, robustness metrics are commonly used to represent system performance over a number of scenarios. However, there are many robustness metrics and many ways of generating scenarios, making it difficult to know which to choose in order to quantify system robustness and to make robust decisions. To address this shortcoming, we introduce a generic guidance framework to assist with the identification of the most robust decision alternatives, as well as the RAPID (Robustness Analysis Producing Intelligent Decisions) software package which is a consistent and easy-to-use implementation of the framework. We illustrate the framework and software package on a hypothetical lake pollution problem, known as The Lake Problem, showing how the framework and software package apply to several situations where decision-makers may or may not know which scenarios or robustness metrics to use.

Urban sewer networks (SNs) are increasingly facing water quality issues as a result of many challenges, such as population growth, urbanization and climate change. A promising way to addressing these issues is by developing and using water quality models. Many of these models have been developed in recent years to facilitate the management of SNs. Given the proliferation of different water quality models and the promise they have shown, it is timely to assess the state-of-the-art in this field, to identify potential challenges and suggest future research directions. In this review, model types, modeled quality parameters, modeling purpose, data availability, type of case studies and model performance evaluation are critically analyzed and discussed based on a review of 110 papers published between 2010 and 2019. The review identified that applications of empirical and kinetic models dominate those of data-driven models for addressing water quality issues. The majority of models are developed for prediction and process understanding using experimental or field sampled data. While many models have been applied to real problems, the corresponding prediction accuracies are overall moderate or, in some cases, low, especially when dealing with larger SNs. The review also identified the most common issues associated with water quality modeling of SNs and based on these proposed several future research directions. These include the identification of appropriate data resolutions for the development of different SN models, the need and opportunity to develop hybrid SN models and the improvement of SN model transferability.

Multiple plausible future scenarios are being used increasingly in preference to a single deterministic or probabilistic prediction of the future in the long-term planning of water resources systems. These scenarios enable the determination of the robustness of a system—the consideration of performance across a range of plausible futures—and allow an assessment of which possible future system configurations result in a greater level of robustness. There are many approaches to selecting scenarios, and previous studies have observed that the choice of scenarios might affect the estimated robustness of the system. However, these observations have been anecdotal and qualitative. This paper develops a systematic, quantitative methodology for exploring the influence of scenario selection on the robustness and the ranking of decision alternatives. The methodology is illustrated on the Lake Problem. The quantitative results obtained confirm the qualitative observations of previous works, showing that the selection of scenarios is important, as it has a large influence on the robustness value calculated for each decision alternative. However, we show that it has a relatively small influence on how those decision alternatives are ranked. This implies that despite the difference in robustness values, similar decision outcomes will be reached in this case study, regardless of the basis on which the scenarios are obtained. It is also revealed that the impact of the scenarios on the robustness values is due to complex interactions with the system model and robustness metrics.

Environmental models are used extensively to evaluate the effectiveness of a range of design, planning, operational, management and policy options. However, the number of options that can be evaluated manually is generally limited, making it difficult to identify the most suitable options to consider in decision-making processes. By linking environmental models with evolutionary and other metaheuristic optimization algorithms, the decision options that make best use of scarce resources, achieve the best environmental outcomes for a given budget or provide the best trade-offs between competing objectives can be identified. This Introductory Overview presents reasons for embedding formal optimization approaches in environmental decision-making processes, details how environmental problems are formulated as optimization problems and outlines how single- and multi-objective optimization approaches find good solutions to environmental problems. Practical guidance and potential challenges are also provided.

Data are essential in all areas of geophysics. They are used to better understand and manage systems, either directly or via models. Given the complexity and spatiotemporal variability of geophysical systems (e.g., precipitation), a lack of sufficient data is a perennial problem, which is exacerbated by various drivers, such as climate change and urbanization. In recent years, crowdsourcing has become increasingly prominent as a means of supplementing data obtained from more traditional sources, particularly due to its relatively low implementation cost and ability to increase the spatial and/or temporal resolution of data significantly. Given the proliferation of different crowdsourcing methods in geophysics and the promise they have shown, it is timely to assess the state of the art in this field, to identify potential issues and map out a way forward. In this paper, crowdsourcing-based data acquisition methods that have been used in seven domains of geophysics, including weather, precipitation, air pollution, geography, ecology, surface water, and natural hazard management, are discussed based on a review of 162 papers. In addition, a novel framework for categorizing these methods is introduced and applied to the methods used in the seven domains of geophysics considered in this review. This paper also features a review of 93 papers dealing with issues that are common to data acquisition methods in different domains of geophysics, including the management of crowdsourcing projects, data quality, data processing, and data privacy. In each of these areas, the current status is discussed and challenges and future directions are outlined.

Robustness is being used increasingly for decision analysis in relation to deep uncertainty and many metrics have been proposed for its quantification. Recent studies have shown that the application of different robustness metrics can result in different rankings of decision alternatives, but there has been little discussion of what potential causes for this might be. To shed some light on this issue, we present a unifying framework for the calculation of robustness metrics, which assists with understanding how robustness metrics work, when they should be used, and why they sometimes disagree. The framework categorizes the suitability of metrics to a decision-maker based on (1) the decision-context (i.e., the suitability of using absolute performance or regret), (2) the decision-maker's preferred level of risk aversion, and (3) the decision-maker's preference toward maximizing performance, minimizing variance, or some higher-order moment. This article also introduces a conceptual framework describing when relative robustness values of decision alternatives obtained using different metrics are likely to agree and disagree. This is used as a measure of how “stable” the ranking of decision alternatives is when determined using different robustness metrics. The framework is tested on three case studies, including water supply augmentation in Adelaide, Australia, the operation of a multipurpose regulated lake in Italy, and flood protection for a hypothetical river based on a reach of the river Rhine in the Netherlands. The proposed conceptual framework is confirmed by the case study results, providing insight into the reasons for disagreements between rankings obtained using different robustness metrics.

A highly uncertain future due to changes in climate, technology and socio-economics has led to the realisation that identification of "best-guess" future conditions might no longer be appropriate. Instead, multiple plausible futures need to be considered, which requires (i) uncertainties to be described with the aid of scenarios that represent coherent future pathways based on different sets of assumptions, (ii) system performance to be represented by metrics that measure insensitivity (i.e. robustness) to changes in future conditions, and (iii) adaptive strategies to be considered alongside their more commonly used static counterparts. However, while these factors have been considered in isolation previously, there has been a lack of discussion of the way they are connected. In order to address this shortcoming, this paper presents a multidisciplinary perspective on how the above factors fit together to facilitate the development of strategies that are best suited to dealing with a deeply uncertain future.