A robust multiple-objective decision-making paradigm based on the water–energy–food security nexus under changing climate uncertainties

From the perspective of the water–energy–food (WEF) security nexus, sustainable water-related infrastructure may hinge on multi-dimensional decision-making, which is subject to some level of uncertainties imposed by internal or external sources such as climate change. It is important to note that the impact of this phenomenon is not solely limited to the changing behavior patterns of hydro-climatic variables since it can also affect the other pillars of the WEF nexus both directly and indirectly. Failing to address these issues can be costly, especially for those projects with long-lasting economic lifetimes such as hydropower systems. Ideally, a robust plan can tolerate these projected changes in climatic behavior and their associated impacts on other sectors, while maintaining an acceptable performance concerning environmental, socio-economic, and technical factors. This study, thus, aims to develop a robust multiple-objective decision-support framework to address these concerns. In principle, while this framework is sensitive to the uncertainties associated with the climate change projections, it can account for the intricacies that are commonly associated with the WEF security network. To demonstrate the applicability of this new framework, the Karkheh River basin in Iran was selected as a case study due to its critical role in ensuring water, energy, and food security of the region. In addition to the status quo, a series of climate change projections (i.e., RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5, and RCP 8.5) were integrated into the proposed decision support framework as well. Resultantly, the mega decision matrix for this problem was composed of 56 evaluation criteria and 27 feasible alternatives. A TOPSIS/Entropy method was used to select the most robust renovation plan for a hydropower system in the basin by creating a robust and objective weighting mechanism to quantify the role of each sector in the decision-making process. Accordingly, in this case, the energy, food, and environment sectors are objectively more involved in the decision-making process. The results revealed that the role of the social aspect is practically negligible. The results also unveiled that while increasing the power plant capacity or the plant factor would be, seemingly, in favor of the energy sector, if all relevant factors are to be considered, the overall performance of the system might resultantly become sub-optimal, jeopardizing the security of other aspects of the water–energy–food nexus.